The big news is that one of the films, The Batman (or whatever it will be called when all is said and done) will not feature Ben Affleck in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Looks like his days in the role are officially finished.
I enjoyed Ben Affleck’s foray into the role but can’t say I’m surprised or terribly unhappy he’s done in the role. Nowadays and with so many films featuring recurring characters, I’ve reached a point where I know actors won’t be tied to a role forever and there is a good chance we’ll see others take the role on, for better or worse.
Now… what’s going to happen with Henry Cavill’s Superman? Will we soon hear about a reboot of that role, as well?
Speaking of other roles/movies: The other two films mentioned in the above article are The Suicide Squad and DC Super Pets. The former is the film James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) wrote and may direct and which, according to the article, is not beholden to the first Suicide Squad film and may feature a mostly new cast. The later, I strongly suspect, will be an animated film of some sort.
Also not mentioned is the Birds of Prey movie (which appears to be filming right now and features the return of Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn), and the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film (which concluded filming a few weeks back). Also not mentioned, nor has filming begun, of The Flash and New Gods film.
Over at Slate.com Willa Paskin wrote a fascinating (to me, anyway!) article concerning Netflix and their recent release of watched program information, something they are often hesitant to do:
The upshot of the article is that Netflix, who as I mentioned before are usually tight lipped about their watched programs, offered some information on their programs such as You, Sex Education, and Bird Box and… the numbers are eye opening, to say the least.
The author rightly questions whether the numbers are totally accurate. After all, what constitutes a “watch” of a series? Supposedly Netflix counts 70% of a watched show as valid, but while that may apply to stand alone movie such as Bird Box, one wonders if that also applies to a series of episodes.
Still, and again as the author notes, the numbers presented, even assuming they are likely inflated (and you can adjust them as you feel), are nonetheless staggering and the comparisons made to other successful feature films or TV shows hint at the very real possibility that there is a whole sub-culture out there that watches things which “regular” networks do not bother with.
One of the things I’ve noted with this new age of information is that sometimes unexpected things bubble to the surface and become popular. It’s almost impossible to predict what will “click” with the masses, but it does once again prove the late William Goldman was right when he said about making movies:
Nobody knows anything… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.
When I first heard about this movie, I was excited. Written and directed by Drew Pearce (screenwriter for Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and Iron Man 3), the film sounded like something right up my alley: A noir near-future crime/action drama featuring a most curious cast and a claustrophobic setting.
The movie, to my eyes, felt like something a young John Carpenter might come up with.
And, in many ways, it is.
Set in the near future of (if memory serves) 2028 Los Angeles, Hotel Artemis concerns a highly fortified building which secretly houses a medical clinic which heals criminals. The Artemis is run by two people, “The Nurse” (Jodie Foster, made up to look very old and fuddy-duddy) and Everest (Dave Bautista, quite good as the muscle with a heart).
The movie begins with a robbery that goes bad. Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown) and his gang rob a bank during a riot. There is a shootout afterwards and one of the gang members is killed while Waikiki’s brother is injured. The two head to the Hotel Artemis to get healed and meet up with The Nurse and a couple of other clients in house, including the mysterious Nice (Sofia Boutella) and the loudmouth Acapulco (Charlie Day).
As the riots outside continue, electricity is on and off and our cast of characters interact. The pressure rises when Morgan, a police officer (Jenny Slate) appears at the door of the hotel injured and, almost simultaneously, Crosby Franklin (Zachary Quinto), son of powerful mobster Niagra (Jeff Goldblum… if you’ve seen the trailer of the film, which I’ll present below, you’ve seen roughly 1/4th of his total screen time within the film!) calls in that he’s on his way for treatment.
Morgan, it turns out, is known to The Nurse. More specifically, Morgan knew The Nurse’s son, who perished mysteriously (though we’ll soon find out everything about that) and though the Artemis does not take in police, The Nurse goes against her rules and takes her in.
Anyway, Niagra soon arrives and things go sideways in many ways (I’ll not spoil the story) and eventually we reach a conclusion.
Unfortunately, the film is never terribly action filled (except for the opening and closing acts) and the story presented, while interesting, isn’t that interesting. Worse, by the end we’re supposed to find a nobility in a few characters who sacrifice themselves for others but the film hasn’t presented viewers a strong enough reason for us to feel this is anything more than plot contrivance.
