You ever see one of those action
films that has one scene that blows you away and that’s what you remember most
about the film? Did you ever tell somebody, “Just get to that point and stop”
or “they should have made the whole film that one action scene” because it was
the only good part about the film? Well, here’s the thing: if you just do a
film about one big action scene, it doesn’t work, because it ends up being the
movie “Free Fire.”
The plot of “Free Fire” is as simple
as this: a group of people deal guns in an abandoned warehouse, someone
triggers a fire fight, and all hell breaks loose. Now this should sound like a
film that is made simply to be fun, right? Same kind of popcorn fun as last
year’s “Hardcore Henry” would be, which also had Shartlo Copley? Well…it’s
supposed to, but it’s not. “Free Fire” is a tediously long action scene that
lacks too much substance, to where I felt bored throughout it. This film isn’t
even an hour and a half long, and yet it felt over two hours. That’s not a
good sign.
One of the major problems that I
have with this movie is that we don’t know these characters enough to give a
shit about what happens to them. All we know is that they’re Irish and British
arms dealers, and that’s it. Sure, some of them bring up occurrences before the
events of the movie, but it isn’t enough to make these characters any more than
two-dimensional cut outs. It’s the same problem that I had with “Kong: Skull
Island” and “The Belko Experiment,” but at least those two films had somewhat of a plot. With
that little context with any of them, you don’t really end up rooting for
anybody in this film. Hell, I barely remember any of their names, even when
they’re constantly shouting them out every 12 seconds. The only thing I got out
of these characters was that Shartlo Copley and Brie Larson had a thing in the
past, Larson’s now with Cillian Murphy, and that Jack Reynor and Sam Riley hate
each other. That’s it.
Even the action, while it has somewhat
decent camera work, it isn’t really that exciting. After about ten minutes into
the titular free fire, I was close to nodding off. It was the most bored I had
been at an action film since “Assassin’s Creed”; all that was missing was the
camera to be shaking and the lens to be constantly dirty. It’s sad, because I’ve
heard so many other people compliment the director, Ben Wheatley, and his other
films. For this to be my introduction to his work, I haven't felt this cheated since "Sucker Punch" being my introduction to Zack Snyder.
I know this might seem a bit off topic, but let me talk a little bit about this short that I worked on earlier this year, with a somewhat similar scenario to “Free Fire,” where everyone is shooting at each other. The biggest difference is that it was confetti poppers instead of guns, it had better pacing, and it was only five minutes. It just goes to show that some things, especially action scenes, are better left short and to the point. It’s one of the reasons people don’t like Michael Bay’s movies, because if the action goes on too long, it becomes boring and tedious. Maybe if it added in scenes of a
different location from the free fire, like someone trying to figure out how to
get past all this BS, then maybe we’d have something here.
Overall, “Free Fire” was just a
waste of time. Even if you’re an action junkie or a fan of any of these actors,
it’s not worth it. It’s bland, tedious, and absolutely boring. Just go
see any other action movie out right now, or anything that has substance to it,
because this was just a chore to sit through.
Masamune Shirow’s “Ghost in the
Shell” is regarded by many as one of the most influential manga ever written,
with an animated film by Mamoru Oshii in 1995 being said to be, not just one of
the best anime movies, but one of the best animated movies of all time. Both
the manga and anime manage to deliver an incredibly strong story that deals
with the themes of sexual and gender identity, life and death, and the takeover
of technology exceptionally well. It’s something that has deeply inspired film
makers over the years, like Alex Proyas and The Wachowskis who would go on to do films like "Dark City" and “The Matrix Trilogy."
For a long while, Hollywood has been
trying to get an adaptation of the source material in the works for a long
time, and it hasn’t been something I’ve been looking forward to. Now, this
isn’t because of the casting of Scarlett Johansson, which I’ll get to later,
but because of the track record adaptations have had in the past. Much in the
same vein as video games, Hollywood’s live-action
adaptations of anime haven’t really received the best treatment. Whether it’d
be from trying to adapt something that only fits in an episodic format, trying
too hard to fit the tone of the source material that it doesn’t flow right as
its own thing, or just flat out disregarding the source material all together,
there have been several failed experiments that have turned out quite rotten.
