Look, I've talked my fair share about reboots, and how they have essentially taken over the modern movie industry. As everyone knows, there are plenty of terrible reboots out there that audiences need to avoid at all costs (looking at you, Ghostbusters). However, it's not all doom and gloom. There are a few great movie series which started as reboots and still retained the fans of the original movie or series while also gaining a new following. One prime example of this is the new Star Trek series. Way back in 2009, the classic series was rebooted with a new cast and crew but was still loved by many, partly due to the respectful way it treated the original franchise, showing that this was actually an alternate timeline, while also bringing in the late Leonard Nimoy as an older version of Spock. The movie was an instant hit, and was followed up with a sequel in 2013: "Star Trek: Into Darkness." Now, we have the third instalment in this series, "Star Trek Beyond," with new director Justin Lin at the helm. Unfortunately, the trailers didn't quite get off to the best start, with the first teaser causing many fans to fear that Lin was resorting to his background in the Fast and the Furious franchise for ideas, and those fears have stayed with many right up to release. Fortunately, I am able to say that this is not only an excellent movie for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, but perhaps the best movie in this rebooted series so far.
The plot of the movie sees the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise just under 3 years into their 5-year mission to explore uncharted space when they find themselves under attack by the villainous Krall (played by an unrecognisable Idris Elba) and stranded on a desolate planet. This is all pretty standard stuff for a Star Trek story but stands out through the way it finds time to give all of the main Enterprise members a chance to shine and have some great character moments. Some of these are not as substantial as others, with John Cho's Sulu only have a few great moments while piloting some of the movie's various ships, and Zoe Saldana's Uhura not doing much besides some intriguing exchanges with the film's villains. The same can be said for the late Anton Yelchin's Chekov, but he still has a fun dynamic with Chis Pine's Captain Kirk as the two are stranded together. The latter character is of course the stand-out performance in the movie and is given the most development of all. Pine delivers a suitably emotional and believable performance as it becomes clear that Kirk is still trying to figure out his place as Captain and whether or not he is worthy to be a part of Star Fleet. The other excellent dynamic the movie has is between Karl Urban's Bones and Zachary Quinto's Spock, and this is where much of the movie's humour stems from. The two have quite a few funny exchanges, with Bones' sarcastic personality clashing with Spock's literal and logical character, but they still have some emotional and personal moments throughout the movie. It's great that writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung managed to include all of these amazing moments for the main crew, while still implementing the humour and intense action this new series has been renowned for.
However, with every new instalment in a series comes the addition of new characters, both friendly and villainous. The movie has a couple of notable additions, including Sofia Boutella's Jaylah. This alien character is an excellent addition to the franchise, not only being an excellent warrior and sharing several funny moments with Simon Pegg's Scotty, but also being given a satisfying and emotional backstory that makes her motivations in the story believable. However, it is Idris Elba's performance as Krall, the villain of the piece, that is the real highlight of the new characters. Although he may initially appear to be a generic bad guy for the crew to face, hints are given throughout the story about his true nature and motivations. By the time these fully come to light in the third act, the character is far from typical and is instantly set apart from the other villains of the series. This is partly down to Idris Elba's extremely devoted and intense performance, with the actor clearly committed to the voice and mannerisms of the character, but still being able to show genuine emotion under all the make-up that he has received to make him look like an alien that belongs in the Star Trek universe.
The writing of the movie, however, is where I have my one major problem with this entry. Indeed, it's true that characters are consistently well-written and are each interesting in their own ways. It's also true that humour is implemented well into the movie throughout, with the jokes never feeling out of place and always suitable based on the characters sharing the dialogue and the situations they are in. However, where I do have a problem is in the pacing of the movie and the handling of various subplots, particularly near the beginning. The movie kicks off into the action very quickly, with little time being spent with the Enterprise crew on board the ship or the space station they later dock in. Therefore, the setting up of different plot lines feels very rushed as they are regulated to a single line of dialogue just so it could be raised again for a more substantial conversation later on. However, chances are you'll have forgotten that a fair amount of these lines even happened and thus won't be affected in any way when they are discussed at length. One example of this that I found is that (surprise, surprise for any fans of this new series), Spock and Uhura are having relationship troubles again! This is casually hinted at and spoken of around 10 minutes in for all of 2 minutes and then dropped for another 45 minutes to an hour. It became extremely clear that the only purpose this served in the movie is to allow for one of those character moments I discussed earlier. It would have been more satisfying, however, if these has been developed more thoroughly throughout the movie up to these moments, thus allowing for a more emotional impact for the audience.
However, where I cannot fault the movie in any way is in it's action sequences. The stand-out set piece of the movie is the much-hyped destruction of the Enterprise which has been heavily advertised in the trailers. Many fans cried out that this was unoriginal and may not entertain as much given that we've seen the Enterprise being destroyed in many Star Trek movies before this, including the first and second instalments of this series. However, I can promise that you have never seen it done as well as this. The sequence is constantly intense and heart-racing as you see the crew pulled apart and separated by Krall and his forces, instantly cementing them as a formidable enemy. The combat, both with futuristic firearms and hand-to-hand action, is excellently choreographed and the stakes of each encounter always feel high and real. There are plenty of other great set pieces strung throughout the movie is well, keeping a good mix and dramatic and action-packed moments. These sequences include the scenes with the motorcycle (don't worry, Star Trek fans, it surprisingly works and doesn't feel out of place), and the finale which has been shown off more in the most recent trailers and TV spots. As I said, many feared Justin Lin using his Fast and the Furious experience too much in making this movie. However, it's clear that, in the action department especially, he certainly used it to his advantage.
