Showing posts with label Lewis Pullman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lewis Pullman. 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?

May 28, 2022

Top Gun: Maverick.

Review #1844: Top Gun: Maverick.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Miles Teller (Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw), Jennifer Connelly (Penelope "Penny" Benjamin), Jon Hamm (Beau "Cyclone" Simpson), Glen Powell (Jake "Hangman" Seresin), Lewis Pullman (Robert "Bob" Floyd), Ed Harris (Chester "Hammer" Cain), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Monica Barbaro (Natasha "Phoenix" Trace), Charles Parnell (Solomon "Warlock" Bates), Jay Ellis (Reuben "Payback" Fitch), Danny Ramirez (Lieutenant Mickey "Fanboy" Garcia), Greg Tarzan Davis (Lieutenant Javy "Coyote" Machado), Manny Jacinto (Lieutenant Billy "Fritz" Avalone), Jack Schumacher (Lieutenant Neil "Omaha" Vikander), and Bashir Salahuddin (Bernie "Hondo" Coleman) Directed by Joseph Kosinski (#343 - Tron: Legacy)

Review: 
"With Top Gun: Maverick I hope it shows people why we make movies for theaters. The film was designed to be enjoyed on the biggest screen with a packed audience."

Admittedly, the original Top Gun (1986) was a film of its time in terms of spectacle and flavor. It was a movie made by committee with the efforts of director Tony Scott, star Tom Cruise and producers Jerry Bruckheimer & Don Simpson. It was a quality movie that lived and died on the heights of its aerial sequences with enough instinct and style. The idea of doing a sequel started in 2010 with Paramount Pictures offering each of the main core of Bruckheimer, Scott, and Cruise to return, although the suicide of Scott in 2012 obviously changed things (as such, the film has a dedication to him in the credits). The screenplay was done by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie (who has collaborated with Cruise on the most recent Mission: Impossible films) while the story was done by Peter Craig and Justin Marks (the two had first finished a screenplay draft in 2012 after writers like Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz were approached in 2011). Joseph Kosinski had worked with Cruise on Oblivion (2013) and Teller with Only the Brave (2017). He ended up becoming director when he made his pitch to Cruise on what his approach would be to making the film (i.e. the relationship between Cruise and Teller's characters and also the "Darkstar" sequence), complete with shooting practically with a camera system in the cockpit. The crew had to work for months with cooperation from the Navy to get "six IMAX-quality cameras" in the cockpit and also train the actors in pilot training (keep in mind, they also did underwater training before being allowed in a F-18). Shooting was done from 2018 to 2019, but the film ended up being delayed multiple times: once because of needing more time to shoot complex action sequences, another time because of the pandemic and finally because of scheduling conflicts.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. It's funny how the movie is in all aspects better than the original feature despite the fact (or perhaps because of it) that it really takes several of the same beats from the previous one, from its opening sequence where a chewing off of the  lead character for recklessness before getting sent somewhere he wants to go right down to its own sequence of playing on the beach (complete with a nameless enemy once again, although you can argue over if that is because it isn't necessary or because the movie doesn't want to fearmonger people). You thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) copied previous movies? Try this one for size. It does handle the balance of spectacle and sentiment better in that it actually tries this time to really make riveting drama as a rite-of-passage of movie rather where it bumbled before. Of course, the chemistry between Cruise and the leading woman is better this time around by the simple act of it looking like they care to build a script with one level of depth rather than the script of vague-ness that occurred before. Cruise doesn't seem to have missed much of a beat from before, one filled with confidence in the air to go alongside a semblance of lingering doubt over things in the ground. In other words: it finds a way to let go without becoming cheap about it. Teller is okay, one with collected calmness that matches well with Cruise in simmering tension that at least makes sure he doesn't get lost in the shuffle of playing the pilot angle like a sports movie, only with a bit more chuckles that are on purpose. At least Powell seems to enjoy the role of overconfidence and chuckles, since Pullman and the others exist on the margins for moderate engagement on par with a high school movie. At least the movie utilizes the only other actor to return from the first film to poignant effect. Kilmer had his voice altered due to treatments for throat cancer in recent years (an AI program was developed to mimic what he sounded like), and the movie shows him for a brief time for a useful sendoff that is both the most inevitable part of the movie and yet the least cheesy. Harris and Hamm play the stand-in foils that are basically the equivalent of the characters played by James Tolkan and Tom Skerritt, and they do okay (of course, an over 90-year-old Tolkan might have made me crack of a smile rather than Harris, but that's just me). 

