Thoughts on Airplane! (1980)

Image courtesy of fanart.tv

The night after watching The Accountant, the next movie I watched was a classic spoof comedy known as Airplane!. It particularly parodies older disaster movies, so this was still a few years before directors like Roland Emmerich came along and popularized the genre with films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow.

The story of Airplane! follows Ted Striker, a former fighter pilot from an event simply referred to as "The War" (it's never specified as to which one). This event traumatized him to where he's afraid to fly ever again. His problems only get worse as he can't keep a job and Elaine Dickinson, his girlfriend from during the War and now a flight attendant, leaves him. Hoping to get her back, he boards the flight she happens to be on. Unfortunately, many passengers on board, as well as the pilots, become ill after dinner, and it's up to Ted to conquer his fear and save the day.

Something readers may be shocked to hear: this is the first post without a "What Didn't Work" section, because there's simply nothing wrong with this at all. It's difficult to find any flaws here. This may also be more of a retrospective.

What Worked: The two biggest positives with Airplane! are the cast and the script. With the cast, there's Robert Hays as Ted Striker, who delivers his lines in a deadpan manner, something another actor in this excelled at. It's easy to tell he's having fun portraying his character, but so committed to playing it straight at the same time that showing it would be too obvious. This is perhaps Hays's most iconic role in regards to film, as he would parody it later.

In addition to him, there's Julie Hagerty as Elaine, a naive flight attendant who seems completely oblivious to everything around her, a character trait that would be present in other roles. Someone else who often had a common character type is Robert Stack as Striker's former commanding officer Rex Kramer, with whom Striker does not have the best relationship. Unlike the two aforementioned actors, who would go on to parody their roles here, it's actually the other way around with him. He was known for portraying the "tough guy" type of character prior to starring in this movie, and then he parodies it.

Some of the supporting cast receive a few of the best lines. Examples include Peter Graves as the pilot, Lloyd Bridges as the control tower supervisor, and Stephen Stucker as the air traffic controller Johnny. The best character in the movie is Dr. Rumack, portrayed by the great Leslie Nielsen. Like Julie Hagerty, his character is completely oblivious to the scenario surrounding him, except he doesn't show it. While Robert Hays's approach to deadpan comedy is really good, Leslie Nielsen is a prime example of someone who perfected it. This is also evident through his portrayal of Lt. Frank Drebin in the Naked Gun films.

The other reason Airplane! is such a classic comedy is also why it's a good example of a parody film done right: the script. It works because it knows what the intent is: simply make fun of that era's disaster movies. Like more recent parody films, there are some references. However, they are used sparingly, make sense within a larger context, and allow the audience to figure them out. Plus, they don't feel dated. There are also clever types of humor, like visual gags, puns, and slapstick done right. The fact that the dialogue consists of what would ultimately become quotable lines is a bonus. If the characters are memorable, their dialogue may also be. This even applies to a few cameos here.

Overall: Airplane! does everything right. It has a simple purpose that makes the plot easy to follow. It has a great cast of characters, well developed through clever writing. It has numerous memorable moments with either perfectly used references, brilliant wordplay, or quotable lines. For those concerned that the parody genre is dead, there just haven't been any newer ones that are actually good yet. All that's needed is a team of people who know a certain genre well enough to understand a proper approach to parodying it. Airplane! is one such example. I guarantee that there will not be one moment where you're not laughing.

Thoughts on The Accountant (2016)

Image courtesy of tokkoro.com

The weekend after seeing Alien: Covenant, I was able to experience one of 2016's biggest surprises for the first time since seeing it in theaters, and that is an action-thriller called The Accountant.

The story follows Christian Wolff, an accountant who also discreetly uncovers financial misdeeds, usually for criminal and terrorist clients. While investigating a robotics company, he has to deal with people who could prevent him from discovering the truth, from the federal authorities already after him to numerous killers to a hitman with personal ties... and his own team of mercenaries.

Now for my thoughts:

What Worked: The Accountant has a lot to enjoy about it. Considering the movie has quite the cast behind it, I will start with that. Ben Affleck is excellent as Christian. His character is not only interesting because of his backstory, but also the traits that make his backstory interesting. He may be skilled with numbers and weapons, but he is also proficient in hand-to-hand combat. He may be stoic and not quite a people person, but there’s a reason behind him showing it: he is very focused on his work, and he has a certain vulnerability to him that affects it.

As for the rest of the cast, there are two characters that are perhaps the most interesting aside from Christian himself. The first is the hitman, portrayed by Jon Bernthal. His character not only serves as a great opponent to Christian, but he is also intimidating. He plays “tough guy” characters really well, if his character here is any indication. The other character is the director of FinCEN (the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), portrayed by J.K. Simmons. He is great at playing the “commanding” type of character, as evidenced by his performance as J. Jonah Jameson in the original Spider-Man trilogy.

The last two characters that can be fully described within the positives are the accountant for the robotics company and the CEO, played respectively by Anna Kendrick and John Lithgow. Anna Kendrick, who usually plays characters with a sense of quirkiness, shows more curiosity here, wanting to learn more about Christian and what makes him tick. Without spoiling anything, there are consequences that come with that. With John Lithgow, his character seems to be going against a particular Hollywood stereotype: the CEO who usually cares more about his power and his money than his employees, company morale, and maybe even his relationships outside of that. It is more like the other way around with him; he shows that he does care more about the company's problems, as well as his employees.

Other aspects to enjoy here are the action and several twists. In regards to the action, it can be brutal at times, but if you've seen movies like The Equalizer starring Denzel Washington (which is probably the one it'll remind you of the most, if anything) or even the John Wick films, then you should be fine. The twists are also effective.

What Didn’t Work: There are a couple of characters not previously mentioned. Although they are still important to the story in their own way, at times, you're so invested in some of the other characters that you may even forget about them.

Also, how you may feel about the twists depends on perspective. Most may find them effective, with some finding them obvious as well. Others may find them obvious and nothing else.

Overall: The Accountant as a whole is a lot of fun. It's not a perfect action-thriller, but it definitely is one of the better ones out there, as well as an underrated one. There are two huge comparisons that can be made to John Wick. One is that the story, the characters and the action are more the main focus here than the technical aspects, as good as those are. The other, and biggest, comparison is that both have franchise potential. Evidenced by its sequel, John Wick is starting to live up to it. With The Accountant, it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. It, too, is getting a sequel, so it might not be long before the answer is given.

Thoughts on Alien: Covenant (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

As stated in the previous post, where I covered Prometheus, I re-watched it to prepare for Alien: Covenant. Now I will give my (albeit extremely belated) thoughts on it.

Along with Prometheus, go into Alien: Covenant knowing the overall consensus is quite polarizing. Starting with the plot summary, there will be very mild spoilers.

The story of Alien: Covenant takes place 10 years after the events of Prometheus. During a voyage to a remote planet in the hopes of colonizing it, disaster strikes the crew of the Covenant. Following that, they discover another planet close by and instead head there. Of course, things are not what they seem.

My thoughts?

What Worked: Some of what worked about Prometheus applies here as well. The production design and cinematography are great, especially the latter. The effects are really good, particularly the new Alien type introduced: the Neomorph, which stands out because of its introduction alone. The Xenomorph, the signature creature of the franchise, also shows up near the third act.

A surprising approach to the crew's dynamic is that they are made up entirely of couples. Despite knowing that a majority of them are going to die, you still feel a sense of dread for them. There are three standout performances: Katherine Waterston as Daniels, Danny McBride as Tennessee, and Michael Fassbender as Walter. With Daniels, comparisons to Ellen Ripley are understandable, but as a character on her own, she's still interesting. Danny McBride, usually known for comedies, is actually great in a serious role like Tennessee. Michael Fassbender is excellent as Walter, but his performance doesn't stop there.

Some references to Prometheus are present here. There are two particular ones that do not go into heavy spoiler territory. The first is that the theme to Prometheus comes up at least once. The second is that some of the events are addressed as well, and thus some questions are answered here.

An improvement is where the tension starts. In Prometheus, it starts as soon as the ship lands on the planet. Here, it starts even before the other planet is discovered. It begins in the first ten minutes with the disaster sequence, and how it plays out is something surprising.

What Didn't Work: The direction and score, while good, don't stand out as much as they did in Prometheus. This unfortunately means that the sense of scale conveyed through basically all of that movie's technical aspects is pretty much absent here aside from the cinematography. There is an issue with the tension as well. While its start in the first ten minutes was effective, it resulted in not getting to know a certain character.

As for the biggest issue, this is yet another movie where characters make stupid decisions. However, at first, their possible consequences are actually addressed beforehand, like when they decide to head to the other planet. The outcomes are also predictable.

While not an issue for me, the ending is one of the things that make this movie so polarizing. Some may not see it coming, others may. It depends on perspective.

Overall: While Alien: Covenant is another solid entry in the franchise, like Prometheus, it has its fair share of problems. It feels like a reaction to Prometheus, where the filmmakers knew what the audience wanted and decided to provide it here. However, it also feels sadly ironic that this ended up being polarizing as well. Regardless of your thoughts on Prometheus, give this a chance, as they somewhat go hand-in-hand with each other.

Thoughts on Prometheus (2012)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

The day after I saw King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, I re-watched Prometheus in preparation for its sequel, Alien: Covenant.

There will be two types of warnings for this one. The first is the obvious one concerning mild spoilers. The second is one that applies to Alien: Covenant as well. Before I get started, my warning is this: for both movies, go in knowing the overall consensus is quite polarizing.

The story starts in 2089 where archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are in Scotland and find a star map. Later, onboard the Prometheus exploration vessel, they explain to the crew that the pictogram in the map is the same one as those in other maps from unrelated civilizations. Thus, they believe it is an invitation from our supposed creators, referred to as "Engineers." An expedition led by Shaw and Holloway is funded. Four years later, in December of 2093, they find a structure on a moon and begin exploring, unaware of what could possibly go wrong in searching for answers.

My thoughts?

What Worked: There are definitely more positives than negatives here. The first I will delve into is actually the production design, namely the looks of both the structure and the ship; the movie looks gorgeous. The cinematography and direction show a sense of scale, while the score helps convey it. The first track in the score may stand out the most since it comes up a few times, so it can be considered the theme.

Another contribution to the look and feel is through the effects. The majority of them are practical. Two examples used here are prosthetic makeup and the creature designs. The makeup is used primarily for another character that shows up briefly in the beginning and then in a key moment towards the third act. The creature designs look very terrifying and add to some intense scenes.

As for the performances, some noteworthy ones are Noomi Rapace (the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Shaw, Charlize Theron as mission director Meredith Vickers, and Idris Elba as Captain Janek. The standout here is Michael Fassbender as David because while you are interested to learn more about Shaw, you may feel more interested in him. Fassbender really sells it as a different type of crew member; fans of sci-fi and of the Alien franchise in particular will understand.

What Didn't Work: The biggest issue is that this is another movie where characters make stupid decisions. There are some obvious ones in the middle and at least one in the third act. This issue may come from the writing, which leads to an inconsistent tone. In the first two acts, it feels like a sci-fi horror movie. Then in the third act, it suddenly feels more like a thought-provoking sci-fi movie with a few horror elements in it.

Before I go into my overall thoughts, here is an advisory for those who may be interested. If you get scared easily, prepare yourself because there are at least four moments like that here: two startle scares and two genuine jump scares. Some of the more tense parts (including a storm scene, a surgery scene, and the ending) may affect you even more.

Overall: Prometheus is one of the better entries in the Alien franchise. While this is a prequel of sorts to the original Alien, don't expect all questions to be answered here. Don't expect a flat-out horror movie, either. It's more sci-fi, despite having its share of creepy moments. Even if you look at Prometheus on its own, it is still a very good movie. Whether you want to watch it prior to seeing Alien: Covenant or not is up to you, but doing it might help.

Thoughts on King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

I recognize that this is a little bit late, but I have been busy during the past couple weeks. Having said that, on with the first of several new posts.

After I posted my thoughts on The Maze Runner, I saw King Arthur: Legend of the Sword the following weekend. This is the latest adaptation of the King Arthur story.

Warning: As with The Maze Runner, this post will contain as few spoilers as possible, and what spoilers there are will be mild ones.

In this version, directed by Guy Ritchie, Vortigern (brother of Uther, king of the Britons) plans a coup, which results in Uther's son, later named Arthur, being orphaned. As an adult, Arthur has learned to fend for himself. Meanwhile, Vortigern sends a group of his henchmen (known as the Blacklegs) to gather all men similar in age to Arthur himself and force them to try to extract Excalibur, a powerful sword, from a stone near his castle. When Arthur tries it, he succeeds. Uther's general, Sir Bedivere, has organized a band of rebels hoping to stop Vortigern from taking over all of England. After Arthur has extracted Excalibur, Bedivere believes he can help their cause. Arthur will soon come to realize that a mere band of rebels is not enough.

Here are my thoughts:

What Worked: I thought the cast was believable. Charlie Hunnam looks like how one may picture Arthur, as does Eric Bana with Uther. Some casting choices really surprised me, namely Djimon Hounsou as Sir Bedivere and Aidan Gillen as his friend, Sir William "Goosefat Bill" Wilson. The main reason is because they usually play villains, and here they're good guys. Another surprise is Jude Law as Vortigern, who is usually a good guy (example: Watson in Sherlock Holmes), and yet here he's the villain.

The majority of the visuals look convincing here, and the action works. With the action, there is slow motion, but it served as a benefit, especially since Guy Ritchie has used it before with Sherlock Holmes. His direction also works since his style of humor is present here and is effective, so they can be seen as going hand-in-hand. There is one thing I loved: it had an awesome song ("The Devil and the Huntsman") that played in both the third act and the credits. In a fantasy movie such as this, whether it's a portion of the score or a song with actual vocals, its key purpose is to get you excited. With this song, it not only does that, but it also sounds like you could set something like Conan to it and it would work.

What Didn't Work: The opening has the backstory explained in a block of borderline unreadable text also applied to the opening credits. Because of this, it's hard to see what you should be looking at in the first few minutes. While the intention of making stylistically appropriate font is understandable, a narration akin to the one by Charlie Hunnam that opened Pacific Rim would have sufficed.

Some of the alterations to the King Arthur story here may not make sense. On top of that, people may think this version is trying so hard to be like The Lord of the Rings in some parts (namely the first few minutes, as well as some of the music and visuals) and different movies in others, like The Lion King, 300, and to an extent Thor. At least one very unwise decision is made, and this is one of those movies where the outcome of said decision is predictable.

Overall: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a fun movie and an interesting take on the King Arthur story. Most of the story's key aspects are there and others are at least mentioned. Those who know it but can accept a fair amount of changes should give this version a chance. Those who were unsure from the trailer might also be surprised upon watching the movie. See this in theaters if you can, but if you end up having to wait for rental or Netflix, that's also fine.

Thoughts on The Maze Runner (2014)

Image courtesy of emaze.com

Warning: Mild spoilers ahead.

I watched The Maze Runner on TV last night. For those who are unfamiliar, here is the plot:

A young man named Thomas wakes up with no memory of who he is. He has been sent to the Glade, a place that is basically a small society made up of other young men, which is surrounded by walls. It turns out the walls actually are part of a maze, and the others have built their society while trying to find a way out and discover why they were put there.

Here are my thoughts:

What Worked: I found more positives than negatives with The Maze Runner. Since the performances are a key aspect of any movie, the first question to answer is whether or not they work. In this case, yes they do. The actors show they can convey what the characters are feeling at certain points. The setting also works because it looks like something that could exist rather than a backdrop on a green screen. The editing is effective overall.

There are two things I especially enjoyed here. The first is the effects, specifically the design of the maze itself and the creatures inside. They looked very practical to me. The second is one thing that I love in movies: it sets rules. Whenever a movie decides to do that, I am always interested to see how the characters deal with the limitations placed upon them. I appreciate the decision to set rules even more if they are followed the entire time. However, I am fine with them being broken at any point, provided the way in which they're broken is clever. In this movie, more rules are broken than followed, but they are broken in clever ways and for good reason, yet there are still consequences. Finally, there are so many twists and turns that by the end, you want to learn more.

What Didn't Work: My main issue was that some of the characters' decisions may not make sense. There are two things I can especially understand being major issues for those who are themselves interested. The first thing is that in the first few minutes, key parts are being set up left and right with no room to think about the information you have just been given. The second thing is that a certain part of the last 20 minutes, which is briefly addressed in the ending, may leave them confused. However, while I will not spoil it here, those particular viewers will understand what I am referring to when they watch the movie for themselves.

Before I get into my overall thoughts, there is something to address. Unless they know it's a different story prior to watching it, people are likely going to end up comparing The Maze Runner to The Hunger Games (an example being they are both based on a popular series of young-adult novels). I recognize that some similarities are there, but it's how each movie presents those parts that show the differences. A prime example of this is the bigger picture: with The Hunger Games, it was rebellion against the system. With The Maze Runner, it might actually be more intriguing, as it feels like a mystery with a conspiracy.

Overall: The Maze Runner was actually a surprise for me when I first saw it in theaters, and since then (especially after seeing it again last night), I can say this: out of all of the young-adult novel adaptations out there, this, like The Hunger Games, is one of the better ones. It's a very fun movie that also is great at world-building. You want to know what's beyond the maze, which is one of a few questions both asked and answered here, with many more to be answered later.