Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Star Wars: The Last Jedi on Rottentomatoes…

1 Comment

I like looking at the overall ratings of movies on the rottentomatoes.com site and often find the information fascinating.

There has been, however, plenty of criticism leveled at the website and some is very legitimate.

For example, I suspect this site contributed to the overall negative feelings toward the release of Justice League.  By holding back their overall score when two days before that movie’s release reviews were open to the public, rottentomatoes decided to premiere their overall results days later on their own “show”.  This made many speculate/suspect (darkly) that Warner Brothers was somehow holding back reviews and that the film was of course a total bust… this despite the fact that reviews were open -again!- two days before that movie’s release.

(Btw, in my opinion Justice League did about what it should have, box office wise, in the end.  It was a fun film, IMHO, but it was clearly something of a Frankenstein monster.  The fact that it was as good as it was considering all the stuff happening behind the scenes and the -also ridiculous- need to release it when they did (come on, Warners, you’ve had a great year in box office take… you could have delayed the film’s release to get it done “right”) is a tribute to the talent of the people behind -and in front of!- the camera.)

Anyway, Star Wars: The Last Jedi is two days away from being released (Just like Justice League was!) and rottentomatoes.com has the movie current pegged at an impressive 93% positive among critics.

I checked out some of the reviews and, not to sound like too much of a overly detail oriented fuddy-duddy, I’m beginning to think rottentomatoes’ black and white “good or bad” system of scoring could use shades of gray.

Understand: I’ve not come to some startlingly original/new realization here.  There are plenty of others out there who have noted sometimes a film is listed as “fresh” (ie, good) or, conversely, “bad” on rottentomatoes when the review itself is far more nuanced than those two black and white terms would suggest.

As I was going through the reviews (clearly having waaaay too much free time on my hands this A.M.), I stumbled upon this review by Josh Larson and presented on larsononfilm.com as a “fresh”/good review.

What struck me was the quote listed next to his review on rottentomatoes (which had a link to the full review) and the score given to the film.  First, the full quote from Mr. Larson’s review: …a bit of a placeholder.  The reviewer’s score was listed below that: 2.5 out of 4.

Hardly, I felt, an enthusiastic sounding review!

Looking for more information, I clicked on the full review (and you can do the same if you want to with the link a few paragraphs above) and, while I tend to agree that overall Mr. Larson’s view of the film is positive, it is hardly a slam dunk in favor of the film.  Indeed, and I’ll freely admit that maybe I’m reading between the lines, I get the impression from the review that Mr. Larsen is one of those Star Wars fans who is grasping for positives while (perhaps more reluctantly) pointing out the negatives.

There is, alas, reason to believe this might be the case.

Opinions on films -indeed, most art forms- can be very fluid.  What you may like -or detest!- at one moment might become, over time, viewed in the opposite manner.  As I’ve stated before, I’m a HUGE fan of Alfred Hitchcock’s films (though Alfred Hitchcock, the human being, was a very weird individual).  Yet for many years I couldn’t understand why people liked The Birds as much as they did.  I’d seen it and thought it was a bust, a strange film with a very strange plot and even more strange ending.

And then it occurred to me one day, out of the blue, the film was Mr. Hitchcock’s incredibly clever subversion of what was a very popular movie genre to that point: The radioactive/supersized monster films that followed in the wake of the release of Godzilla.  Only Mr. Hitchcock took just about every one of that then-fresh genre’s cliches and subverted them completely.  While in films like Godzilla you have a spectacularly big creature wrecking everything around (and usually taking down famous monuments), in The Birds you had ordinary, everyday creatures attacking a picturesque but essentially no-name place.  In films like Godzilla, you have things like a massive military fighting off the monster, a brilliant scientist usually coming up with a way of taking down the monster, and our heroes ultimately triumphing in the end.  In The Birds, not so much.

