(2 / 5)

Remakes and reboots are a bit of a tricky subject for reviews. Reviews themselves should be relative not absolute but you still need to take into account better or worse movies within the genre or subject matter. We have a new Hellboy movie that is not a continuation or has any involvement from what Guillermo Del Toro started back in 2004 when it must also be noted there were far fewer Superhero movies. A movie that carries the same name as the original has to stay true to the spirit and tone of what it is adapting or remaking while still distinguishing itself. It’s a delicate act, but some have done it right.

What helps Hellboy be distinct is Hellboy
himself. He has an obvious, distinct visual to him but also his
mentality, he is essentially a blue-collar Superhero. He wants to do the
job in as short a period as possible, then kicks back and watch the
latest sports game and enjoy a beer. When he goes in and investigates
and it turns out there’s a monster his thoughts are “Ah hell, this is
gonna take a bunch more hours.” One of the strongest elements of this
movie was the casting of David Harbour, he comes with a deep voice, dry
humor and a nonchalant attitude that fits for the character and this
world. 

Anyway, the movie kicks off with an opening
voice monologue spoken by the character Trevour Bruttenholm (Ian
McShane). About the old days in King Arthurs time when an evil witch
Vivian Nimue (Mia Jovovich) was about to unleash demons upon the land
but was betrayed by her own witches and King Arthur impales her and cut
her into pieces, but she does not die, so each of her body parts is sent
far away to be hidden. While this is playing out it is in black and
white except for anything that is red and a few swear words are thrown
in. It sets up the movie as a whole well, some sort of cool stuff, a
bunch of violence and a few swear words in the mix in an attempt to be
cool.

Apart from Harbour, McShane and a few others
in the background, these are bad actors. Well, not so much as they are
bad but these are bad performances. I’ve seen some of these actors in
other things and know they’re capable, but they do not do their best
work here. Their line delivery is flat and unenthusiastic. Perhaps this
is a case of the director not spending enough time with them, or they
were uninvested in the material I don’t know and at this point, it
doesn’t matter, we have two actors doing a good job and the rest just
don’t care. 

Speaking of line delivery something went
wrong with recording during filming or during ADR because we can hear
all the actors reading their lines crystal clear. You would think that
this would be good but there’s no leveling going on. If a character is
in a close-up or far away it’s still like they are right next to us and
rings of artificiality. Maybe if they had some supernatural,
all-powerful specter on screen speaking then there would be a reason for
this but for every character, it is one of those finer details of
post-production that goes a long way if you do a good job on, which they
haven’t.

Special effects do not make a movie but
they are needed so you believe something is really there. These are
terrible special effects. Whatever digital company did these effects are
not up to scratch, they are poorly rendered and obviously artificial
that this whole movie could be mistaken for coming out in the early
two-thousands. There are a few effects where they linger on them for a
long time so you can get a good long look at it as if they were proud of
it, but it reeks of fake.  Even then some of this could be forgiven if
you cared about the people/demons that were within the scene, but we
don’t, it’s the worst kind of narrative, where you aren’t invested,
nothing clever is happening and so it’s just stuff happening on-screen.

Editing
is one of the most essential elements of movie making. It is what
defines it from theater or literature. It is the art of taking the raw
footage and carving it into something defined and with shape. Timing the
cuts right and sometimes not cutting so you can let the actor’s
expressions really sink in and to mood resonate. This is neither of
those. What has come with the fast format of digital is the ability to
cut willy-nilly and go crazy without thought or reason. The editing
within this movie is a mess, they cut and cut not because one thing
leads to another but because they want to keep the audience paying
attention and think that by editing it within a blender is the way to do
that. this isn’t cutting the footage, it’s hacking at it so now you
just have a mess.

If you are going to compare this movie to Del Toro’s movie then Del Toro is the winner. If you let this movie stand on its own then it still isn’t very good.  It is still unique amongst the now much more crowded competition of Superhero movies but even then they are of a much higher quality.

(4 / 5)

What world am I living in? If you wound the clock back to 2012 and say that there’s a new DC cinematic universe coming and Batman and Superman will be the disasters but Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and now Shazam! will be the winners of the bunch, I’d have looked at you like you were bonkers. Yet here we are, a movie about a beloved character from the comics that I’d thought would never get his own movie and if he did it would be forced through that dark or complex filter that DC movies seem to put most of their characters through. I am so happy this is not the case and we’ve got what we got.

Side
note, this character was referred to as “Captain Marvel” for a long
time, but due to legal reasons, it has been changed to Shazam which adds
a whole lot of complications to it. I guess obviously if this movie was
out and Captain Marvel that would lead to a very confused audience, both in the movie theaters and in the comic stores.

The
setting is not of the dark gritty crime-ridden streets of Batman, the
high tech science fiction of Superman, the mythological scale of Wonder
Woman but a realm of magic, as in true fantasy magic, wizards, words,
robes, and staffs. This gives the character and now the movie it’s own
unique tone and personality to distinguish itself amongst its
competition.

Our tale begins on a dark snowy night
where a little boy is in the back of a car and his father is driving and
elder brother is in the front.  The elder brother and father clearly
get along and care very little for him. But suddenly the little boy is
transported to a deep cave with statues and an old man with a long
beard, covered in long robes and holding a staff. This old man is a
wizard (Djimon Housou)
that offers this little boy great power, but the statues (that
represent the seven deadly sins) tempt the boy to take an evil eye, this
was a test and he has failed so he is cast out. Back to his old,
loveless relatives.

We are then taken to years later
and a little boy is at a carnival with his mother, trying to win him a
toy tiger. She can’t win the tiger but does get him a compass. While
walking through the crowd the two get separated, the boy is taken in by
the police and his mother never comes for him, he is alone. Skipping
again to years later, now present day and the boy has grown up a few
years into an early teenager and his name is Bill Batson (Ashner Angel),
he’s been in and out of foster homes for years always looking for his
mother. Now he is in Philadelphia and put into another home. This one of
the Vazquez, who have adopted many foster children. One of which is
Freddy (Zack Dylan Grazer) who requires a crutch to walk but certainly
never lets that get his spirits down. 

Now in the
present, the little boy in the car has grown up to become Dr. Thaddeus
Sivana (Mark Strong). he has been searching for years for a way to get
back into that mysterious realm of the wizard, fortunately for him he
has now found it and takes the dark power for himself, unleashing the
seven deadly sins from captivity and upon the world. So now we have our
villain!

So, in his desperation, Billy Batson is taken to the cave and offered the power f the wizard known as Shazam! The powers are mean
to be bestowed on a person with a pure heart but Billy is simply a good
enough person. So when he speaks the wizards name a bolt of lightning
hits him and he is transformed into a full grown man in his very own
super suit, light up logo, cape and everything.

It
is the casting of Zachary Levi as Shazam that is the cornerstone for
the movie’s success. He is so unashamedly a big kid, from his energy to
his broad expressions you believe that there is a child working this
adult body. 

This movie takes place in the winter and
within the gray streets of a city, but it is the characters clothing
that makes them pop. Each character has their main color, Billy is red,
Freddy is blue, another is purple, another is green and the villain
wears black. This is a color move and a stylized superhero one so
naturally, people are color-coordinated.

So now
that he has been granted the body of an adult and has superpowers what
to do now? Test them out! In a montage set to Queens Don’t Stop Me Now
where Billy along with Freddy test out his new body and see what its
capable of. This sequence is for the audience to learn what powers
Shazam has too as well as a simple serving of fun. These are children
that have been handed these amazing abilities, of course, this is how
they’d go about it.

This movie knows what it wants
to be. It knows that it wants to tell a superhero story from the
perspective of a child that isn’t taking this all too seriously so
neither are the filmmakers. It knows to insert it’s tongue firmly in its
cheek. However, this is probably the movie the be the most emotionally
heavy, some filmmakers believe that dark equals emotional, it does not,
something does not have to be dark it just needs to mean something of
great importance to the characters and for you to be able to connect to
it. If it’s all dark then it’s just unpleasant, but with the right
amount of balancing between colorful and heavy emotional moments, then
you have a truly whole experience.

As a fan of
Superman and Batman, I am saddened by them getting poor treatment
movies, but they have already had their good treatments and left their
cinematic mark. It is time for new characters to get their time in the
sun and for people to learn about their unique mythos and characters. I
wholeheartedly embrace the renaissance of the underdog superheroes
getting the treatment they deserve. This movie is fun, dark, emotional
and well crafted, like an Ablin movie at their peak.
R

Grief is a powerful emotion. It can cause the most crippling loneliness and make us seek out all possible alternatives to fill the gap that is left when a loved one is gone. But what would it take to bring something back and if they do come back, will they ever be the same? This is the main theme running through Pet Sematary, one of Stephen Kings most acclaimed and celebrated works.

Like
nearly all horror movies this opens with a family, in a car, moving to a
new home. There is the father Louis (Jason Clarke), his wife Rachel
(Amy Seimetz), daughter Ellie (Jete Laurence), son Gage (Hugo and Lucas
Lavourie) and cat Church, these are the Creeds. They are moving away
from the city to Maine where life is less busy and simpler. They arrive
at their new home and take it in along with the forest behind it, that
is cut short when a speeding truck rushes pasts them.

One day while walking through the forest they hear a bang of some kind, then they see children walking inline, one has a little drum, they all have masks of animals on and one is pushing a wheelbarrow with a dead dog in it. They follow the children and see that a few trees have a spiral carved into them and they come to a place called “Pet Sematary” where the local children bury their departed pets. This is when we also meet Jud (John Lithgow). An old man that lives in the house next to them, he’s lived around here all his life and knows about some of the ancient traditions and lore of the land. He quickly becomes a friend to the family.

One day Jud needs to have a private word
with Louis, Church has been killed in a road accident. They decided to
keep it from Ellie deciding to tell her that he ran away. They go to
bury him amongst the other pets but Jud says he knows a better place to
bury him. So they climb a wall of trees behind the cemetery, walks
through a swamp and climb up to a hilltop where he tells Louis to bury
Church and mark it with stones. The next day Louis and Rachel tell Ellie
about Church but she says he hasn’t run away, he came back yesterday,
he’s in her closet right now, which indeed he is.

We
learn that, for whatever reason, when you bury something in that hilltop
they come back. There are ancient folklores about a creature called the
Windego and other stories and theories but it doesn’t matter, the cat
has returned, but not the same, more violent. And so begins the whole
macabre affair and the ultimate sentence of the movie “Sometimes dead,
is better.”

This is a world of old, dark trees, where
mist rolls in and things can emerge and disappear within it, where much
is primitive so crosses and signs are held together with knots. it
invokes an ancient, ritualistic atmosphere to the whole movie. But keeps
it’s shaping simple so they are easily recognizable and can become
symbols for the movie.

King wouldn’t be so celebrated
if his work didn’t have some kind of merit. He has produced his share of
goofy or even not very good products but he is still undeniably a man
of talent. He works best when he creates characters with deep emotional
problems and a situation that highlights human insecurities and layers
it with something supernatural. This is such a material.

As an adaptation, I cannot speak for because at the time of writing this I have yet to read the book. However, I don’t believe this is a detriment to my ability to review the movie. A product should be able to stand on its own, a novelisation of a play should be perfectly enjoyable as it is and not have to depend on its source material. This is a complete story as it is, there may be more details in the book and it may, in fact, be the more well crafted and better version of this tale or maybe the movie improves upon it, I don’t know but either way, it doesn’t matter.

Ironically I recently reviewed Us and wrote
about how horror at its best is not like a hatchet but like a scalpel.
Well, I would say that there are moments of shock within this movie and
they did indeed make me jump with fright. This isn’t the worst thing but
it won’t age the movie well, shocks work once and maybe two more times
after initial watching but after that, you know what’s coming and can
prepare yourself for them. What lingers with you in horror movie, or
really just movies in general, is the buildup and the unseen and the
feeling of dread and anticipation before anything happens. This has
those and they rely upon what the characters have said, the sound and
the unseen before something comes out of the dark and goes bang.

This is a horror movie with a chilling concept at its center, some creepy visuals and terrifying moments, other times when it just goes all out and yells at you with something gross on-screen. King fans will either like it or nitpick the way the material was handled. But from the acting to the production, to the sound and even the ideas that fester within you afterward, I say this is a solid piece of work.

(3 / 5)

Myths and fables are the cornerstones of great narratives. For, if no other reason, they are the oldest stories to survive the test of time. They are journeys and battles of good and evil and are basic but deep so you can throw almost any coat of paint on them you want and they still ring the same emotional core. Not all though have to be set in ancient times. An essence of a story can be picked up and put in almost any aesthetic or time period. Take Star Wars, for example, dark lords, a princess in peril, it takes place a long time ago in a place far, far away, its a fairytale with a science-fiction setting. The Kid Who Would Be King knows this and takes one of the oldest (as well as British) myths and puts it into our modern era with a few new twists and turns.

The
tale begins by telling the tale. Literally, the movie opens with a
storybook opening and seeing illustrations and narration telling the
tale of King Arthur, how it was a time of chaos and dark forces were on
the rise and the people needed leadership, so came a young boy named
Arthur that pulled the sword from the stone and became king of the land.
But his stepsister Morgana was warped by greed and jealousy and sought
to take the throne for herself, so Arthur, along with his wizard Merlin
battled her and then banished her deep within the earth, but she vowed
to return when the land is sick and the people are divided. Then we pull
out of the book and are now in modern times. 

We see a
young boy named Alex Elliot (Louis Ashbourne Serkis) who is late for
school (as it seems all leading children must be when they are the
protagonist in movies). When he gets there his friend Bedders (Dean
Chaumoo) is being bullied by Lance (Tom Taylor) and Kaye (Rhianna
Doris), he refuses to let his friend be the victim and bushes back,
resulting in all of them getting detention. 

You will
notice that each character is given their own color and has a unique
silhouette. Such detail is important to notice and give credit to
because it helps make the character instantly visually recognizable.
Which, in a movie where the characters are simple and there’s a lot of
running about, is very important. 

While running away
from the bullies after detention Alex runs through a construction site.
While there he sees a sword sticking out of the pillar of a building, he
pulls it out and takes it home. While there he and his friend translate
(through the aid of Google) the engravings on it. It read that it will
be pulled out by the king of the land, they say that this must be the
sword in the stone, which they laugh at the thought of. But when a
strange boy suddenly enrolls in their school and one night a flaming
skeleton soldier enters Alex’s room, almost killing him, he starts to
think that there is merit to some of this. 

This strange
boy is in-fact Merlin (Angus Imrie), the great wizard himself. In the
actual lore, Merlin would age backward so this decision has some logic
and credibility by staying true to the original mythology. Though at
times he does revert into his adult form and is then played by Sir
Patrick Stewart, who both seems to naturally take to playing a mighty,
booming wizard and is clearly having quite a bit of fun with the role.
While he is in this state he brings great gravity and seriousness to the
moments, as well as comedy, though what would you expect from Stewart. So
begins the quest to train, assemble knights of the round table (that is
foldable in one of their dining rooms) and defend the land against
evil. It’s a classic tale that has been told again and again and holds
up. What matters is if it brings something new to the table and how well
it executes its concepts. As has already been made clear taking the
myth and setting it in modern day is something but there are other
examples of this, adding all the modern pop culture references is
something though I feel these are more of a deterrent to the movie. They
are just there for kids to hear and think “Hey they said that thing I
like, yay!” It is something that adds no real substance to the material
and will most likely date it terribly, though this is a movie for
children and it never forgets that so maybe I’m being too hard on it.

Writer-Director Joe Cornish seems to have found his niche in modernizing fables. His first movie Attack the Block,
which I greatly enjoyed, was essentially a fable, just told in modern
London with Aliens thrown into the mix. He writes fast-talking,
personality-infused characters, with plenty of humor sprinkled about and
always stays true to the emotional core of the whole project. If you
enjoy the work of Edgar Wright (who Cornish has been writing partner to
for many projects), particularly his Cornetto Trilogy, then this is the
type of humor, style, and a journey that will appeal to you.

If
there’s a definite weak element to the movie it is the acting. These
are not great child actors, they are the overreacting type you often get
from child actors. When they are shocked or surprised their mouths hang
open and eyebrows raise, when they are upset the eyebrows go down and
they pout their lips. Though I must give credit to Serkis, who is able
to convey pain just through an expression
and without dialog. The best actor within the movie is Sir Patrick
Stewart but that seems unfair to compare these children to this
well-experienced master of his craft. 

I
appreciate the incorporation of real problems with these characters.
Some are insecure, or have to face truths about the world is harder than
they’d like it to be. This grounds it and adds weight to the story, it
makes the characters real in a way that goes beyond simply having them
say what their favorite drink or color is.

This is one of the oldest stories ever told. About a land in need of a hero and a sword chooses the said hero, about dark forces and a group that unites to slay it. it stays true to that core and wraps it in modern day with the lingo and names so that the youth will find it easy to connect with. It does it’s job well and distinguishes itself while doing it.