In the end, Hotel Artemis is a misfire, IMHO, an intriguing enough concept which could have used a stronger -much stronger- script.
A couple of weeks ago I attempted to get into the theaters and see the film Aquaman and… no dice. It was that packed.
What a difference a couple of more weeks make!
No, I didn’t go to an empty theater -there were still many people there- but it took almost a full month since the film’s formal release before I was able to get to it.
And it was a fun ride.
Mind you, the film is very much a “Marvel” type superhero movie, full of spectacle and likeable characters who let out funny quips here and there even as the plot of the film isn’t necessarily something incredibly original or outrageously well thought out.
In many ways, ironically enough, the film reminded me of the 2011 Ryan Reynolds/Blake Lively starring Green Lantern, which I don’t need to remind you many feel was a bust.
Why are the two films similar?
Because they both feature information dumps regarding the titular characters, their origin, all the people around them, along with their first “big” mission. Where Green Lantern failed was that the information dump was handled badly, starting and stopping and sometimes focusing too hard on irrelevant material. I still recall getting to the middle or so of that film and suddenly being presented with the origin of Doctor Waller (her character would re-appear in Suicide Squad). I found myself wondering what would possess the filmmakers to stop everything else that was going on to then waste precious screen time on something that, in the end, was irrelevant to the movie in full.
Aquaman, on the other hand, manages the information dump well. In the opening act, we’re quickly introduced to Queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman, quite good) and Lighthouse Keeper Tom Curry (Temuera Morrison) who meet one stormy night and quickly fall in love before Atlanna is pregnant and then delivers Arthur Curry (eventually, Aquaman, as played by Jason Momoa).
The movie wisely keeps things moving from there, not lingering on any one point and giving us, by the film’s end, a full accounting of Arthur Curry’s upbringing and the fact that he’s noble yet an outsider to both the land dwellers and the people of Atlantis.
Meanwhile, in Atlantis, Arthur’s half-brother King Orm (Patrick Wilson, quite good as the movie’s main villain) is in talks with King Nereus (Dolph Lundgren… what a delightful bit of casting!), father of Princess Mera (Amber Heard, also quite good as the very independent minded princess who will eventually bring Aquaman to his home) to bring together the underwater kingdoms and initiate a war against the surface dwellers.
King Orm, again to the movie’s credit, makes a point. The surface dwellers are polluting the oceans and his gripes against them are well founded, though his actions prove him to be a little too eager for bloodshed.
Of course, the two will eventually be on a collision course for the throne of Atlantis.
When Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice came out, there were many who bemoaned the film’s too dark tone. Aquaman goes the other way, providing a very bright palette even if, IMHO, the plot is far more familiar than that of BvS.
I’ve defended BvS many (perhaps too many) times before and I’ll do so again: As time passes since its release, it occurs to me that by the time that film was released people were expecting -if not outright hoping- that that film would be a “Marvel-style” superhero movie. It is my feeling (no more than a hunch) that the negative reaction was in part due to the fact that BvS was very much not a Marvel type of movie. Now, it seems that film is experiencing a bit of a re-evaluation, which I suspected might happen, and in time I can’t help but wonder if people begin to understand what director Zack Snyder was doing and realize the film is far better than they originally felt it was.
But that’s an argument for another day.
Warners/DC clearly felt the sting of those early negative reactions and both Wonder Woman and Aquaman strive to create a bright, beautiful world within which our heroes inhabit.
Aquaman may not be among the very best superhero films ever made (for me, the top three superhero films ever made remain, in order, the original Christopher Reeve Superman, Captain America Winter Soldier, and -yes- Batman v Superman), but it is a fresh, enjoyable popcorn film that knows what it is and delivers the thrills and laughs without taxing audiences too much.
Way back in 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in what was arguably his second biggest/best role -after The Terminator, of course- as Dutch in the classic horror/action hybrid Predator…
The movie, directed by John McTiernan (whose next film following this was the criminally forgotten Die Hard… 😉 ), managed to mix horror and action in equal doses and, further, presented a villain in the form of the alien Predator which was truly fearsome and made one wonder how someone as seemingly invincible as Mr. Schwarzenegger would survive.