Needless to say, continuing the excellent work of the series so far, the visual effects in the movie are on point. The CGI used to create the Enterprise, the futuristic weaponry, and especially the creation of the newest Federation space station, Yorktown, is all beautiful and is guaranteed to make your jaw drop as you see it in action on the big screen for the first time. All of these effects look incredibly realistic and never break the immersion of the audience in what is actually happening on screen at the time. However, it is also admirable that director Justin Lin and the rest of the filmmakers opted to make use of practical effects and stunt work in addition to the use of CGI. I'm not saying that other movies do not use this as well, but, with all the recent advancements in modern computer effects, it can be difficult to resist just using CGI to create these stunts. However, the best example of the phenomenal stunt work and practical effects in use here are the aforementioned motorcycle sequence. All of the stunts pulled off here are incredible to watch and the use of practical effects work only help to make everything happening on screen seem much more realistic and believable. Well, as realistic as it can be anyway.
There's plenty of other aspects of the movie which deserve to be commended. All of the technical and set work in the movie is on point, with some superb cinematography work on display, particularly during the close combat fight scenes, such as between Jaylah and Krall's lieutenant. It is very easy to see what is going on in these scenes. The set design in the movie is incredible, with the returning Enterprise set among other new ship designs, the Federation space station and Krall's base of operations being the stand outs. It is remarkable that designers can give these areas such as distinctly alien feel, and yet still feel realistic and familiar to the audience. The make-up artists also deserve a special mention, with plenty of incredible alien designs made up with practical make-up. The stand-outs of these are of course Jaylah and Krall, but some cast members playing alien members of the Enterprise have also undergone incredible transformations. You'll see the ones I'm talking about when you see the movie. Finally, the soundtrack of the movie is excellent. Of course, the soundtrack is composed by Michael Giacchino, so this is to be expected, but this music is spectacular throughout the entire movie and matches up perfectly with every scene.
Very few franchises have been going for as long as Star Trek has. The series began 50 years ago and was revolutionary at the time, implementing ground-breaking special effects, and creating career-defining roles for many actors. It is only more incredible that, in 2016, the franchise has retained it's quality and is still an iconic part of the sic-fi genre. "Star Trek Beyond" is a fantastic addition to this rebooted series, and the franchise as a whole. Only a few underdeveloped subplots bring the movie down, but that is only a small gripe in a movie with some many well-done elements. With excellent character development across the board, a genuinely intimidating villain, and some extremely well executed visuals and technical work behind the scenes, this movie is well worth a watch. Even if you don't watch a great deal of sci-fi, chances are you'll find something to enjoy watching this movie.
Pros
Great character moments for all the main characters
Idris Elba's villain
Stunning visual effects
Phenomenal action set pieces
Superb technical work
The soundtrack
Cons
Some underdeveloped plot points near the beginning
Rating: 9/10
Release Date: 22nd July, 2016
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Shohreh Aghdashloo
The original Ghostbusters was released in 1984 and has since grown quite the cult following, and rightly so. Adored by critics and audiences alike, the movie took a more comedic approach to the ghost genre than had been seen before, incorporating more humorous elements than there is to be found in movies like The Exorcist or Poltergeist. Mix that with revolutionary visual effects, excellent acting and the brilliant script by starts Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the movie proved to be a massive success. The 1989 sequel, however, was not so well received universally, and proved far more divisive than the original. Since then, the Ghostbusters have been absent from the big screen. Until now. Under the direction of Paul Feig, we now have an all-new, all-female crew of Ghostbusters ready to answer the call. Before I give my thoughts, I have to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not a sexist. There has possibly never been a more divisive reception to a movie than the one this one received, with some praising the new direction, while others cried out that it was destroying their childhood nostalgia through an unnecessary reboot of the franchise. Many typically dismissed these critics and naysayers as being sexists, more upset that the movie was now being led by a group of women than anything else. OK, no. That is not the case. The cast of this movie are talented, with all four leads having proven themselves to be capable of good acting and comedy. Everything I am about to say is down to having seen the final product itself, not the new direction it has taken over the original. That said, this movie is an absolute disaster that you should not consider seeing. There are a few good things in here, but they are far outnumbered by the terrible creative decisions and faults on display.
Look, as I said above, the new cast are all incredibly talented people. Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Chris Hemsworth have all done great work in movies over the last couple of years, while Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are perhaps better known for their excellent comedy work on Saturday Night Live. I had my doubts just like everyone else from the announcement of this project, but I thought that at least this cast would be able to do great work and deliver some memorable performances, even if everything else in the movie wasn't particularly great. However, there are only a few good performances to be found here. Kate McKinnon easily gives the best performance of the lead four as the scientist Holtzmann, committing to the quirky and slightly insane personality of the character. Chris Hemsworth also does a great job as handsome but idiotic receptionist Kevin, and his introduction is probably the funniest part of the movie to me. However, even this humour starts to grow old by the second scene he is in, as his stupidness rises to completely unrealistic levels. These scenes do more to make the audience cringe than chuckle. Every other character, on the other hand, acts as an individual stereotype. Melissa McCarthy is given nothing to do as the ghost fanatic, Kristen Wiig goes through a painfully predictable character arc as the skeptical scientist, and Leslie Jones is irritatingly upbeat and cringeworthy as she screams and shouts her way through the later scenes in the movie. That's not even mentioning the villain who's main personality trait is that he's a villain. He is given literally no backstory or motivations for his actions in the movie, and Neil Casey's performance is unforgivably bad. This character is a sad and pathetic excuse for the villain of the piece.