Films like “Dragon Ball Evolution” are proof of how these properties have been
severely mistreated, with “DBE” being one of the worst movies I have ever seen,
if not THE worst. Hell, after that reception, other anime movie
projects got canned immediately, like “Cowboy Bebop” starring Keanu Reeves.
However, with 2017, we’ve now got
“Death Note” coming out later this year, and “Ghost in the Shell” currently in
theaters. And from the look of it, it did look like it was trying to do
something right, so I and a friend of mine went to go check it out.
In the mid-21st Century
of Japan in the city of Niihama, humanity has become augmented with
cybernetics, to the point where we can save a human brain by placing it into a
mechanical body, or “shell” as it’s referred to. The latest being to receive
this treatment, Mira Killian, adapts to this new body and achieves the rank of
Major for Public Security Section 9, in the fight against cyberterrorism. When
one of their latest targets threatens Hanka Robotics, the Major and her team
must hunt down this threat, which may know a thing or two about her real past.
Now the questions remain: Is the
film at least tolerable? Does it represent its source material’s themes and
philosophy? Is the casting of Scarlett Johansson as the Major as controversial
as SJWs claim to be? The answers are as follows: More than you think; somewhat;
and not really. I didn’t think I’d say this, but “Ghost in the Shell” actually
turned out to not only be a faithful adaptation of the manga, but it’s a really
damn good movie. Granted, that doesn’t mean I didn't have issues with the movie,
as there are some things that got under my skin quite a bit.
For starters, I didn’t think it
delve deep enough into the psychological and sexual identity themes as much as
the original did. Don’t get me wrong, they are times when they do bring it up,
such as when the Major encounters a woman and asks her what it’s like to have
her eyes, and in a fight scene within a nightclub, but I just felt like it
needed more of it. I also felt like the dynamics of the good vs evil element
wasn't as strong, especially when you compare the Puppet Master and Kuze. Also,
the one thing that bothered me was involving “Beat” Takeshi Kitano. Why was he
the only one speaking Japanese during his scenes? I get the scenes where there’s
a group of people in there as well, but when it’s a one on one conversation,
the other person is speaking English, and that got really distracting.
Aside from that, I thought
everything else in the film was handled pretty damn well. I felt completely
immersed in how they recreated Masamune Shirow’s world to such magnificence,
that I can’t help but be fascinated by it. It even manages to do an excellent
job of recreating scenes from Mamoru Oshii’s animated film, such as the fight
in the water and the creation of the Major, and I was in awe at how it was
filmed. And while I would have liked for it to dive into it more, we still get
a good deal of “Ghost in the Shell’s” philosophy and themes to a satisfying
measure.
The acting in the film was also
really good too. Takeshi Kitano is absolutely badass as Daisuke Aramaki; Pilou Asbækwas a
great Batou; Juliette Binoche was likable as Dr. Ouelet; and Lasarus Ratuere
was good as Carlos Ishikawa. Now the big casting that everyone is going
ape-wall over is Scarlett Johansson as the Major. Okay, real quick, I’m going
to go into spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want
spoilers, skip the section in italics.
It is confirmed in the movie that Scarlett
Johansson’s Major is in fact Motoko Kusanagi, and the name, Mira Killian, came
after she becomes an android. Now, technically speaking, the Major is a
Japanese character, and many have deemed this as racist casting. What do I
think of this? Well…I didn’t have a problem with it. For one, I’m the kind of
person that believes a role should go to the best actor/actress for the job,
regardless of race, unless it plays a significant part in the story. I didn't hate the casting of Justin Chatwin as Goku in "Dragon Ball Evolution" because he wasn't Asian, I hated it because he was a bad actor. I’m not
the only one who thinks this; there are plenty of Japanese fans of “Ghost in
the Shell” who believe this as well, and they thought Johansson was a great
choice to play the Major. And in this movie, they actually address this in the
story. There’s a part in the film where the Major visits her mother, trying to
figure out her past, and her mother is played by a Japanese woman, Kaori Momoi.
