Alright, it's been a while but we're back again to cover the PC Gaming Show, the Xbox Showcase and the Ubisoft Forward. After this, that's it, that's all, we're done here. PC Gaming Show The Most Questionable Stuff 3. Road to Vostok (???) Choosing to look down on a game for overt familiarity from the word ‘go’, even if all it has done at this point is have its existence announced to the world, is not inherently an act to be proud of. Much of gaming iterates and builds upon what came before, much of the medium as it stands (for good or ill) exists because someone looked at a past work and were inspired to develop their own take on the material. How many excellent games would cease to be if people decided that “it’s just a clone of X” was a valid argument in itself? I establish this now to make it clear that I do not roll my eyes at Road to Vostok for taking the form of a sparsely-populated shooter set in a post-apocalyptic wilderness area… but rather because it loo
It's been a hot minute since I've had cause to discuss and critique films on here. Granted, my bread and butter tends to be writing about video games, so that's where my focus tends to gravitate. But that doesn't mean I don't view my fair share of movies OR that I lack things to say about them.
So, to keep things varied around these parts, let's take a look back at some films I've had cause to view as of late...
Thor: Love and Thunder
The Basic Premise
Some time after Avengers Endgame, Thor has set out in search of a new purpose while continuing to aid various worlds in his own unique way. He soon discovers a new threat in the form of Gorr the God Butcher, a malicious figure who (as the name suggests) has set about murdering all the gods in the known cosmos. When Gorr successfully carries out a bold attack - and child abduction - on the colony of New Asgard, Thor sets out on a rescue mission alongside Asgard's new king Valkyrie, his old rock-based friend Korg, and his ex-girlfriend Jane Foster... who is now also a Thor and wielding his old hammer Mjolnir.
How Does It Fare?
This is damn close to perfection, at least where I’m concerned. Love and Thunder looks great, the action hits hard yet still feels larger-than-life, pretty much every comedic gag works, and the last act is masterful in pivoting to an unexpected but appreciated direction.
A lot of this is owed to the cast being at the top of their game. Hemsworth remains in fine form, conveying the tense balancing act between gleeful heroism and barely-restrained heartache that is central to Thor's character. It's also great to have Natalie Portman back doing action stuff while also having a really interesting and heartrending arc that ends up tying into the film's overarching themes. Only Christian Bale as Gorr the God Butcher feels like he could have used a bit more screen time, though that's because his mix of playful villainous indulgence and quiet melancholy really is masterful.
And yes, the stretch of film where Russell Crowe shows up as Zeus is delightful and hilarious. If Crowe wants to do more, Marvel should absolutely put him in more of these.
Recommended Viewing?
Yes, without question.
The Visit
The Basic Premise
Two kids - one an aspiring filmmaker with a handheld camera, the other an amateur rapper uncomfortable around germs - decide to reach out to their mom's parents, estranged after a falling out years prior. However, as the kids spend more time in their grandparents' presence, it becomes increasingly apparent all may not be as it seems...
How Does It Fare?
People must be mad for thinking this the true return to greatness for Shyamalan. The actors for the kids and presumptive grandparents are hurt by a meandering and contemptuous script that wastes interesting ruminations on generational trauma and loss to instead pivot on an obvious and creatively vapid twist. Kathryn Hahn, for as vital as her character ends up being to the emotional core of the story, is barely in the film and doesn’t have nearly enough to do in order to justify the payoff. That the film also looks terrible thanks to the handheld documentary conceit and feels longer than it is only makes things worse.
Recommended Viewing?
No.
Cannibal Holocaust
The Basic Premise
An expedition to film certain reclusive tribes in the Amazon turns out to have gone very, very wrong. The question is, why did things go awry?
(...and that is the extent to which I want to summarize this film, because it's actively painful to watch and Wikipedia's got a plot summary y'all can read at your discretion)
How Does It Fare?
Had Ruggero Deodato not recently passed away, I would be more inclined to tell him to go fuck himself for this heinous act of cinematic cruelty; as it stands I’m instead left uneasy and haunted. I don’t know how to process some of the nastier, brutal imagery in this film - simulated or no - and I’m not sure if the “meant to critique what it’s visually representing” excuse flies. What I can say is no reasonable person should feel obliged to see this film.