The movie is marketed as a comedy and Paul Feig has directed a few comedies which have been reviewed well in the past, such as Bridesmaids and Spy (both also starring Melissa McCarthy). However, the movie is incredibly immature with a great deal of it's humour, with the first proper joke of the movie resorting to toilet humour with plenty more examples thereafter, while the majority of the rest of the humour falls flat. However, the script does not only fail to be funny, but also to build realistic character dynamics throughout the movie. For example, at the beginning of the movie, Kristen Wiig is estranged from Melissa McCarthy, with the movie showing that they used to be partners and even wrote a book together, before they grew apart due to Kristen Wiig wanting to pursue a more serious and well-respected career, while McCarthy continued to hunt and study paranormal activity. They are drawn back together but McCarthy clearly shows a sense of having been betrayed and abandoned. However, one or two scenes later, they are acting like best friends again, as if the feud between them has never existed. Feig takes no time to rebuild the sense of trust, friendship and a mutual love of studying the paranormal before throwing them into a team together. This is only one example of the unrealistic dynamics and decisions in the script. However, despite failing to include potentially important and interesting character moments like these, the movie still suffers from feeling overly long and bloated. The pacing in the movie is terrible, and will make the 116-minute running time feel like considerably longer than it actually is.
Let's now turn away from the acting and writing of the movie to the more technical aspects, and in particular the visual effects. As I previously mentioned, the original Ghostbusters was renowned for it's effects works, using a mix of practical effects and CGI elements which were seen an incredible and revolutionary at the time of release. However, this movie relies heavily on computer-generated effects, yet somehow manages to make the ghosts and ghouls on display seen way less realistic. While both the original movie and it's sequels opted to have the ghosts take on a human form initially, perhaps with a slight artificial light coming off of them, thus making it much more frightening when they did change their form in order to scare the Ghostbusters and other people (just remember the opening ghost in the library sequence). However, in this movie, the filmmakers took the strange decision to have the ghosts surrounding by a neon light the entire time they were on screen, and had very little human features about them at all. It doesn't help as well that the majority of the spectres that the Ghostbusters face off against are not human ghosts, with the most notable ghosts on show here being a winged gargoyle demon, a parade of balloons, and the returning Slimer. It is impossible for the audience to become immersed in this world due to the ridiculous CGI, which begins to severely drop in quality towards the end of the movie with so many ghosts on screen at once. Many are not given the appropriate attention to detail that would be expected from a big-budget, summer blockbuster and it is very noticeable. However, credit where credit's due, the effects on the Ghostbusters' gadgets and weaponry is impressive and should be commended.
There isn't a great deal of fun to be had here, as you can tell so far. However, where audiences should have a good time with the movie is in the action sequences. Unfortunately, these are few and far between in the movie, with the Ghostbusters surprisingly not doing much ghostbusting besides one scene and the finale, but what I did see left me wishing they had included more. I just mentioned the gadgetry used by the team in this movie, and this contributes greatly to making these scenes feel fresh and different from what we've seen before. Rather than being restricted to the standard issue proton pack, the crew also have access to proton pistols, a proton shotgun, proton hand grenades and hints a whole load more weaponry to be seen in the future. At the very least, the movie embraces the silliness of the action sequences, and has the team flying through the air, fighting a fair variety of evil ghouls. Even if it may not hold up for the majority of the film's runtime, I'm thankful to Paul Feig for at least using modern effects and technology to incorporate a variety of spirits that we've never seen before and have far more intense (and thus enjoyable) action sequences that simply weren't possible in the original Ghostbusters movies.
However, there are other technical aspects which go into making a movie, and these are unfortunately just as bad as the CGI used in the finale. One particular aspect that I have to point out here is the editing. I would normally never pick on something so small and trivial that wouldn't normally be examined or criticised by the average filmgoer, but this is a special case. The editing of the movie is horrendous. On multiple occasions, characters will be shown to be standing quietly despite audio playing with them supposedly speaking. That's not to mention a whole host of obvious continuity errors, even surrounding crucial parts of the movie such as the costumes and the car. There's plenty of other elements such as cinematography, and these are handled well but are nothing particularly special. The set and costume design are also handled well, although they are also fairly stereotypical, containing all of the typical elements you might expect from a mad scientist's lab, a hotel set, a haunted house, and the Ghostbusters lab itself. Overall, there's nothing to be seen here that hasn't been seen before.
Look, since this movie chose to use the Ghostbusters name rather than become a completely new series also focusing on ghosts, there's no way to write this review without comparing it to the original movies in some degree, and in particular mentioning how it handles the call backs and references to these movies. In short, these parts of the movie are insulting and pathetic to the Ghostbusters legacy. All of the references in the movie are included as blatant pandering to fans of the original, a desperate attempt to encourage them to see this new movie based entirely on nostalgia for the old series. Not only this, but there are cameos galore here, with plenty of the major players from the original movie making an appearance in some shape or form. However, pretty much all of these are distracting and irritating, adding nothing to the movie. It doesn't help that it is clear that plenty of the original cast members did not want to be there, but were perhaps forced into it by the studios or some part of their contracts. It's particularly obvious that this was the case with one cast member who plays the role of a paranormal debunker. If you've seen the movie, you know who I'm talking about. Make no mistake, if you only want to see this movie for the references to the old movie, there's plenty to be seen here. Just be warned, they are not handled in a way that honours that movie, but rather make it unclear whether or not the filmmakers wanted this movie to be a completely separate entity from those original movies or if it wanted to be tied to them, perhaps initially pitched as a sequel set years after the events of the original. The movie is clearly haunted by the ghosts of it's past (sorry for the pun).
