Showing posts with label David Harbour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Harbour. Show all posts

May 11, 2025

Thunderbolts*

Review #2378: Thunderbolts*.

Cast: 
Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Wyatt Russell (John Walker / U.S. Agent), Lewis Pullman (Bob Reynolds / Sentry / Void), Geraldine Viswanathan (Mel), Chris Bauer (Holt), Wendell Pierce (Gary), David Harbour (Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Valentina Allegra de Fontaine), and Olga Kurylenko (Antonia Dreykov / Taskmaster) Directed by Jake Schreier.

Review: 
Sure, why not? I don't read many comics, but screw it, let's do a bit of digging: Thunderbolts originally had their own comic book line in 1997, as originally created by Kurt Busiek with art by Mark Bagley. I suppose most people who know about the group would call them "anti-heroes or super-criminals", so we'll go with that. Eric Pearson, who had written the screenplay for Black Widow (among other things, as pointed out here), pointed out that the character played by Pugh felt like a "natural leader", and he brought that idea to Marvel that eventually brought attention to making a movie, although re-writes were done by Joanna Calo that saw each credited for the screenplay (Lee Sung Jin apparently did "additional literary material"); evidently, the twist at the end is the one big thing that survived from the original script. This is the third film directed by Jake Schreier, previously the director of a handful of television shows and movies such as Paper Towns (2015). Folks who might have been curious about the movie past opening week probably already know why an asterisk [*] is in the film title, but, well, sometimes I do look like an idiot and forget to think about that before taking time to watch a movie in a theater.

Sure, it's a group of misfits coming around together to make a team dealing with a certain type of threat beyond just themselves. Sure, it probably will strike a bit differently for those who are more or less invested in what happens with folks with heightened responsibilities or, well folks who need a super-kick in the pants. Sure, it is a familiar one in mayhem and entertainment value (126 minutes), and maybe it is more of a movie for those who've invested their time with these characters beyond movies (read: streaming shows**). But I did like the ride the film went on, one that wanted to have an ensemble worth watching to see where their chemistry could go from there and succeeded in most of their goals, mostly on the strengths of the middle of the film when you have these folks in the set-up. With that in mind, Pugh does make for a quality lead to focus on first, wracked with vulnerabilities that come in the feeling of being wrapped in doubts and the traps of in one's head about regrets and trying to do anything other than just being the cog in the metaphorical ass-kicking machine, which namely involves weariness. Pullman makes for a capable last piece of the puzzle that arises in gloomy people on the inside that has his own battle in self-doubt that is an interesting presence to see grow in terms of what one is beyond just "Bob", suffice to say. Him and Pugh make an interesting connection when it comes to realizing the importance of seeing people beyond just a shadow, although the threat presented with the Void stuff is pretty fascinating for a time. Russell is entertaining in that cocksure attitude that could only come from attempts at overbearing confidence that fascinates me when realizing that he apparently was meant to be the actual threat in the original vision - sometimes changes are for the better. Admittedly, there isn't as much to say about the character played by John-Kamen beyond realizing, yes, it has been seven years since Ant-Man and the Wasp. Louis-Dreyfus mostly coasts on her own timing to make what is basically a thankless role into one that is semi-interesting in terms of craven power-searching. Stan comes here and there in that shakiness that comes in trying to seem different beyond brooding heroics with "U.S. Congressman mode" (with a hairdo that reminds me of Billy Mitchell) that one knows will probably have something to really do later on, I suppose. Admittedly though, it is Harbour that holds the movie together in support because of the warm amusement that he generates (the Russian accent is up to you, though) in that ambition to be in the spotlight in heroics without just being craven for it all. In general, the movie works best with the ensemble and having actual fun there, since it can be a funny movie at times with the mishmash of quirks more so than its action sequences, which are fine in the routines (debate about lighting all you want, naturally) and the inevitable that comes in trying to reconcile the status now established for a rag-tag group that has their first big team-up basically relying on a group hug (to deal with the threat from within) to make it out. In that sense, it is a fine movie, maybe not nearly as great as it might have aimed for in overall execution but still a fine one in entertainment value for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Call me a nerd, but I lost interest in the idea of watching a Black Widow movie in theaters because why the hell would I watch a movie that will remind me that the character is dead rather than Hawkeye (who I barely can tell you about)? I never even really considered Hawkeye much of a member of the Avengers. Even the Hulk, the one with the weakest movie in Phase One, had a movie to introduce him to "the MCU", but Hawkeye? Really?
**Look man, I just can't do shows that sound like overextended movies on streaming places. Hell, I couldn't even do Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for longer than like a season, and that was even with the whole "so Agent Carlson is there but not in the movies, because...?" Daredevil might as well be a ghost with how he is treated in movies, and we do not speak of the Hulk on television. The MCU should've taken a year-ish break anyway, since the best movie after Endgame was, what, Guardians of the Galaxy 3?

