Mortal Kombat II.

Review #2538: Mortal Kombat II.

Cast:

Karl Urban (Johnny Cage; Indy Urban as young Johnny Cage), Adeline Rudolph (Kitana; Sophia Xu as young Kitana), Jessica McNamee (Sonya Blade), Josh Lawson (Kano), Martyn Ford (Shao Kahn), Ludi Lin (Liu Kang), Mehcad Brooks (Jax), Tati Gabrielle (Jade), Lewis Tan (Cole Young), Max Huang (Kung Lao), Damon Herriman (Quan Chi), Chin Han (Shang Tsung), Tadanobu Asano (Lord Raiden), Joe Taslim (Bi-Han / Noob Saibot), Hiroyuki Sanada (Hanzo Hasashi / Scorpion), Desmond Chiam (King Jerrod), Ana Thu Nguyen (Queen Sindel), and CJ Bloomfield (Baraka) Directed by Simon McQuoid (#1853 - Mortal Kombat [2021])

Review:

I honestly forgot that the last Mortal Kombat movie was five years ago (April 2021, which included a release in theaters and HBO Max, but I saw it the old-fashioned way: a year later, on the beloved DVD). The last movie (as based on the video game series developed by Ed Boon and John Tobias) dealt with a descendant of Hanzo Hashashi (look, I know that's a name, but that's just Scorpion) and unlocking the arcana of dragon marked folks while the Outworld gents of Shang Tsung tried to preemptively win that mythical tenth tournament in a row by just beating Earthrealm's champions in advance. The filmmakers did not include the character of Johnny Cage by saying he was a "giant personality" that would throw things out of balance, which is, well, probably a bit silly when talking about a video game adaptation about needing to win a couple of matches, but to shameless crib from my thoughts back then, I thought the movie was fairly serviceable for trying to appeal to the "people it wants to appeal" (whether that means fans of the games or action fans, I suppose). It didn't exactly make me want to play the games on a more consistent basis* (to say nothing of the stupidly named Mortal Kombat 1), but so it goes. McQuoid returned to direct while Jeremy Slater served as writer for the film, which was originally envisioned for a release in October 2025 that saw delays due to the SAG-AFTRA strike for a subsequent release this month. A third film is possibly in development.

It doesn't really prudent to compare it to those 1990s films with Mortal Kombat (1995) and Mortal Kombat: Annhilation (1997) (besides, Mortal Kombat II is R-rated). We've ditched arcanas and, for the most part, Tan as the lead focus for basically a fetch quest with amulets and a tournament for the "fate of the Earthrealm". So, yea, you get your pits, pools, portals and a disjointed level of storytelling that is stuffed to 116 minutes. Oh hell, this is my mind of average goofball kind of movie, what can I say? It definitely shares the flaws of the previous movie in terms of the evident qualities of flim-flam storytelling and a few decent moments of fatalities within a color scheme that probably would help to be a bit brighter. I suppose there's something to say about a New Zealander like Urban trying to play a guy that was originally a spoof of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Nah, not really, I don't really care about accents, I just go for the fun of seeing a goofy washed-up star that doesn't even win the first fight we see of him. Granted, he doesn't get the whole movie to show such effortless charm because the movie is basically split between him and Rudolph, but both are fairly serviceable to where the movie needs to go (more so with Urban, mainly because he proves that you really could just coast on just putting on some sunglasses). Intentional or not, Lawson has more of the fun than the group of McNamee-Brooks-Huang combined. Ford makes a suitable enough threat in terms of "look menacing while wearing a mask for basically the whole movie" level, which basically means you have to take it in the middle level between "totally serious" and "heh, what a goof" (oh but but you have to choose one or the other - no, not really). The fight scenes have varying levels of entertainment in them, whether that involves the Liu Kang-Kung Lao fight (probably is the one to highlight) or probably the Baraka fight if you prefer to see something in daylight. The thing is you are watching a movie that will have to figure out if they are going to create folks to get killed off or just go around doing resurrections (the aforementioned Lao and whatever the hell they will do after what you see in the ending) for the next one and I don't know how much patience one will have by that time. As a whole, it has a few ass-kicking moments and probably enough energy to make it over the finish line, one that specifically will work best for people who either like the video game series or perhaps select action fans who love slugfests of violence and gore. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*This is more of a "nerd" thing, but I will say that it seems fun to play as Johnny Cage for say, the Kollection game that came out recently. Or Tanya, because oh yeah. What?

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Cast
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Peter Weller (Alexander Marcus), Alice Eve (Dr. Carol Marcus), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike) Directed by J.J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek and #149 - Super 8)

Review
Eh, it's been a while (10 months, 22 days to be exact) since I've done a Star Trek film (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture), so why not do the most recent film. The first film (of the reboot series) wasn't bad, though it's not like it was a great piece of work, and you find that out during this film. It's not that this film is bad, it just feels like one step forward but one-and-a-half steps back. The effects are at least good, though those lens flares really get in the way on occasion, which almost gets in the way of actors trying to convey their scenes. The acting is fine, though I really didn't buy that Eve's character being Weller's daughter, maybe it's the lack of time they have together, but at least Weller is stellar despite limited time. Cumberbatch is pretty good, but it's the character I have an issue with. By making him play Khan, the film limits his motives in a sense. The original Khan had a motive of revenge and was great at portraying it. This Khan has more a touch of generic than revenge. Even when Cumberbatch cries it feels forced. It's not a bad performance, it's just flawed writing. The story is at least somewhat decent...until it rehashes Wrath of Khan's last half hour. Well, almost. Just because you have the villain from Wrath of Khan doesn't mean you have to emulate it, it's unnecessary and just makes the movie seem unsure of itself, like it wasn't confident with itself. At least the movie has its moments, any scene with Simon Pegg is brilliant, he brightens the movie, if only briefly. Your opinion on the movie will probably rest on what you think of Abrams as a director and/or Khan. It's a toss-up, basically.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dredd.

Review #646: Dredd.

Cast
Karl Urban (Judge Dredd), Olivia Thirlby (Judge Anderson), Lena Headey (Ma-Ma), Wood Harris (Kay), and Domhnall Gleeson (Expert) Directed by Pete Travis.

Review
The original Judge Dredd (#332) film was awful. All the film tries to do is really distance itself from that movie and make its own identity, and it succeeds. The film has a variety of characters, though most either get only a few lines or are just there for a few moments, but the main four (with one supporting character) are the focus, and they all do a wonderful job. Karl Urban has the task of conveying a character and their emotion (or lack of, but still) with half of his face covered by a helmet, which is thankfully never taken off. And he succeeds. Urban is so awesome to watch, he looks just like a menacing judge figure. Thirlby is a pretty good lead as well, she manages to pair up well with Urban, and even her scenes with Harris are chillingly good. Headey plays a pretty decent villain, her voice is effective enough to play such a hardened character, the whole cast is wired and fun to watch. The movie plays out almost like a horror film, especially with the violence, but given that this is a movie about judges that protect against hardened criminals, the violence makes sense. The effects are beautiful at times to watch, especially the Slo-Mo parts, which make the film go slower but better looking. Overall, this is a brutal but pretty awesome movie that manages to be a good action film. And I imagine it's also a good adaptation of the comic strip as well, so go figure.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.