The Naked Gun (2025).

Review #2409: The Naked Gun.

Cast: 

Liam Neeson (Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.), Pamela Anderson (Beth Davenport), Paul Walter Hauser (Capt. Ed Hocken Jr.), Danny Huston (Richard Cane), CCH Pounder (Chief Davis), Kevin Durand (Sig Gustafson), Liza Koshy (Detective Barnes), Eddie Yu (Detective Park), Moses Jones ("Not Nordberg Jr."), and Cody Rhodes (Bartender) Directed by Akiva Schaffer.

Review: 

Okay, I wanted to wait a bit on this one. Hey, remember The Naked Gun? The trio of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker had been behind The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) and Airplane! (1980) and they wanted to do another spoof movie, with the TV show M Squad as the basis, since they liked the show (which you might remember starred Lee Marvin back in the 1950s). But Michael Eisner of Paramount Pictures liked the concept enough to try and secure a six-episode TV show (against the better judgement of the trio) that ended up being aired on ABC in 1982...and the network didn't get it (a show with no laugh track that looked like a 60s program? Too hard for audiences). Six episodes (two directed by Joe Dante) were shown, but two were dumped in the summer. Eventually, through the efforts of them and Pat Proft, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (which took a few bits from the show) came out in 1988. Zucker described the kind of spoof that they did as one not of comic timing but dramatic timing that had actors act as if they didn't know they were in a comedy, with Leslie Nielsen being a natural. Sure, the two sequels (Zucker directed 2½: The Smell of Fear [1991] and co-wrote 33⅓: The Final Insult [1994] with Proft) were mostly fine in quality, but I think you understand the fun involved. Oddly enough, there really were plans for a fourth movie many, many years down the line in 2009, complete with it being intended for TV with Nielsen (ironically, the script was to be written by Alan Spencer, who had developed his own cop parody years prior with the TV show Sledge Hammer!). Nielsen passed away in 2010 before anything could happen, but plans bubbled again with Ed Helms in mind to be the lead, and Zucker and Proft were even tapped to write (with a secret agent son of Frank Drebin) that went nowhere. Finally, in 2021, plans bubbled again with Seth MacFarlane being hired to develop the project (which wouldn't have Zucker or Proft involved, although at least the former isn't bitter about it) and pitch it to Liam Neeson (who had worked with MacFarlane with A Million Ways to Die in the West [2014]) to star. The result is a movie written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand, and Akiva Schaffer (with various contributions by Mark Hentemann, MacFarlane and Alec Sulkin); you might know Schaffer from such movies as Hot Rod [2007] and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping [2016].

There are probably a few people who love or hate reboots, remakes, the whatever word you want to call it. I'm pretty on the fence on the idea because maybe I am not old enough to really stress about the world soon having two Running Man movies. There are quite a few nice things I can say about this movie, which is a nice relief. Neeson seems to be the right choice to go from a litany of dramas and action movies to try and play comedy, doesn't he? Admittedly, doing a "new version" of something might make one hesitate (especially when nearly doing the "horror movie followed up with the same title" thing), but I think what The Naked Gun does best is to simply roll along with the lines with daffy enthusiasm, right down to ending on a take on freeze frames. It probably helps that the runtime (85 minutes) just seems right on point for having the viewer satisfied with quick satisfaction that doesn't seem rushed or seem like an overgrown made-for-TV sheen. It just aims to deliver as many gags as possible with an interest in having fun with the idea of real-world foibles like oddball rich people (some obsess over naming apps after letters, others obsess about their pants), oddball technology, cloying over the old days (people actually hate Clippy? Shame!)*, and so on. Even for someone in their seventies, Neeson clearly has the touch for comedy to really carry this movie as long as it needs to go, operating the proceedings with such gruff sincerity that isn't simply just trying to be Leslie Nielsen all over again (the instance of gun fu at one point is particularly amusing). It happens that he has some worthwhile chemistry with Anderson*, who is just as adept in mowing down lines with sharp rhythm that might be worth seeing again in the future. Huston (as following the tradition of Ricardo Montalbán, Robert Goulet, and Fred Ward in Naked Gun adversaries) actually ends up being pretty neat, smarmy but totally just having fun with being the kind of guy who would be in a comedy about trying to make people fight each other (the last scene in particularly is pretty funny). You then have a worthy supporting ensemble that runs down from Hauser (a neat successor to Sr's George Kennedy) to the always on-time Pounder. There are a litany of gags and cameos that accompany the movie like any good ol' comedy would do without seeming like painful obligation and it leaves the possibility of wanting more without reeking of desperation. As a whole, it probably is the best of the three follow-ups to the original Naked Gun,

which is a hell of a thing to say when wanting to talk about a commitment-filled comedy in 2025.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*What the hell is a TiVo, anyway?

*Apparently, Anderson was to be in the third Naked Gun movie but had to turn it down. The circle is complete.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Review #2405: The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Cast: 

Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Julia Garner (Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer), Sarah Niles (Lynne Nichols), Mark Gatiss (Ted Gilbert), Natasha Lyonne (Rachel Rozman), Paul Walter Hauser (Harvey Elder / Mole Man), Ralph Ineson (Galactus), and Matthew Wood (H.E.R.B.I.E.) Directed by Matt Shakman.