I thought this was actually a pretty well thought out way of addressing this in
the film, playing more into “Ghost in the Shell’s” themes of identity between
humans and artificial intelligence. It’s an element that I actually thought
they did better than the original, developing the Major more as a character. And
as far as I’m concerned, Scarlett Johansson nailed this character perfectly. I
remember back when her casting was announced when the film “Lucy” came out, and
thinking “Yeah, I can see how she could play the Major.” Of course, “Lucy”
sucked, but that’s beside the point. Johansson did a fantastic job, and is
probably one of the better performances that I’ve seen from her as of late.
Heck, it’s definitely better than her work as Black Widow in any of the MCU
movies.
Rupert
Sanders, the director of “Snow White & the Huntsman,” really knows how to
deliver a solid action film that has more merit to it than what most give
credit for. His style is very slick and knows where everything needs to be in
frame, really allowing the visuals to not overshadow the main points of the
story. And with how he works in slow-motion, it definitely is better than what
Zack Snyder does, that’s for sure.
Overall,
I was absolutely impressed with “Ghost in the Shell.” While I felt like some
things weren’t as strong as in the original, the rest manages to capture the
spirit of what Masamune Shirow’s manga was about. It’s a shame that the film
bombed, especially compared to mediocre disappointments like “Beauty & the
Beast,” “The Boss Baby,” and “Kong: Skull Island.” Really people? Come on!
In 2014, due to “Mr. Peabody & Sherman”
and “Penguins of Madagascar” being underwhelming at the box office, Dreamworks
Animation has been seeing a great deal of bad luck for them. Whether or not the
films were critically praised, they ended up having to lay-off many of their
employees and end up being sold to Universal, which will ultimately result in
Dreamworks becoming part of Illumination…I don’t know if that last part is
true, but we’ll have to wait and see. But what this DOES mean, is that 2017
will be their last year of films that were overseen by its former CEO and
founder, Jeffrey Katzenberg. And one of the two we’ll be talking about today is
“The Boss Baby.”
The film centers around Tim
Templeton, an only child who enjoys the attention given by his parents.
Suddenly, a baby enters into his life that suddenly takes the attention away
from him, and Tim’s not too happy about it. After discovering that the baby can
talk and is an associate from Babycorp, the two agree to help each other out,
by accomplishing the Boss Baby’s mission of taking out Puppy Co, so Tim can go
back to being a single child.
Now after seeing the trailers for
this movie, I thought this looked like complete garbage. I don’t know, maybe
the whole talking babies thing got old by the time “Rugrats” was coming to an
end, so that might have something to do with it. That, and there have been
multiple times when Dreamworks is very hit or miss with their animated films. Sometimes
we’ll get something fantastic like “Kung Fu Panda,” “Rise of the Guardians,” or
“How to Train Your Dragon,” and other times we’ll get “Home,” “Trolls,” or even
a “Bee Movie.” The question on everybody’s mind, is where does “The Boss Baby”
land on that chart? Well…it’s not awful, but it’s not that good either.
Let’s start with the animation. Tom
McGrath, a frequent director at Dreamworks, has turned out some incredibly
sharp looking films in the past. Take “Megamind” and the “Madagascar” trilogy for
example: those films have some very quick and exaggerated gestures, but can
also showcase some incredibly smooth movement when the scenes call for it. He’s
proved his versatility when it comes to having animation truly pop off the
screen. With “The Boss Baby,” it’s looks fine and feels like something that
would belong in theatres, but it doesn’t have the same kind of spark of motion
that I’ve talked about. It isn’t until the third act that we get that
exaggeration that I’ve talked about, whereas the rest of the movie feels like
Ralphie’s brother in “A Christmas Story,” where the movement is restrained by
three snow coats too many.
The writing, much like the
animation, is pretty standard. It’s the typical “Odd Couple” scenario, where
two people can’t stand living in the same place, so they do what they can to
get rid of the other, then try to work together so they get what they want,
only to realize that they enjoy each other’s company after all. Of course,
originality doesn’t matter as long as the spectacle is different, as I’ve come
to learn over the years…this film doesn’t do that. You know exactly how the
plot is going to go, hitting the tropes note for note, and it doesn’t leave you
with much surprise. Same goes for that whole, “prove to the dumb parents that
don’t believe you,” trope that, again, after seeing this trope done before,
especially having decade long shows with that, it becomes tiresome. Even most
of the jokes don’t really land that hard, being the typical “oh, he’s a baby with
the mindset of a businessman and doesn’t want to do the toddler things! Isn’t
that funny? Hurr hurr hurr!” Sure, some of the them get a chuckle or two out of
me, especially when they went as far as to put in a Baby Jesus joke, but for
the most part, there’s no surprise.