To sum up, this movie has far too many problems for even the most die-hard fans of the franchise to forgive. Admittedly, there are some good parts to the movies, including the inventive action set pieces and a few good characters who are the highlights of the cast. However, this is not nearly enough to save the movie considering the whole host of problems the movie is weighed down with. Terrible writing, a large amount of terribly handled technical elements, and plenty of underdeveloped and painfully written characters all play a part in bringing the movie down, not to mention it's unfortunate and often insulting ties to the original. Again, I am not hating on this movie because it is led by a female cast and it may be considered the fashionable thing to do. I am describing and telling you all of these issues because that is the job of a reviewer. I appreciate and respect that the filmmakers were trying a different approach to the idea of the Ghostbusters, but that does not mean I am not going to show why you should avoid seeing this unfortunately terrible movie.
Pros
Some fun action sequences
A couple of good characters...
Cons
But way more stereotypes and terrible characters
Unfunny and unrealistic writing
Horrendous cameos
Ridiculous CGI
Editing
Terrible pacing
Insults the legacy of the original movie
Rating: 2/10
Release Date: 11th July, 2016
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Cecily Strong, Andy Garcia, Neil Casey, and Charles Dance
The original "Now You See Me" was released way back in 2013, and is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I know it has problems, and I know I should be more critical of it than I am, but it is just such a fun movie that doesn't take itself seriously that I just sit back and relax watching it. It boasted a stellar cast, some great set pieces, and the use of magicians and illusions was a unique selling point that set it apart from other heist movies. Now, 3 years later, we have the sequel (which should have titled "Now You Don't" but never mind), which sees the return of the Four Horsemen and pits them against a new threat in the form of Daniel Radcliffe (not quite the return of Harry Potter fans were expecting but I'll take it). However, director Jon M. Chu makes a few mistakes that I have to point out here. Although not a terrible movie, and it has some good moments, this sequel unfortunately falls short of the original.
Since this is a sequel, spoilers within for the first "Now You See Me." As you should know if you're thinking about seeing this movie (or maybe you just don't care), the first movie ended with the reveal that FBI Dylan Rhodes (played by Mark Ruffalo) had in fact been orchestrating the acts and plans of the main Four Horsemen as part of a revenge plot 30 years in the making. The sequel picks up around one year after this reveal, with the Four Horsemen (now with new member Lizzy Caplan due to Isla Fisher being unable to be a part of the movie) being drawn out of hiding and lured into a trap by a new threat. Now separated from their handler Rhodes, the Horsemen must use all of their ingenuity and magic know-how to pull off yet another impossible heist. However, while the original made a point of explaining the magic and tricks on show, this one lacks the logic and reasoning behind all of it's set pieces. There are plenty of plot holes in the movie and there are just too many to ignore. Honestly, in a movie focusing on magicians using tricks and illusions to pull off heists, I know suspension of disbelief is required, but good luck not having a laugh at the lack of reason throughout this one.
The movie also has a significant lack of any real character development. Easily the best character in the movie is Mark Ruffalo's Dylan Rhodes. The movie takes the opportunity to really dive into the character's motivations for his actions in the first movie and he has a very engaging subplot with Morgan Freeman's Thaddeus Bradley who he holds partly responsible for his father's death. Buffalo is an incredible actor and he gives a very emotional performance in the movie, making him the most likeable and relatable character in the movie. The only other character in the movie who gets any sort of development is Daniel Radcliffe's villainous Walter. Radcliffe's gives a hilarious and very memorable performance in the movie and his character becomes more developed as more about him and his true nature is revealed as the plot progresses.
The other characters in the movie, on the other hand, aren't particularly memorable. Most of them are completely one-dimensional: Jesse Eisenberg is playing his usual arrogant character once again in Daniel Atlas and doesn't want to listen to authority, Dave Franco plays Jack Wilder who has no personality other than being the young, token "cool guy" of the group, and Michael Caine is playing angry Michael Caine. However, while these characters are essentially harmless, there are a couple of really annoying characters in the movie. Although I later started to warm to her and grew used to her humour, Lizzy Caplan's Lula is initially overly energetic and is very annoying. She's also shoe-horned into a pathetic romantic subplot with Wilder, which only caused me to groan every time it was brought up. However, Caplan is trying her best at least and her character does not even compare to Woody Harrelson in this movie. Now, Woody Harrelson is a good actor and he has done some terrific work before. While his returning character from the first movie isn't a problem, something that hasn't been heavily advertised (and for good reason) is that he also plays the character's twin brother in the movie, who works alongside Radcliffe's character. And boy is he annoying. At times, the character verges into Jar Jar Binks territory with how much he will irritate the audience. Every scene he is a part of is easily the worst parts of the movie.
However, chances are plenty of people aren't going to go and see this movie for aspects of filmmaking like character development and a logical plot. The majority of people are going to see this movie based on the fun action and set pieces that the first movie was praised for. Thankfully, there are plenty of these in the movie. From a ludicrous but still extremely enjoyable sequence with a playing card to the heavily advertised set piece finale in London (which features the incredible money shot of every trailer with Eisenberg disappearing in the rain), there is never a dull moment throughout this movie. That is, assuming, like I said, that you can just turn off your brain and not think too much about the reason and logic behind what you are watching on screen.
