Showing posts with label Nicholas Hoult. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nicholas Hoult. Show all posts

July 14, 2025

Superman (2025).

Review #2399: Superman (2025).

Cast: 
David Corenswet (Clark Kent / Superman), Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane), Nicholas Hoult (Lex Luthor), Nathan Fillion (Guy Gardner / Green Lantern), Edi Gathegi (Michael Holt / Mister Terrific), Anthony Carrigan (Rex Mason / Metamorpho), Isabela Merced (Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl), Skyler Gisondo (Jimmy Olsen), Sara Sampaio (Eve Teschmacher), Wendell Pierce (Perry White), Beck Bennett (Steve Lombard), Mikaela Hoover (Cat Grant), Christopher McDonald (Ron Troupe), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Jonathan Kent), Neva Howell (Martha Kent), María Gabriela de Faría (Angela Spica / The Engineer), and Zlatko Burić (Vasil Ghurkos) Written and Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy, #932 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, #2006 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3)

Review: 
"Over the years, I'd think, 'How was I going to do Superman if I ever had the chance to do it? How can you take a character like this, who's perceived as old-fashioned by many? There have been so many different permutations of the character throughout the years, so how could you do it for a modern audience? I knew what I wanted to do in creating a story that was both utterly human and utterly fantastic at the same time – and I think the movie bounces back and forth between those two poles in a relationship that's incredibly complex. It also has all the fantastic elements that we've never really seen in a Superman movie: the flying dog, the giant Kaiju, pocket universes, science and sorcery, and all these things that were in the old Max Fleischer cartoons."

Oh, has it been a while since we had a Superman (as originally created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster) movie? We all know that the comic book movie owes a great deal to Superman (1978) when it comes to the great spectacle of worthwhile storytelling and special effects that Richard Donner stated had the aim of "Make a love story...and prove a man can fly.” Three different directors all tried to make their own follow-up to that movie to varying results. Man of Steel (2013) was an endeavor to make a "modern Superman...in his relationship to society and/or the modern world" that resulted in a hard-headed but curious movie fit for die-hard admirers of its director Zack Snyder and, well, others. But the pursuit of the dollar had Warner Bros. craving a mashup for the next Superman-related movie rather than a straight sequel, which resulted in the film formerly known as the last movie with Superman in the title, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016. Long story short: it sucked. Two years later, James Gunn actually was approached about writing and directing a Superman film, but he had doubts about taking on the characters and instead took the perceived "easy path" with making what became The Suicide Squad in 2021. In 2023, Gunn was announced as being in on what became this film, stating that his inspiration came to him revolving around the heritage of the character and looking forward (as opposed to calling it Superman: Legacy, which was the original title). With a budget of over $200 million, I'm sure this new venture in to making people want to check out further DC characters in film or television will work forwards rather than say, backwards (well, I could always go back to All-Star Superman or one of those other stories/shows that inspired this film, but I digress). 