September 10, 2013

Movie Night: The Green Hornet.


Review #451: The Green Hornet.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Britt Reid), Jay Chou (Kato), Christoph Waltz (Benjamin Chudnofsky), Cameron Diaz (Lenore "Casey" Case), David Harbour (District Attorney Frank Scanlon), Tom Wilkinson (James Reid), Edward James Olmos (Mike Axford), Jamie Harris (Popeye), Chad Coleman (Chili), and Edward Furlong (Tupper) Directed by Michel Gondry.

Review
This is one of those films I never had actually got to finishing twice. Around the end of the year (heh, big shock) when every test was done, our classes used to watch some films. The Green Hornet was one of them, though I never got to finish the film. Until now. Everytime I watched it, I had a few questions that popped in my head about the movie: So in the 1960's show, was Kato more useful than the Green Hornet? Was Kato always better in hero work than the Hornet? Why does it seem that the Green Hornet is eerily similar to Batman? And who is Seth Rogen? The answers to my questions are: There are none. Well, maybe one answer. The Green Hornet was created on radio in 1936, 3 years before Batman was, with comic books about the Hornet coming 4 years later, later spawning two serial films, a short 10 minute French film, and the short lived but memorable 1960's series with Bruce Lee and Van Williams. The history of the Green Hornet is probably more interesting than the film itself. What I mean is that Rogen doesn't provide too much to the table, he feels more like the comedy relief to Jay Chou than an actual hero. The Black Beauty is a beautiful looking car though, and the effects are halfway decent, though it can't make up for the mediocre acting and the mediocre story. This was meant to be a superhero comedy, but it feels more like a chore, and Waltz, while admirable in his attempts, can't liven the film enough. This would be a disappointment, but since I don't really know the Hornet, it's just a miss.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

May 23, 2013

Movie Night: Quantum of Solace.


Review #384: Quantum of Solace.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes), Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Judi Dench (M), Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Anatole Taubman (Elvis), David Harbour (Gregg Beam), Joaquín Cosío (General Medrano), Fernando Guillén Cuervo (Carlos), Jesper Christensen (Mr. White), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Paul Ritter (Guy Haines) Directed by Marc Forster.

Review
I liked Casino Royale (#285), I liked how it could be gritty but have excitement and a fairly decent love story reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Daniel Craig was good and I wondered if the sequel would be better. And...it's like this. If Casino Royale was like OHMSS (#279), than Quantum of Solace is like Diamonds Are Forever in the sense both are only terribly okay. The sad thing this tries to continue from the last film, but even when it does try it manages to be disjointed and feeling rushed as well. Craig is alright, but his supporting cast isn't much help. Kurylenko is an okay lead actress, but the main flaw is the two (Craig and Kurylenko) have no chemistry together. I get it, Bond is meant to be scarred from the last film, but does that mean the film gets dull for it? Even the idea of Bond going rouge has been used before with Licence to Kill, and this doesn't have the excitement of it. Even the villain isn't that memorable. Admittedly, Bond villains can either be memorable for being evil enough or for some deformity (Dr. No, Largo) of such. Greene is neither. He doesn't have much threat or even a plan that makes sense. Come to think of it, Quantum is not really any better than SPECTRE because at least SPECTRE didn't have easy to spy on meetings. Quantum of Solace is an odd title that barely has any meaning, and the only things I liked were Giannini and Judi Dench. Sadly, Jeffrey Wright is given not much screen time to do anything to better his performance from the last film. The action is okay, but sometimes I wonder if you could make a drinking game on the many, many cuts in the action scenes. The film seems rushed at times and aside from boasting many locations in filming, it only barely manages to capture any spirit of Casino Royale, and that's sad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.