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?

Mortal Kombat (2021).

Review #1853: Mortal Kombat (2021).

Cast: 

Lewis Tan (Cole Young), Jessica McNamee (Sonya Blade), Josh Lawson (Kano), Mehcad Brooks (Jackson "Jax" Briggs), Ludi Lin (Liu Kang), Max Huang (Kung Lao), Tadanobu Asano (Raiden), Chin Han (Shang Tsung), Joe Taslim (Bi-Han / Sub-Zero), Hiroyuki Sanada (Hanzo Hasashi / Scorpion), Matilda Kimber (Emily Young), Laura Brent (Allison Young), and Sisi Stringer (Mileena) Directed by Simon McQuoid.

Review: 

Mortal Kombat, if you remember correctly, is a series of video games created by Ed Boon and John Tobias that originally came out in 1992 that had its most memorable aspect involve "fatalities" for death scenes in a violent fighting game that attracted attention (the good kind, not just whiny parents who should know better); while I can't say I am particularly good at any of the games I have played (namely Armageddon along with the newest one), it does have a certain knack for clever gooey fun. As such, it made sense that a movie would try to capture that feeling of the video game. Mortal Kombat (1995) and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997) were odd movies of their time, but at least the first one had something people would stick with on purpose when it came to interesting entertainment. Of course, they were PG-13 rated movies that toned down the level of violence seen in the video game franchise of the same name, but there had been ideas of trying to do another Mortal Kombat movie for years and years. There had been a handful of television and short films released in the time between Annihilation and this film in 2021 (such as the web series Mortal Kombat: Legacy in the mid 2010s). After a changeover of directors, Australian director Simon McQuoid was hired to direct in 2016 with a script being done by 2019. The script had multiple writers: the story was done by Oren Uziel and Greg Russo while the screenplay was done by Russo and Dave Callaham. It was Russo that thought of the storyline involving the new character of "Cole Young", using his own experiences as a soon-to-be father for this character.

Look, the 1995 movie wasn't exactly as faithful to the material, but I still found something to enjoy in its offbeat energy. Strangely enough, this movie decides on its own approach to supernaturally powered people kicking the hell out of each other with "arcana" alongside the aforementioned new character and a handful of references from the game (alongside a few from the original movie). Technically speaking, the movie is a more refined version of what one would probably expect from a video game adaptation - holding to some of the traditions established in previous material but also finding a way to make it accessible for movie form in engagement. Of course, the easiest thing to say about the movie is that it is perfectly average. Average, average, average, but at least the violence is up to what you expect in grisly bits without being a gore-show. It handles the fighting sequences with about the efficiency one would expect from a modern age movie, which is to say that those who like the skill presented by action choreography and effects will prove interest to those who care for it in the same way that a comedy provides a few chuckles if strained hard enough. The actors are hit and miss, but no one really steps under the mark, which is pretty much the same thing I said about the first film, really. The standards haven't exactly been raised very high in the 21st century for video game movies, so as long as one actually puts together comprehensible on paper, you should be fine here. Tan doesn't exactly have the most to do with the role, because he only barely justifies the idea of having a new character present when there are already oodles of people to go along with that seems better than "audience surrogate" that does exactly what is needed (I was mostly confused because I thought he was meant to be the next Scorpion, because, you know, he is his descendant); undoubtedly, one will be looking forward to the idea of seeing the character of Johnny Cage in a sequel, because God knows there is a personality begging to be shown as a lead there. McNamee has the spirited timing required to make a compelling piece of the puzzle of mildly interesting people, but the real star is actually Lawson, who provides the most chuckles in a smarmy role that has the most to do in drawing personality, which almost makes you wish for further interest into the character. Brooks and the others prove just fine for the small cadre of lines and personality bits that come from playing supporting characters (i.e., all of the other people in the square of the games) just fine, with one hoping for a bit more Asano the next time around. Han and Taslim make for useful adversaries to go alongside calm fury from Sanada. As a whole, it probably won't replicate the feeling of playing one of the games, but it does prove serviceable for the purpose required in trying to appeal to the people it wants to appeal. In other words, if your standards for having a decent time watching a movie seem to line up with this one, you will probably have it work out for you with useful satisfaction.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Glory Road.

Review #1664: Glory Road.

Cast: 

Josh Lucas (Don Haskins), Derek Luke (Bobby Joe Hill), Mehcad Brooks (Harry Flournoy), Austin Nichols (Jerry Armstrong), Jon Voight (Adolph Rupp), Evan Jones (Moe Iba), Red West (Ross Moore), Schin A.S. Kerr (David Lattin), Alphonso McAuley (Orsten Artis), Sam Jones III (Willie Worsley), Damaine Radcliff (Willie Cager), Emily Deschanel (Mary Haskins), and Al Shearer (Nevil Shed) Directed by James Gartner.

