It’s difficult to embed Tom Cruise in anything outside of Mission Impossible, where he has lead an impeccable role. And even more difficult when the film he portrays in is an action film. Thus, every take where he’s in, almost immediately harkens you back to mission impossible itself, in the process removing you from the movie you are currently watching. This is precisely one of the beginning problems of The Mummy, a film that unfortunately never quite brings back the original’s charm nor wit. A film where it’s main actors never display their full prowess, leaving audiences with a feeling of lackluster recited scripts. The sense of adventure and exploration featured in previous installments is never here, as modern day London just doesn’t fit with The Mummy’s ambience. Even so, the film’s comic relief is for the most part acceptable, visual effects are good, and the physical representation of the mummy itself is even better, a more dark, damp and visceral creature. But alas, it is a movie very much disassociated with what a “mummy” film should be, centered more around Tom Cruise than on Egypt, mythology, adventure, or exploration as a whole. In the end, its convoluted and broken story doesn’t let it live up to its intended potential.
Although Gareth Edward’s film has some pacing issues, particularly in the first half of the film, the movie as a complete package is dearly entertaining. For the main character, a lackluster introduction to her background and motives means that the principle “show, don’t tell” is perfectly illustrated here. Instead of letting us know her as an individual, we are merely told about what she has done and is willing to do, and thus audiences can’t quite grasp the passion she wants to convey. Meanwhile, and not befitting the role at all, Diego Luna plays the anti-hero but falls flat; like a two-dimensional monologue machine. And pertaining the rest of the cast, audiences are left wondering what’s the point of introducing us to individuals that seem to have hidden depths only to learn that that they feebly renounce to their beliefs (and even lives). Even so, and befitting to a Star Wars film, the world and its various ambiences are engulfing and immersive, thrusting us into the saga head-on; and once the pacing is established, we can fully appreciate the female heroine in her fullest potential and grasp the importance of what is to be done. Two important remarks: the comedic relief portrayed by the robot, boding well for the history of Star Wars companions; and an excellent battle that gives viewers the feeling of hope and union represented by the rebel alliance. In conclusion, would I recommend the film? Definitely. Would I state it’s a good film? Not particularly, but it is very entertaining, and for Star Wars fans and followers it delivers a slither of hope that the saga will continue, with more films and a deeper insight into the universe as a whole.
Watching Fast Times at Ridgemont High almost 40 years after its release means beckoning a timepiece of history that has been preserved in video form. In a way, although it might not be the best created film, it represents a cultural segment of American history that transcended for the individuals that lived through an epoch. The fashion, language, and other shenanigans of the 80s are conveyed through a cast of characters that, although unknown at the moment, would become extremely important for Hollywood per-se. One can ever ponder how Sean Penn transitioned from his role as Jeff Spicoli into what he has become today, or how big hitters like Mike Damone got lost against the backdrop of cinema as the years passed. In short words, Cameron Crowe crafted a stereotypical coming of age film, but one where his characters are so well scripted that audiences root for them and care for them (who wouldn’t like to have a brother like Brad?). Fast Times at Ridgemont High so symbolically represents an era, genre and place that its inclusion in the Library of Congress is no surprise, being “culturally, historically and aesthetically significant”. A downside of its duration is the fact that audiences can’t get to know the characters in a more distinct manner (in comparison to TV series), especially those secondary personas that had a substantial impact on the film (Forest Whitaker).
What once was a beloved film franchise has now become into a megalomaniac monstrosity of action packed sequences, expensive cars and exotic locales. But in its wake, the Fast and the Furious film series has lost what defined its unique style. And this has never been truer than with its latest film: The Fate of the Furious, where a constant stream of clichés, bad one-liners and cringeworthy dialogue and characters makes the franchise bend under its own power. The smaller and more detailed oriented series has now become so big that product placement reigns over substance (Coca Cola, Apple, Jeep and Dodge to name a few). Therefore, although it has become bigger (a stronger and more diverse of characters and important cast members), it has also become more diffused, and we can see this though the mediocre creation of characters that don’t take advantage of the great actors behind them (Charlize Theron for example). Without spoiling too much of the film, this one marks an important trend for the future of the franchise, one that doesn’t bode well for the people that loved the originals but sells more for everyone else (zombie cars, really?).
After various iterations in the X Men universe, Logan is the concluding act that tries to close the Wolverine storyline, while introducing a new generation of mutants (and foreshadowing spinoffs). But here lies its main problem: the emphasis and importance of child actors intertwined in its story means that bad performances from the cast diminish the main protagonist’s presentation. Hugh Jackman tries to balance an impoverished act of bad child actors and disposable secondary characters that could’ve added depth to the plot (Professor X, Caliban). And with very clichéd set pieces, the action might be entertaining for some, but nevertheless strays far from the usual quality found in similar films. To cap it all, the supporting role played by Dafne Keen as an obnoxious and shrill daughter of wolverine’s completely misses its mark, and the end story for one of X Men’s strongest characters falls short of being an action film worth watching.
It’s no easy task to create a film in a universe as deep as Harry Potter’s, and while Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them vehemently succeeds in generating a unique, magical world, it fails in many other crucial areas that ultimately drag it down for all except the utmost fans of the franchise. Although Redmayne plays the titular character well enough, the rest of the secondary cast of actors don’t bode well with the film. For the most part, their roles feel forced into specific stereotypes or cliques, while others (such as Farrell) transmit their distaste or lack of interest for the Harry Potter universe through their dispirited acting. A point of positivity: some of the supporting actors, after having the time to develop their roles, accomplish the stance that the film wants to portray of them, and in the end manage to mesh in the film’s plot. Even so, David Lynch’s work is inconsistent and somewhat incoherent, jumping from plot to plot with little cohesion between each part, and trying to do too many things at once (a long, unnecessary romantic arc, problems between classes, problems between light and darkness, problems between humankind and nature, etc.). Sadly, the world he created, although intricate and deep, feels out of place in the Harry Potter universe, and strays too much from what Rowling created and the previous pictures tries to represent. Alas, the message left to audiences is a welcoming (but dark) one, the fact that these apparently dangerous beasts are “surrounded by the most vicious creatures on the planet: humans”.
From the same director that helmed “Sicario” comes 2016’s best science fiction film: Arrival. A movie that, although extremely distanced from real events (an alien apparition on earth), delves into what human cooperation and teamwork means for the sake of development and humanity itself. And after a tumultuous 2016 that highlighted racism, segregation, hate, and zealousness, Arrival becomes a small message that resonates for filmgoers. Pertaining to its cast, Arrival hits the spot in almost all the right areas, with only Forest Whitaker failing to transmit the same level of energy as the rest of the cast (his absence helps the film more than his presence). Even so, the duo of Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner is likeable and manages to impress throughout the entirety of Denis Villeneuve’s direction. A point of emphasis is made on the use of a non-linear narrative progression utilized to perfection that achieves the single objective of making audiences think with a predetermined mindset, judging the main character because of it, and in the end realizing the main message that the film wanted to transmit.