Recommended Viewing?
Absolutely not.
Riddick
The Basic Premise
Did you happen to watch The Chronicles of Riddick? If not, don't worry - most of the world is in the same boat. Vin Diesel stars as one-note killer Richard B. Riddick, an escaped convict-turned-kind-of-survivalist-vigilante stranded on a deserted world. Some bounty hunters show up with varying motivations for seeking Riddick, only to have to also contend with the local wildlife once darkness sets in.
How Does It Fare?
The short version is, this is a marginally better looking but less narratively engaging version of Riddick's first film Pitch Black. Same focus on a ragtag group of survivors, same eventual need to ally with Riddick once a greater threat arises, same back-half of the plot where all the action takes place in darkness and the monsters are uninspired CG creations.
What's weird is there's parts of this film that almost manage to elevate this to competent B-movie status. The first part of the film proves compelling in how it visualizes Riddick learning the ropes of surviving on this hostile world, especially once he gains his delightfully odd dog-like companion. There's some solid kills benefiting from the R-rating and the presence of more than a few disposable characters. Some of the bounty hunters even get to have actual personalities, like Katee Sackoff as the no-nonsense second-in-command of the Good Mercenaries, Dave Bautista as her equivalent for the Bad Mercs, Jordi Molla as the sadistic leader of the Bad Mercs, and Matthew Nable as the unexpectedly layered Good Merc leader connected to past events in the Riddick universe.
Of course, the film then stumbles by retreading well worn ground (by essentially remaking parts of Pitch Black, it's also effectively acting as a third- or fourth-generation riff on action sci-fi works like Aliens) and indulging in some gross sexualization of Sackoff's character. This series has never exactly been high art, but it would be nice if it didn't lean on such lazy and classless writing.
Recommended Viewing?
Only if you're especially attached to the genre.
After The Thin Man
The Basic Premise
Some time after the conclusion of their last mystery, Nora and Nick Charles return to their California home in time for New Year's festivities. Alas, their merriment is cut short when Nora's cousin is caught up in the murder of her husband. As is their custom when solving cases, Nick and Nora proceed to drink, flirt and meander their way to a final confrontation and dramatic reveal.
How Does It Fare?
I found it a little more focused and playful with its murder mystery/closed-room melodrama than the original film, though I think I liked the first film’s chaotic climax a bit more. Of course, who the killer turns out to be this time and how they express their motives ends up being a solid reminder of that particular actor’s talents, so I can't say I disliked this film's conclusion.
Beyond that, it's pretty straightforward in its sensibilities. There's a couple interludes with the Charles family dogs Asta and Mrs. Asta that are… odd and don’t seem to amount to much, beyond some possible mild foreshadowing. I'll also note that the supporting character Lum Kee feels like he's toeing the line in terms of tasteful representation for the time, though the subversion of expectations as to how he relates to Nick and Nora is amusing enough.
Recommended Viewing?
Overall, yes.
Army of the Dead
The Basic Premise
It's sometime in the near future and a zombie outbreak has hit the city of Las Vegas. Dave Bautista stars as an ex-soldier hired to sneak a team back into the infested city, break into a state-of-the-art vault, and retrieve the fortune within. Of course, this being both a heist movie and a horror movie, complications inevitably arise.
How Does It Fare?
Many parts of this film manage to impress and keep the plot engaging from start to finish. There's scenes of mounting dread leading to tense, no-win firefights, slow-motion action sequences scored with excellent covers of Vegas-appropriate tunes, and absolutely bonkers twists on zombie iconography that I can’t say I’ve seen before (Zombie Tiger! Super zombies with some form of hierarchical social structure! Mad Max-looking Boss zombie with a metal helmet and a zombie horse! Zombie pregnancy?!?)
However, when it tries to slow down and be about characters working through mistrust or trying to pass the time between scenes, it doesn't quite land as effectively. The cast is game for the material and keeps the banter lively, but they're thinly drawn and better suited to action set-pieces than to slow-burning conversational drama.
Still, it's solid action-horror fare that closes out strong and satisfies more often then not. The undercurrent of Trump-era politics, complete with nods to ICE detention camps and all-but-explicit xenophobia, is also a nice (if all-too-real) touch.
Recommended Viewing?
Overall, yes.
Comments
Post a Comment