Reboot – We Are Movie Geeks

THE NAKED GUN – Review

Pamela Anderson plays Beth and Liam Neeson plays Frank in The Naked Gun from Paramount Pictures.

So, is it too late to “jump start” a beloved comedy franchise if that last entry was released before many moviegoers were born, way back in 1994? Well, Paramount’s more than willing to “roll the dice”, since the original feature flick was a big gamble on bringing a TV show to the big screen. But since several successful films have had their start on the small screen (there have been 13 Star Treks and eight Impossible Missions), is it really a risk? Indeed, it was because that source material, a TV comedy classic, only ran for six (?!) episodes. Here’s a bit of personal trivia: “Police Squad” was the first series that I recorded off the air with a VCR (look it up, kids). Yes, it was broadcast over six glorious weeks on ABC in the Spring of 1982. But some serious movie muscle (AIRPLANE), often referred to as ZAZ (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker), were behind it, so a feature film was released in 1988 and was a huge hit, spurring follow-ups in 1991 and 1994. And now it’s back, making a fourth film inspired by a failed TV show. So, is the comedy ammo still potent, and is the aim for laughs still right on target in THE NAKED GUN? Somewhere Leslie Nielsen is looking down and laughing as he works his portable “fart-noise machine”.

The film’s opening sequence is the main source of the popular trailer that’s been around since the Super Bowl. A bunch of heavily-armed thugs are interrupted during their bank robbery by the intrepid Lt. Det. Frank Drebin Jr. (Liam Neeson). But while all the gunplay occurs in the lobby, a trio led by Sig Gustafson (Kevin Durand) is grabbing a gizmo from a safe deposit box, and escapes from the building. Back at the police station, Drebin is chewed out for his ultra-violent methods by his exasperated superior, Chief Davis (CCH Pounder). In order to remove him from the heist investigation, she sends him out with Cpt. Ed Hocken Jr (Paul Walter Houser) to look into a bizarre highway accident fatality. It appears to be a “cut and dry” case of impaired driving until Drebin gets a visit at the station from the victim’s grieving sister, Beth Davenport (Pamela Anderson). She thinks it was no accident, but rather a murder that may be linked to her brother’s business partner, tech guru Richard Cane (Danny Huston). Drebin’s interested in her theories and in the gorgeous lady herself (he’s a lonely widower). Soon, Frank’s up to his neck in an evil scheme that involves that bank job and an effort to frame him. Can he honor his papa’s legacy by taking down the “perps’ while racking up thousands of dollars in property damage (and really, really bending the law)? Carnage, chaos, and comedy are all part of this big case.

Neeson’s performance here is a big dive into the world of comedy, a “hello” if you will, while also being a huge “goodbye” to the “I’m gonna’ kill all of ‘youse” roles that he looked to be trapped inside, though paid well, I’m sure, since 2008’s TAKEN. And he appears to be having a grand ole’ time. But there’s a big difference from the original beloved star Leslie Nielsen (though they do share the same initials). He had left the hunky leading man roles long before he boarded that AIRPLANE, often popping up as the “well-heeled” suspect in Quinn Martin-styled crime shows. However, Neeson is still a solid movie star, though they both seem to relish “tweaking” the cliches. Though Liam’s not the same silver-maned buffoon, he still barks out the quips with the proper seriousness. Much of that can apply to his leading lady. After bowling the naysayers over with her “deserving of an Oscar nomination” work as THE LAST SHOWGIRL. Ms. Anderson uses her high heels to puncture the femme fatale “bombshell” image built up over 30 years. And kudos for her character name, a nod to the adored legal counsel of a beloved P.I. on the TV classic “The Rockford Files” (brought a smile to my face). Just last week, he was scoring laughs as reformed super-villain the Moleman and now the always watchable Mr. Hauser is still siphoning giggles from the leads as Drebin’s loyal but equally bewildered partner Ed Jr. As for the wrongdoers, Huston is a compelling, smirking rich jerk as the wesally Cane, riffing on current tech despots while recalling his papa’s wealthy wastrals in classics like CHINATOWN. He’s also well served by Durand, spoofing his frequent work as the ruthless hired “muscle”. Plus Pounder is an excellent “straight-woman” as the “more irritated than happy” police chief trying to “clean up’ after Frank and his squad crew.