I think I had about the right type of expectations with this film in tabbing it as one to take my mom to see on opening week.* While I'm not sure exactly how this film will sit in my memory a year from now, I can say without a doubt that this was a fun experience. If the story of Superman the hero is one of a man who strikes as a symbol of hope amid times of fear and confusion (as one does when created in the days of the Great Depression), you could say that is a movie for the energetic at heart. It has its loose moments of footing with tone, and it certainly will inspire plenty of curiosity over select story beats, but it ultimately soars enough to make the 129-minute trip worth it. I don't find it too wise to go over the story of a movie in theaters beat by beat, but let's get some stuff covered. It's interesting to essentially drop into Superman three years down the beat of heroism (incidentally, The Batman (2022) elected to go with a title character two years spent in the suit that reaches an endpoint of aspiring for hope, food for thought), as reflected in a few lines of text for the intro, among other things. I rolled with it, mainly because I would expect audiences to just go with a man who can fly without starting on alien planets or in Kansas. For a character that might as well be the biggest boy scout possible, Corenswet does relatively alright with the expectations sprung from the numerous portrayals one has heard/seen before**, although I imagine one would aspire for a bit more on the side of Kent, which is left a bit on the wayside for a chunk of the film, particularly since Krypto the (rascal) dog is in the mix. At least the sequences spent with Brosnahan are engaging to the extent needed in rigid charm, one that suggests that maybe kindness is some sort of punk rock. Admittedly, there are plenty of Lex Luthors to have experienced in terms of varying levels of ruthless ambition and the conflict that arrives from "mind over muscle", or with this film, "brain beats brawn". Hoult proves the highlight of the film in audacious confidence for what arises in the classic tale of wanting the admiration of thousands when being incapable of really understanding what it means to give and receive it in the first place.  The rest of the ensemble is fairly enjoyable for some hits in humor, with Gathegi and Fillion each having neat little moments of timing (others might say Sampaio proves a worthy new Teschmacher, but see for yourself). The Boravia-Jarhanpur aspects of the film are fairly interesting in the idea that you could interpret as oh, any conflict from abroad in the last few decades, although I wonder if there was the tiniest bit of inspiration gleamed from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), a movie where Superman early on decides to rid the world of nuclear arms but eventually comes to the conclusion (as one does in a plot too stupid to really explain) that he isn't the one to give the gift of freedom from war and that he wishes the Earth could be seen by folks the way he sees it as "just one world." It probably reflects well that Burić makes for a blustery caricature to carry the weight of bluster and facades for all to experience, suffice to say. The CGI mayhem is relatively on point for what you would expect from the film, albeit on a scale that is more interesting with character moments such as say, Krypto or one certain sequence with Terrific than big fights, which are fine in a way that seems worthy to hope for improvement in staging the next time around, especially when having a good deal of fun with a souped up movie that likes what it sees in super dogs and splitting climaxes. The scene with the Kents (who are folksy enough to fit the bill, when compared to past renditions) probably lifts the movie up the most when it needs it for a movie that basically states that one (crisis of confidence or not) is made by their choices they make rather than being made by what someone tells them to do.*** In a time of eroding confidence in truth, justice, and a better tomorrow, it is nice to see a movie sincere enough to make one realize that what people really want is honesty with their entertainment, and if it means thinking differently about what we aspire to see in hope, then so be it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Fun fact: Seven years ago, I actually put on the Superman Returns DVD and showed it to my mom. It was a funny time watching that tedious movie, suffice to say. I doubt I would show her the, shall we say, "prehistoric comic book movies" in Superman and the Mole Men (1951) or the 1940s Superman serials. Or those Fleischer shorts, which I probably should check out at some point.
**The more interesting debate for Superman portrayals is if one likes Tim Daley or George Newburn best in animated form.
***Strangely enough, I was thinking of a certain speech of crisis and confidence that happens to have been spoken on July...15, 1979. Also, consider how Superman gets out of a certain jam (glass, trust me), one that isn't done by trickery but by showing who he is when consequences strike right in front of him.

December 27, 2024

Nosferatu (2024).

Review #2327: Nosferatu.

Cast: 
Bill Skarsgård (Count Orlok / Nosferatu), Nicholas Hoult (Thomas Hutter), Lily-Rose Depp (Ellen Hutter), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Friedrich Harding), Emma Corrin (Anna Harding), Willem Dafoe (Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz), Ralph Ineson (Dr. Wilhelm Sievers), and Simon McBurney (Herr Knock) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch, #1833 - The Northman)

Review: 
"A lot of people talk about my films as stylized. But aside from the fairy tale composition, it’s not intended to be stylized. I over-rehearse with the intention of it being in the actors’ muscle memory, so that it doesn’t feel like hitting a mark. If you’re doing expressionist cinema, you are aware of the artifice so much, because it’s stylizing the world in a way that is completely unrealistic. Here, obviously — you know, I’m sick of talking about my research, too, but obviously the verisimilitude of the material world is very important to me."

In 1922, a movie from a cheap studio came out with unusual circumstances. Prana Film was behind one and only one film: this one, which had been founded by Enrico Dieckmann and Albin Grau, with the latter being an occultist artist (supposedly, he was inspired to do the film based on an experience in World War I, where he met a Serbian farmer that apparently had a father rise from the grave to feed on blood); Grau designed the sets and costumes, complete with making up a letter with "Enochian" symbols that shows up in the film. The duo brought Henrik Galeen in to write a screenplay that would be inspired by the 1897 novel Dracula (as written by Bram Stoker) and F.W. Murnau as a director. Of course, Florence Balcombe, the widow of Stoker, did not like hearing that someone made a movie freely adapted from Dracula and issued a lawsuit, with the result being the negative and all prints of the film ordered to be destroyed (incidentally: years after the lawsuit, she did grant the rights of the book to a guy who made it into a play for the theater which, well, she didn't get the entitlements for it). But the movie, unlike Balcombe, would endure in the public sphere. Over a half-century later, Werner Herzog was eager to make his own "homage" of Nosferatu and waited until the copyright for Dracula to enter the public domain to make what became Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979). which had the names of the book characters incorporated for a curious outcome of artful terror (it set itself in 1850, whereas both the 1922 and 2024 film are set in 1838). As a youth, Eggers found an image of its star in Max Schreck that had him obsessed enough to later direct a stage version of Nosferatu. Eggers had first been tapped to direct a Nosferatu remake since the first announcement being in 2015. Each version has their own distinct edge in terms of the climax (the 1922 movie details a "pure-hearted woman" offering blood of her own will, the 1979 movie features an awakened sick man, and, well, "the purity of dawn" is something you have to see here).