The technical aspects of the movie are a mixed bag to say the least. For the most part the visual effects of the movie are on point. There is a nice mix of CGI and practical effects on display, all of which look very convincing when in use. One prime example of where these two blend particularly well is in the aforementioned playing card sequence. Effects are obviously required in order to allow this scene to be in the movie as there is no way that the actors would be able to pull off these very difficult, if not impossible, card throws and tricks. Where the CGI is used, it is very hard to identify and pick out, and the sequence consistently looks realistic. Talking about this scene also allows me to pinpoint and praise the cinematography of the movie. All shots in the movie are very clear and it is easy to notice every detail the filmmakers were clearly hoping for the audience to see. The various tracking shots throughout the movie also deserve to be commended, which is why I mentioned the card sequence when talking about this aspect of the movie, with the camera impressively following the card at close range as it is passed from person to person. However, the technical parts of the movie aren't all great. The editing in particular is an issue which has to be talked about, and this was evident from the trailers months in advance. Very frequently shots will cut away far too early and character's mouths will not line up with what they are supposedly saying.
Overall, "Now You See Me 2" is a very mixed bag. There is a great deal to criticise here, particularly surrounding the one-dimensional and often annoying characters as well as the plot which is illogical even by the standards of the original, which at least took the time to explain how everything we were seeing was happening. However, the good outweighs the bad with this movie. The technical aspects of the movie were on point for the most part, particularly with regards the visual effects, there are some great action-packed set pieces throughout, and a couple of noteworthy performances which need to be highlighted. If you cannot enjoy a movie without a logical plot and sufficient character development, then I'd say give this one a miss. However, a movie is meant to entertain audiences and keep them engaged for a few hours. If you can turn your brain off and just have fun with this one, then you'll have a good time watching this movie.
Pros
Fun set pieces
Some great performances
Great visual effects
Cinematography
Cons
Lack of significant character development
Some irritating characters
Removes the logic and explanations of the original
Bad editing
Rating: 6/10
Release Date: 4th July, 2016
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Lizzy Caplan, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Daniel Radcliffe, Morgan Freeman, Jay Chou and Michael Caine
What is the acceptable time gap between movies in a franchise? Nowadays, pretty much every movie is going to have a sequel churned out, normally within 2 to 3 years, so that it isn't too rushed, but isn't too late that audiences have forgotten about the first movie and still care about the franchise. The only time that the gap tends to be smaller and results aren't terrible is when the movies are filmed back-to-back as part of a trilogy or a similar set of movies. Anything released later tends to receive criticism for having come too late, although it many not necessarily be bad. With that said, here we are with a sequel to the iconic "Independence Day," 20 years after the release of the original. Clearly 20th Century Fox thought that they could pull off this revival of the franchise based entirely on love and nostalgia for the original movie. However, while I enjoy Independence Day and all of it's fun, over-the-top 90s action, that is not going to stop me pointing out all of the problems with "Independence Day: Resurgence" and how it is undoubtedly one of the most disappointing movies of the year so far.
The plot of this movie takes place 20 years after the events of the original movie, with Earth having advanced all of our technology through the use of the alien weaponry and ships used in their attempted invasion of the planet. However, now they're back and ready to continue what they (apparently) started. Look, I understand that it's incredibly difficult, if even possible anymore, to come up with a completely original plot for a movie nowadays. However, that does not mean I am going to forgive filmmakers for pretty much making the exact same movie as the first one. Besides a couple of additions regarding the actual goals of the aliens and some laughable attempts to expand this universe, there is very little innovation to be found here. No spoilers here obviously, but characters even begin to talk about how their plan and how the movie will inevitably end is exactly the same as the first movie in the second act.
The writing in the movie is unbearably bad as well. I know it's a big, dumb sci-fi movie and the suspension of disbelief is required but this can only go so far. The movie consistently breaks it's own logic and makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, but the character dynamics in the movie are not very believable or realistic, particularly the relationship between Liam Hemsworth's Jake and Jessie Usher's Dylan. The movie attempts to build tension between the two throughout the movie due to a past accident. However, this is a cringeworthy subplot in the movie which makes no sense considering the apparently once close friendship between the two. Throughout the movie, I found it unbelievable that once of the characters would not simply just apologise and, if he did, the other was being pretty petty and unreasonable. However, of all the writing, the worst comes towards the close of the movie, where another movie is set up in a shameful and embarrassing manner. The movie is more concerned with setting up the rest of this cinematic universe for the future and the next movies for this series. It's a shame that after seeing this one, I don't want to see them.
I just briefly mentioned the characters in the movie, and they are a mixed bag. many characters return from the original movie, and they are the best characters here. Jeff Goldblum is doing his best as David Levinson, reprising his role from the original movie, and is one of the few characters to actually inject some personality into his character. It's true that Goldblum has become a bit of a running joke on the Internet in the past few years, with many poking fun at his "ums" and "ooms" in the middle of lines. However, that is exactly what gives the character his likeable and more believable personality. Bill Pullman also does a good job as former President Thomas Whitmore. Although he unfortunately doesn't get to deliver his rousing speech from the original movie, Pullman delivers an emotional and hard-hitting performance as the character is now facing PTSD due to his past experiences. However, besides these two, the returning characters are simply annoying, particularly Brent Spiner's Dr. Brakish Okun. The character is devised to be the comic relief for the majority of the movie but his over-the-top nature just left me wishing for him to be removed from scenes entirely. Another subplot revolves around Judd Hirsch's Julius Levinson character, and it simply another distraction to add more and more characters to the already bloated roster. From that list, who's the one character from the original movie who I haven't mentioned? Will Smith's Steven Hiller. The character is not just gone from the movie without a cameo, but he is shamefully killed off-screen, taking away all hopes for him to make a return in the inevitable third movie.
