Thoughts on Baby Driver (2017)

Image courtesy of hdwallpapers.in

The next movie I saw was something truly unique: an original action comedy that even makes the soundtrack a character. It comes from Edgar Wright, director of such films as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World's End. This post will focus on his latest film, Baby Driver.

The story follows a getaway driver named Baby, who, as a child, lost his parents in a car accident that also gave him tinnitus. However, he blocks it out by listening to music, which allows him to stay focused during a job. He works for Doc, a crime boss who plans the heists and gets the crew together. When Baby thinks he is free and capable of having a new life, Doc wants him to do one last job. Unfortunately, the crew he's given may have an agenda of their own.

What Worked: To start, this movie has an amazing plot. It's a very clever and ultimately well-executed idea, and as a result, it has a great cast surrounding it, who all give great performances. Ansel Elgort portrays Baby, and his performance is one of the things that make him an interesting character to get behind. He sells Baby's commitment to his work, his focus when he's driving, etc. Then there's Kevin Spacey as Doc. Out of the supporting cast, he's one of the best characters in the movie. He also gets one of the funniest lines. On the other side of the conflict is Debora, a waitress and Baby's love interest, played by Lily James. They have great chemistry together. There are several other big names in this aside from Kevin Spacey, all as various crewmembers; these include Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx.

The rest of the positives involve the technical aspects. First, Edgar Wright's script is brilliant. One particular moment that's so cleverly written is actually in the trailer (it involves masks), and the setup for it in the movie makes it even better. Aside from hilarious moments like that, another thing that makes the script work is how the majority of the characters are established, especially Baby himself. The performance by Ansel Elgort may be one of the things that make Baby interesting; how he's handled is the other, which allows for development through his actions as well. It's done in a similar way with Doc. With the crew, Debora, and other supporting characters, it's also through personality since it is more noticeable with them; Baby and Doc don't really show it that much.

With those characteristics incorporated into Edgar Wright's script and put on display through his direction, it's easy to notice his style of filmmaking and humor. If not that, then it will definitely show in the perfectly timed editing, especially with the action sequences and the music.

The editing of the action sequences makes them even more fun to watch. It shows what's happening and how, thus keeping the viewer's interest, but not just because of the editing.

As stated in the intro, even the soundtrack is a character here. Because of how it's utilized alone, this is the best soundtrack of 2017. For example, on occasion, the action is timed to the music, and it's done very well. This also has one of the cleverest choices for a credits song in recent memory.

Overall: Those who have been clamoring for a great comedy might just get that with Baby Driver. It's also a solid heist movie, with interesting characters, clever dialogue and humor, and amazing action, along with an intriguing plot, great performances, and an excellent soundtrack. This movie ended up being one of the most fun theater experiences, and is easily among the best movies of 2017. It's even more surprising to go into it not knowing what to expect.

Thoughts on Predator (1987)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

After seeing The Mummy, I revisited another classic. Like Airplane!, this one came from the 80s. Like The Mummy, it’s also a creature feature. It’s one of the best action movies ever made, and one of my favorite movies period. Since 2017 marks the 30th Anniversary, and it gets another sequel in 2018, this post will be on Predator.

The story follows a rescue team sent into the Central American jungle to recover hostages from a guerrilla camp. Though they eventually discover the mission was a setup, they decide to continue to the extraction point, bringing a female guerrilla with them. The team slowly comes to realize that they are not alone, as they are being hunted down one at a time by something they cannot see.

What Worked: Much like the post on Airplane!, this one can be considered a retrospective. In saying this is a creature feature, those who haven’t seen it may think it’s a horror movie, especially a slasher movie. The plot may sound like one for a slasher movie, but it works well for an action movie. It’s very simple, and it kicks in right from the opening. The Predator’s ship lands, then it goes immediately into introducing the team and their mission, and then the conflict starts when they arrive: the team discovers that there was another before them (which is addressed at least once in the trailer, so it's not a huge spoiler).

Speaking of the team, the next positive is the cast. It’s hard not to start with the best character here: the leader, Major Alan “Dutch” Schaefer, portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Dutch shows that he is a great team leader because he is determined to get the job done, even with the odds stacked against him. This in turn makes him a great character, and Arnold’s performance is excellent.

Despite the fact that Dutch is the team leader, he has to contend with having his old friend Dillon supervising them. Dillon is played by Carl Weathers, who was already known for his role as Apollo Creed in the Rocky franchise prior to this. With Dillon, he not only gives a great performance, but he brings a stern personality to him. Even though the team doesn’t like being supervised, he doesn’t care.

The other team members are Mac, Blain, Billy, Poncho, and Hawkins. Mac is the medic, Blain the weapons expert, Billy the tracker, Poncho the demolitions expert, and Hawkins is the operator. Bill Duke, reteaming with Arnold after Commando, portrays Mac. While his character in that film, Cooke, is enjoyable, he isn't given that much to do. Mac is more developed to where he's like Dillon in personality, but later on in the movie, he shows some sensitivity. As a result, he gets several good moments, including one line early on that comes up again later. Blain (former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura) is another great character. He's probably the most like the "tough guy" type aside from Dutch, going so far as nicknaming his minigun "Ol' Painless." He doesn't even let getting hit faze him, as is pointed out in one of the many quotable lines here.

Someone who has perhaps the most memorable moment out of all of them is Billy, played by Sonny Landham, in what would become his best-known role. He's a character that you can definitely latch onto, and when he gets his moment, not only is it surprising when it happens, it's also surprising how it happens. Some may have a problem with the latter, but it's actually more suspenseful. Poncho (Richard Chaves) also gets one. His comes out of nowhere, though, which makes it even more effective.

Hawkins is the comic relief to an extent, having a couple of hilarious moments between him and Billy. The second one in particular is great because Billy even acknowledges it, which should be kept in mind for later. After that one, there's not enough of Hawkins, but there's a reason for it. It's worth noting that Shane Black, the actor who plays him, is actually going full circle: he's going from playing a character in this movie to directing the new one.

There are two other characters to talk about: the female guerrilla and the Predator itself. The female guerrilla, named Anna, has her own unique development. During one scene of downtime in the middle, she reveals that she is familiar with the Predator. She even addresses a possible weakness, which leads to another quotable line.

The Predator is one of the best sci-fi villains. It has an intimidating design and interesting technology. It may not have much in the way of weapons (shoulder-mounted plasma caster, wrist blades), but later films, including the crossovers with Alien, would resolve that. Here, it really only relies on its weapons when necessary. Otherwise, it taunts its prey by using their own voices against them while tracking them through thermal sensors. On top of that, it can also cloak. It has its own voice, which is mostly a mix between a clicking sound and a growl.

The rest of the positives consist of the effects, the action, the direction, the script, and the score. I will mention the actors who brought the Predator to life here because it's more of a physical performance with someone else providing the voice. With the physical performance, the intent was to make the Predator seem bigger than its prey. It works with the actor they ultimately had: Kevin Peter Hall, who, at 7'2", was often chosen for monsters because of his height anyway. In addition to portraying the Predator, he also makes a cameo. The voice was done by Peter Cullen, best known as the voice of Optimus Prime. The combination of his work with Hall's physicality is perfect, and it doesn't even feel like two performances combined into one character.

The Predator also became iconic because of its design, created by special effects legend Stan Winston. His work here was ultimately nominated for an Oscar, after winning one prior for Aliens. Since they are that amazing, the effects still hold up, and even though most of them involved computers, it's hard to tell while watching the movie.

The action sequences are memorable as well. They are filled with perfectly built-up suspense, and it's clear what's going on. This is something that director John McTiernan excels at, and it's also benefitted by the script, which would be proven even further in his follow-up: another action classic called Die Hard. With Predator, the script doesn't just work because of quotable lines. It develops the characters to where they feel like a team, and the lines become quotable because you care about them. It also provides suspense through not only the action, but throughout the rest of the movie, allowing you to fear for them as well. The suspense is elevated by the brilliant score from Alan Silvestri, who had achieved prior success with Back to the Future. Two of his movie themes are among my favorites; the main theme to Predator is one of them.

However, the score is not the only music, as Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally" comes up in the beginning, and is referenced later. This movie is so good even that would come back into the franchise at one point.

Overall: Predator is a prime example of an action classic. It has a great cast of characters, a villain so amazing it has a well-deserved franchise, effects that hold up, quotable lines, one of the best themes ever, and a plot so simple even the trailer can summarize it*. It gets better with every viewing, and it shows that action movies can be fun. For those who haven't seen it, "get to the chopper" and go watch it. In fact, as implied in the intro, now would be a perfect time to do so.

*It even has an amazing trailer; look it up on YouTube, and look at the first one you see. Watch the movie first, though, so you won't have to deal with potential spoilers.

Thoughts on The Mummy (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

The movie being covered here is the latest attempt to jump on the "Shared Universe" bandwagon. However, it has a very respectable purpose behind it: bring a series of classic monster movies to a new generation. Here, I will be covering the reboot of The Mummy, the first installment in what has been dubbed the "Dark Universe."

The story of this version follows a new Mummy, Princess Ahmanet, who almost inherits rule over Egypt from her father when he has a son. After making a deal with the god Set and murdering her family, she tries to get him a body, but she is caught and condemned to eternal mummification. She is then taken to Mesopotamia and buried to ensure she never escapes. In present-day, two Army soldiers, Sergeant Nick Morton and Corporal Chris Vail, along with archaeologist Jenny Halsey, find her tomb. Sure enough, they awaken Ahmanet from her ancient prison, and unleash her wrath upon the world.

What Worked: With the cast, the main selling point is Tom Cruise, who portrays Nick. In regards to his performance, he is at least decent here. He does have some charisma, but not as much as in some of his other roles. The other two main characters are Jake Johnson as Nick's friend Chris and Annabelle Wallis as Jenny, both of whom also give decent performances. However, with Jenny, she is given an interesting bit of development later on in the movie; going any further would be a huge spoiler.

There were two standouts: Russell Crowe and Sofia Boutella. With Russell Crowe, his character is perhaps the most interesting one in the movie, and his performance is really good as well. Those who know their monsters will be surprised at his character. Sofia Boutella gives the best performance in the movie as Princess Ahmanet. She is great as the new Mummy, and the fact that she looks menacing helps.

As for the rest of the positives, the effects work looks really frightening, which can be attributed to the production design. The tone was consistent for the most part. The moments of tension and suspense were very effective. The scene that's most memorable in that aspect is the plane crash scene, parts of which were in the trailer. It's even more tense in the movie, and the fact that Tom Cruise is still capable of doing his own stunts definitely contributes to that. The moments of suspense come mostly whenever Ahmanet attacks, and there are some creepy parts to those scenes.

There are a couple bonuses here: for those who have a certain nostalgia for the 1999 version with Brendan Fraser, there is a reference to it in a scene with Russell Crowe. The other bonus is the references to other monsters. Even with this movie's problems, there is room for improvement, so it will be interesting to see how future installments in the Dark Universe pan out.

What Didn't Work: Though some of the cast give decent performances, their characters are not that memorable. For example, Jenny is mostly the "damsel in distress" type of character. Aside from the interesting bit of development later on, the only other thing revealed about her is a history with Nick. That issue, along with the tone and story structure, can be attributed to the script, where the inconsistencies show. The tone changed a couple times, and it felt slightly jarring when it did.

The biggest issue is an inconsistency with the story structure. At first, it feels like its own story, but then from the introduction of Russell Crowe's character onward, it focuses more on setting up future installments. Therefore, this movie's entire purpose is more front and center at that point than the story already in progress. It's made obvious that Universal is trying to respond to Marvel and create a shared universe to bring their monsters to a new generation, and that I respect. It's understandable how they would want their own version of that franchise and found the easiest way to do it.

However, it does not help that their intention is shown or told rather than implied. The most glaring example is the references to other monsters because they not only do that, but are also the main reason for the structure issue. While it may feel like an attempt to provide something new, it doesn't have the novelty feel to it. This may also come across as a remake of the 1999 version with elements similar to that, despite some tweaks here and there.

Overall: The Mummy is not nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. While some remakes/reboots may be considered unnecessary, this is not one of them because of the intention behind it: take a classic franchise and modernize it for new audiences. It's just that not everything worked out the way the studio hoped, but there is room for improvement. In fact, if it had a more reasonable budget and a better team behind it, it could have been something really good. As it is, it's a decent effort at starting a franchise, and I am interested to see where said franchise goes.

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.