Getting back to Star Wars, when the originally trilogy was done and the new, prequel trilogy was announced, the movie’s myriad fans understandably went nuts.  When the first of the films, The Phantom Menace, came out, reviews were generally positive among fans and critics, but over time (and unlike my feelings toward The Birds), those same fans and critics re-assessed the movie and today many view it as mediocre or outright poor.  Feelings regarding the two follow-up prequel films tread the same general pattern, first elation and then reassessment.

Even for 2015’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the first of the “new” Star Wars films being released by Disney, the early reviews by fans and critics were mostly ecstatic but over time, some noted the film’s flaws and once overall fawning reviews has since cooled.

At least somewhat.

While TFA is still viewed mostly positively (I think, anyway), I suspect there are few today who view it as being “up there” with the best of Star Wars… perhaps it falls just shy for some and/or lower for others.

Regardless of all this, I know the latest Star Wars film will do extremely well upon its release two days from today.

As for me, I’ll catch it at some point, perhaps before I catch Rogue One.

Movies

Louis C.K. and that curious film of his…

Hard to believe but there was a time not so terribly long ago that Louis C. K. was viewed as a daring, cutting edge comedian whose act was considered quite daring and at times “true to life”… except, of course, when it turned out it was a little too close to his “real life”, which consisted of some pretty icky sexual predilections.

Once revealed, Louis C. K. became another of those faces of sexual harassment, a man who had masturbated in front of women, and -at least somewhat to his credit- he admitted to the fact and, like others exposed, issued an apology and to date disappeared from sight.

What was left in the flotsam was the fate of his just about to be released film, I Love You Daddy, which, given the revelations against Mr. C. K., suddenly is a film that took on too strong a “realistic” sheen (Dana Stevens, an admitted now ex-fan of Mr. C. K., reviewed the film here and noted how based on the revelations against him, she has found herself re-assessing the things he did on TV and standup and things that might have been funny before became far more sinister).

Anyway, Mr. C. K. has, according to this article by Anthony D’Alessandro over at Deadline.com, bought back the full rights to that film from the studio that was to release it:

Louis C. K. Buying Back I Love You, Daddy Following Scandal

There is speculation regarding Mr. C. K.’s motives for doing this.  Will he release this movie through his website?  Could there be enough money to be made on this now controversial film?

I wonder if there is an even more intimate reason: As an artist, one wants to “own” one’s work.  They’re your babies and owning them is something every artist wants… for better or worse.

I was never a fan of Louis C. K., but that’s due to ignorance and nothing more: I’ve never seen him either on his TV series, stand-up, or otherwise, and therefore have no opinion on his talent(s).

Yet I’m curious… if he does release the film on his own, how will it do?  Will he ever find redemption among the public?

Or is his career, as it appears at this moment, essentially done?

Movies

It’s that time of year…

1 Comment

…when “Best of 2017” lists start appearing!

One of my favorite topics in that regard are favorite movies of the year nearly past.

Here’s some interesting food for thought:

Esquire Magazine’s 25 Best Movies of 2017

Best Movies of 2017, The New York Times

Rolling Stone Best Movies of 2017

Vulture Best Movies of 2017

Slate Magazine’s 10 Best Movies of 2017

As I find (depressingly) from reading these lists, there are so many films I’ve missed out on… Some I do want to see but there are others where it seems pointless to do so.

For example, I was intrigued with the film Get Out, which made it to many “Best of” lists like those above, yet at this point -darn you, curiosity and internet!- it feels pointless to give up on some of my too precious time (where does it go every day?!) to watch something I kinda/sorta already know everything about.

Dunkirk also made it to plenty of lists but, I have to admit, I’m a little fatigued with war films.  That’s not to say there are plenty of great ones out there and Dunkirk may well rise to their level but, as I said, I’m a little fatigued with that genre.

Then there’s Wonder Woman.  While the movie didn’t make all the lists above, it did appear on several lists and it represents one of the few films on such lists I did catch in theaters and at the time of release.  I liked the film (you can read my review of it here) and would give it a very solid “B” rating, but was it the among the best movies released last year?  To some, it clearly was.  I dunno about that.