So, no member of the original ZAZ team, nor their own “juniors,” were behind the camera on this “restart”. Instead, the directing reins were handed off to a member of another acclaimed comedy troupe, the Lonely Island. Coming off the surprisingly clever streaming hit feature reboot of CHIP ‘N DALE: RESCUE RANGERS, Akiva Schaffer certainly has a good comedic eye for the slapstick sequences that mock the “over the top” pyrotechnic pandemonium of so many noisy Summer action blockbusters, particularly in that opening bank heist. And he paces the flick accordingly, coming in just a tad under 90 minutes like much of that original trilogy. But somehow it feels a bit too drawn out, perhaps due to a couple of sidetracks (the plot halts for a weird horror parody), some gratuitous bodily function bits, and a rather aimless final showdown (but then the originals had that problem). It seems that about 65% of the gags really land, with a handful of clever “howlers”, though with any comedy, “your mileage may vary”. Still, that’s a nice “score” over what passes for funny flicks today. Plus Schaffer’s team gets the look and sound “right” as a spoof of police thrillers of the last 40 or so years, while the Nielson trilogy (and his TV show) took on 1960s crime flick and stoic TV shows (I was stunned to recently discover Lee Marvin in “M Squad” a beat-for-beat blueprint for ZAZ). Sure the coffee cup and driving gags wear thin (perhasp they need a couple more to be funny again in the old comedy rule), and you may feel a tad exhausted by the final fade out since Schaffers and his co-writers Dan Gregor and Doug Mand pack in enough bits to fill out another six episode sitcom, but they’re to be commended for the effort to honor a beloved IP. And the enthusiastic cast certainly strives to polish THE NAKED GUN until it sparkles like Nielsen’s cropped-cop coif.

2.5 Out of 4

THE NAKED GUN is now playing in theatres everywhere

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER – Review

So October has finally arrived and the studios are truly “bringing out the big guns” in order to “scare up” some box office bucks at the ole’ haunted multiplex. We’re talking the “classics” here. No, it’s not another SCREAM entry, since this one goes back a lot further in fear film history. Not as far as the “thirsty Count” since we’ve had two flicks about the true first “bat-man” in the past year. But it is older than the HALLOWEEN (the crew behind the last three are behind this one) series or the assorted other sinister stalkers. We can call this a fright franchise since there have been four (some say five) entries and even a short-lived TV series. And it all started exactly fifty years ago as a best-selling novel was adapted into what was then the most profitable horror movie ever (for at least a couple of years). Talk about a “hard act” to follow! That’s the daunting task ahead for this “reimagining” titled THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER.

It begins, much like the original did, with a flashback in an exotic foreign land. Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) is enjoying a vacation in Haiti with his very pregnant wife Sorenne (Tracey Graves) thirteen (oh oh) years ago. He’s indulging his passion for photography when they’re separated by a devasting earthquake, which leads to a tragic decision. Flash forward to today as Victor shares a home in a small Georgia town with his daughter Angela (Lidya Jewett), who is curious about her mother. Luckily she’s made many friends in school, particularly Katherine (Olivia Marcum). One day they each toss out fibs about studying at each others’ houses to their folks. Instead, the duo explores a nearby wooded area to light a candle and attempt to communicate with the “spirit world” (maybe Angela’s mum will answer her queries). Hours pass, darkness falls, and Victor starts to panic. He reaches out to Katherine’s folks, who think she’s with Angela. The panicked parents meet at the police station where the very religious Miranda (Jennifer Nettles) and Tony (Norbert Leo Butz) eye Victor with suspicion. Soon the trio are covering the town with missing flyers. Amazingly the girls turn up alive three days later, thirty miles away. They get a clean bill of health at the local hospital despite some odd scars on the feet and legs. And then the truly freaky behavior begins, as the duo begins to speak in low guttural voices and lash out violently. Victor starts to consider admitting Angela into a mental health facility until his neighbor, a local nurse named Ann (Ann Dowd) gives him a copy of a book written by a woman claiming that her daughter was possessed by a demon. After checking out some online interviews, Victor visits the author, former actress Chris MacNeill (Ellen Burstyn). She agrees to observe Angela, but can her knowledge and experience end the living nightmare of the parents and save their daughters?

