Month: January 2019

Released: 2019

Director: Jonas Åkerlund

Run Time: 118 Minutes

Not Rated

Distributor: Netflix

Genre: Action/Crime

Cast:
Mads Mikkelson: Duncan Vizla
Vanessa Hudgens: Camille
Kathryn Winnick: Vivian
Fei Ren: Hilde
Ruby O. Fee: Sindy
Matt Lucas: Blut

Have you ever seen a movie and completely forget that you ever saw it almost immediately afterwards?  I’ve seen quite a few of those, but I can’t remember their names.  Maybe its because a particular genre has been over-saturated with movies that are so similar it’s hard to tell the difference between them.  It happens quite a bit in specific genres like horror, action, and science fiction.  I think part of the problem is that a lot of genre films have a tendency to follow a specific pattern.  It’s safe and it doesn’t require a whole lot of effort, and for certain films, that’s okay.  Originality can be quite difficult in an industry that doesn’t seem to care for originality anymore.  Sticking to certain tropes and ideas can be a good thing if it’s done well.  Apparently, director Jonas Åkerlund didn’t get the memo when he directed Polar.

Polar follows an aging assassin blah, blah, blah, wanting to retire when the organization that he works for betrays him, yadda, yadda, yadda.  While all of this is going on, he forms a connection to a lonely girl that may or may not figure into his past.  When said girl gets kidnapped, Mr. Aging Assassin pulls out all of his tricks to find her and destroy the organization that he used to work for.  If that setup sounds familiar, it should.  It’s the basis for pretty much nearly every revenge-type thriller that’s come out in the past decade.  The only exception that this particular story has is that it’s boring and fairly mean-spirited.  From what I understand, Polar is based on a graphic novel  written by Victor Santos and published by Dark Horse Comics.  I haven’t read any of it, but from what I’ve seen from this movie, it is the opposite of what the comics were trying to go for.  This particularly story isn’t well-written.  In fact, it feels like a generic thriller at times that borrows liberally from better films in the genre.  It’s boring.  We’ve seen it all before, and we’ve seen it done a hell of a lot better than this.  Don’t get me started on that ending, though.  Whatever good will this film was trying to muster up was completely shot in the head with that disastrous ending.  I haven’t been THAT insulted be an ending in years.

Let’s get some of the positives out of the way.  For one, Mads Mikkelson is freakin’ awesome here.  Then again, he’s pretty much awesome in nearly everything that he does.  He’s a fantastic actor.  He truly does inhabit the character of an assassin that’s wanting to retire.  While I can’t say that the chemistry between his character and Vanessa Hudgens’ Camille is anything substantial, he at least attempts to carry it the best he can.  His character is probably the most compelling out of all the characters in this film.  That’s not to say that the acting is bad.  Some are gloriously over-the-top, specifically Matt Lucas’ Blut.  He’s clearly having a lot of fun with the character and it shows, even though the character is about as threatening as a wet paper bag.  The gang of assassins trying to hunt down Duncan are at the very least, different, if not remarkable.  Vanessa Hudgens’ character though, is probably the weakest part of the film.  She’s not given a whole lot more than being clumsy and quiet.  There’s a lot of talent here, but they aren’t given a whole lot to do with.  There’s even a cameo by Richard Dreyfuss that seems oddly out of place.  A movie should not necessarily be held up by the strengths of one actor alone, and even Mads Mikkelson can’t really save this one.

The tone of this film is all over the place.  Look at how the color schemes in the film change at a breakneck pace.  At one moment, it’s bleak and grey while at other times its colorful and vibrant.  What kind of movie is this?  You need to pick a tone and stick with it.  That also brings us to the action and the violence.  Considering the movies that I love watching, I’m probably the last person on the planet to discuss the mean-spirited nature of the violence in this movie.  I’m not opposed to ultra-violence in my movies.  Quentin Tarantino does it all the time, but he does it in such a way that it seems like it’s done tongue-in-cheek.  It’s really over-the-top.  Here, there really is no such finesse.  At one point towards the beginning of the film, Duncan buys a dog only for him to inadvertently blow it away as a result of a PTSD flash-back.  Is that supposed to be funny?  Because I’m not laughing and fuck this movie for doing that.  There was no reason for that to happen.  That’s just being mean for the sake of being mean.  At least, in John Wick, when the dog died, there was a reason for the character’s rampage.  The dog was the last connection that Wick had to his dead wife, so it became personal.  Here, it’s pointless and cruel.  That’s not to say that the violence is entirely out of place in certain parts of the film.  Seeing Duncan tear through assassins and henchmen is pretty glorious and a hell of a lot of fun to watch.  The torture scene was completely unnecessary and feels out-of-place in a film where the tone is schizophrenic.  Again, it comes across as unnecessarily mean and it actually detracts from the film.  Don’t get me wrong:  As I said, I enjoy a great deal of ultra-violence in movies, but there has to be a purpose for it.  The story needs to drive the action, not the other way around, and that’s one of the biggest failings of Polar.  It’s driven by its violence, not its story.

