Barbie (2023)

 

So. My first thought was that 'The Lego Movie' has a lot to answer, for doesn't it? Although films based on toys have been done before, with the likes of 'Transformers', 'My Pet Monster', 'G.I. Joe', and...good God 'Garbage Pail Kids' getting the adaptation treatment, since Lego it seemed to kick off a bit more, such as the Lego spin offs and sequel, 'Jem and the Holograms', 'Uglydolls', 'Trolls', 'Playmobil', or that 'Bobbleheads' film no-one saw.

And so 'Barbie' becomes the latest toy to become a film. From the trailer, it didn't really seem like my sort of thing. I never played with Barbie, all I knew was that there was a Barbie doll, and a boyfriend Ken doll (both named after the creator's kids. Yes, really). Aside from that, I just didn't really like the concept. But there was something about this film which just drove people. Opening the same weekend as 'Oppenheimer' and creating the 'Barbenheimer' craze, while also causing a global shortage of pink paint, it also led to those saying the film was anti-man, and those who say "I think men in general would have to be a bit kinda snowflakey to suggest they're being assaulted by a Barbie movie". And yet it still went on to make over a billion dollars at the box office.

Must be doing something right surely?

So, in the...realm of Barbieland...right I'm starting off with this. They don't explain what Barbieland is

or how it really works. You have President Barbie (Issa Rae), Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon - despite this NOT being her weirdest role to date. I stand by that comment, McKinnon's character in 'Ghostbusters' is weirder than Weird Barbie), Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie), Supreme Court Barbies, etc, etc, a number of Ken's (Ryan Gosling, Simu Liu, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Ncuti Gatwa, to name some), and Allan (Michael Cera). They are all aware that they're dolls. The Mattel Corporation, led by Will Ferrell (who I think is reprising his role of President Business from 'The Lego Movie') in The Real World (which honestly felt more like a satire of the 1950s in the 2020s than the real world) is also aware of Barbieland and dolls from there. But no-one else knows.

This is despite the fact that it seems anyone can travel between the realms, as from Barbieland to Real World you go by car, then boat, then rocketship, then snowmobile, then roller skates. Then Real World to Barbieland is the same method in reverse. Venice Beach, Los Angeles is the connection between these places. Aren't half the people at Venice Beach on roller skates? Shouldn't there be a lot more humans finding themselves in the realm of Barbie?

But there seems to be some sort of psychic link between Barbieland and Real World, such as regarding Barbie's "malfunction" as the film calls it, and how Mattel exploits it, as a change in Barbieland seemingly infects the Real World almost immediately...by which point, why are there executives in charge of Mattel? It seems everything they do is controlled by Barbieland.

Whatever, anyway, so in the realm of Barbieland, where everything is perfect and full of Barbie

dreamhouses, is sunny all day, and is full of the most gorgeous people the planet Earth has to offer. Here, we have Stereotypical Barbie (the Margot Robbie one), who seems to tease Ken (the Ryan Gosling one), and has everything be perfect. And then suddenly she literally brings a party to a halt by asking if they think of death. Things get even worse when her imaginary shower and breakfast go awry, and then (GASP) her feet go flat!

I really don't understand the horror behind this. Do all Barbie doll feet just look like this?

And yes, "Barbie feet" on my web browser history does now look weird without context.

Worried by this malfunction, Weird Barbie (the Kate McKinnon one) tells Stereotypical Barbie she has to go to the Real World, find the girl playing with her (which raises further questions, is it one Barbie doll per Barbieland Barbie, in which case shouldn't there be a lot more Stereotypical Barbie's walking around, or does every Barbie doll connect to the one Barbieland Barbie? In which case no wonder she's screwed up having so many different people messing with her head), and fix the damage that has been caused.

I've already listed some issues I've had and, to be fair, again it's not really my sort of thing. The start, whilst paying homage to '2001: A Space Odyssey', made me think I was watching another prequel to 'Annabelle' rather than 'Barbie', before thinking I was in a film about a cult.

A story where creations meet their makers, or go to a world where their life has been a lie, isn't new. 'Toy Story', 'Last Action Hero', hell, there's an episode of Supernatural that does it. But it doesn't really work well here, as, again, it's not really explained how the relationship between Barbieland and The Real World works. It does get interesting with how the Real World affects Ken, but the length of the film actually starts to hamper this plot point, making it feel strained and tiresome.

Which is actually a shame because that's basically what the film is about...I think. Barbieland is too corny and perfect to feel real, yet it also shows the Barbie's (or Stereotypical Barbie, anyway) doesn't really take in consideration Ken's feelings. Meanwhile, the Real World, whilst showing that real life and expectations aren't perfect, just feels fake.