Three years later a sequel to that film appeared. Cleverly (I kid, I kid) titled Predator 2, the 1990 sequel was directed by Stephen Hopkins (Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, numerous TV credits including 24) and starred Danny Glover, Gary Busey, Ruben Blades, Maria Conchita Alonso, and Bill Paxton…
Unlike Aliens, the sequel to the terrific Alien, the movie wasn’t a huge box-office hit or held in as high esteem. Despite this, the Predator creature proved popular enough to appear in several subsequent films, up to and including last year’s The Predator.
I was curious to re-watch Predator 2 (don’t ask why), and a couple of nights ago I put it on, sat back, and watched it. I found it a most curious experience.
The movie takes the original Predator’s setting from the jungles into the then near future L.A. (the movie, as mentioned, was released in 1990 but the film’s opening states the action takes place in 1997). This near future L.A. was heavily influenced by the original Robocop. It is a hellscape of disorder, gangs, and heavy guns; of cops overwhelmed and dealing with sleazy TV reporters (including a cameo by the late right wing mouth-breather Morton Downey Jr.) eager to report on the latest street-level outrage.
The movie is certainly ambitious in presenting a very full cast of characters. It begins by introducing us to Danny Glover’s Lt. Harrigan (the movie’s protagonist) and his crew. The crew consists of his right hand man Archuleta (Ruben Blades) and right hand woman Cantrell (Maria Conchita Alonso). When introduced they are involved in a street level gang gunfight that’s gone out of control. Thanks to the actions of Harrigan, the bad guys retreat into a building. As Harrigan is about to order a raid on that building, he gets an order from above that he’s to stand down, that someone else will take care of the hoods.
Renegade as he is, Harrigan ignores orders and his crew raid the building. Within the crew find a grisly and bloody massacre. One gang banger is left alive and Harrigan pursues him to the roof and wipes him out. Afterwards, Harrigan spots something… strange (though fans of the original Predator know what it is): A weird figure who isn’t quite visible.
Back on the street, Harrigan is reamed out by Captain Heinemann (Robert Davi, pretty much wasted in what amounts to a cameo role as the cliched “stern Captain”). Another, strange group of people arrive at the scene and take over. They are led by an equally strange Peter Keyes (Gary Busey, also in what amounts to a cameo role), who seem to know more about what’s going on than they’re willing to say.
Once back at the station Harrigan and company meet newbie -and loudmouth- Lambert (Bill Paxton, playing a mild variation of his smart-ass Aliens character) and, with the cast in place, we get to the mystery of what’s killing the violent gangs of L.A., and whether the creature behind these massacres has targeted Harrigan and his people as well.
The problem with Predator 2 versus the first movie is that there are too many moving parts. As I mentioned, Robert Davi’s “stern Captain” is a cliche of a character and, frankly, could have been done away with to give the story proper more time to breath. Further, I got the feeling the theatrical cut of the film left plenty of scenes on the cutting room floor.
Perhaps the biggest example of this is when Harrigan presents to the crusty (another cliche) lab lady the Predator spear-head for examination. Only thing is: We never see Harrigan get the spear head. A certain character gets it before they… get it, but we never see Harrigan pick the piece of evidence up. It’s left to a clumsy voice over to have Harrigan states he got it from a dead person’s hand but never see that actual scene.
Eventually Harrigan goes mano-a-mano with the Predator, and it is in this prolonged bit that the movie’s logic takes its hardest fall. It’s simply impossible to believe after seeing the fierce Predator of the first movie to believe Harrigan could go after this Predator like he does… and actually have him on the run.
Finally, the climactic way Harrigan takes out this Predator requires the fearsome and clever alien become incredibly stupid and allow him(it?)self to get within stabbing distance of our hero.
So, yeah, as a sequel to the wonderful original, Predator 2 falls short.
However, and after saying all this, Predator 2 is far from the worst sequel to a terrific original film I’ve seen. There are serious problems with the film but I admired the film’s makers ambitions even if they ultimately fell short of the mark.
