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?

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Wonder Woman 1984.

Review #2191: Wonder Woman 1984.

Cast: 

Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Kristen Wiig (Barbara Minerva / Cheetah), Pedro Pascal (Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano), Robin Wright (Antiope), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), Amr Waked (Emir Said Bin Abydos), Natasha Rothwell (Carol), Ravi Patel (Babajide), and Oliver Cotton (Simon Stagg) Directed by Patty Jenkins (#942 - Wonder Woman)

Review: 

Admittedly, there were quite a few films that fell by the wayside in 2020. This was released on Christmas Day in a mix of theaters and streaming because, well, certain studios really suck at releasing movies (as done by Warner Bros, The Suicide Squad had the same thing happen to it the following year). But I guess I was just not up for this particular film or maybe I am just very picky, because how many of you would even guess that there have been eight movies based on DC characters in this decade? This is the sequel to Wonder Woman (2017), which as one asserts, was a character originally created by writer William Moulton Marston and illustrator H. G. Peter. Patty Jenkins returned to direct this sequel along with writing the story with Geoff Johns to go with their screenplay that was written alongside Dave Callaham (each were different from the last film, which had Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg, and Jason Fuchs). Any chance for a third film were dead and buried in 2023 with the impending idea to explode the DC film glob (as one might call it) into a new and different form. Or something.  You know, the first film was pretty decent from the one time I saw it...nearly eight years ago. It was a period piece movie, but it generally made for a useful movie when it came to actually showing what could be done with a character like Wonder Woman for a solo movie beyond just being in team-up movies.

Confusingly, Wonder Woman 1984, makes me see a collision of mush. One only has a litany of questions to ask: 

• Why the hell is this movie 151 minutes? 
• What was the need for a character who already wished to have the power (and sex appeal) of Diana Prince to then want to become an apex predator? 
• How does one wish to "become the stone" and not have it immediately end with them being a rock? What exactly are the consequences for a guy who uses a satellite system to try and suck people's lifeforce from wishes only to see it undone? 
• Was their really a need to bring back Steve Trevor but have it be so everybody other than Diana just sees him as some random guy? 
• How exactly does Diana work at the Smithsonian Museum - does she just fake wear a wig every few years so people don't get suspicious about how she never ages? (as opposed to the show, which amusingly has her wear glasses when working in the office)
• Would the entire world be so nice as to receive a wish only to renounce it because someone told them about how it might be bad? 
• Okay, sure, one only manage to turn a coffee cup and a jet invisible (in like, the span of years), but one conversation with Steve can have her learn to fly with that lasso too?

The answers to these questions are: oh hell, some movies really don't know when to start and end (well, and that doing a Quantum Leap swap without (beloved) Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula seems like a bad idea). My brain felt dumber watching this movie, which seems like it wants to be entertainment on the level of an 80s movie with an adversary influenced by real-life conmen like Bernie Madoff to go with movie kinds of conmen in '78 Lex Luthor. Somehow, it just doesn't gel well. Jenkins apparently wanted to make a film set in 1984 because of its mark as "the height of Western civilization and society", but I really don't think the film did anything with its setting or goal beyond unintentionally honoring 1980s comics sequels Superman III and Superman IV. Hell, for a movie about people who go around wishing for things that could be harmful (wishing a lady wanting the Irish to get deported to have a heart attack to, well, any other probable wish made around a certain geographic area in 1984), it sure seems tame on not actually showing anyone suffer the possibility of consequences. Pascal's character basically absconds away with his son having totally learned the futility of focusing his time on wishes broadcasting on TV instead of his son (totally - wait, if you renounce your wish to be the stone, where did it go?). 

The strange thing about the movie is that it feels so empty in characters: imagine a superhero movie where you can count the ones to focus all attention on (people who deliver exposition or serve only for a flashback [Wright and Nielsen] don't count) on one hand. Bringing Pine around to basically cheapen what was already kind of an odd decision to kill him off in the first film (your milage may vary) ends up just seeming hollow in the long run, because it pretty much just results in the same kind of ending as before in making that fateful choice that isn't as striking. The problem is that without him, Gadot seems to lack that edge in making a true interesting hero beyond "fish out of water", particularly when it comes to (no, really) that little lecture across satellite at the end. It isn't so much bad acting as it is just one that seems off-key. Besides, it is Wiig (first choice Emma Stone declined) who ends up with less to work with, unless you count the attempt at showing a diminishing sense of humanity in the nerd-turned-meathead as anything other than just passive. Comedians can make interesting villains, but this is certainly not one of those times, particularly with a climax that mishandles both her and Gadot. Pascal ends up as the highlight of the film because, well, one really can just play an interesting conman if they set their mind to it, but it only makes you wish there was a better way to get things going than to have the clash of a wishmaster and someone having to remember not the folly of lies but instead to remember why one has sacrifices in the first place among humans. In the long run, it is a muddled mess of a movie, one placed in the exact moment one would feel tired in not needing to see these kinds of movies every single year without the utmost need for being there in the first place. The first film was interesting if not muddled in an okay climax and a dubious idea for being set in the far-away past, this one stumbles out of the gate and never rises to the occasion, which is a real shame.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.

Review #1832: The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.

Cast: 

Nicolas Cage (Nick Cage / Nicky Cage), Pedro Pascal (Javi Gutierrez), Sharon Horgan (Olivia Henson), Tiffany Haddish (Vivian, a CIA agent), Ike Barinholtz (Martin, a CIA agent), Alessandra Mastronardi (Gabriela), Jacob Scipio (Carlos), Neil Patrick Harris (Richard Fink), Lily Sheen (Addy Cage), and Paco León (Lucas Gutierrez) Directed by Tom Gormican.