With the cast and characters, it’s
what you expect. Miles Bakshi as Tim? Okay. Lisa Kudrow and Jimmy Kimmel as the
parents? Meh. Alec Baldwin as the Boss Baby? Fine. Honestly, the only
performance that stuck out to me was Steve Buscemi as the bad guy, mostly
because of how sinister he makes his plan seem, no matter how dumb it sounds
when I say it.
Yeah, there’s not much else I can
say about “The Boss Baby.” It’s just a standard C- level animated movie. While
it is harmless, I can’t actually think of anything that would make me think
anybody would want to watch it. It’s not even at a level of “so bad, you have to
see it to believe it.” It’s just…meh. It’s a ‘meh’ kind of movie.
With the success of Disney remaking
their old animated classics, some have been met with good success like with
“The Jungle Book,” “Cinderella,” and even “Pete’s Dragon,” while others have
been on the downside like “Alice in Wonderland” and…that poor excuse of a
“Sleeping Beauty” villain origin story. But with it meeting box office success,
you wonder what direction they’d take things next, and it unfortunately turned
towards “Beauty and the Beast.” Now why would I be worried about this decision?
I think the better question is “why WOULDN’T I be worried?” And the answer to
both questions is very simple: the original film.
You
see, “Beauty and the Beast” has a strong place in not just Disney history, but
film history in general. It was Disney’s 30th theatrically animated
film, and was part of a time I consider to be Disney’s best era of animation:
The Disney Renaissance. After the success of “The Little Mermaid” and “The
Rescuers Down Under,” Disney was coming out of this big funk of an era that it
seemed like they couldn’t get out of, and this era was proof that they could
deliver more than what was expected at the time. And to me, “Beauty and the
Beast” is their Magnum Opus. I mean, people constantly suck up to “The Lion
King” or “Frozen,” but there are things that they failed to do that “Beauty and
the Beast” did. It was universally praised by audiences and critics alike, even
to this day, and was the first animated film to have the honor of being
nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Think about that; this animated film from
Disney was put on the same level of praise as “The Silence of the Lambs!”
That’s how good of a film “Beauty and the Beast” was, and still is!
So it just makes you wonder, why
would you want to tarnish the legacy and importance of such a film as this? I
mean, that can be said for any other remake, but a film like this is simply too
perfect. What more is there to do? Well, despite what I and others think, the
film ended up getting made by Bill Condon, the director of “Dreamgirls,” “Gods
and Monsters,” and “Twilight: Breaking Dawn”…oh you heard me right, he directed
the last two “Twilight” movies. You see why I was scared now?!
But despite this, I went and saw the
movie…and it was exactly what I was expecting. A film that failed to even come
close to the bar that was set exceptionally high. Does that mean the film is
bad? No, it just makes it…underwhelming.
The story is as follows, like the
original: Belle is the only young girl of the town seen as the odd one out. She’s interested in what most girls are turned away from, such as books and
the inventions her father comes up with, and continually turning down the town
hero, Gaston. When her father is taken prisoner by a prince turned beast, Belle
offers herself in his place, in which the Beast and his servants see as an
opportunity to break the spell put upon them.
Okay, so what works about this
remake? Well, the production value looks absolutely stunning, whether it’d be
the old French village or the Beast’s castle, it definitely looks like a lot of
effort went into the look of the film…for the most part, but we'll get to that. I also thought the cast did an excellent job with what they were given.
Emma Watson is a great Belle, Luke Evans is an enjoyable Gaston, Josh Gad is
lovable as Le Fou, and Kevin Kline is a very good Maurice. Ian McKellen and
Ewan McGregor as Cogsworth and Lumiere are a good duo. They’re funny, have a
good amount of personality, and their chemistry together onscreen is very
believable. Sure, they’re nowhere near the levels of David Ogden Stiers and the
late-Jerry Orbach, but they are a good fit. Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts is a
fitting successor to the great Angela Lansbury, and I was absolutely floored by
how amazing her singing was when singing the titular song.