Review: 

"I certainly did not expect to be some racial pioneer or to change the world." - Don Haskins

Sometimes, it is necessary to do a bit of a history lesson with a film, particularly one near and dear to my interest: sports...Texas Western was the first team from my home state to have won a NCAA Tournament (and the only one until Baylor in 2021), and they did so with a historical distinction as the first all-African American lineup to play in the Championship, which they did 72–65 over Kentucky on March 19, 1966. As one should say for any movie based on a true story...send in the fact checks. After all, we are talking about a movie with the same producer behind Remember the Titans (2000) in Jerry Bruckheimer, which has its own shares of dubious playing with the facts (particularly if you had asked one particular player).  Yes, one can say "it's just a movie", but one will always want to find the truth anyway...saying that you are a movie, not a documentary is hogwash - at that point, you might as well just say you aren't a slide-show too (trust me, there are other sports movies that merit this kind of skepticism...like Rudy). Consider the first point, in that Haskins actually arrived at Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in 1961, not 1965. Those four years are important to note, because in that time there was a trend-setter in field of college basketball in Loyola University Chicago (as coached by George Ireland) - the 1963 team was the pinnacle of a program that was the first to start an all-black lineup in the NCAA (doing so in 1962), and the title game for that year would feature lineups with a majority of African American players as starters (four for Loyola, three for Cincinnati, who went to three straight title games in five straight appearances in the Final Four); if one wants to relate this to the Southeastern Conference, one of their programs in Mississippi State didn't even play in the NCAA Tournament until playing Loyola in the Sweet Sixteen because of said prejudices against lineups like Loyola (interestingly, 25 programs played in the '63 tournament but only 22 played in the '66 tournament) - the conference did not integrate until the following year. Why stop there? The University of San Francisco won titles in 1955 and 1956 with famed players like Bill Russell, K.C. Jones and Hal Perry. Nolan Richardson, a pioneering coach in his own right for Arkansas, got his start in college basketball as a player for...Texas Western, in the same year that Haskins was hired. Consider the stage and time: the NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game (as it was called) wasn't even broadcast on national television, instead being shown by a company called Sports Network Incorporated (thankfully, the tape of the game is intact). The slam dunk would be banned by the NCAA for a period of years starting in 1967, and there was no three-point shot (take a guess which was which with these stat-lines: 22-for-49, 28/34 free throws, 27-of-70, 11/13 free throws). Checking the score-card reveals an easy slip: Texas Western never trailed after they went up 16-11. Heck, the first game of the year for the Miners isn't even correct, as it depicts a tough four point win over Eastern New Mexico...they won that game by 49 points. Interestingly, it covers the East Texas State game as being a road game...it was actually the second game of the year (in El Paso, not two weeks before the Tournament; the university, now known as Texas A&M–Commerce took umbrage with the filmmakers for what they felt was liberties taken with them in that game/after the game)…the five point struggle was actually 22. At least it reflects the last game of the year okay, in that they lost the same day that Kentucky had lost...but it was a two point loss, instead of the runaway loss portrayed here. Honestly, if you are going to make a sports movie, perhaps don't show the scoreboard with blatantly wrong scores - I don't care if it was done to add drama or not, it just seems ridiculous to make such bizarre moves. The nail in the coffin is the game versus Kansas (the third of five games played by Texas Western), for which it depicts the blunder by Jo Jo White as ending the game...nope. Besides, Haskins and his team wasn't exactly a Cinderella story. By the time Haskins had started his fifth season as head coach, he had led them to appearances in the postseason three times while going 78-25 (Haskins, in over three decades of coaching, would go 719–353 as coach; incidentally, if you are curious about Rupp and his own legacy, he went 876–190 in four decades as coach for Kentucky, who after years of trying to recruit to integrate with a great talent and not simply one for the bench, managed to do so in 1970, the season before his retirement).

Amidst all of this is the fact that we have a rookie director in James Gartner at the helm. It is the only credit that he has in feature films, as he is generally more known for work within commercials. The film takes material from the 2005 novel of the same name that was written by Don Haskins and journalist Dan Wetzel, with the screenplay adaptation being done by Chris Cleveland, Bettina Gilois, and Gregory Allen Howard - you may recognize the latter name as one of the key writers behind Remember the Titans (2000) and Ali (2001), for which we have mentioned before has its own little quibbles in facts.  One thing that I can personally say is this: It is irresistible, at least for me anyways, to see a team take a blue-blood program to the cleaners and win as Texas Western did, because one has to have their little moments, albeit with a very formulaic movie. It tries to find a balance with its cast and the significance of the moment in the struggle against prejudice over something as simple as just playing the game of basketball on their terms. In that sense, some players will stand out better than others, such as Luke or Kerr, who each prove quite entertaining in charm and in awareness when it comes to showing the degrees of college life, which makes one take perspective. Probably the one interesting scene that involves the team comes before it gets rolling, which involves a game of playing trash cans for fun - curious, yet far more interesting than something like the scene of the night before the title game with Lucas telling his team who he will start and why (I included that quote in the beginning of this review for a reason, and that is because Haskins picked his five on who was best to play and that was it). Lucas seems to follow the lines of Disney sports movies with tough-minded coaches (such as Remember the Titans and Miracle (2004), for example), one that feeds upon discipline that proves quite laconic at times. It is a decent performance, one that reflects Haskins that just seems to also reflect other sports movies of its ilk for better or worse (Deschanel, his on-screen wife, might be confused for a shadow with how the film shows Haskins at home with his family in those small moments, but that is neither here or there). Voight (remember him from his turn in Ali? Here's another makeup show) certainly has an interesting task at hand. He isn't exactly an adversary to the main task at hand but rather is like the dragon waiting at the end with a fire to win that can be seen from the drawl and expressions. I think he does fine with the role, one that provides a contrast and similarity with Lucas in the pursuit of victory with bare tinges of anything other than desire for victory. Look, at the end of the day, we have a movie that is 106 minutes that is okay with what it does. One gets a feeling for the feeling of the time without being smothered in patronization for it, and the basketball action is engaging enough for those who care about that sort of thing. If it makes folks want to check further into basketball history within the context of its times and pioneers to go with it, I think that will prove more than enough in generating solid entertainment.

Congratulations go out to Baylor University for having won the NCAA championship tonight. It took a bit longer to get this review out in order to accommodate a bit of research, but I am sure you folks will understand.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.