I'm not quite sure where I would rank it among movies involving vampires, but it probably will rest pretty high, managing to outrank directors who tried to make their own Dracula movies such as Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), for example. But with this "folk vampire" story, one will have plenty to highlight in a movie that focuses on a psychic and erotic connection with a creature of pure evil that emanates haunting atmosphere most films would dream to have. It is the perils of being blinded by perceived enlightened times at the cost of folk tales. With a film like this, we get to participate in the ritual of folk terror that clearly had plenty of investment from Eggers in history and curiosity (for one, Eggers had already read Montague Summers in terms of his work on vampires but obviously one would wonder about the imitation of Vlad the Impaler and the works of Jean-Martin Charcot in terms of hysteria). In short, Eggers has crafted his own legend of unsettling nature that earns every moment it crafts in terror with craftsmanship made from love that is deliberate in its pacing (132 minutes) for all of the senses possible. Interestingly, Skarsgard had read for the role later played by Hoult (of course, I can't imagine what the film would've ended up with Harry Styles or Anya Taylor-Joy as leads). Skarsgard (as aided by opera singer Ásgerður Júníusdóttir in lowering his vocal range) is exquisite in his unsettling nature as a rotting Transylvanian nobleman corpse. He ends up wrapped in darkness and makeup that makes him pretty distinct in an obsession and rotting core that one can certainly see as both repulsive and seductive. Wrapped in agency as a victim of choices (most significantly the ones to start and close the movie) is a wonderful Rose-Depp that seems to understand the darkness that lies beneath the surface of the time one is wrapped up into with a grace that works well in selling this gothic tragedy. Hoult is the most normal of the folks in the main group, which namely means a man having his 19th century preconceptions shattered (consider that in this version, he is even warned to not go to the Carpathian Mountains by his wife), which he handles with worthy timing. Rounding out the cast is a mix of strange seasoned dignity, whether that involves the conventional in Ineson, the shaken Taylor-Johnson (who gets to have a disturbing last highlight), or, well, the occult magic of Dafoe, who plays the role with gusto in terms of shattering belief that dominates the screen in a way that is distinct from the usual "vampire hunter" role because of how committed he is mystical devotion. Of course, Corrin and McBurney also do well in the cast (the latter proves quite suitable in raving madness). Above all, this is a tremendously gorgeous movie to view in Gothic despair (as captured by Jarin Blaschke), one in which there are plenty of moments to simply gaze in curiosity, whether that involves a nighttime ritual (consider what they do there when compared to how things go in the last scene involving vampire confrontation) or the leadup to meeting Orlok on his realm. As a whole, it is a charmer of the grotesque that builds its dread for righteous furor for a damn good time that likely will improve with further viewings. It is a tossup to figure out what lurks best in the totally-not Dracula adaptations, but you will not go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

February 28, 2016

Mad Max: Fury Road.


Review #781: Mad Max: Fury Road.

Cast
Tom Hardy (Max Rockatansky), Charlize Theron (Imperator Furiosa), Nicholas Hoult (Nux), Hugh Keays-Byrne (Immortan Joe), Josh Helman (Slit), Nathan Jones (Rictus Erectus), Zoë Kravitz (Toast the Knowing), Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (The Splendid Angharad), Riley Keough (Capable), Abbey Lee (The Dag), Courtney Eaton (Cheedo the Fragile), John Howard (The People Eater), Richard Carter (The Bullet Farmer), and iOTA (The Doof Warrior) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, and #707 - Mad Max 2)