However, since this is 20 years later, we do need some new actors and faces added to the cast, but there are far too many to keep track of. It doesn't help that most of them are unlikable as well. The one exception to this is Maika Munroe, who plays Patricia Whitmore, the daughter of Bill Pullman's character. Monroe is great in the movie and has some particularly great moments with her character's father. Everyone else, on the other hand: dull. Jessie Usher's Dylan (meant to be the son of Will Smith's original hero) is terribly written and incredibly boring. Liam Hemsworth's Jake is your generic, witty hero character. There's also the stereotypical Chinese pilot, the wacky sidekick struggling to talk to a girl, a pointless female scientist to work with Jeff Goldblum, and yet another irritating comic relief character. The worst offenders are the ones who are actually set up for some proper development. For example, take Deobia Oparei's African warlord. Initially set up to be an interesting character with an emotional backstroke relating to the aliens, any backstory established early on is forgotten about and never mentioned again.
Look, chances are that the biggest selling point on this movie for a lot of people was the massive set pieces and over-the-top action that has been showcased in the trailers and is a staple of director Roland Emmerich's works. However, despite Jeff Goldblum's character stating that the aliens "love to get the landmarks," you might be surprised that nothing quite matches the spectacle of the White House being destroyed in the original movie. The only thing that comes relatively close is the destruction of London early on, but even then disaster movie fans are destined to be disappointed by the lack of huge, city-crushing set pieces on show here. However, that's not to say that some of the action that is included in the movie is impressive nonetheless. Some of the dogfight sequences in particular using the jets that have been advanced with alien technology. It's not that the action of the movie isn't dumb fun, but it's strange that the action isn't as large-scale or world crushing, despite this movie's $165 million budget as opposed to the original's $75 million.
However, hands down the best part of the movie is the visual effects and spectacle provided throughout the runtime. These visuals are phenomenal and deserve to be commended. The shots of the moon base, and the action sequences (which involve far more green screen and alien weaponry this time round), are all fantastic and never break the audience's immersion. In fact, all of the technical aspects of the movie are on point, with the cinematography and sound design also being worthy of a mention. Most of Roland Emmerich's movies succeed in these departments, and it's good to see that he has managed to at least succeed in these aspects with "Resurgence."
I am a huge sci-fi fan, and the original Independence Day is one of the classic alien invasion movies of the 1990s. That's why it makes me very upset to have to say that "Independence Day: Resurgence" is a colossal disappointment and is not a good movie. Although there are some good performances scattered throughout the movie and some spectacular effects work, there is simply too much wrong here to forgive and give a passing score. A plot that makes absolutely no sense and repeats what we've seen before, an over-abundance of characters to handle with barely any of them being sufficiently developed, and not enough massive action sequences that were promised in the trailer. These are all problems present throughout "Resurgence." If you only go to see a movie for mindless action and don't want to think at all, then you might have some fun with this one. However, if you care about watching a movie with good characters and a logical story, give this one a miss.
Pros
Impressive effects
Some good performances
Cons
Terrible characterisation
Way too many characters for its own good
Does nothing original
Unforgivable logic errors
One of the worst and most sequel-baiting endings in recent memory
Surprising lack of large-scale set pieces
Rating: 3/10
Release Date: 23rd June, 2016
Starring Jeff Goldblum, Liam Hemsworth, Bill Pullman, Maika Munroe, Jessie Usher, Sela Ward, William Fichtner, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner
It's hard to believe that the X-Men franchise kicked off 16 years ago with the original "X-Men." Since then, we've had sequels, reboots and spin-offs galore, all of which have had varying levels of critical success. Personally, I prefer the entries in the prequel series, with "First Class" and "Days of Future Past," to the original series, with the only spin-off living up to the standard of these movies being "Deadpool" this year. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is the next part of this series. Just as "First Class" was set in the 1960s, and "Days of Future Past" in the 70s, "Apocalypse" sees the X-Men is the 80s and they are faced with tackling an ancient being with seemingly unlimited power. Don't expect to see the team being part of any historical events this time round though. Besides some fashion choices, the only major signpost of the period is when the young X-Men go to see "Return of the Jedi" in the cinema. When discussing the movie afterwards, Jean Grey says that "at least we can all agree one thing: the third one is always the worst." However, what may have been intended as a jab at "X-Men: The Last Stand" unfortunately refers to this movie as well. Make no mistake, "X-Men: Apocalypse" isn't a bad movie, but it is faced with a number of problems which make it weaker than both of the other prequel movies.