Serving as the film’s anchor which strains to hold the disparate plot twists and turns is the talented Mr. Odom Jr. as everyman Victor. We first see him as a loving husband and later father who must not allow fear and panic to overwhelm him. We see that determination on Odom Jr’s face and a hint of desperation in his eyes. It’s then that he shifts into hero mode to rescue his precious daughter. In that role, Ms. Jewitt is quite endearing as the sweet, but often exasperating Angela as she peers into memories of that past which her father doesn’t wish to relive. Plus, she’s very creepy after her “return’, much like Ms. Marcum, who has a bright mischievous smile while disrupting class before morphing into a wild feral creature who terrorizes an entire church. Nettles is quite compelling as her devoted mama, while Butz is manic and boisterous as her “wildcard” papa. Ms. Dowd brings much gravitas and poignancy to the role of the neighborhood “nudge” (“Take in those trash cans!”) turned demon-fighter. Kudos also to Raphael Sbarge as Katherine’s Baptist pastor who eschews the usual cliche of the greedy mega-church huckster. But the film’s MVP is probably the franchise return of Burstyn who commands the screen as the haunted, but still fiery Ms. MacNeill, who is eager to join the battle despite her years, perhaps to release her from some half-a-century-old anguish.

Horror vet (the final HALLOWEEN trilogy) David Gordon Green takes over the directing reigns working from the script he co-wrote with Peter Sattler, Danny Mcbride, and Scott Teems. For the film’s first half, he keeps the pace flowing while setting up the creepy undercurrents of small-town America. Unfortunately, the specter of the 1973 original looms large, pushing him to try and emulate the quick editing unnerving image sequences of that iconic work. Green tries to temper this with more modern “jump scares”, which are offset by the loopy “set-ups” (Victor is barely slowed down when coming through the unlocked front door of his home). And did we really need the nast sequences at a homeless shelter or at a home for the mentally ill (shades of THE SNAKE PIT)? Speaking of modern, we get plenty of the current genre’s penchant for cruelty, especially with a pivotal scene involving MacNeill, that’s is so mean-spirited it pushes the boundaries of good taste for this much-maligned genre. But at least she’s not part of the final act “face-off’ in which a multi-faith Avengers-style team uses each of their religion’s teachings to battle the two possessed pre-teens sporting all manner of CGI-enhanced makeup prosthetics (Katherine sports a Frankenstein-like forehead while Angela harkens back to the 70’s grindhouse classic shocker ABBEY). All the chaos and pummeling sound and fury lead to a limp finale and a bland epilogue, even though a late “arrival” is somewhat charming. The folks at Blumhouse can’t quite work their monster magic on this familiar property, making THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER a reboot with no real “kick”, and only a smattering of those “Tubular Bells”.

1.5 Out of 4

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER is now playing in theatres everywhere

THE BATMAN – Review

Matt Reeves goes noir for THE BATMAN, the latest in a long line of Batman reboots, and this time featuring Robert Pattinson as the Caped Crusader. Reeves, whose previous work includes CLOVERFIELD, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES and its sequel, gives us a dark world, where it always seems to be raining, where corners are dimly lit and gritty streets are littered. The imagery suggests THE JOKER or even BLADE RUNNER, but this film is not as high-concept as either of those films. While the film noir style is gorgeous and the supporting cast strong, Pattinson’s one-note brooding, a plot with too many villains and not enough focus, and a nearly three-hour running time keep the film from truly soaring.

Still, it is distinctly different from the typical superhero movie, and an aesthetic well suited to Batman, always a darker superhero than most. That is all good for those of us who like film noir and gritty thrillers, although those who want brighter sets and a more typical superhero fare may be less pleased. However, beneath the surface, THE BATMAN is more a typical superhero tale, just in different clothing.

Batman (Robert Pattinson), the crime fighting alter-ego of millionaire Bruce Wayne, is one year in to his career as a secret enforcer of the law, but he is already questioning whether he is making any difference. The crime in Gotham City seems to still be going up and, since he lacks superpowers, he can’t be everywhere at once to stop crime. While he is plagued with doubts about this new life he has taken on as a way to avenge his murdered parents, he is still responding when the Bat signal lights up the sky. This time the crime strikes a personal chord for Batman – a man murdered on Halloween in his own home while his son was out trick-or-treating, only to come home and find the body. While this gruesome crime was taking place, Batman was beating up some baddies in the subway, who had targeted an Asian man, in a little contemporary reference.