Here’s an interesting and somewhat different list, from Esquire magazine:

Esquire’s Best Action Movies of 2017

Now here’s a list that really interests me!

I’m going to spoil things and list the 10 films they feel were the best action films of the year:

  1. Dunkirk
  2. Wonder Woman
  3. Thor: Ragnarock
  4. Logan
  5. War For The Planet of the Apes
  6. Baby Driver
  7. John Wick Chapter 2
  8. Kong: Skull Island
  9. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  10. Atomic Blonde

Certainly the films listed above are among the best known action films of this nearly deceased year.  Of the films listed above, I’ve seen four of them (Wonder Woman, Baby Driver, John Wick 2, Kong) and have another two purchased and waiting for me to see them (Logan, Atomic Blonde).

As for the rest, I’ve already stated my opinion on Dunkirk.  Thor: Ragnarock intrigues me but the comparisons of it to Guardians of the Galaxy, a movie I still don’t understand what others found good in it, have really scared me away.  War for the Planet of Apes I’ve heard so many good things about but, like war films, I feel I’ve had my fill with the first -and original!- round of Ape films (yeah, I’m really old).  Similarly, I feel like I’ve had my fill of Spider-Man films and haven’t been interested in seeing another since Sam Raimi’s last iteration.

So, of the films I’ve seen, I liked Wonder Woman the most and thought Kong: Skull Island (you can read my review of that here) was good, if light, entertainment.

I hated John Wick Chapter 2 (here’s my opinion on that) and thought that while brilliantly directed, Baby Driver was a plot-malnourished bust (here’s my opinion on that film).

So I better get to it and see those two films I have.  Once I do, I’ll have seen a whopping six films on that list!

Incredible!

Movies

Quentin Tarantino to direct… a Star Trek film?!?

Didn’t see this one coming.

The following article, by Mike Fleming Jr. and presented on Deadline.com, notes that…

Quentin Tarantino Hatches Star Trek Movie Idea; Paramount, J. J. Abrams To Assemble Writers Room

The bottom line is this: Mr. Tarantino apparently went to J. J. Abrams with a Star Trek movie pitch/idea, the idea was met positively, and as the article’s headline notes, writers are being hired to create a script based on Mr. Tarantino’s ideas.

As someone else might say…

Image result for fascinating spock

I’m not a huge Tarantino fan but the man, let’s face it, is a talent and can create some great -if often foul mouthed and violent- stuff.

It would seem a man like him is not the person you’d want doing Star Trek but, frankly, I find the concept (here we go again) fascinating.

Frankly, I don’t think this will come to fruition.  I’m not trying to be pessimistic, its only that Mr. Tarantino is currently (I imagine) getting things together for his latest film involving the Manson killings of the late 1960’s (the actual plot of the movie is unknown other than it is set in/around that time) and that movie is scheduled to be released in 2019.  With that in mind, I can’t help but think if he does go from that to Star Trek, it’ll be a while -if ever!- before we see it.

Still, I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t love to see a Star Trek film with Mr. Tarantino behind it, if only for curiosity’s sake.

Movies

Ghost in the Shell (2017) a (mildly) belated review

Back in 1995 and after becoming a popular Manga comic within Japan, the animated version of Ghost in the Shell was released to great acclaim.  In fact, it, along with the animated Akira, were the two major anime releases that brought a virtual wave of such material to the attention of fans within the United States.  Here’s the animated film’s trailer:

Not so very long ago I saw the anime film (for the second or third time) and gave it a review which you can read here.  From my review of the anime film:

Ultimately, (Ghost in the Shell) becomes something not unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey, a meditation on the thin line between machine and humanity.  While by today’s standards the story may not be quite as deep and mysterious as it was when it was released (there have been many such meditations offered since), Ghost in the Shell still holds its own.

Fast forward to last year when word came out that a live action version of Ghost in the Shell was in the works and that it would star… Scarlett Johansson in the lead role.  Unfortunately for her and the film itself, this coincided with people realizing -and becoming quite vocal- about Hollywood “whitewashing” ethnic roles.  The Major, the protagonist of Ghost in the Machine, many argued, should be played by an Oriental woman and not someone like Scarlett Johansson.  Worse, the film’s ending (I’ll get to that in a bit) kinda pressed one’s nose into that whole controversy.

I know, I know… such a minor matter to worry about nowadays when dealing with all the lunacy in Washington D.C., sexual harassment, etc. etc., but I suspect the outrage in no small part helped to make the live action version of this film fizzle at the box office.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Ghost in the Shell, the live action film, was directed by Rupert Sanders, who had a hit with Snow White and the Huntsman.  While that film managed to have a sequel made, Mr. Sanders moved on to make Ghost in the Shell and the controversy that followed.

Look, I understand the controversy.

If you are making a movie set in a futuristic Japan -a setting that is central to the story- then perhaps you should think about having a more “Oriental” cast of characters rather than a couple and, certainly, you may have wanted to think specifically of using an Oriental actress to play the lead role.

Having said that, let’s face facts here: Scarlett Johansson is about as BIG a star as one could get to play the lead role in a film whose protagonist is an ass-kicking cyborg.

When I finally got to see the film yesterday, let’s also face facts, so much water has gone under the bridge (Trump, sexual harassment, etc. etc.) that I couldn’t really get myself all that riled up to the casting choice controversy, though to be honest it never did rile me up all that much to begin with, at least in this particular ocassion.

So I just sat back and watched the film and tried to judge it on its own merits.

Alas…

Look, Ghost in the Shell isn’t a bust.  Far from it.

Its visual looks clearly pay an awful big tribute to Blade Runner, as did the original anime, and there are several scenes within the live action movie which mimic the anime scene for scene.

The movie stumbles, however, when the film makers alter the story presented and, frankly, dumb it down.  What was originally, as I pointed above, a mediation on the fine line between machine and humanity becomes, frankly, a remake of the original 1987 (not the terrible remake) Robocop.  Only, its not nearly as exciting and the action sequences are competent but rarely exciting.

The Major here is a machine created by a company to be a bad-ass cop but hidden within her is an actual soul which, eventually, comes out.  The corporation people that did this to her are bad and she emerges by the end to show her humanity.

Again, Robocop.

If I want to see this story, why bother with the live action version of Ghost in the Shell when I can simply watch Robocop again?

I’ll get into the film’s ending (SPOILERS ABOUND!), so if you want to see the film without it being spoiled, don’t go past the trailer below.

In sum, Ghost in the Shell is a decent enough film with some beautiful visuals whose biggest problem, if you’re not too bothered by the casting whitewashing, is that it echoes too strongly the plot of Robocop and is never as exciting in its action sequences as one would have hoped they’d be.  Having said that, I’ve seen far, far worse.

Now, the film’s ending.

Again…

SPOILERS!!!!

So here we have a movie that, like Robocop, features a machine/human hybrid where the corporation has tried to use the person’s “soul” in a machine.  They’ve also tried to remove all memory traces and those memories start to come back.

By the movie’s end, the Major knows who she is and this is where that whole whitewashing stuff really comes roaring back.  For the movie takes place, like the anime and the manga, in a futuristic pseudo-Japan and the person the Major was… was an Oriental female.  In the closing moments of the movie, the Major sees her tomb and tells her mother “You no longer have to come here”.

Wuff.

Again, the whitewashing stuff didn’t bother me as much as it did many others, but the filmmakers, with this ending, essentially acknowledge their whitewashing and throw it back in the faces of those who were protesting such a thing.

I grant you, they didn’t do this on purpose as I’m certain filming of the movie happened before this controversy blew up to the proportions it did, but still… how unfortunate.

Ah well.

Movies

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) a (extremely mildly) belated review

Back in 1974 director Sidney Lumet gathered together a mega-star cast including Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, etc. etc. etc. to star in the movie version of what is easily Agatha Christie’s best known Hercule Piorot novel (if not best known novel, period!) Murder on the Orient Express.  Playing the lead role of super-detective Hercule Poirot was Albert Finney.  Here’s that movie’s trailer…

There would be other versions of this most famous novel made for both the large and small screen and a couple of weeks ago famed director/actor Kenneth Branagh offered his version of this famous story.  In making his version of the film, it appeared Mr. Branagh was looking toward that 1974 version and, therefore, made sure to fill the movie with some very big names.  Here’s the trailer for Mr. Branagh’s 2017 theatrical release of Murder on the Orient Express:

As one can readily see, among the famous actors participating in this movie, in which Mr. Branagh not only plays the Poirot role but also directs, is Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Derek Jackobi, Daisy Ridley, etc. etc.

As a fan of Agatha Christie and her writing, I’ll be the first to admit that her murder mystery novels are about as close to science fiction as you can get with regard to the mystery genre.  The fact of the matter is that her mysteries are usually byzantine and feature events that, if one were to look very closely at them, would fall apart in the harsh light of “reality”.

Then again, that’s the case with most works of fiction.

So, if you know the depressing truth that in “real life” murders are usually the result of opportunity combined with a person’s twisted and disturbed impulses, you also know there is often no “clever” solution to a murder and when all is said and done you’ve got a bunch of sad/twisted people who are hardly “upper crust”, well spoken, and “beautiful” like those present in Ms. Christie’s novels.

But you know what?  If you’re willing to do the proverbial “suspension of disbelief”, you’re in for a fun time… as fun as you can with a subject as dark as murder.

In Murder on the Orient Express, we have a classic “locked room” mystery.  Actually, a double locked room mystery: A person is murdered within his locked room and within the confines of a sealed train.  Within this train we have our genius detective and 12 suspects, all of whom present shifty eyed stares and less than truthful statements when asked what they were up to at the time of the crime.

All the elements of a classic mystery are there and, to someone like me, that alone proved a freaking blast.

If you’re a fan of old railroads and trains, the movie is incredibly beautiful to look at, though I suspect much of what you’re seeing is CGI.  CGI or not, it is beautiful.

Mr. Branagh’s direction is fluid and his characterization of Poirot turned out to be quite wonderful.  The mystery is presented in a very linear manner and allows viewers to follow the breadcrumbs from murderer to suspects and, if you’re clever enough, you may be able to figure out the ending just before Mr. Poirot figures it out for you.

That’s the really good stuff.

The bad?  Well, Mr. Branagh the director sure does like Mr. Branagh the actor.  The fact of the matter is that Poirot is front and center in this movie and, despite the big named actors around him, his character hogs the spotlight a little too much.  Other than Michelle Pfeiffer, who gets to act out a little more, the other actors are held back too much.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh with regard to Mr. Branagh.

After all, the large cast are playing suspects and, as suspects, they are supposed to hold back whatever truths they’re hiding.

Still, I wish I could have seen a little more emoting from many of them.

Despite this, Murder on the Orient Express works much more than it doesn’t and the complaints I point out above are very small stuff.

Thankfully, the movie follows Ms. Christie’s novel closely and, much to my relief, the conclusion is pretty much straight out of the book.  I admit going into this film I was afraid Mr. Branagh and company would get cute and try to pull some kind of switcheroo with the movie’s conclusion/resolution.  The fact of the matter is that what makes the novel successful is the way it ends and, in that, this movie nailed that particular bit.

I also liked the way this movie hinted at the next mystery for Poirot and pointed to another of Agatha Christie’s famous novels.  That one was made into a film as well…

To which I say: Bring it on!

Recommended!