As I just said, the plot of this movie revolves around the X-Men of the last few movies coming together, along with some younger versions of some mutants from the original movies, to take on a new threat in the form of Apocalypse, the world's first mutant. This would appear to be a credible threat but the plot strangely feels much smaller in scale to "Days of Future Past." In that movie, the problem and danger felt real after seeing the devastation brought by the Sentinels in the future. In this movie, we see very little of Apocalypse's powers which set him apart from other villains in the franchise. The plot of the movie is quite messy throughout, particularly at the beginning with lots of different scenes around the world being shown. Additionally, there is one particularly lengthy filler sequence in the middle of the movie set on a military base which seems to be in the movie for little reason other than to implement a certain cameo unfortunately spoiled by the final trailer into the movie. Thankfully, these scenes are well-written and very well acted nonetheless.
As I just said, the actors in the movie all do a fantastic job, and their characters are very well developed over the course of the movie. There are a few characters in the movie who do not go through much of an arc, such as Nightcrawler, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who is mainly in the movie to provide some silly comic relief at certain points. Additionally, other characters feel completely pointless and inconsequential, like Havoc (played by Lucas Till), who is only there to introduce Cyclops into the plot, and Moira McTaggert (played by Rose Byrne), returning from First Class and only present here to act as a love interest for Professor X. The best returning characters are Hank McCoy/ Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence), although these two characters go through the same tired will they/won't they love story from the last two movies, and the aforementioned Professor, who is once again played brilliantly by James McAvoy. The new cast members generally fare well. Besides Nightcrawler, we also see young versions of Cyclops and Jean Grey, played by Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner respectively. We once again see these two characters go through the love story they were a part of in the original movies. Although this is a tired subplot, thankfully not too much time is spent on it, and the two characters are better developed separately, with Sheridan delivering an emotional performance as the character first discovers his abilities, while Turner does an excellent job of showing Jean to be just as tortured and hurt as she is in the comics.
The villains of the movies, on the other hand, do not fare quite as well as the heroes. Apocalypse (or En Sabah Nur) is played very well by Oscar Isaac, who manages to make the character just as intimidating as he is in the comics. The same cannot be said for his power level, as he lacks a number of powers possessed by his comic book counterpart, which does not make his appear to be the god who stands far above these other mutants. And what is going on with his voice? I have no problem with an ancient mutant sounding otherworldly, but is it too much to ask for some consistency. Isaac goes from quiet whispering to a tuned voice to a strange English accent to shouting as loud as he can. The better villain of the movie is Magneto, played once again by Michael Fassbender. The character is much more motivated than any other character in the movie, and Fasssbender delivers a powerful, emotional performance, particularly in some of the movie's earlier sequences in Poland. However, if you are a comic book fan going to this movie excited to see Apocalypse's Four Horsemen, you are going to be mortified. Besides Magneto, Apocalypse's other followers (Storm, Psylocke, and Angel) are terribly developed and are ultimately little more than an afterthought. Storm is literally the first person Apocalypse picks off the street, Angel has a good fight sequence and transformation early on before practically never speaking again, and the only thing Psylocke's got going for her is that her costume is pretty much an exact replica from the comics. Which doesn't even make sense when the other Horsemen have got tactical armour.
Excellent action has always been a staple of the X-Men franchise, and thankfully that is continued over into this movie. Many of the early sequences presented here are fantastic, particularly the ultra-violent military base scene featuring that certain cameo I mentioned before and the Quicksilver sequence, which once again steals the show. However, the finale is an issue that has to be addressed. With so many different characters involved and fighting, many characters have very little to do, and the scene feels extremely long and boring. One fight in particular feels like a retread of the same fight from much earlier in the movie. It's unfortunate that this sequence feels so bloated, especially when we've seen from other X-Men movies that Bryan Singer can do much better in his finales.
One of the aspects of the movie that had to be spot on was the visual effects, and this is an area where the filmmakers have succeeded. With so many mutant powers in play throughout the movie, it is incredible that almost nothing in the movie looks fake at any point. The only scenes which could raise some eyebrows are during the finale, particularly with regards Magneto and a couple of fights involving Beast. However, the section of the movie where the visuals will cause jaws to drop is the aforementioned Quicksilver scene once again. The slow motion effects on display are phenomenal and also shows off the excellent cinematography as the camera accurately follows Quicksilver's face and the environment around him while keeping every bit of detail in the scene clear. In fact, every technical aspect of the movie is on point and deserves to be commended.
Ultimately, "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a mixed bag. There's plenty of good filmmaking on show here, with great performances from all of the cast members and spectacular action and visual effects. However, all of this is countered by the weaknesses of he villains and a severe lack of development, while the finale (and quite a few other scenes for that matter) is a messy affair. If you are going to see this movie for a very well-written story with no major plot holes, then you may be disappointed. However, if you are more forgiving of these errors, and are able to enjoy some great action, then you'll be able to have a good time watching this movie. Let's just hope the next movie keeps this action, but improves on the writing and direction. Also, since the next movie is supposedly set in the 1990s, let's hope for the return of the incredible theme song from the old cartoon.
Pros
Performances around the board (especially Fassbender)
The Quicksilver sequence
Visual effects
Cinematography and editing
Cons
Development of the Horsemen (besides Magneto)
Bloated finale
What is going on with Apocalypse's voice?
Rating: 7/10
Release Date: 29th April, 2016
Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Evan Peters, Alexandra Shipp, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy, Josh Helman, and Hugh Jackman
It's been great to see Disney returning to some of their animated classics over the last few years, albeit to varying degrees of success. For example, last year's Cinderella being very well received by audiences and getting largely positive reviews from critics while other movies such as Maleficent had a far more mixed response. Now, in continuing this trend, Disney has decided to produce a live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, the first and one of the only films to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. So far, announcements made regarding the production have only bene met with positive reactions, and with a star-studded cast (check out the pictures below to see who everyone is playing), there's a chance that this could turn out to be Disney's best live-action retelling yet. The first teaser trailer has now arrived and given me much reason to doubt the movie yet. Then again, it doesn't really show much in the first place.