I’ll go really short and sweet here: The Meg is a popcorn film through and through: Nothing serious, never terribly gory or scary or action packed, yet nonetheless scary and exciting enough to make for passable -if ultimately forgettable- entertainment. Here’s the movie’s trailer:
I know it sounds like I’m damning the movie with faint praise, but I assure you: This film is not a disaster by any means. It was pleasant enough to watch -as pleasant, I suppose, as any giant murderous shark film can be. Of course, when dealing with a movie involving sharks, you’re bound to find echoes of Jaws. What somewhat surprised me is that there were also echoes, especially in the movie’s opening act, to a long forgotten 1973 film named The Neptune Factor…
Don’t say you don’t learn a few things about films from the past ’round these parts!
Anyway, despite the seeming faint praise, I recommend The Meg. It ain’t Jaws (go see that if you’d rather), but if you’re curious and you’ve got the time to kill, you could do far, far worse.
Now, the website from which this list came from deals with sci-fi/fantasy films so of course the list consists of films within that genre. Of the best films listed, I’ve seen two of them: A Quiet Place and Mission: Impossible – Fallout. I feel both films are quite good but imperfect. A Quiet Place is a wonderful exercise in tension BUT the story itself, and the logic of the situation presented, has some serious flaws. And if you focus on them, you’re likely to not feel that positive regarding this film. As for M:I, it was a good, solid action film, IMHO, but “more of the same” and not quiet as good as the previous M:I film.
All right, let’s get some more worst of lists. Here is Peter Travers from Rolling Stone offering his…
I haven’t seen any of the listed films, though I’m about to get The Meg from Netflix. I heard, for the most part, good things about the film so I’m keeping my fingers crossed… and my expectations low! 😉
This list is longer, offering a whopping 24 films. Now, with these lists, I’m seeing a few films show up more than once. The Happytime Murders (unlike many others, I felt the previews made the film look like it could be fun. But the overwhelmingly negative reactions to seeing the full film from critics and audiences have me running for the hills!). Gotti (the film had all kinds of troubles getting released… looks like a lot of bother for nothing good). Life Itself (one reads a consistent “what were all these talented folks thinking of when they signed on to this?!” from critics).
I’m most intrigued by the Nicholas Cage film Mandy, which is on my Netflix list as well. Otherwise, I’ve seen a grand total of … 1 of these films (Mission: Impossible – Fallout) but am curious/intrigued about at least two others (Annihilation and Burning).
Finally, from Den of Geek, we get two Top 10 lists, from David Crow and Don Kaye…
Back when I was very young and growing up in the early 1970’s, there were certain posters which presented what would become iconic images and were found almost everywhere. One of them was Rachel Welch in the film One Million Years B.C.…
Boys like me loved that image, but I recall another poster that was found in/around that time, this one (I suppose!) being more eye candy for the ladies in the form of a very well toned Charles Bronson from the 1972 film Chato’s Land…
This image served as the inspiration to the famous poster…
Chato’s Land was on one of the Starz! channels the other day and I happened to catch it from the very near beginning. I recalled seeing the film a number of years ago but remembered not all that much about it. I did recall liking it well enough, even if I didn’t feel it was one of Mr. Bronson’s best works.
So I sat back and watched it and was fascinated by what I saw.
The film starts with Bronson’s Chato going to a small town’s bar and being confronted by the racist ramblings/provocations of the town sheriff. Chato, you see, is half-Apache and in this era and time the “white folks” don’t much like seeing Apache Indians in their establishments.
The sheriff eggs on Chato, insulting him and trying to make him act. Eventually, and despite Chato warning him not to, the sheriff draws his gun but Chato is a faster draw and guns the man down.
Chato leaves town as word spreads that an Apache gunned down not only a “white man”, but the town’s sheriff!
We are then introduced to Jack Palance’s Captain Whitmore, a veteran of the Civil War originally on the side of the Confederacy. He is a well respected and seemingly noble veteran and, with the Sheriff gone, it is up to him to get together a posse and hunt down Chato. He pulls out his old war costume and builds up his posse. Right from the get-go, however, the viewer realizes that the crew is a motley one. There are some who are decent individuals while others are clearly hot-heads or worse.
The group heads out of town in search of Chato and things eventually go sideways as Chato proves a far more elusive, and deadly, prey.
Watching Chato’s Land today, I found myself fascinated by the story it presented. It’s a simple one, essentially a long chase by horseback of the character of Chato and the simultaneous degradation of a group of what were friends.