At the end of the day, Polar is just another in a long list of utterly generic action thrillers that relies far too much on its over-the-top violence and sexuality to be worth of anything substantial.  It’s also boring.  It takes forever for the film to get going.  When the action hits, it hits hard and fast, and that’s where the movie biggest strength and weakness is.  No blame can be laid at the feet of the film’s actors, especially Mikkelson.  He’s absolutely phenomenal.  The problem lies with Jonas Åkerlund and his attempt to make his movie like Quentin Tarantino meets John Wick.  It fails at both and it fails to be a compelling thriller with anything memorable.  Honestly, I would skip it.  Mads Mikkelson has better movies out there, and there are an infinitely number of better thrillers than Polar.

My Final Recommendation:  Take this one out to the snow and bury it.  4/10.

Released: December 2018

Director: James Wan

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 143 Minutes

Distributor: Warner Bros.

Genre: Action/Fantasy

Cast:
Jason Momoa: Arthur Curry/Aquaman
Amber Heard: Mera
Patrick Wilson: Orm/Ocean Master
Willem Defoe: Vulko
Nicole Kidman: Atlanna
Dolph Lundgren: King Nereus
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II: Manta
Temuera Morrison: Tom Curry

It’s been a couple of months since I’ve reviewed a brand new theatrical release film.  My apologies.  My day job and other aspects of Real Life got in the way.  Everything seems to be working out right now, so I hope to be bringing more to you.  With the films coming out this year, both theatrical and direct-to-video, it’s going to be a busy year.  Anybody who knows me will know that I’m a huge fan of comic-book movies.  From Superman and Batman to The Avengers, I get a kick out of these films that bring so many well-known superheroes to life.  Some films have soared, while others have stumbled.  Regardless, there is no stopping the machine that is the comic-book movie.  I’ve been a fairly staunch supporter of the DCEU(DC Expanded Universe) films, despite the universe stumbling out the door.  Man of Steel got a fairly decent reception, but Batman V. Superman and Justice League got wrecked critically.  Wonder Woman appeared to be a huge step in the right direction.  So, where does Aquaman stand?

Aquaman tells the story of Arthur Curry, a man who was born when his human father fell in love with Atlanna, the queen of Atlantis.  After the climactic battle with Steppenwolf at the end of Justice League, Arthur finds himself roaming the seas to help people in trouble.  The film opens when a group of well-armed pirates hijack a Russian submarine only for Arthur, the Aquaman, the intervene.  Later, in the under-water city of Atlantis, Arthur’s half-brother Orm has assumed the throne of Atlantis with the intention of bringing war to the surface world.  Princess Mera, manages to convince Arthur to return with her to Atlantis and attempt to stop the war before it begins.  The story is pretty straight-forward and fairly typical of a superhero film.  This is the same kind of story that we’ve seen in many other comic-book movies, but what makes this one different, is the fact that it’s Aquaman.  Yeah, the story is pretty simple at its core, but it’s still a fairly compelling narrative at times.  It does go where you think it will go, but it does it with so much joy and so much fun that it’s hard NOT to get invested.

One of the biggest selling points of Justice League and Batman V. Superman before it, was the casting of Jason Momoa as the titular Aquaman.  Jason Momoa is one of the coolest actors in the industry today.  He is an exceptional actor and he definitely brings a very strong presence to whatever he’s doing.  Jason’s casting as Aquaman is perfect casting in the same way that Robert Downey, Jr. was perfect casting as Tony Stark in Iron Man.  While Jason was known for Stargate: Atlantis and Game of Thrones, I suspect that his role in Aquaman will become one of his most iconic roles in his career.  He’s fantastic.  He obviously has the physical build for the role, but he also makes the character incredibly human and relatable, even though Arthur isn’t completely human.  Amber Heard is wild as Mera.  Not only is she drop-dead gorgeous, but she can hold her own with the boys in the action scenes.  Her chemistry with Momoa’s Arthur feels very organic, human, and sometimes hilariously antagonistic.  Patrick Wilson plays King Orm, and here is one of the weaker characters of the film.  I’m not saying that Wilson did a bad job, far from it, it’s just that the character feels very cliche at times as the villain who wants the thrown.  Honestly, I would’ve liked to have seen more of Yahya Abdul-Mateen’s character of Black Manta as a central villain.  Don’t get me wrong, both characters have a personal connection to Aquaman, but it’s Manta’s hatred of Aquaman that feels more authentic.  Dolph Lundgren has a pretty decent appearance as King Nereus, Mera’s father, as he kind of hesitates to join Orm’s quest to destroy the surface world.  Lundgren is always a fun one to watch, whether or not he’s playing a good guy or a villain.  Willem Defoe actually plays a good guy for once in a comic book movie.  What can I say about Defoe?  He’s fantastic.  What makes the performances so enjoyable, is the fact that the actors absolutely know what kind of movie they’re in and they just roll with it.  There’s a lot of over-the-top posturing, speeches, and men being manly men.

This movie moves really quickly.  It’s not a boring movie and it will keep your eyes attached to the screen for the entire run-time.  Before I get to the action, I have to say that Aquaman is one of the most beautiful movies I’ve seen since James Cameron’s Avatar.  There are a lot of shots on land that are simply stunning.  The open desert as well Sicily are incredibly captured, and make you want to visit those places.  In case you haven’t figured it out, Aquaman is a visual-effects heavy film.  There is a lot of CGI here, but it’s utilized in a way that actually makes it feel like livable world.  The under-water sequences, including Atlantis itself are simply stunning.  The colors are extremely vibrant and they pop out as if to say, “look at me!”  The first few DCEU movies had this kind of grit and grime that tried to make the films seem more edgy than they needed to be.  None of that is here.  The action sequences are some of the most interesting I’ve seen in a comic-book movie.  The under-water fight scenes are well-choreographed and visually impressive.  The fights between Orm and Aquaman are some of the highlights.  Then you get some seriously epic battle sequences towards the end of the film which are mind-blowing at how well it came together.  The special effects gurus at Industrial Light and Magic for bringing such a fantastic under-water world to life.

While the film is mostly fantastic, there are a few niggling issues here and there that I’m not really a big fan of.  There are a number of uses of “de-aging” CGI that have been used periodically, and some of those effects are not very good.  Also, the film does run a little too long at 143 minutes.  I think a trimming of a few scenes here and there could’ve really tightened up the pace a bit.  Ultimately, though, the positives out-weigh the negative in nearly every category.

Is Aquaman a silly movie?  Yes.  Yes, it is.  Is it cheesy?  In the best possible way.  This is a movie that knows what it is and what it wants to be and just goes for it.  Everybody who worked on the film clearly had a vision in mind and had a blast doing it.  They wanted to make the best possible comic-book movie they could, and I think they succeeded very, very well.  Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Justice League were taking the DCEU down the wrong path, in my opinion.  Wonder Woman and Aquaman are trying to make things right again, and I think they can do it.  With Shazam! coming in a couple of months, I believe the DCEU could be back on track.  Will it ever eclipse Marvel’s MCU?  Not anytime soon.  It’s been a very long time since a comic-book movie made me feel like a kid again, and Aquaman did just that.  This movie is an absolute blast.

My Final Recommendation: 9 Laser Sharks out of 10.  This one has to be seen on the big screen.

It’s usually not very often that I get taken by surprise, especially when it comes to the movie industry.  I’ve been blogging about movies for the better part of a decade now, so I’m rarely surprised when a sequel or remake is announced.  When the reboot of Ghostbusters came out in 2016, it was met with very mixed reviews, most bordering on negative.  I, myself, didn’t hate the film, I just didn’t think it was the film it could’ve been.  It was too self-aware and Paul Feig wasn’t the right person to helm the film.  Due to that and the extreme negativity from fans, as well as the poor handling of the film’s PR by both the director and some the actresses, the film was a box-office flop.  Because of that, the franchise was supposedly shelved until they came up with something that the fans would really like.  Color me shocked and surprised, because I didn’t see this one coming:  We are getting an official Ghostbusters 3.  You read that correctly, and I assume you’ve seen the teaser trailer I put up here.  I, like most people, didn’t hear anything about this movie until today.

From what I’ve gathered by looking at other websites like Dread Central, Ivan Reitman’s son, Jason was secretly co-writing the film with Gil Kenan, the writer for the animated film Monster House.  For the better part of 30 years, Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd have been trying to get a third film into production, but time and time again, the project kept collapsing for one reason or another.  The biggest hurdle was Bill Murray who played Peter Venkman, who didn’t even want to do the second film.  I’m speculating here, but I’m assuming that Ivan and Jason were working with Sony to make deals with what’s left of the original cast to come back.  Harold Ramis passed away several years ago, so Egon, most likely won’t show up.  Right now, there is no word on what the plot details are, although some past scripts would have had the Ghostbusters team take a trip to Hell itself.  We can assume that this film may be the one to be passing the torch to a new generation of ‘busters, and that would make sense.  Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Bill Murray are getting up there in age.  We also don’t know if Sigourney Weaver will return or if Rick Moranis will come out of retirement to play Louis Tully again.  There’s also the issue of how the visual effects are going to be presented.  One of the big problems with the 2016 reboot was the over-use of CGI, some of which was pretty good, while the rest of it was pretty awful.  I would honestly hope that the visual effects artists will use practical effects in addition to some CGI to augment each other.  That would be the ideal solution.  From what we do know so far, is that Ghostbusters 3 is an actual sequel to the first two, so it will ignore the 2016 film entirely.  That’s probably for the best.  The film is slated for a summer release in 2020.  The fact that we got a teaser NOW, before principal photography begins, shows some serious confidence that the film-makers have for this new entry.  I’m going to remain cautiously optimistic, because this has the potential to turn into another Ghostbusters 2016.  I don’t think it will considering the talent involved, but Sony has had a bad habit recently of screwing up when it comes to tent-pole movies.  This could be a major comeback for Ghostbusters, and I really want it to be.  Some people have said that Sony should leave well enough alone, as a new entry won’t come close to capturing the magic of the original film.  I can’t say I disagree with that, but you never know what a fresh group of talent will be able to pull.  So, yeah, when I saw this teaser and the news for an official Ghostbusters 3:

Released: September 2000

Director: Douglas Aarniokoski

Rated R

Run Time: 101 Minutes

Distributor: Dimension Films/Miramax

Genre: Action/Fantasy

Cast:
Adrian Paul: Duncan MacLeod
Christopher Lambert: Connor MacLeod
Bruce Payne: Jacob Kell
Lisa Barbuscia: Kate/Faith
Donnie Yen: Jin Ke
Jim Byrnes: Joe Dawson
Peter Wingfield: Methos

Time sometimes can change things, specifically when it comes to either loving or hating movies.  Sometimes when I hate on a movie, it takes years for it to grow on me.  On the flip-side, a movie that I loved when it first came out I may end up not liking it as much later on down the road.  A movie can sometimes be better than you initially thought, or it can be worse.  It happens.  Sometimes you do change your mind on the subject.  This happens to film reviewers as well.  One should never go back and change the initial review unless a mistake was made.  No, a reviewer should stand by that review at the time it was written.  It does not mean that the reviewer can’t change his or her mind some time after the review.  Sometimes it can take years, but I honestly think it is okay to change your mind on a movie.  I think it’s also important to tell the audience why you changed your mind on the matter.  My initial review of Highlander: Endgame was a 6.5/10: Barely above average.  That was nearly 4 years ago when I reviewed the film for this website.  So….how do I feel about the film now?  Let’s take a look.

The film opens in 1990 as Connor and Duncan MacLeod meet up for some reason, only for Connor to go an “errand.”  While on this side-trip, Rachel Ellenstein, Connor’s adopted daughter is killed when his apartment explodes.  10 years later, a group of Immortals, led by Jacob Kell, show up at a mysterious temple that’s secretly housing another group of Immortals in a sort of sanctuary.  Kell slaughters the housed Immortals, while at the same time, Duncan MacLeod sees visions of this massacre.  Discovering that Connor may have been in this “sanctuary,” Duncan heads to the United States to look for him.  While that is the crux of the story, there’s actually quite a bit more that happens.  Highlander: Endgame was supposed to connect the film series to the TV series, so this particular sequel feels a bit different from the last few movies, in a good way.  The story here is actually a lot better than I initially remember as it deals with revenge and how it can consume someone to the point where they are no longer who they used to be.  There is also an element of redemption and forgiveness in the film that actually kind of elevates it above the last two movies.  Connor and Duncan have done some terrible things in their pasts that continue to haunt them.  The film’s main villain, Jacob Kell, is a direct result of Connor’s actions in 1555 Scotland, and Duncan has to reconcile the sins he committed against the woman he loved.  As Immortals, these characters have a very tragic existence of sorts, and that’s kind resonated throughout the entire film and TV series.  The story is far more compelling than I initially thought.