Review: 

Sure, you might know that 20th Century Fox was behind those ridiculous attempts at making Fantastic Four movies based on the team that on each occasion (2005, 2007, 2015) somehow managed to flounder more than if the unreleased 1994 movie had been given the shot it deserved.* It took six years from the acquisition of that studio (and subsequent pausing of any plans to do a Marvel-based movie) and one cameo from a different Reed Richards (hey, remember when they let Sam Raimi do a movie with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [2022]?) but here we are again. The director for this film in Matt Shakman (remember that Jon Watts was once tapped for the film before dropping out) had previously directed one film with Cut Bank (2014) that was in the midst of plenty of television from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to whatever "WandaVision" is (his family-centric pitch, for already established heroes is what you get here, and you can infer further here). For whatever reason, there are five writers listed for this film: Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer, and Kat Wood for the story and Josh Friedman, Pearson, Kaplan, Springer for the screenplay.

I wanted to wait a while to see the movie because what the hell is this movie doing being released so close to the other superhero movie of the summer? Was this movie rushed in the belief that it just had to meet a late July slate? It can't even last for over two hours (114 minutes might sound like I'm only technically correct, but still), what exactly happened here? Sure, it does have a few interesting moments to go with a resourceful style (speaking of which, how idiotic must one be to not have included H.E.R.B.I.E. in one of these previous movies?) and so on, but there is something that you either will believe should've been done years ago or is not nearly as grand as it should be. Maybe it is the over-saturation that had been present in the past few years (if I have to spend time streaming a show in the attempts at going with an alleged film universe, I would rather learn how to knit instead), maybe the general feeling that setting it in a different Earth when an "Avengers movie" is already imminent seems a bit silly, maybe it just is an okay film. Do you ever watch something and in your mind, you think it is making all the "right moves" and yet somehow just doesn't click every box you want for a really good time rather than just "fine time for a rental"? Was the bar so low for a Fantastic Four movie that didn't suck (in a way, the best family-led group of superheroes for a film...is still The Incredibles [2004])? But let's at least start with positives: it does have a neat quartet of characters, mainly thriving on the qualities of Quinn and Moss-Bachrach in interactions that protrude worthwhile confidence (as one does for a hothead and a guy that happens to be a rock-man) to make the Pascal and Kirby seem just as interesting to contrast in "staid" nature. I like the look of the movie quite a bit, right down to the hero costumes that protrude confidence in actually wanting to stick out for a period piece. Garner makes a quality Surfer in  The showing of powers (mostly with the Invisible Woman) do look pretty good and actually give credence to the idea of this family being a formidable, nay, fantastic group to possibly see further (not exactly in "Avengers", I mean a good ol' Fantastic Four sequel). 

My quibbles may probably ironic: in its attempts to feature a different main adversary (i.e. no Doom) and different "hook" (i.e. a baby Franklin), there is a mish-mash of ideas that are begging to taken to bigger levels that somehow feel short of greatness. I don't care what folks say about comic book logic, "Earth-insert number here" does undercut things a tiny bit ("oh, the Earth is in trouble! Not our Earth, some other Earth that happens to have different names and people that look like us, but an Earth!") in tension, but my real complaint is that I don't find the idea of tying the movie around Franklin to be particularly refreshing. It just seems like something cribbed from the second or third movie of a rejected pitch more than what is meant to be high tension because it (to me, anyway) undercuts the fact that I want to see the core four that one saw in the opening that dealt with, well, villains. I like seeing Hauser as a Mole Man, what was wrong with that as a main villain? Don't tell me that the Fantastic Four only has two villains (look, we can talk about the next Doom antoher time) man, sometimes you want a small plate before you get to the main course (Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), a better example of the "let's not do the whole origin thing", didn't choose friggin Doctor Octopus or the Goblin in the first movie, they went with the Vulture). Galactus (you might remember in the 2007 film resembled a cloud where here he towers a bit over the Statue of Liberty) only has, what, three whole scenes? I like Ineson fine, but this is ridiculous. Hell, maybe the movie would've been better if he actually won in consuming the Earth, what else is the point of having a "Earth-whatever" if you're just going to swing the Four onto a different place anyway? Multiverses and different timelines should be for animated material or maybe, just maybe, we just have a group of heroes that just go with the flow of being a tight-knit group. The movie looks and sounds nice and has some entertainment (i.e. pacing out its effects sequences for patience that I'm fine with, albeit with quibbles for the climax*) that may just be neat for you. As a whole, it may not hit as many of the marks you would want in for a truly spectacular movie (or even a cosmic soap opera), but it has enough to ultimately carry it to the finish line of general entertainment to inquire further with these folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You might wonder what exactly the theme is for August: What better way to whip up another month of Season 15 than to also celebrate five years of trying to have an interesting theme for August than to just throw any theme imaginable for the month. Yes, for All-In-One August, you'll see a few movies reviewed for their "Anniversary in August", or as "Action in August" or "Around the World in August or "Acknowledged in August", or, well "2025". 

*Incidentally, the main four of that movie actually have cameo appearances in this movie, which just raises questions over why they hadn't been given their due years ago.

*SPOILER (in lighter text): it feels ridiculous to have a character die and make their sacrifice...only to be resurrected. By a baby. Blah blah blah Franklin is this in comics, again, I feel like they really wanted to do a family angle just so they had the trick of killing someone off only to see them revived right in hand. I assumed, with the Thunderbolts* "credits scene", that the Fantastic Four were going to escape their world after either Galactus won or something happened to make them go into our Earth. Instead, you get a bullshit revival of Invisible Woman, who you know wasn't going to die anyway! Really, only guys with barely a name or ones picked out of a hat (i.e. not Hawkeye, who was never cool) die in these movies! Or am I just insane?