Movies

Justice League (2017) a (right on time!) review

2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about the just released Justice League and, based on some of the negative reviews, worried this film might be suffering from a reviewer’s bias.  Critics seemed to so hate the movie this one is a direct sequel to, 2016’s Batman v Superman, that I couldn’t help but wonder if that might cloud their opinion of this film.

While in between we’ve had the release of Wonder Woman, which met with near universal adoration, that film wasn’t directed by Zach Snyder and, let’s be clear here, Mr. Snyder is the individual receiving most of the blame by certain critics and fans who don’t like these films.  And like it or not, Justice League is his third foray into the DC Universe.

I’ve beaten this particular dead horse for a while, but I liked BvS, though I will admit the theatrical version of the film doesn’t hold a candle to the extended “ultimate” cut that came later and was released to home theater.  Obviously Warners/DC were anxious with the film’s original run time and wanted to cut the thing down for theatrical release so that it wouldn’t cut down on showtimes but, in the end, a hacked product was released and the longer version was clearly the intended version which should have been released.

Regardless, the theatrical cut of BvS received some absolutely brutal reviews/reactions and with work already initiated on Justice League Warner Brothers got nervous.  They attempted to win back the fans/critics by offering several of them an extended visit to the Justice League set while the film was in production and had Mr. Snyder talk about how this new film would be a different animal, much lighter in tone versus the more somber BvS.

Then in May, word came that due to a family tragedy Mr. Snyder was leaving the film before it was completed.  Co-screenwriter Josh Whedon, who made a splash directing both Avengers films and was announced as the director of the upcoming Batgirl film, would finish the film up and be responsible for any re-shoots.

Mr. Snyder’s departure was due to the suicide of his daughter and, while an undeniably great tragedy, there were those who wondered -an icky thing- if he was going to be fired from the DC works eventually anyway.

Regardless, with Mr. Whedon in charge of finishing up the film, there was renewed skepticism regarding what the finished product would look like.  Would the film be a mess?  Re-shoots, rumored to be pretty extensive, were made with Mr. Whedon in charge.  Again, how coherent would this film be?

Two days before the film was officially released Warner Brothers lifted the review embargo and new controversy flared when rottentomatoes.com pushed back the release of their score for the film to promote See It/Skip It, their new program which was meant to “premiere” scores of new films.  Fans, understandably, were again skeptical: Was this Warner Brothers’ doing?  Were they nervous about the film’s score?  If so, did they force rottentomatoes to hold back on the reviews?

Ultimately, the rottentomatoes score was released and… it wasn’t terribly good.  The movie currently sits at a below average 40 percent positive among critics.  Interestingly, the fan reaction is considerably more positive.  Among fans, the film sits at 86 percent.  Over on metacritic, the movie stands at 46 percent positive among critics and 7.2 (out of 10) among the fans.

A wide disparity indeed!

As a fan of BvS, there was never a question that I’d see this film.  But, based on all that stuff I just wrote about above, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t nervous about the overall product.

This Saturday morning, I had the free time and decided to give Justice League a try.  I entered the theater with the proverbial “hoping for the best” attitude but, deep down, expecting the worst.

The opening minutes of the film proved something of a slog.  While not terrible, the opening act was a very slow burn and I wondered if the rest of the film would go this way.

Things picked up considerably when we get to the introduction of Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman.

After these characters were introduced and integrated into the film, the movie, IMHO, started to soar.  That, in a nutshell, proved to be Justice League’s greatest strength: The characters and their interaction among each other.  It was just so much… fun.

As good as it was, the film kicked into another, even higher gear with the return of the character everyone knew was coming back: Superman.  I won’t go into the hows and whys of the character’s return, but suffice to say when he does return, things get even better, and his interaction with the Flash, in particular, is (dare I say it?) super-fun.

Now, the movie does have its issues and I’m in agreement with many who have pointed them out: The villain is not the most memorable character but I personally felt he was good and scary enough.  The CGI effects, at times, weren’t as good as one would have hoped, which is strange given the fact that the movie had as big a budget as it did.  Perhaps this was due to time constraints.  Who knows.

But those two things for me were the only two things that one could point to as being true negatives.

I should also note that this is the first of the DC films to use what has become standard with Marvel films, ie the end clips.  Justice League has two of them, and both of them are delightful, IMHO.  The first one, featuring Superman and Flash, was pure mana to a comic book geek like me.

Now to address the elephant in the room: What about cut scenes?  There was something like 45 minutes to an hour reportedly cut from this film.  When I saw BvS in theaters, though I liked the film, I could sense the fact that things were missing.  With Justice League, I didn’t have that same reaction.  It felt like all the “important” stuff was there.  Still, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t curious as to what was left on the cutting room floor.  I fully anticipate a longer, “extended” cut of the film when it eventually makes it to the home video market.

In sum, while not perfect, I very much recommend Justice League.  It presented flesh and blood versions of very familiar and beloved characters in a fun and at times rousing way.

I hope we’ll see more… especially what was hinted at in that second post-credit sequence.

Movies

Justice League (2017)… any good?

After what seems far too long a time for opinions both negative and positive to percolate -and the back and forth has been at times intense!- the Justice League movie is officially being released and the reviews are… not terribly good.

While these reviews are better overall than the reviews of Batman v Superman and several high profile critics have offered very high praise, the fact of the matter is that once again a DC universe film is being released to generally negative reviews.

Predictably, there’s been screaming from some parts -the fanboys most certainly!- about bias and, perhaps, they have a point.  The question arises: Has the negativity associated with Batman v Superman permeated this new product to the point where a cold, neutral look at it is impossible?  There are those, after all, who seem sold on the idea that anything director Zach Snyder touches will instantly turn to crap, so perhaps they go into the film thinking this is inevitable in Justice League’s case?

Biases most certainly can exist.

Way back in the year 2000, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu starred in the film Charlie’s Angels, a theatrical remake of the cheesy -but somewhat beloved- TV show involving a trio of very pretty female detectives who, along with their assistant Bosley, worked for the mysterious “Charlie” solving crimes each week.

The show made a mega-star of the late Farrah Fawcett but I doubt even the most ardent fans of the show consider it a “classic”.  Thus, when word came that a movie version was about to be released, many didn’t think it could possibly be any good.

I know this because I found it curious, at the time, how professional review after review I read had variations of “I can’t believe it… they made a good movie out of this!” in their positive reviews.

It was clear many critics went into the film (here comes the bias thing) thinking it would be absolutely terrible and were surprised when they found it to be good.  In their opinion, of course.

So I, who shared very similar negative thoughts –no way they could make a good film out of Charlie’s Angels, could they!?- read those reviews and, based on them, softened my negative (biased?!) opinion.  I figured that perhaps against all odds, the people behind this film made something good.

So off I trot to the theaters and see the film, now thinking I’m about to have a good time (another bias!).

I didn’t.

Charlie’s Angels, to me, wasn’t a horrible film, but the reviews elevated my hopes  to the point that when I saw the film and it didn’t deliver as I felt it would, I was very disappointed.

So, think about it: Many critics went in to see the film with very LOW expectations and figured the film would be awful (negative bias).  They were pleasantly surprised when they found it wasn’t.

I, on the other hand, expected the film would be awful but, after reading several positive reviews, changed my mind (positive bias).  I go into the film with high expectations based on the words of so many critics.  I wind up being disappointed.

Getting back to Justice League, clearly there are many, many people out there who really like characters like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.  They want any film featuring these beloved characters to succeed just as there are many, many people who feel so negative toward director Zach Snyder and his work thus far with the DC Superheroes (he directed Man of Steel and Batman v Superman) that they feel Justice League will be another bomb, no doubt about it.

Positive and negative biases formed even before seeing the actual film.

I’ve noted -far too many times!- that I enjoyed Batman v Superman and am unapologetic in that opinion.  In fact, I feel that in time and when emotions cool people may give the film a second chance and find it far better than the overall negativity it currently elicits.

Having said that, I’m also one who feels that people’s opinions are just that: Opinions.  Your opinion about movie/song/book X is YOUR OPINION and therefore cannot be wrong… to you, just as my opinion of movie/song/book X is MY OPINION and, therefore, cannot be wrong to me.

I haven’t seen Justice League yet, though I must admit I too have some pre-conceived notions about what it will be.

I’ve heard the film had about 1 hour of material cut from it before reaching theaters.  Given how much better Batman v Superman was in its “Ultimate Edition” versus the cut down theatrical version, I worry that Justice League, which runs a pretty tight 2 hours, may wind up being more disjointed than it should be and that when the inevitable “Director’s Cut” shows up, it will prove a better overall product.

As with so many other things, we’ll see.

Movies

He who will not be mentioned again…

With the revelations of sexual harassment and far, far worse by far, far too many people in power within the Hollywood movie establishment, two names in particular are especially loathsome.

There is Harvey Weinstein, of course, the man who is alleged to have sexually harassed and raped many women.

Then there’s Kevin Spacey, the up until now very respected actor who, if the allegations are to be believed, has engaged in behavior which can only be described as being… well, let’s put it this way, beyond sexual harassment and, allegedly, drifting into one of the darkest corners of sexual assault, that of a possible pedophila.

So alarming are the accusations against him -and one must emphasize that up to this moment they are just that, accusations and allegations- it appears Mr. Spacey is nonetheless rapidly becoming a persona non grata within the industry that, up to the time of these allegations, was more than happy to have him involved in their projects.

Case in point, Ridley Scott’s next film, All The Money In The World, is due to be released in six weeks.  Starring Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams, the movie also featured Kevin Spacey.

But no longer.

According to this article by Hannah Gold and found on jezebel.com…

Ridley Scott Kicked Kevin Spacey Out of His Movie

Let me emphasize this: With only six weeks to go before the movie is released, Mr. Scott and company have decided Mr. Spacey is so toxic that he’s been taken out of the film completely and all his scenes will be (hastily, I imagine), re-filmed with Christopher Plummer, who was apparently Mr. Scott’s original choice, in the role vacated by Kevin Spacey.  According to the article, the movie’s other stars are making time to rework these scenes as well.

The fact that the film is a mere six weeks from being released means it was pretty much done and I suspect whatever new scenes are filmed with Mr. Plummer will mimic almost exactly what the Kevin Spacey scenes were, so there shouldn’t be all that much work to be done, though this is complete speculation on my part.  I don’t know if any scenes require specific backgrounds or perhaps effects (the film takes place in the 1970’s).

Regardless, the movie’s listing over at IMDB still has Kevin Spacey in one of the principle roles but who knows how much screen time he occupied in the completed work, all of which will now be redone with Mr. Plummer in that role.

An incredible story, IMHO, and it goes to show just how far Mr. Spacey has fallen in recent days.

Movies

News of the not too surprising…

As tempting as it is to again dip my toe into politics (yesterday, IMHO, was a good slap against Trumpism… I hope the energy carries over for more than this election), I’ll instead focus on something that seemed a given.

Over at i09 comes this article by Charles Pulliam-Moore which states:

Universal’s Shared Monster Universe Has Been Put On Hold

As I said above, this was an announcement I expected given the first film in this series, the Tom Cruise starring The Mummy, had a relatively weak box office take.

That movie, which I will note I have yet to see, received middling at best reviews and, even more importantly, audiences weren’t thrilled enough to make it a bigger blockbuster. Had the movie received superb reviews yet still failed to make the type of money Universal wanted, they likely would have put the brakes on anyway.

Perhaps Universal put the cart before the horse by announcing a “universe” of films before the first one proved successful, but had The Mummy been a bigger hit, even if it had the same reviews/quality, there’s no doubt the studio would proceed with their next monster universe movie.

Ah well!