Review
When it comes to action films, Mad Max: Fury Road will certainly come up as a discussion subject with regards to action movies that truly never let up, from beginning to end. Miller wanted to make a movie that was a continuous chase of cars and action...and he certainly succeeds. But the movie is more than that, it's a wonderland of spectacle and unique action. One of the characters has a guitar that doubles as a flamethrower, but the movie already has enough in terms of interesting characters, with the most interesting not entirely being Max, but Furiosa. Perhaps it has to do with her being a strong character who flat out takes command of the situation (and perhaps the movie) and never lets up in just being a compelling action hero (With a metal arm to boot), with her motive of redemption being especially interesting. Hardy is our new Mad Max, doing a good job at capturing the essence of a man haunted by his past (even awakening from a dream shaking), and thankfully there's never a moment where you're stuck wondering how it would've been with Gibson, which helps the movie gain more and more footing. The rest of the cast also does a good job, especially Keays-Byrne, who makes for an interesting villain. The wives (Kravitz, Huntington-Whiteley, Keough, Lee, Eaton) also do a fine job, interacting well with each other as well as rest of the cast. The movie (much like the other Mad Max films) looks great with regards to the environment and effects. The music by Tom Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL) is also well-done, matching the movie in great unison. It's a movie about survival and redemption, with home being the biggest motivation of them all. Whether it's a sequel or a reboot is irrelevant, the movie is a wonderfully octane experience that has more layers than meets the eye.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

May 31, 2014

Movie Night: X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Review #584: X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier/Professor X), Michael Fassbender and Ian McKellen (Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), Halle Berry (Storm), Nicholas Hoult and Kelsey Grammer (Hank McCoy/Beast), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), Peter Dinklage (Bolivar Trask), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake/Iceman), Omar Sy (Bishop), Daniel Cudmore (Colossus), Evan Peters (Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver), Fan Bingbing (Blink), Adan Canto (Sunspot), Booboo Stewart (Warpath), Josh Helman (William Stryker) and Anna Paquin (Rogue) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men and #010 - X2: X-Men United)

Review
It's been a while since I've reviewed a X-Men film (The two I just listed along with #010 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #042 - X-Men: First Class), but here we are once again. This is a movie that tries to connect two timelines of this franchise and make them work (that and try and fix the problems of X-Men: The Last Stand), with the main connection being Jackman. With such a big cast and such a tall task, does this movie meet up to code? Of course. The movie manages to have good action scenes and a dynamic cast that you (mostly) forget all the confusing aspects of this movie (such as Cyclops being alive, but a quick Internet search always helps), and this is certainly an excellent X-Men film. The cast is good, though I'm still wondering how Cyclops gets more lines (2) then Rogue (0, which is a shame). Quicksilver is such an awesome character that is fun to watch, even if he's in the movie only for a few minutes, as Peters does a fine job overall. McKellen and Stewart don't get much time together, but they are fine as always. McAvoy and Fassbender are marvelous (see what I did there?) together, they work so well against each other, especially McAvoy, whose character undergoes so much change and still rocks a nice haircut. Dinklage does a good job being more than just a bad guy the X-Men fight to stop, and he shines among all the cast. This is a movie that certainly packs a punch when it comes to action, and it is excellent to watch, especially when backed up by a good cast like this. Is it a perfect movie? No, but it is a good, if not excellent comic book movie that certainly works in the right categories.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

June 8, 2011

Movie Night: X-Men: First Class.

Review #042: X-Men: First Class.

Cast
James McAvoy (Charles Xavier), Michael Fassbender (Erik Lehnsharr), Kevin Bacon (Sebastian Shaw), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), January Jones (Emma Frost), Rose Byrne (Moira MacTaggert), and Nicholas Hoult (Hank McCoy) Directed by Matthew Vaughn.

Review
EDIT: I've edited this to remove this segment that is in retrospect, stupid to have added: "If you don't read the comics, then the film causes continuity issues for non readers (X-Men 3: The Last Stand's opening sequence in general with Xavier standing 20 years ago when he is paralyzed here in the 1960's)", especially given how the next X-Men film dealt with continuity. 

One notable thing is that the movie is directed by the guy who was supposed to direct X-Men: The Last Stand before departing. Now he has his chance here to make a good movie. Which he did. The cast did their best to be like their adult versions, and the action is good. One is that the film spends way too long on developing and training these guys. I mean, it's development, but it's so long. Another thing to add is that some of the characters are focused on when we know they don't matter to the plot, slowing the film a little bit more. It manages to be a good way to revamp the franchise in terms of quality and history, which is nice.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.