Review: 

Would you be surprised to know that Nicolas Cage did not sign up to do this movie on the first time he was asked? It makes sense if you hear a premise like the one the script (written by Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten) has, which only seemed to mildly offend him. It was a letter written by Gormican that swayed Cage, however, one that showed an interest in Cage's earlier work that also happens to feature a younger CG creation of himself that confronts him from time to time (the Wild at Heart version, specifically) without being tied to his actual family life. Of course, as Cage as stated about himself, "I never had a career, I only have work." Cage has worked for forty years in television and film, as you already might know, one that has seen a distinct variety of movies (good and bad), so you don't need me to say that his "mega-acting" is quite an appeal to folks interested in the art of stars for actors. Cage also decided to serve as a co-producer on the film, which meant that he served as a sort of mediator between studio and director in the filmmaking process. Gormican had one previous directing credit to his name in That Awkward Moment (2014) and one other credit with the television series Ghosted (2017-18) as creator/producer.

Look, do you want to see a movie that features a sequin pillow of Nicolas Cage or not? It isn't quite the first film featuring a funhouse mirror portrayal of an actor played by themselves, as evidenced by Being John Malkovich (1999), but these two films are fairly distinct enough anyway. Sure, there are quite a few references to Cage present in this film, but it really is a fun time to see play out without just being a "Greatest Hits" album. Call it what you will, meta, surreal, odd, but I cannot lie that I had a really interesting time with this movie, even as someone who is only mildly familiar with all of the things that make its starring actor so compelling. Of course, it isn't just a love letter to one particular star, because it is an action comedy, it just happens to be one that has a good deal of heart and knowing sense of engagement in weirdness that is lifted by its main stars for a rewarding good time. It doesn't exactly sell every action beat, but it does at least sell the rest well enough anyway. Cage is playing a heightened version of himself, but it is a version that folks can appreciate because it is Cage playing Cage, and it is captivating to see how he goes through a mirror-house version of himself that has self awareness without sniveling desperation; the double of himself is a bit odd to see opposite him (of course, this isn't his first rodeo when it comes to doubles, as evidenced by Adaptation twenty years prior), but it does at least serve some sort of purpose in the end. Interestingly enough, Pascal follows along with resounding success, one with plenty of energy and chemistry to share with Cage in a portrayal of a devoted fan/action man #2 that makes for a handful of humorous moments together. Horgan serves as the calm medium for a few diverting scenes with Cage, while Haddish and Barinholtz take up a few moments as the other part of the film: setting up the action plot that (meta or not) is tacked on from a few too many action plot-points, which goes okay. The other actors do just fine in small gasps, although my amusement worked out best for the climax when it comes to one last little joke. The run-time of 107 minutes generally works out to its advantage in delivering a fairly creative role for Cage to chew on that does not underplay or overstay its welcome, which is generally what one should expect. As a whole, whether one is a Cage connoisseur or not, you will likely get exactly what you think you expect from a movie like this, one that is pretty good in the right places to make a decent day at the movies.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Review #994: Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Julianne Moore (Poppy Adams), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggs)" Unwin / Galahad), Mark Strong (Merlin), Halle Berry (Ginger), Elton John (Himself), Channing Tatum (Tequila), Jeff Bridges (Champagne), Pedro Pascal (Whiskey), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Hanna Alström (Crown Princess Tilde of Sweden), Poppy Delevingne (Clara Von Gluckfberg), and Bruce Greenwood (The President) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class and #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service)

Review: 
Sequels always seem like they have to try and live up to the original film, whether by having high stakes or anteing up the action/effects. In the case of this film, there is definitely an attempt at making a bigger piece of extravagant action and violence (complete with an extended Elton John cameo), for better or for worse. It is hard to not compare this film to the first one, and in that comparison this is the weaker installment, not seeming to have much in terms of cleverness, though it does retain most of the charm and style. It doesn't play for any kind of safe territory that other spy films might pull, and it certainly is daring to see the risks that the movie takes, even if it sometimes feels a bit much. Some might term the film's tactics as "overkill", but it definitely has an appeal for someone looking for a movie that will go off the rails and yet still have enough pull from its action sequences and humor to work. If there is any kind of film that this one might remind me of, it would likely be Men in Black II (#212), or even Die Another Day (#174) - take that for what you will.

Firth and Egerton are still a fine duo, even if they don't have that same kind of chemistry as before. Moore proves to be fairly entertaining, and her plan is definitely an interesting one, but I felt that her plot thread nearly went off the rails by the time the climax ended. The Statesman crew are fairly interesting, although they do not have too much screen-time (with Tatum's role feeling like a cameo) as compared to the main Kingsman, with Pascal being the key standout, mostly because he certainly comes off as the most interesting. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, with Strong being a fine highlight. Whether one is a big Elton John fan or not (I have two songs of his in my one of my playlists), he certainly has an interesting presence over the time(s) that he appears in the movie - which can either be charming or tiresome - I found him to be fairly entertaining on the whole. The run-time may be an easy issue for some (141 minutes, as opposed to the original's 129 minute run-time), in part because it may just seem too long for a movie that seems to want to pack in every sort of action and effect it can, which can come off as a bit tedious. The film strives to entertain, and it does on some level succeed in its goal, but whether it comes at the price of competency is up to the viewer to decide. I fall around the middle, it that I know the movie is somewhat inferior to the first film, but I also know that I had a fine time watching it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.