The action choreography is nearly what one would expect from a movie in 2022: something good to look at, but this time without as much evident CG to think about, if only because if Cruise is a showman who prefers to do his stunts, then heaven help the idea of trying to cheapen out on putting people in planes with IMAX cameras and let them fly. The level of inevitability could not be higher here, because to me I never really thought there was a semblance of danger present, which seems fitting to match the first film in making one not really think about the danger for just enjoying the ride (in other words, you know damn well Cruise is not going to die). In essence, the product from 1986 has been updated with useful updates that don't make one want to demand a recall. If the violence is going to seem bloodless to the point where war only seems to be the next level of a board game, then at least the movie wings it all the way to the most natural conclusion. Would I want another one of these? No, of course not, but at least as an attempt to hone back to the adventurous spirit of the first film, it at least does a suitable job in exceeding the standards set by the original without losing sight of what mattered most. In other words: it has the showmanship of the original with a degree of intelligence this time around. I don't think it quite elevates the material past "fine", but it will probably age a bit more gracefully in legacy because of its coherence in the face of adventure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

March 15, 2018

The Strangers: Prey at Night.


Review #1062: The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Cast: 
Christina Hendricks (Cindy), Martin Henderson (Mike), Bailee Madison (Kinsey), Lewis Pullman (Luke), Emma Bellomy (Dollface), Damian Maffei (Man in the Mask), and Lea Enslin (Pin-Up Girl) Directed by Johannes Roberts.

Review: 
I will admit, this came out of left field. Spring Break means that random things can happen, such as friends deciding to want to see some scary - how can I get in the way of seeing some entertainment? This is likely the first ever time of having two consecutive reviews being part of the Theater Saga - hence why I try to make sure and watch new (interesting) films with a bit of space between them. I hope you enjoy this review. 

I knew nothing of this film nor the fact that it is a sequel to a film named (obviously) The Strangers (2008), with the director/writer of that film serving as writer for this movie. For what I looked up, that film was inspired by the Tate murders along with a series of break-ins that happened in Bertino's neighborhood as a kid, with the same inspirations applying to this film. Admittedly, the idea of random strangers committing crimes without much reason could make for an interesting film, and I imagine that the first film likely had at least some sort of success with that idea, because I didn't find too much to really enjoy with this movie. It is not so much that the film is exactly terrible or anything, but I didn't find it too particularly scary. Perhaps it is easy to admit that the story is thinner than a cracker when the film has a 85 minute run-time and a small cast, which makes for a relatively small body count, with the film not having much in terms of energy to respond with. The fact that there are a few dumb moments (that you might expect for horror or slasher films) doesn't help too much with getting the film to click. The killers are what they are, strangers with masks, which is somewhat creepy but not enough to really carry the movie to pure fright. The secluded setting is fine and quiet for what the movie wants, and the way it is shot is also alright (with no real resorting of jump scares or anything too ridiculous), but it never seems to really click to make something that I can get with. It doesn't feel like a cash-grab or something cynical (I was surprised to note that it was made for $5 million, however), which I suppose gives the film some sort of credit.

The fact that the first half of the film feels a tad dull doesn't particularly help; it isn't that the actors are terrible, it just seems that the material doesn't spark much, with Hendricks being a decent standout with her material. Madison isn't too terrible, but the material isn't too helpful. That's not to say that there aren't other films with exposition that isn't particularly interesting (along with the fact that a film doesn't need to have much in terms of story to work), but the half that follows doesn't make up for it. At times it can be a bit creepy, but it isn't anything that could also be made fun of (and at least one or two cliche action in the middle of the pursuit), with a climax that feels a bit too stretched and an ending that just feels like it is taunting you. The fact that the film is an R helps make sure the violence doesn't get washed out, so there's that at least. The film utilizes music that you might call "ironic" for what you might expect in a horror flick, such as "Kids in America" for the opening and other music choices - which I suppose will have an effect for some, although I didn't really get much from it in terms of chills. If you like slasher/horror flicks, you could like the film. If you were a fan of the original film, chances are you might get a kick out of seeing another film with these strangers. In any case, it's up to you to decide. This is the kind of movie that I can't hate nor give much credit to, falling in the middle that will find a place in some people's minds but will likely go down for me as something that just passes through in the annals of middle-of-the-road horror flicks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.