While Gordon (the always-excellent Jeffrey Wright), Batman’s police contact and the future Police Commissioner, is unwavering in his support, others on the police force are more hostile to the Batman, regarding him as an intruder rather than a help. But this murder scene has some quirky elements, among which is a greeting card addressed to the Batman. Inside are hints in the form of a riddle, a sure sign of Batman’s long-time nemesis, the Riddler (Paul Dano). Except, at this point, he isn’t a long time adversary, because Bruce Wayne is still fairly new at this Batman stuff.

However, Reeves doesn’t stop with a single villain. THE BATMAN also brings in the Penguin (an unrecognizable Colin Farrell) and an underworld figure, Carmine Falcone, played by John Turturro. But the best character is Zoe Kravitz’s Catwoman, that combination criminal adversary and love interest for iron-jawed Batman. Rounding out the cast are Andy Serkis as Batman’s aide/butler Alfred, Peter Sarsgaard as District Attorney Colson, plus Barry Keoghan, Rupert Penry-Jones and Jayme Lawson, among others.

There are twists and surprises aplenty here, often with “Ave Maria” often playing in the background. That soundtrack motif feels a bit of pretentious after while, but photography by Greig Fraser is gloriously noir, a real delight for fans of that genre.

Presenting the Batman story as film noir, as a police procedural, is an intriguing way to come at the whole Batman/Bruce Wayne tale. Audiences are so familiar with the Batman origin story through the many Batman retellings and reboots, that skipping some of its familiar elements, like a scene of his parents’ murders, is no problem. Finding a new way into this story is a bit of a problem, so doing so is an impressive feat, and the film deserves credit for that.

In this is a grim world, corruption is everywhere and the plot is very dark. But despite all the film noir surface, this is still a comic book movie and not some deep psychological drama. Pattinson does his handsome, brooding thing, with a little more youthful vulnerability in the few scenes where he is Bruce Wayne. Clearly Batman’s armor is protective in more than one way. His performance should please his fans, although as an actor, he has done more nuanced work in other roles. This Batman feels very young, more so that other versions. In his crime fighter identity, Pattinson’s Batman projects amazing strength and agility, even beyond all the technology at his fingertips. But his Bruce Wayne is not the smooth social character, polished and perfectly groomed, that we usually see for the alter-ego, but a very young man, reserved, even shy, and often a bit disheveled, but so privileged that it doesn’t matter. Once again, a far different approach.

The supporting cast is excellent, boosted by some unexpected choices, like Paul Dano as the Riddler, who is a delight. While Pattinson does that quiet, brooding thing, Zoe Kravitz nearly steals the show as Catwoman. Kravitz gives us a crackling Catwoman – smart, fearless, with a ready wit, that she sometimes turns on the Batman. This Catwoman has her own alter-ego and backstory, but most of all she lights up the screen with electric energy and has a terrific, biting sense of humor. Zoe Kravitz is one of the best things about this film, followed closely by Paul Dano, doing a fine, crazy Riddler. As the Penguin, Colin Farrell is largely underutilized, appearing in few scenes.

Where THE BATMAN goes off the rails is in offering too much, starting with it’s nearly three-hour running time. Too much story, too many villains and too much running time. Introducing so many villains (or near-villains) does the film no favor, and then there is the the nearly three hours running time. And you feels that running time too – every extra major character requires a subplot that deviates from the central story, and while Reeves does bring it all together in the end, it feels overwritten and audiences many feel exhausted by the end. There is enough material for two, maybe three, movies here, crammed into this one. It is a case of less would have been more.

THE BATMAN opens Friday, Mar. 4, at multiple theaters.

RATING: 3 out of 4 stars

THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS – Review

(L-r) KEANU REEVES as Neo/Thomas Anderson and CARRIE-ANNE MOSS as Trinity in Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures and Venus Castina Productions’ “THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release. Photo Credit: Murray Close. © 2021 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Village Roadshow Films North America Inc.

Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Ann Moss return as Neo and Trinity, or someone like them, in THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS, Lana Wachowski’s sequel/reboot of the groundbreaking science fiction film trilogy. It has been over 20 years since the original MATRIX was released and nearly as long since the last of the trilogy came out. A lot has changed, for science fiction films and for the Wachowskis, so revisiting the world of the Matrix seems a bit of a surprise after all this time. THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS is a solo project of one of the two siblings who created the original, and features the original two stars, who find themselves once again caught in the dream world of the Matrix. This sequel offers more action entertainment than philosophy, but with a more satisfying take on Neo and Trinity’s story.

Or at least Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) seems to be in a world connected to that one. Here Anderson is the creator of a wildly popular computer game called The Matrix, along with his business partner Smith (Jonathan Groff). The game was groundbreaking hit 20 years ago and made the company prosperous and Anderson kind of famous, but now Smith is leaning on Anderson to come up with a new hit. Anderson seems sad and distracted, haunted by a past that included a mental breakdown, and is seeing a therapist (Neil Patrick Harris) to help cope. He also has a thing for a woman he sees daily at a local coffee shop, a mother of three named Tiffany (Carrie-Ann Moss), who is also a regular.

It is a rather clever approach to re-enter this world, and Wachowski, as co-writer, deserves credit for that. Instead of revisiting all the philosophical, existential questions of the original trilogy, this reboot mostly lets all that stand and instead focuses more on what has happened to the world of free humans in the meantime and more importantly, on the connection between Neo/Anderson and Trinity/Tiffany.

Although Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Ann Moss are 20 years older, they both still look very good, particularly Moss, who seems amazingly little changed by the years. While 20 years have passed in our world, a much greater period of time has elapsed in the Matrix’s world. We the audience see Reeves and Moss as Thomas and Tiffany see themselves. but others in the story see them as much older, as their “real” age, which we glimpse occasionally in reflective surfaces.

Of course, this world is illusion, as a programmer named Bugs (Jessica Henwick) discovers and then explores with the help of a new Morpheus (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) who is also a version of Agent Smith. The addition of new characters like Bugs refreshes things, but there are also some old favorites (Jada Pinkett Smith also reprises her role as Niobe, albeit an older version), a combination that takes this tale in different directions than the original man-versus-machine story. Here the sides are much murkier, which is really more fun.

While the trilogy was all about Neo as the One, this new film is more about Neo and Trinity as a team, and a couple, in this new battle for freedom. This Matrix is more action-focused and offers plenty of that along with splendid visual effects. There are plentiful references to the original films, little treats for fans that are used to advance this new story.

Performances are good, with Neil Patrick Harris as the Analyst a stand-out, particularly on the comic side. Reeves and Moss have lost none of their chemistry and putting the emphasis on them as two sides of a whole feels like a more contemporary choice. The film also wraps up with a more satisfying ending of their story than the original trilogy. While the door is open for another sequel, this one also could be a good ending for the story cycle.

MATRIX RESURRECTIONS is not a genre-busting film but it is an enjoyable addition to the series, turning it in a new direction. For fans who were all in on Neo as the One, the savior theme, and are looking for more philosophical rabbit holes to go down, they should note this film is more heart than head, with more of an action focus. For fans of the original 1999 Matrix movie more than the series, MATRIX RESURRECTIONS offers a nice wrap-up alternative for Neo and Trinity, after the existential questions are laid to rest, with a more down-to-earth, hopeful, human ending.

THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS opens Wednesday, Dec. 22, in theaters and on HBO Max’s ad-free version for a limited time.

RATING: 2.5 out of 4 stars

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE – Review

Mr. Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) with Podcast (Logan Kim) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) in Columbia Pictures’ GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE.

What at first seems to be a nostalgic multiplex return trip to a much-beloved flick from decades ago, actually begs a somewhat interesting question. When a reboot (or “re-imagining”) doesn’t “take” at the box office, can the studios have a “do-over”? Well, it somewhat happened in 2003 with what was really a TV property based on a comic book property. Audiences didn’t embrace Ang Lee’s fairly artsy (and cerebral) take on the HULK, so many were skeptical when the then head of Marvel Avi Arad said they’d be back. And they were in 2008 with THE INCREDIBLE HULK which built on the fan base for IRON MAN and laid the groundwork for the MCU (Doc Banner’s a big “player” there to this day). Jump ahead to 2016 when a new “spin” on an iconic 1980’s fantasy/comedy incurred the “wraith of internet fan-boys” and did a B.O. nose-dive (and it really was undeserving of the vitriol). So Sony now wants to find out if part of the title rings true for its franchise as it goes back to the “drawing board” with GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE.

Oh, but we’re not back in the Big Apple where the other series entries were set. Nope, we’re many miles east as a battered old truck careens through the sleepy streets of Summerville, OK as though something was on its tail. It dashes off the “hard-top” onto a dirt road leading to a ramshackle farmhouse. Leaping from the vehicle, its shadowy driver gathers up some strange, but somewhat familiar device, to battle this unseen force. But they’re of no help. Cut to a much larger city as single mother Callie (Carrie Coon) gets word that her long-absent father has passed and left her his home. Since they’re behind on the rent, she hits the road with teen son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and pre-teen “whiz kid” Phoebe (McKenna Grace). They’re underwhelmed by the Summerville estate, but since they’re locked out of their previous place (back rent), they’ve got to make the best of it. While Trevor applies for a job at the local burger drive-in, to be close to the cute server Lucky (Celeste O’Connor), Phoebe attends Summer school. There she befriends the energetic Podcast (Logan Kim) and bonds with her teacher Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) over the sudden frequent seismic tremors. Back at the house, she discovers hidden labs full of old charts and intricate, though outdated, machines and data collectors. Meanwhile, Trevor starts tinkering with the vintage vehicle in the garage (and what’s with that logo on its side). The tremors appear to be emanating from a nearby closed mine. So what was Grandpa doing there? And what was his connection to a legendary supernational event back in 1084 NYC?

Though the film is dotted with familiar faces (yes, the OGs are present), its biggest strength comes from the excellent performance by young Ms. Grace. Though mainly known for playing the “child” versions of title characters (I, TONYA, and CAPTAIN MARVEL), she builds on the promise we saw in the “under the radar” gem GIFTED. As Phoebe, the coolest “kid brainiac” around, she’s got a sly snarky line delivery that shields her from the dangers of “evils beyond science”. She’s so cool that she’s never “out-cooled” by the always engaging Rudd, who turns the charm dial way up past 11. Who wouldn’t want a teacher so laid-back, popping 80s scare flicks into the ancient VHS player as the “daily lesson” (too bad he didn’t have MAC AND ME)? Plus he’s got an enthusiastic curiosity that matches the “new kids in town”, even ‘Phebe’s’ awkward “hormone-hyped” teen brother played with a smitten daze by Wolfhard. Sure he’s a more mature variation of his “Stranger Things” role, but he’s an endearingly clueless doofus, especially around O’Conner’s Lucky, his ultra-cool dreamgirl who befriends him. But one of the characters must deal with ghosts of the past along with the present. Coons as mom Callie still projects a tragic vibe even as she guides her kids with humor, though everything in their new home is a reminder of the father who was never there. After scene-stealing turns in GONE GIRL and THE NEST, it’s great to see this talented actress again on the big screen (though she was CGI-enhanced in the last two AVENGERS epics).

After the franchise fans were so “riled up” five years ago, this “retry’ feels almost like a “we’re sorry” cinematic greeting card as it almost bursts with nostalgic reverences for those earlier flicks. The new music score by Rick Simonsen presents several clever “riffs’ on Elmer Berstein’s iconic themes. And the film deals with the legacy of the first film even down to the man behind the camera, It’s Jason Reitman, son of the original director Ivan (he also co-wrote the script with Gil Kenan), quite a change from his more “down to Earth” fare like JUNO and UP IN THE AIR. He handles the big action set pieces well, though the interplay between the family (and Phoebe and Gary) resonate more, This “keys in” into the fairly radical approach to the series, in making it more “kid-friendly”, though it has the PG-13 rating, it may be more for the spooky stuff (there’s a couple of good “jump scares”). At times it recalls the “teen gang’ films like EXPLORERS and THE GOONIES that may have occupied the screens next to the first couple of entries. Unfortunately, it also recreates the often sluggish pace of those films, as it enters a “midway slump” which saps the energy and derails the flow. It then seems as though plot points and effects are being “checked off” a big “fan service”.clipboard. “Slimer”-style funny spectre-check. Demonic dogs-check. I will say that the twist on the first film’s towering threat is pretty clever and very well done. But after that bit of whimsy, the piece just trudges along to the mandatory “showdown” and “reconciliation” (which includes some off-putting CGI resurrection). Yes, the franchise’s fervent “base” will enjoy this one more, but it’s a pleasant “look back’ there’s not much to warrant a look forward (as the post-credits scene hints). GHOSTBUSTER: AFTERLIFE will “scare up” a few bucks, but it’s not enough to get new “recruits’ into the jumpsuit and strapping on the “proto-packs”.

2.5 Out of 4

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE is now playing in theatres everywhere

1-sheet of Columbia Pictures’ GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE.

‘Daredevil’ Reboot has been Confirmed, sort of…

I’m going to come right out and tell you that, despite some minor flaws, I enjoyed the 2003 film adaptation of DAREDEVIL, starring Ben Affleck. Yes, I do own the movie, and I also own GHOST RIDER, even though it had more flaws than DAREDEVIL. Both films, coincidentally, were written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson. I do NOT, however, own ELEKTRA, which is Johnson’s epic failure. With this rant revealed, I’ll get to my point of news at hand…

About the same time plans of a sequel to GHOST RIDER were confirmed by Variety, a subtle confirmation of a DAREDEVIL reboot was also revealed in the form of one little line, that’s it, but its a line with some weight to it… “quietly developing a new version of ‘Daredevil'”.

Why is this good news? For those of you who love to hate Affleck as Daredevil, or the movie in general, it’s good news as a chance to get it right, so to speak. On the other hand, for the rest of us it’s an opportunity to visit the character in more detail and expand the story of screen, since the original never developed into a franchise, only a lackluster bomb called ELEKTRA. Sorry if you liked this film, but I find no excuse for that.

Daredevil is a fascinating character. He’s been immortalized both by Frank Miller and Kevin Smith, not to mention other notable writers. For me, the combination of a character who is mostly just another regular Joe (with money) and the fact that his disability became his primary “special” ability, his incredible knack for martial arts and the gritty film noir approach of his story, all add up to what I consider Marvel’s answer to DC Comics’ Batman. Both of whom I enjoy in their darker more mature forms and coincidentally, both were developed as such by the legendary Frank Miller.

Unfortunately, one of the coolest bad guys in the Daredevil lore (Bull’s Eye) was wasted in the first film. Well, not wasted. Collin Ferrell did a great job, but I still would’ve liked to see the character appear in a more, let’s say “refined” second attempt at the material on screen. With all the reboots underway, including FANTASTIC FOUR and DEADPOOL among others, it seems as though Marvel and the studios perhaps rushed into these projects too quickly, blinded by the dollar signs glistening in their eyes.

Could they have gotten all of these films right the first time if they had simply slowed down a bit and focused a bit more on quality and not entirely on how huge the box office could get? Perhaps, but with the technology and the increasing savvy surrounding comic book source material in Hollywood, I’m just glad that these films are being made.

Source: Variety

Discuss: Remake Vs. Reboot Vs. Reimagining

From Wikipedia, a most reliable source:

Reboot -Ã‚ a discarding of much or even all previous continuityÃ‚ in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.

Remake -Ã‚ generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.

Reimagining -Ã‚ remakes that do not closely follow the original. The term is used by creators in the marketing of films and television shows to inform audiences that the new product is not the same as the old. Reimaginings often contain tongue in cheek references to the original with characters and concepts of the same name, but significantly changed.

Nothing like standing out in the rain talking with a fellow Movie Geek to get your geek-filled blood boiling. Ã‚ So it goes with yesterday evening. Ã‚ The conversation deviated towards film studios and how ridiculous they have gotten in recent memory. Ã‚ One of the major bones of contention the two of us had with the studios, of which there were many, was this idea of studios saying they are “rebooting” a film instead of “remaking” it. Continue reading Discuss: Remake Vs. Reboot Vs. Reimagining

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: