Tag: action

Dub’s Take: Ghostbusters Frozen Empire (2024)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

I’m not a “Ghostbusters” fan. The first film was not in my childhood rotation, although it was a clever idea that could have only come from the renaissance of ’80s cinema. I did see “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” (2021), but I don’t agree with bringing dead actors back digitally, so I thought the ending was a cheap excuse to wring a wet rag of nostalgia over viewers’ heads. We saw the cast we wanted back (sans Rick Moranis) plus the Ectomobile & proton packs, and the script regurgitated all the flashy pseudo-science that made the first film’s screenwriters Dan Aykroyd & the late Harold Ramis giddy in ’84. And since it made money, now we have ANOTHER ONE.

For the first 75 minutes of “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire”, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s a John Cassavetes picture: there’s minimal “busting”; a girl-crush with a ghost; quick flashes of what the old crew is up to; the tribulations of new, inexperienced management taking over an old, established operation; and, ultimately, the triumphant bureaucracy of William Atherton’s Walter Peck. After the small-scale atavism of the last instalment, the only thing producers had to do in this sequel was up the stakes. Yet, so little of consequence actually happens in the first hour-and-a-bit of “Ghostbusters 5” that it feels more like melodrama than the supernatural action-comedy team-up throwback it should be. It’s boring.

It all segues to a big finale that is heavily-spoiled in the trailers. All the new & old actors show up for the one camera shot audiences are all expecting (in uniform walking toward the camera in slow-motion), but the final fight takes place inside the cramped studio corridors of a firehouse when they should be outside in, you know, the world of ice (I thought it was cheaper to shoot against a green screen)? And when our heroes exit to their adoring public in the epilogue, the old actors mysteriously disappear. The final half-hour smells so foul of behind-the-scenes scheduling coordination, and contract negotiation, and cost-saving measures, that its equivalent would be watching a dramatization of the film’s accounting spreadsheet.

Maybe this is all you want out of another Ghostbusters sequel: to see everyone again, one last time. And if they make another one again, then maybe you’ll get to see them all one last time again, forgetting of course we’ve already been through this a few times already. But I’m done with busting. Not that busting ever made me feel good.

1 out of 5

Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Am I being overly critical? Do I need to chill out more and appreciate that Paul Rudd can turn in a consistent, median-emotion performance whenever he wants? Would you be as awkward as Finn Wolfhard looks in the pre-show interview sitting next to a blond, long-haired Mckenna Grace? Leave a comment down below!

Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: Argylle

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

In an age of debating whether movie studios like Warner have the moral right to destroy unreleased films like their “Coyote vs. Acme” and “Batgirl”, here we have “Argylle”: a movie that didn’t need to be made at all.

Director Matthew Vaughn also helmed all three “Kingsman” movies. Both Kingsman 1 & 3 (“The King’s Man”) were fun and non-conformist, with well-textured characters and believable dialogue that injected some juj into their otherwise-boilerplate spy-caper stories. And where Kingsman 1 leaned towards comedy, Kingsman 3 was effectively dramatic. The reason that absurdist humour in Kingsman 1 and those unexpected tragic beats in 3 worked so well was because the movies were good and had earned your disbelief.

Vaughn is obviously capable, so it’s perplexing that Argylle inspires no audience empathy. Its narrative coalescence is predictable & uninspired. Its special effects are functionally on the level of a television pilot. The all-star cast – from Sam Rockwell to Bryan Cranston to Catherine O’Hara – does exactly what you expect them to with neither subtlety nor relish. And, no surprise, it’s too long, with a final third that introduces an assembly line of misdirection that ends with a dance number, all of which plays like it was written during an endless night of bong tokes.

It is these workmanlike qualities that suggest everyone on Argylle was just doing it for the money: it’s exactly what you expect and nothing more. Vaughn made an inoffensive “Kingsman for Girls”, which will serve its purpose as disposable entertainment for its audience and as a tax write off for its executives. The actors knew that no one was winning any awards: they all showed up with their lines memorized (we hope), did their job, and went home. You will guess all the twists. Your partner will laugh at the cat. And there’s so much leg n’ boob from Bryce Howard & Dua Lipa that you can see what they had for breakfast.

1.5 out of 5

Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Did this review come across a little too “Red Letter Media”? Where was the cat’s gas mask in the finale? Is that like the “lorem ipsum” being left in the “Last of Us Part 2” PS5 remaster? Do you feel that there is a lack of attention-to-detail in these contemporary corporate-led media releases when there needs to be more scrutiny? Do you see that box below? Leave a comment!

Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: The Beekeeper

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

There is something to be said for texture. You could have the most formulaic theme – like “the ex-super-soldier with a heart of gold” – and innovate it with unconventional dialogue, design, and direction, so long as it’s in service to the movie at-large. Screenwriter Kurt Wimmer’s latest crucible has so much texture that it’s a deliriously overcomplicated melting pot, with flavours of your January-variety Jason Statham release, a pseudo-political conspiracy thriller, a cautionary tale on fake virus alerts (really), and a parable about dispirited parenting, all under high-concept control from David Ayer.

The film derives the majority of its thrills from tense scenes of idiots in rooms minimizing the shit-storm they’re in with Statham’s anonymous vigilante. Ayer convincingly propulses the plot in these ‘quiet’ moments, and “Hunger Games” alum Josh Hutcherson puts his best foot forward as the film’s primary antagonist.

But we’re here for the boom-boom – as showcased in the film’s persuasive trailers, where Statham’s “1 2 3” gassing initially concluded that “The Beekeeper” would be a ratty good time in a month known for disenfranchised movie releases. Statham does indeed kill his way through baddies of increasing eccentricity, and the turbulent editing that dominated the theatrical version of Ayer’s “Suicide Squad” is gone here: every shot of Statham kicking a dude in the face is held just long enough for its impact to be felt by the viewer.

Bottom line: you already saw most of the boom-boom in the trailers. Slower moments – including an implied romantic history & a family connection, which serve as beleaguering texture – could have been cut for pacing. The increasing tiers of henchmen feel too much like boss encounters in a video game. And the climax – infiltrating a party at the evil guy’s mansion – is depressingly doddering & ends abruptly, without any real show-stopping confrontation to close the movie on. Disregarding those cons, it was an excellent watch as part of the Canadian $5 February deal at Cineplex.

3 out of 5

Movie poster sourced from impawards.com. Have you seen “The Beekeeper” yet? Would you if the ticket was only five bucks? Are you a connoisseur of other fine Jason Statham January fare like “Wild Card”, “The Mechanic”, or “Parker”? Are you disappointed when people talk about Jennifer Lopez’s acting career and no one mentions “Blood and Wine”? Leave a comment below!

Posted on by wd 0

Dub’s Take: The Island (2005)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

The best performance, in a film full of convincing performances, comes from Djimon Hounsou as Laurent, the morally-conflicted mercenary sent after our heroes Scarlett Johansson & Ewan McGregor. While it’s a character that easily could have been played by any generic macho movie touch guy on-reserve like Christos Vasilopoulos or Michael Jai White, Laurent – as played by Hounsou – has conviction, and commands attention. It’s probably the role I’ll remember him most for, even if he’s woefully sidelined in the third act – the film’s only real disappointment.

Anyone who wonders whether director Michael Bay (yes, THAT Michael Bay, love him or hate him) is capable of making something serious should look no further than “The Island”. Sure, Bay can’t resist himself in the handful of action scenes that are here – including a mid-movie showstopper that escalates from launching giant steel train wheels off a moving flat-deck, to hanging precariously off the edge of a giant logo at the top of a skyscraper – but they aren’t the film’s focus. Be that as it may, don’t think that because you aren’t getting the intensity level of “Transformers 4” that The Island isn’t consistently thrilling, because it is: Bay’s bombastic technique keeps the pacing kinetic for the 2 hour+ runtime.

The film’s secret standout is its script – co-written by TV showrunners Kurtzman & Orci – and the less said the better. Okay, so you might guess what’s going on before the cut-and-dry reveal by Steve Buscemi, and it isn’t necessarily the freshest story off the line, but the production finds new ways, right up until its climax, to raise the stakes – however predictable. It’s fun. It’s one of only a handful of films I’ve seen in theatres more than once by choice, and almost 20-years-later this most recent viewing was just as entertaining: my older, wiser mind was keen to catch all the tricks in the film’s first half to keep the viewer at arm’s length. Good Job!

4.5 out of 5

Poster sourced from impawards.com. Do you think such a high mark is justified? Can you not get passed Michael Bay’s involvement? Is he the guy Olivia Munn was referring to? Will we reach a point with A.I. when Ewan McGreggor’s forehead mole gets scrubbed from every film he made before 2008? Comment, why don’t ‘cha!

Posted on by wd 0

Jay’s Quick Take: Underworld Blood Wars

A spoiler-free movie review (not that it matters).

Which “Underworld” are we on now? Six? Seven? Seventeen? No no no, it isn’t that bad – we’re only on number Five, which for some is four too many. I personally never connected with any of the Underworld movies, except the third. My issue was always with the backstory: why is there such a complex lore for what is essentially vampires & werewolves shooting guns at each-other? I never really knew what was going on in those movies and that’s probably my fault for not paying more attention (a lot of “this character knows this other character from hundreds of years ago, and there’s a relic that does this-and-that but only under certain conditions and blah blah blah”), but I always had one-foot out the door with these sorts of things anyway. Sure, I’ve read my share of vampire stories and watched my share of monster movies, but anything tinged with a touch of magic, or involving children with superpowers, or “the fate of the world rests on this motley crew of pale attractive twenty-somethings” is more my wife’s department.

Continue reading →
Posted on by wd 0