Yeah, there really isn't too much to see here. OK, admittedly it's a teaser trailer so the purpose of it is to inform casual moviegoers about the film and to start building excitement around it. That shouldn't be too hard because what's on show here is a love letter to fans of the original and Disney fans in general. The music in particular is on point here. The use of the original movie's opening theme is enough to get lovers of the animation excited immediately before the short hint at Beauty and the Beast at the very end of the trailer. The movie has bene confirmed to be a musical and the score is being composed by Alan Menken, who some might recognise as the same composer responsible for the 1991 classic. He won the Best Original Score Oscar for that movie, and it looks like he is recreating the same magic for this new take on the tale.
Emma Watson plays Belle while Dan Stevens plays the Prince/Beast. Luke Evans plays the villainous Gaston with Josh Gad playing his sidekick, Le Fou
I also have to say, the cinematography and set design on show here is incredible. Beast's Castle from the outside looks fantastic and the glimpses we get at the different rooms of the castle are picture perfect replicas of the animated movie. The designer of the ballroom set should be especially applauded for his contribution. That brings me quite nicely to the editing of the trailer. The before and after effect of the different rooms is excellent and is likely taken from the opening act of the movie, with the icicles of the chandeliers and the cobwebs of the castle growing after the Prince becomes the Beast. While all of these technical aspects should be commended, the trailer unfortunately did nothing to end my main worry for the movie: the effects. This is a movie about walking and talking clocks, wardrobes, teapots, candelabras, and a massive Beast. This will have to look extremely good and realistic for Disney to justify this movie being live-action. However, as we saw in "The Jungle Book," Disney do have and are willing to use the money necessary to put these effects into action, so I have faith that this movie will look every bit as good as it needs to.
Ewan McGregor plays Lumière, Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Plumette, Emma Thompson portrays Mrs. Potts, and Sir Ian McKellen plays Cogsworth
The only cast member that we see in this trailer is Emma Watson as Belle in an obscured close-up. However, we hear another 2 characters towards the end of the trailer: Ewan McGregor as the candelabra Lumière and Ian McKellen as the clock Cogsworth. When the cast list was announced for this movie, my initial reaction was extremely positive. Everybody in this movie seems perfectly cast. This trailer did little to change my opinions on these 3 cast members. Ian McKellen seems to have nailed the cynical nature of Cogsworth and I'm sure Emma Watson will be great although she is not shown a lot in this trailer. The same applies for Ewan McGregor, who definitely has the charm required to play Lumière. Hopefully his French accent won't sound so strange by the release of the full movie though.
Kevin Kline plays Belle's father Maurice, Audra McDonald plays Garderobe, Hattie Morahan plays the Enchantress and Adrian Schiller plays Monsieur D'Arque
Overall, this is a very small but encouraging first look at this movie. Director Bill Condon seems to have nailed the atmosphere, music and cinematography, at least in this trailer. However, I do think that we need to see more of the cast and the visual effects work to settle some of the understandable concerns that I for this production. This teaser trailer has succeeded in it's main job, however, and made me excited to see more of this movie and only confirmed that Disney know exactly what they are doing with their live-action slate of movies.
Beauty and the Beast is releasing on March 17th, 2017.
Starring Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Josh Gad, Emma Thompson, Kevin Kline, and Stanley Tucci
I've talked time and time again about reboots in Hollywood, and how they can be both good and bad. For example, the trailer for The Magnificent Seven reboot looks pretty good. Fantastic, on the other hand, is complete and utter garbage that you should avoid at all costs. Clearly this practice can produce both good and bad results. So when a new Power Rangers movie was announced with a 2017 release date, I was skeptical to say the least. When they announced that they would be sticking with the original character names, fans (yes, believe it or not there are some adult Power Ranger fans) were given some hope for this movie. However, some recent pictures of the costumes featured in the movie have suggested that this is going to be quite different from the old show. Now, the new costumes for the Rangers have been revealed, and there is no spandex to be seen. Check out the new, more...anatomically correct costumes below.
In all honesty, I don't hate it. The more high-tech designs make sense for a modern reboot, and the 5 Rangers look like their suits have been designed by Iron Man. Let's face it, this lot wouldn't just be going up against people with swords. The aliens that they'll be taking on in this movie will more than likely be armed with some guns or futuristic laser weapon, so this more armoured design makes sense.
Everything else, however, is just a bit....wrong. Mainly with regards the female Rangers. The costume designers look to have been working hard on making these outfits as detailed as possible, especially in some areas the old kids show certainly didn't make a big deal of. And then there's the high heels. Who thought this was a good idea? After the criticisms the character of Claire in Jurassic World received last year, mainly due to how she spent the whole movie running around in high heels, I cannot imagine anyone who would have green lighted this idea, especially since it suggests that girls have to wear high heels while the guys get the trainers.
Overall, I am not sold on this movie yet. While the designs are interesting, we just don't know enough about the movie yet to make a sound judgement. Hopefully it'll be good, but some costumes aren't enough to convince me that this is a good idea
Power Rangers is releasing March 24th, 2017.
Starring Dacre Montgomery, Becky G, Ludi Lin, Naomi Scott, RC Cyler, David Denman, Anjali Jay, Elizabeth Banks