Chato himself is presented as almost more myth than a “real” person and Charles Bronson is given very little dialogue throughout. He is always a step ahead of the posse, except in one sequence involving his wife where the posse comes upon his home and the more vulgar members of the group violently rape her.
This sequence, which to some degree makes little sense (why did Chato decide to lose track of the posse? Did he not fear they might track him to his home?), is nonetheless important in the film’s story as it exposes the ugliness of a mob and shows that Jack Palance’s noble character has one HUGE flaw: He is a coward. He, and a friend of his in the posse, knows what’s going on is not right yet he does not act. He is unwilling to stand up for what is right and force his by now mostly out of control mob to stop.
What Chato’s Land presents, essentially, is the tale of how a few rotten apples in a group -and the lack of courage on the part of those who should know better to speak up- damns an entire group to failure and, in the case of this film, death.
And in some ways, it made me think of current political events.
I’ll say no more about that, though given the movie’s original release date of 1972, whatever symbolism was originally presented likely had more to do with the events in Vietnam.
In the end, Chato’s Land delivers a deeper story than one would think and manages to rise a bit above its more “typical” western/pulp/revenge roots. While it may not be a lost “classic”, I found it worth revisiting.
One can’t help but admire the length and breath of influence Sir Conan Arthur Doyle’s most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes, has had over the years.
There are so may works featuring oddball/quirky detectives solving bizarre crimes while accompanied by their more “normal” sidekicks/partners and almost every one of them owes gratitude to Mr. Doyle’s Holmes.
So too it is with the late Stieg Larsson’s original Milennium Trilogy of novels, the most famous of which was the first titled The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and which has already been filmed twice featuring both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara in what is the most provocative role of the books, that of punk hacker -and oddball- extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander. Salander’s Watson is journalist Mikael Blomkvist and their setting is the cold environs of Sweden.
The Girl in the Spider Web, based on a “new” Dragon Tattoo novel by David Lagercrantz, features Claire Foy as Salander and Sverrir Gudnasson as Blomkvist.
The movie takes place a few years after the original trilogy of stories and we find Salander hired by a skittish American techno genius who created a program capable of linking up and taking over every nuclear missile in the world.
He fears he made a very big mistake in both creating and giving the program to the U.S. government and wants it back so he can get rid of it. He asks Salander to get the one and only copy of it from a Pentagon computer and she agrees (plot hole #1: Do you really think such a powerful program would somehow be limited to one copy only?).
Anyway, what Salander doesn’t realize is that there are already eyes on her employer and, after she manages to get the program, the evil schenannigans start and, soon enough, Salander is on the run for her life. After her apartment is torched with her in it (plot hole #2: Do the villains want to kill Salander or frame her? Truly this is the most irritating bit in the film and reminds me of the same problem with the last James Bond film Spectre. The villain seems to want the protagonist to live so that they can personally take them out, yet their henchmen sure do seem intent on killing the protagonist anyway!), Salander enlists the aid of journalist Mikael Blumpkist and the game of cat and mouse formally begins.
Despite those two very irritating plot points that I mentioned above, The Girl in the Spider’s Web is a decent enough film which, sadly, winds up being its main problem.
Apart from those two irritations, there is nothing in the film that will make you howl or shake your head or scream at the screen. Alas, neither is there anything in this film that will blow your proverbial socks off. You’ve seen most of this stuff before, and at times far better, in other works.
While the film is handsomely constructed, well directed, well acted, and the scenery is pretty, the plot and story provide little punch and, ultimately, are rather weak tea.
I suspect over time this is one of those films that will drift out of my mind and soon be forgotten.
Neither terribly good nor genuinely bad, The Girl in the Spider’s Web just is.
First: Sorry for the dearth of posts. I have plenty to say -and there’s plenty to comment about!- but I’ve been focused very, very hard on my latest Corrosive Knights novel to the point where its taking up almost all my free time. I want this book done!
****
Anyway, and apropos of nothing, the success of the film A Quiet Place clearly has created interest in a sequel.
If you’ve seen the film, you have to wonder where it can go from there. It seems to me the film ends rather definitely, with the idea that the threat -if not quite over- will soon be over.
John Krasinski, the co-writer/director/co-star of that film, now appears to be onboard with writing the sequel, according to this article found on i09.com and written by James Whitbrook:
