Tag: buddy

THE MOST RECENT FAST AND FURIOUS – MORE LIKE FARCICAL AND INFURIATING

SHORT TAKE:

Waste of time – see the Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw trailer #2 (linked here and at end of post) for all the best bits.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Adults only for language and extreme (though really cartoonish) levels of carnage. Not a lot of blood but you wouldn’t want the kids to try these stunts at home.

LONG TAKE:

I have nothing against brainless entertainment and I try to judge a movie only within the genre for which it was intended. So when you go see one of the Fast and Furious franchise films (try to say THAT three times quickly) you don’t expect much beyond good old escapist fun. I even applauded Fate of the Furious in a previous post as a welcome entry.

I love buddy movies and have extolled all kinds from The Great Escape to The Hitman’s Bodyguard. And I have no problem with franchises doing semi-parodies of themselves. I am on record many times for complaining that a movie takes itself TOO seriously. And I think the break from tradition Thor: Ragnarok, for example, is one of the best Avenger movies.

But you gotta give the audience SOMETHING of substance. Sadly, in the case of  director David Leitch’s Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, it’s like trying to make an entire meal out of day old cotton candy.

SPOILERS – BUT THE PLOT IS SO THREADBARE IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER

I’m afraid the writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce thought they could punch quality into a movie with just star power. But Spielberg’s 1941 or Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate or Bay’s Pearl Harbor could have warned them otherwise. I understand it is doing well at the box office and good for them. A friend of mine once taught me an expression – No one sets out to make a bad movie. But, unfortunately, despite what the film makers intended, this one is just not very good.

Not that the cast was trying very hard. Johnson and Statham spend most of the movie either posturing like WWW competitors or trading childish barbs with all the finesse of opposing players in a grade school gym locker room. Dwayne Johnson was funnier in Jumanji, Statham more invested in The Expendables, and Vanessa Kirby, a “legit” actress (amazing as Princess Margaret in The Crown and fun as the White Widow in MI: Fallout) is simply wasted. I really liked her Hattie in this, a variation of Atomic Blonde, (also a David Leitch directed movie), but then her scenes had to be spliced back into the fatiguing Hobbs-Shaw bickering man measuring show.

Ryan Reynolds appears in a cameo with dialogue that could have been made of rejected adlibs from Deadpool 2. Helen Mirren walks through her reprised role as Shaw’s mother, Queenie. At one point Queenie assures Shaw that she is happy in prison and could break out any time she wanted – that it was quiet and she could just sit in her room, and spend her time reading – that it was like retirement. I couldn’t help but wonder if Ms. Mirren was talking about Queenie’s stint in the pen or Ms. Mirren’s actual presence on the set of this movie.

Kevin Hart pops up in a couple of random moments as Dinkley, the air marshal, to be used like duct tape on a leaky hose to solve a couple of plot holes. In return, Hart is allowed to ramble  interminably in an improvisational-style soliloquy in lieu of any proper exposition for his character.

Idris Elba as main cybernetically enhanced bad guy Brixton gives it everything he has, carrying the weight of what little gravitas the movie has. By far the most interesting character, it was a sore temptation not to root for him to win.

The premise of the story is that they are trying to prevent Idris Elba’s bad guy, Brixton, from getting ahold of an extinction-level virus for his unseen super villain boss. But it becomes obvious early on this is really just an excuse to create a string of cartoon quality violence fight scenes and car stunts. And while I do not fundamentally MIND that, the film makers have to at least TRY to hide this fact. But like a sloppy magician who yells “Look over there” before every clumsy trick, it just doesn’t work for long.

Instead of providing character and plot earned enthusiasm, the chase scenes strove to outdo all the F&F chases put together and as a result became preposterous. I’m not giving spoilers as the scene where a line of linked trucks are holding down a flying fortress helicopter is in the trailer. The chase scenes from The French Connection, Bullitt, The Great Escape, the beginning of The Rock (“Oh why NOT!”), or even the escape at the start of The Avengers from a collapsing building complex were exciting because the audience was led to believe the characters were potentially in danger.

Well, I can easily imagine Jeremy Scott from Cinema Sins doing a bonus round of “They survived this”. The F&F movies are supposed to take place (more or less) in the real world and the leads, aside from Elba, are not supposed to have unusual supernatural powers – Dwayne Johnson’s mountain-sized physique notwithstanding. But the repeated walk aways from cataclysmic-sized vehicle crashes, which would have killed Bugs Bunny, stretched and eventually broke the suspension bridge of disbelief out from under the viewers. (And, I’m sorry, but it was tough for even my loyal Marvel-fan heart to believe that Cap could hold back the small helicopter Bucky flew duringCaptain America: Civil War. Johnson is just NOT holding down a military grade bird.) It did not take long for there to be zero investment in the outcome of the rides, knowing the main characters would likely to come out the right end of a freight train to the face.

Then there is the storyline.

We’re talking Adam West’s Batman level of contrivances and clunky dialogue, where guest stars appear out of nowhere and backstories are pulled from whole cloth to justify prior franchise installment plot holes.

For example, the fact that Hattie, Shaw’s spy sister, never came up in conversation is explained away by him having been framed for treason in the master plan of a heretofore unknown and currently still unseen megalomaniac bad guy. Hobbs’ extensive Samoan family was previously non-existent because he had alienated everyone by turning in his crime lord father to the authorities.

Hobbs’ brother Jonah (Cliff Curtis), who lives on a remote island in Samoa, with only the technology of a classy chop shop at his disposal, is decided to be the ONLY person and place in the world they can go to fix cutting edge virus extracting bio equipment……? Huh? So I guess I can ask my car mechanic to do some gene splicing on the side. Easy peasy.

I did like the “importance of family” theme, which is one of the more endearing F&F tropes, including Shaw’s mom and sibling and Hobbs’ daughter, mother and brothers into the mix. And it was nice they found a way to include Johnson’s actual Samoan heritage into the story. But it was shoe-horned in, superficial and paint by numbers – Hobbs doesn’t want to go home, brother punches him on sight, mom intimidates all the big boys into cooperating. Shaw’s mother, Queenie, fondly recounts, in flash back, how the previously unknown and unseen sister and Shaw concocted scams and committed felonies as children. What a mom.

I guess it’s cute that they shoot parallel scenarios of these two men who can’t seem to stand each other doing pretty much the same things at the same time with their own styles. It might have even been funny had the repertoire between them sounded better than first day of shooting improvisation, created by two uninspired high school freshmen.

Supporting characters are dispatched or ignored with little fan fare. Professor Andreiko (Eddie Marsan from better movies like The World’s End, Atomic Blonde and Deadpool 2) is a heroic scientist who save our intrepid heroes, but then gets left behind without a thought, killed by Brixton with no consideration for how useful he might be in the future, with no attempt by the heroes to save him, and not so much as a “I wonder what happened to that little guy who saved our butts?” This callousness does nothing to shore up the already, by this time, flaccid investment the audience has in these characters.

While there’s no overt sex, the language is unnecessarily crude and contains a good deal of profanity and blasphemy.

If you REALLY think you want to see this latest and weakest F&F you can – LITERALLY – see a Reader’s Digest version of the ENTIRE movie via abridged cuts of all the best scenes in the official Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw trailer #2. It’s free, short and eliminates all the bad language.

But – if you want to see a GOOD car chase, adventure, buddy movie, try out one of the other better ones I’ve mentioned in this post or even go see one of the previous Fast and Furious installments. Sadly, this contender didn’t make it to the finish line.

 

SHAZAM – ADORABLE SUPER HERO FROM THE POV OF A KID

SHORT TAKE:

Adorable view of the super hero world from the POV of its most ardent demographic – the barely pubescent teenaged boy.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Mid teens and up because of “boy” language with a large helping of the English word for “merde” and a couple of crass throwaway lines. All totaled this movie is only 30 seconds of cuts away from a G rating.

LONG TAKE:

In age swapping movies like Big or 13 Going on 30 or the most recent Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, wherein you briefly meet the characters then spend the bulk of the movie with the doppleganger(s), by the denouement, when the original versions re-emerge, it’s a let down because you miss the avatar with whom you have explored the character arc.

Not with Shazam.

Director David F Sandberg wisely chose a different structure and the writer, Henry Gayden did a very good job of neatly bouncing back and forth between the two, so you never lose attachment to either. Shazam feels like a buddy movie wherein the buddies are the same person.

I have often maintained that men have an easy time accessing their inner child and Shazam makes my point in spades.

Zachary Levi (voiced Finn for Tangled and a cross between Peter Pan and Robin Hood as Fandral in the last two Thor movies) brilliantly channels his inner pubescent in Shazam, endowing his Shazam with all the sheer joy and wonder of a youth just discovering powers he didn’t know were possible (apt and clever analogy for maturation anyone?), but recognizing that this super hero is still just an inexperienced kid.

A lot of movies featuring kids have really cringy moments, either from bad acting or bad writing from people who, apparently, have no kids and don’t remember what it is like to be a kid. Star War: Phantom Menace, A Wrinkle in Time, and After Earth all come to mind.

Not in Shazam.

Asher Angel is great as the foster kid who is the surprised recipient of these gifts. I have two sons past this age now as well as a brother, husband and a torrent of boys who have graced our house as friends of all six of our kids, and Angel is, on the screen, as Billy Batson.…… a kid. No posturing, no trying to play older than he is, just a young teen who plays a young teen. And he does it beautifully: funny, intelligent, wide-eyed one minute and pretending to be worldly-wise the next.

Jack Dylan Grazer is his best friend Freddie Freeman and, while echoing his obnoxious character from It, does a splendid job of being … an obnoxious kid.

Together Grazer and Angel…and Levi and Grazer are kids who do thoughtless, selfless, stupid, heroic, sly, blunt, brave and courageous things – often within minutes of each other.

The three of them have great chemistry together and are a lot of fun to watch.

Billy’s foster siblings: Faithe Herman as Darla, Grace Fulton as Mary, Ian Chen as Eugene, Jovan Armand as Pedro, do great jobs as well in the supporting cast of kids, and each are given their moment to shine.

The adults like Marta Milans and Cooper Andrews’ foster couple who care for the kids are treated with respect and shown as good role models and caring people.

Then, of course, there is Dr. Sivana, the bad guy, played by Mark Strong (both Kingsmen movies and Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes), who hams up his super villain with a horde of evil minion gargoyles,  creating a sense of menace but with just enough camp to take the edge off and prevent the movie, despite some cartoon-horrifying scenes, from going down the Dark Knight path. Solid actor that he is, Strong confidently takes Dr. Sivana to the edge of that envelope without ever ruining the good time for the audience during his haunted house-like scenes. This is, after all, a mostly teen-intentioned super hero movie.

From the Superman theme, to Rocky‘s “Eye of the Tiger” and Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now” the songs interlaced with the soundtrack work to create an upbeat mood and place.

The style is a combination of realistic with comic book colorful and no holds are pulled in recognizing how ridiculous his costume at first appears (can’t resist this quote – the first night Batson transforms, talking to Freddie: “Super powers!? Dude, I can’t even figure out how to pee in this thing!”)

As I alluded to above, Shazam can easily be seen as an allegory for a youth, who is just coming to terms with the demands of adulthood, newly encountering “powers” for which he must assume responsibility, and battling – wait for it – the Seven Deadly Sins represented by one of each of the gargoyles!

It is hard to believe that Wonder Woman and Shazam! are in the same universe, so vastly different are their tones. Be that as it may, along with Wonder Woman, D.C. FINALLY now has another big success in the super hero genre. So, as Gomer Pyle might have exclaimed: SHAZAM! (couldn’t resist that either).

 

SHOW DOGS – NO CHAMPION OF CHILDREN

SHORT TAKE:

Cute brainless movie about anthropomorphized dogs ruined by a poorly considered scene which, whether intentional or not, lowers a child's guard against unwanted "touching".

WHO SHOULD GO:

Sadly, no one in the target demographic audience of children UNLESS one scene is changed and/or removed along with any references to it.

LONG TAKE:

When the kids were underaged we were incredibly careful, from deciding on where to store the cleaning products to the books they read to the unpopular decision against them going on sleep overs. We never parked them in front of a TV in a store and walked away thinking they would be OK or let them play hide-and-seek in public. We never let them so much as walk down the block without a responsible adult or semi-adult accompaniment. We met the parents supervising parties they were attending and often stayed as chaperones. We knew what music they listened to, who their friends were and what movies they watched. (At least we tried – kids are sneaky creatures.) One of my constant refrains to other parents when explaining why we were so very careful when we were raising our children was: "I've never known anyone to be sorry for being too careful. But I've know a LOT of people who were sorry for not being careful enough." And I've experienced more than one moment where I was grateful for subscribing to this mantra.

I was originally going to do a review of the movie Show Dogs in a positive light – kid movie about dogs, some fart humor, innocent brainless romp. What's not to like? I even gave it a "silly popcorn movie" thumbs up on the radio call I make every week to KBYS.

Then my daughter brought my attention to a blog by a mom who was disturbed by one particular scene in the movie. During the AKC dog shows it is routine for the animal to have his genitals checked to be sure both testicles are descended. It is a requirement for winning and was used as a plot device for this loner canine police dog, Max, (voiced by Ludacris – whose proper name is Christopher Brian Bridges), to demonstrate self-control. At the time I thought it a goofy plot device. But this mom's blog, which expressed some serious concern about this episode encouraging children to succumb to genital touching, got me considering the issue. As anyone who has read any of my blogs will know, I have both a short fuse and a short temper when it comes to protecting children from all manner of inappropriate scenes, themes, behavior, language, sexuality, etc. But even I didn't catch this one.

To be the Devil's Advocate here for just a moment my initial analysis of the concerned mom's legitimate thoughtfulness was that she was overreacting. My reasoning was thus: it is an adult male dog, undergoing an accepted physical exam. This is not an exam made up for the gratuitous sake of a joke (although it is milked for such) but is a real part of AKC review in dog shows, especially ones at this level.

Next, my reasoning said, if there was any subservient/child aspect to this, the handler/human partner, Frank (Will Arnett) had the fiduciary duty over the animal, anthropomorphized or not. The human partner Frank was the responsble party for Max and had to account for Max' behavior when he bit someone, and his whereabouts when he went missing briefly. And Frank was not only there, attending closely during the examination but was watching very very carefully as Frank was afraid Max would bite the judge and blow the contest, their cover and their best opportunity to solve the case. Frank would have seen the slightest inappropriate attention, or abuse on the part of the judicial examiner, who had every right to be doing what he was doing. I thought, at the time, it was much more akin to a parent overseeing the appropriate examination of a child by a doctor.

But then, in a post to the article about this alert mama, someone else mentioned that children would RELATE to and AS this dog. That, as the main character in the movie, this is the one they would most closely associate with and emulate. That's when the scene did indeed raise my red flag. Adult dog or not, children will relate to this talking dog – even though the humans in the movie do not understand the dog barks, we in the audience do. Max is the main character and written to be the critter with whom we most closely empathize, and see as the surrogate and gateway into this movie.

Further, thinking back to my six children's pediatric examinations, I can not recall any time when a routine exam necessitated a palpitation of their private parts.

So, in retrospect, I think the concerned mom is right.

I will give the writers the benefit of the doubt and say I believe it was simply an exercise of poor judgement and not maliciously intended. The rest of the movie was child friendly and without any agenda. It's a mismatched cop buddy movie ala Lethal Weapon with a dog and human as the frenemies who must learn to get along and respect each other. Both dog and human had cute female love interests without sexual reference or insinuation. The act of checking a dog's genitalia fit the plot, was somewhat funny and really is something that occurs in dog shows. On its surface, Max' required restraint during the inspection scene was no worse than a badly timed breaking of wind at a wedding or a bit of crude humor during a toast by an inebriated groomsman. Unfortunately, the potential bad effects of desensitizing children to inappropriate and unwanted touching are far more reaching than a tasteless joke or badly timed flattulence.

If the filmmakers are smart they will refilm this one scene with a more child friendly concept, such as having Max exercise this same self control when having his teeth examined during the course of the contest. (And yes, my children did occasionally try to bite our eternally patient pediatric dentist so this idea is perfectly relevant.) Precedent for going back to reshoot was set with All the Money in the World when all the scenes shot with the now disgraced predator Kevin Spacey as Getty were replaced with the legendary Christopher Plummer taking over the role. And this scene in Show Dogs is only one close up scene which could even be changed with some clever CGI and editing and a few mentions in others parts of the movie that could be easily revised or voiced over.

Meanwhile, I must bow to the wisdom of this attentive blogger mom and agree with her that, as currently shot with this one scene, Show Dogs, sadly, is NOT appropriate for their young child target demographic audience.