Every now and then you see a trailer for a movie that just seems so odd that you simultaneously wonder how it got greenlit and also how it’s never been done before. This was definitely the case when I saw the trailer for Danny Boyle’s newest film, Yesterday. In that trailer, we are invited to enter a world where the Beatles suddenly ceased to exist and nobody – except one man – could remember them. It’s such a delightfully strange premise that there were really only two ways the film could end up: a hot mess or a delightful surprise. Thankfully, it’s 100% the latter and it’s such a fun movie carried by a very charismatic lead and some solid filmmaking. (Mild spoilers follow.)
Yesterday (written by Richard Curtis, directed by Danny Boyle)
Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) is a struggling singer-songwriter in a tiny English seaside town whose dreams of fame are rapidly fading, despite the fierce devotion and support of his childhood best friend, Ellie (Lily James). Then, after a freak bus accident during a mysterious global blackout, Jack wakes up to discover that The Beatles have never existed… and he finds himself with a very complicated problem, indeed.
This film isn’t normally the kind of film I’d review on here, nor is it really the kind of film I’d actively seek out to watch on my own. I tend not to be the kind of person who really enjoys these kinds of coming-of-age stories; they often feel like they were written by people who long ago forgot what it was like to be a teenager and, as someone who isn’t that far removed from his teenage years, I tend to find that kind of writing uninteresting, at best, and downright insulting at worst. That being said, I am often drawn to darker teenage films; those that explore the less sunny sides of being a teenager/young adult often find ways of drawing me in. So, when the distributors of this film, TriCoast Entertainment, reached out to me and offered me a screener of the movie in exchange for an honest review of it, I read the brief synopsis, got intrigued, and thought I’d give it a shot and see how I felt about this film. As I tend not to be the target audience for these kinds of movies (I often find myself getting bored in more “realistic” films that aren’t comedies/action/sci-fi/fantasy/horror films), I am gonna do my best to approach this from as objective a point of view as possible. Does Adolescence work as a film for the audience it’s trying to reach? The answer is, I think, mostly. (Mild spoilers may follow.)
This was the first Toy Story film I wasn’t excited to see. When Toy Story 3 came out in 2010, it felt like the perfect ending to the Toy Story series. It was a beautiful close to a trilogy of films that had, quite literally, spanned an entire generation of children. So, naturally, when it was announced that Disney/Pixar was going to release another film in the series, potentially ruining that perfect ending, I wasn’t exactly thrilled. Disney had made some TV specials set in the aftermath of Toy Story 3, but that was about as far as I wanted it to go. I’m happy to say, however, that this fourth film largely acts as an epilogue to the previous three, respecting that beautiful ending while giving the characters – notably Woody – some extra closure. It’s largely unnecessary but fairly enjoyable. (Mild spoilers ahead.)
Here’s the thing about the Men in Black movies: none of them are really that good. None of them are bad, either, but they’re nothing particularly special. They’ve always been harmless summer blockbusters that were more concerned with being a comedic, visual treat than telling a particularly compelling story. The first three films always succeeded based on the chemistry of their stars – Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. And that was okay. Men in Black never needed to be some pinnacle of storytelling; they were just these enjoyable action movies. All of that remains true for Men in Black: International, the latest sequel/reboot in the Men in Black franchise. The film features a pretty basic, predictable plot, some enjoyable jokes, some serviceable action, and largely succeeds based on the chemistry of its two stars – Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson. (Mild spoilers ahead.)
I love Aladdin. It’s probably my favorite of the “Disney Renaissance films” and so, naturally, I’d be pretty hesitant about any new adaptation of it. The Broadway version mostly ended up working out, though I haven’t actually managed to see it – just heard the soundtrack and seem some of the officially released footage. It seems fun enough, but, for obvious reasons, it could never match the sheer energy found within the original animated tale. The same, it turns out, rings true for this live-action remake of Aladdin. The energy of the original isn’t there, nor is the creativity – of the Broadway version or of the original version. It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s not a good one either. Mostly, it’s just a boring rehash of a beloved classic with a few new twists thrown in in a lame attempt to make it seem more distinct. (Some spoilers ahead!)
I tend to enjoy superhero movies that are a bit darker. I like to actually get inside a hero’s head, especially those whose chief motivation to be heroic is borne out of some kind of PTSD. It’s one of the main reasons I adore Batman as much as I do. And it’s why I love some of the darker DC movies – even if, objectively, they’re not exactly well-written movies (Batman v Superman, Watchmen, etc.). So, naturally, Brightburn should be right up my alley. It takes one of my least favorite superheroes – Superman, disliked by me due to his eternal blandness – and puts a similar character in a scenario where he becomes evil as he learns of his superpowers instead of becoming a good guy. Brightburn is not a Superman movie, but it’s clearly inspired by the Superman story (alien baby crashes to earth, is adopted by parents who live on a farm, discovers his powers as he hits puberty, etc). Unfortunately, Brightburn is every bit as bland as most Superman stories are. (Spoilers ahead!)
I’ll be totally honest – when I first heard that Warner Bros was making a live-action Pokémon movie based on some game that featured a talking Pikachu that moonlit as a detective, I was pretty skeptical. The subsequent announcement that Ryan Reynolds would be voicing the titular Detective Pikachu did intrigue me a bit, at least, but I still wasn’t sure such a thing could work. Then the first trailer hit and the CGI actually looked really good and the tone seemed to be a softer version of Reynolds’ Deadpool humor, so I was a lot closer to being sold on the idea. Having now seen the film, I can safely say that it’s exactly what you think a film with a talking Pikachu moonlighting as a detective and voiced by Ryan Reynolds would be: devilishly funny. But it’s also a pretty solid mystery and a really fun movie. (Mild spoilers follow)
Movies that dramatize the events of real crimes are always forced to walk a narrow tight-rope. They have to be careful not to gratuitously show too much of the real violence and potentially glorify real murders while also not focusing too much on the wrong aspects and showing too little of the crimes and accidentally make the real murderer too sympathetic/unfrightening. It’s a tight-rope that Netflix’s newest film, Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil and Vile, is forced to walk – and it doesn’t do a great job. It’s admirable at how little Ted Bundy’s (Zac Efron) real violence is shown, but it also does a poor job at really showing how terrible he was, instead choosing to ostensibly focus on his relationship with Liz Kendall (Lily Collins). However, it doesn’t do a particularly good job at establishing their relationship and actually developing either of them as characters within the narrative of a film. Instead of feeling like an actual movie, Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile feels more like a Wikipedia article covering Bundy’s crimes and his various relationships. (Spoilers for the film follow!)
I’m actually impressed at how much of a narrative mess this film is. Maybe I’m not the target audience for it. Maybe you have to really, really love the Marvel movies in order for this film to feel even a little bit satisfying on a narrative level. Or, maybe it’s just bad writing. This film is filled with so many out of character moments, lazy writing, and flagrant disregard for the twenty-some films that came before it. It’s convoluted, way too long, and ultimately disappointing, even if there are a few good moments. This review is going live on Saturday because it’s impossible to talk about this film without spoiling elements of it, so I wanted to give people a chance to see it first. With that said: WARNING: THERE WILL BE MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE FILM AHEAD. – because I’ve got some major problems with all of the movie.
I love the Guillermo del Toro Hellboy movies. Like, really love them. They’re so damn stylish and well made and well-acted. So, with that in mind, it was always gonna be hard for any Hellboy film not made by del Toro (or starring Ron Perlman as Hellboy) to truly succeed for me. That being said, I really didn’t except this remake of Hellboy to be so unenjoyable. It can’t seem to figure out what it is – it’s not really a new take on the character as it’s basically the same tone and look as the del Toro films but it’s not a continuation of those films, either. It’s not an origin story, but it kind of is one at the same time. It’s just a really big mess of a movie – and it’s a shame because there were some really good moments in the film.
Thoroughly Modern Reviewer 