In my initial review of Highlander: Endgame, I mentioned how awful most of the acting was.  Having seen the film again after all these years, the acting is a lot better than I remember.  That being said, some of the acting is still pretty over-the-top and borderline silly.  Bruce Payne plays Kell a little too over-the-top, almost making him a bit of a cartoon character.  That being said, there has always been a cheesy aspect to these movies that you really can’t avoid, so the performances aren’t that shabby.  This is definitely Adrian Paul and Christopher Lambert’s show, though.  The Connor MacLeod of this film is different from the previous films.  Here, the character is broken and hopeless after losing loved ones to Jacob Kell’s vengeance.  Lambert really brings across the despair and tragic nature of his character.  Paul’s character has demons of his own that he’s trying to deal with and we get to see how his relationship with Kate and Connor evolves.  As over-the-top as Kell is, Bruce Payne is incredibly fun to watch here.  He chews the scenery like it’s nobody’s business.  Kell is no Kurgan, but he’s still a decent enough threat.  He’s more of a threat than Kane or General Katana ever were.  So, yeah, the acting really isn’t that bad.

Of all the Highlander films, Endgame has some of the best fight scenes.  A lot of the martial arts stuff on display is because Donnie Yen is the choreographer for a lot of the fights.  This was the first movie that I saw Donnie Yen in, and it was his first American film.  It’s not a bad debut at all.  The fight that his character has with Duncan is one of the best fight scenes in the entire movie.  A lot of this was done without wires so the fights are somewhat grounded in reality.  Most of the fight sequences are fantastic, but they are also used to progress the story.  In fact, and I mentioned this in my Best Sword Fights post, one of more memorable fight scenes is between Duncan and Connor.  There is definitely a very strong emotional current that runs through the entire fight, because there is only one way it can end, and to me that is a very compelling experience.  Overall, the action is fantastic.

While there is definitely quite a bit to really like about this movie, there are some issues with the film that need to be addressed.  While I definitely appreciate some of the cinematography here and the fight sequences are decently staged, the editing of the film is totally off the wall.  There are instance where you can tell they cut the film.  For example: There is a scene in which Connor and Duncan are training when Connor decides to teach Duncan a specifically lethal move.  When he says “Properly executed, this move is unstoppable,” pay attention to the color of the scene between the words “is” and “unstoppable.”  It changes ever so slightly, but it is noticeable.  The DVD says that 12 minutes of footage were added into the film, and while some of that may be true, there is a point during the final battle where the editing is literally copy-and-pasted.  This is on the DVD that came out back in 2000-2001.  I’ll show you: Take a look at 1:34 of the video and compare it to the 2:35 mark.  It’s literally copy-and-pasted.

Not only is the editing there sloppy, it’s fucking lazy.  That’s padding out the run-time.  There are also other technical issues that I’ve found in the film that are really bizarre.  On the roof-top fight scene with Duncan and Connor, you can absolutely tell that it’s a JVC sign behind them, only blurred out.  I can only guess that they couldn’t afford JVC, so they blotted it out, poorly I might add.  There is also a scene in Connor’s loft when Kell beheads one of his cronies.  His head is lying on the ground and he blinks.  While a lot of the Quickening effects still hold up, a good chunk of the CGI doesn’t.  I also mentioned in my previous review that the marketing for the film was a complete disaster.  Check it out:

The initial trailer shows a lot of supernatural elements including Kell being able to split in two.  The trailer even refers to Kell as a supernatural enemy.  None of those elements show up in the final film.  In fact, a lot of those effects and shots were made specifically for the trailer.  Basically, the movie that you were initially shown in the teaser is nothing more than a bait-and-switch.  In my opinion, that’s false-advertising.  There was no explanation given for that.

Despite a number of glaring technical issues, is Highlander: Endgame still worth watching?  Yes.  Yes it is, especially if you’re a Highlander fan like myself.  While my initial review was pretty harsh at the time, and I won’t change that review, time has dulled my dislike of the film.  In fact, I consider Highlander: Endgame to be the best Highlander sequel.  It has some of the best fight sequences in the entire series and a really solid story to boot.  So, have I changed my mind a bit on the film?  Yes.  Yes, I have.  I’m not going to delete my first review, as I stand by that one at the time.  As I mentioned earlier, sometimes people change their minds about things.  So, I definitely recommend checking this one out at least once.  Don’t bother with Highlander: The Source, though.  That movie sucks.

Initial Review: 6.5/10

Second Look: 8/10