However, what I was most impressed
with was Dan Stevens as the Beast. While I was very cautious about how they
would handle him in the film, he really does a fantastic job portraying the
Beast as he should. He looks and sounds just the character in the animated
film, that I was almost convinced that they got Robbie Benson back to dub over
him in the film. The mannerisms, the posture, everything about his performance
was the Beast. And as for one of the new songs they added into the movie,
“Evermore,” was actually pretty damn good, showcasing Stevens’s excellent
singing voice, and it actually had me near tears.
That’s pretty much all that
I can say that I loved about the film, leaving the rest of the film to be…mediocre. For starters, the film’s use of CGI and green-screen got
really distracting. There were multiple instances in which you can OBVIOUSLY
tell that its fake, and it takes me completely out of the movie, with the
biggest notice being Emma Watson during the “Belle (reprise),” when she approaches
the top of the hill. I mean, after coming off of “The Jungle Book” and “Pete’s
Dragon,” you’d think the effects would keep improving, but that’s not what I
got. I also wasn’t really impressed with the performances of the song numbers. Sure, “Beauty and the Beast,” “Evermore,” and “Something
There” were done nicely, but the rest of them feel like the tempo was slowed
down so the cast could catch up to the melody, such as “Gaston” and especially
“Be Our Guest.” And I know you’ll argue that because the animated film had it
faster because the actors didn’t have to move much or lose breath. Counterargument: Jerry Orbach, Paige O’Hare, and Richard White performed on stage at the Oscars the year the film was nominated,
and they kept up with the tempo perfectly well. And they didn’t need to
autotune their voices like they did with Emma Watson (don’t act like you didn’t
hear it, because I sure did). And aside from “Evermore,” the other songs “Days
in the Sun,” “Aria,” and “How Does a Moment Last Forever” feel out of place and
don’t fit in with rest of the movie.
So far, a lot of people have told me that this film is just like
the original animated film. But that’s the biggest problem that I have with
this movie: there’s nothing new to really make it pop out as a different
entity. Look back at some of the previous remakes that Disney has done, and
you’ll see that they had it handled different from the original. “Cinderella”
gave more backstory and character development to both Cinderella and Prince Charming (Kit),
and didn’t make it a musical; “The Jungle Book” took elements from
both the original book and combined it with elements from the animated movie,
giving us a stronger narrative, and effects that were so much better than I was
expecting; “Pete’s Dragon” was changed from the early 1900’s to the 1980’s, and
was made less cartoonish by having Pete be an orphan raised by a dragon after a
car crash killed his parents, and is rediscovered back into society. Hell, even
“Alice in Wonderland” and “Maleficent,” as bad as those two were, they still
did something different to stand out as its own entity, such as having a grown up Alice for "Alice in Wonderland" and having Maleficent be the main focus in the "Sleeping Beauty" retelling. Granted, “Beauty and
the Beast” is a much better film than “Alice” and “Maleficent,” but that's beside the point. It just doesn't do anything new with the original. Sure, there are some details that they
fix up and show a lot more of the story, but then there are moments where it
adds even more problems. Like, did we really need to see the prologue acted out, instead of told through stain glass windows? And if that’s the case, why was the narration kept in, because it just
makes it seem repetitive. Why did the sorceress give the Beast have a book that
takes him anywhere in the world? And with that, why didn’t Belle just use that
book to get to town and back faster? And why did the sorceress keep herself in
town to deal with these people? Why did Disney announce that LeFou was gay,
even if the film doesn’t make mention of it whatsoever? Why are people so nostalgia blind that they aren't even acknowledging these problems???
Okay, I’ve gone on long enough about
this film, so let me just wrap up. What are my overall thoughts? Well, it’s not
a bad film, far from it…but it’s not something I would recommend. Unless you’re
really curious, it’s worth a rental at best. While it does a lot of things that
I admire and appreciate, it does an equal amount of things that bring it down
for me. I can understand their interest in a remake, but I felt like they
should have waited another decade or so, take more time to see what they could have done better with it.