Maybe it's White Male Privilege, but I can't see the sexism taking place in 'Barbie' being a true reflection of the real real world. Men, and only men, being in charge of a company that creates dolls for girls, that, okay I can believe. Maybe it's a metaphor of Mattel originally not believing the Barbie doll would be successful (and, to be fair, props to Mattel for letting this film say they're run by greedy corporate shells). But guys openly heckling Barbie? With one prick slapping her arse and just...standing there, as Barbie turns round and punches him in the face? Did he...think it was a friend of his or something? What about the police officers who were "complimenting" on Barbie's outfits? Twice. I know there are prejudicial arseholes out there, I know sexism against women is terrible, but I just can't believe that this is suppose to be the real world. It's like if the head of the Spanish FA kissed one of the women footballers on the mouth after they won the World Cup............okay maybe it is a reflection of the real real world.

That being said, the story does have it's moments. The Narrator (voiced by Helen Mirren but I swear sounds more like Judi Dench) has some funny lines, and Allan has a cool scene late on, but for the most part I just felt it was plodding along. The acting, I certainly can't fault it, everyone just fills their roles to perfection, even if the characters themselves have weird quirks...still don't know why Will Ferrell had drum sticks in his important meeting. It seems some jokes require extensive history of Mattel's Barbie line, like which ones were discontinued (like the Midge doll (Emerald Fennell) due to being the "pregnant Barbie").

In the end, and I can't emphasise this enough after saying it a couple times already, this film just wasn't my thing. That being said, it isn't exactly a bad movie. The effects are good and do reflect differently depending on which realm we're in (certainly not The Flash bad), and it does give the impression it was written by people who care about the product, but the lack of new ideas (and those which are new aren't fully fleshed out), and somewhat preachy story just doesn't catch me. But the film isn't harmful, it's just...there. It exists. It's fine.

Aladdin (2019)

And so, the latest chapter of the live action remakes has come around with ‘Aladdin’, one of Disney’s more popular animated classics. With that comes high expectations, and with the aftermath of the live action remake of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ comes low expectations.

‘Aladdin’ finds our favourite street rat (played this time by Mena Massoud) trying to win the heart of Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott). He finds an old lamp which houses a powerful wish granting Genie (Will Smith). Deciding to use the Genie to help gain the affections of Jasmine, Aladdin must also be wary of the Grand Vizier Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) who seeks to use the Genie for his own nefarious means.

Let’s start off with the Genie, shall we? As mentioned, the Fresh Prince Will Smith himself was cast as the wise-cracking Genie. Smith faced some…criticism for his portrayal of the infamous Genie, originally voiced by Robin Williams; from the original picture showing him looking human, to the CGI blue Will Smith, to comparisons to Williams. So, how did Smith’s actual portrayal come off?

He was alright.

Yeah Smith doesn’t really put a foot wrong with the role. The only issue against him, is that’s he’s not Robin Williams, and that would have been the case regardless of who it was. Williams made the Genie role his own, putting in such a great performance and energy into it. Even Smith admits that Williams left big shoes to fill. So, yeah, Smith gave a good performance, not great, but good. Though I do feel there’s a bit of hypocrisy when Genie says he’s only going to disguise Aladdin as a prince with the rest coming from Aladdin himself, and then proceeds to use his magic to make him dance.

In fact, the role I was more worried about, was Jafar. Jafar is one of my favourite villains in the Disney Classics franchise, occasionally flip flopping for that number one spot with Scar, and I got quite concerned when they changed Jafar from the older, more experienced vizier, to a younger version. In some ways this comes off quite well, as they did it to show the commonality between our hero and villain; saying they’re from similar backgrounds, both had tricks up their sleeves (sleight of hand in particular), both have ambitions to better their lifestyles. Upon saying that, it does seem odd with how far Jafar has bettered his lifestyle, to go from street rat to Grand Vizier in the same amount of time that Aladdin has done bugger all.

Marwan Kenzari meanwhile does bring a sense of foreboding to the role; he does a great job in bringing out Jafar’s sinister side. The problem? He’s so boring to listen to. The film focused so much on making Jafar scheming, war hungry, and evil, that they forgot to give him the charm and humour the original had. Oh yeah! I said war hungry! Throughout the film Jafar is trying to persuade the Sultan (Navid Negahban) to invade a neighbouring country, though it’s never really explained why Jafar wants to go to war. We know very little of this other country nor are we told why Jafar particularly hates them. Well, there’s sort of a reason, but I’ll go over that in the spoiler section. But the main point is that, despite the new film going into Jafar's background more, you kinda know less about him.

Naomi Scott meanwhile does bring her A game with her portrayal of Jasmine, with her performance being the only reason why 2019 Jasmine comes off as a strong character. Mena Massoud’s Aladdin, on the other hand, well, I didn’t like him. To be fair to him, Massoud doesn’t do much wrong, though I do feel some singing and acting could have been better. Largely though, I think it’s just the character and how it’s written. The original Aladdin was memorable and had that certain charm, the 2019 Aladdin…I actually struggle to think of a quote that wasn’t basically done by the original, besides saying “Really?” when Genie magically moves him across the floor…which, come to think about it, for some reason no-one else noticed this happened.

There are two major differences concerning characters though, and that involves Iago (voiced by Alan Tudyk) and Dalia (played by Nasim Pedrad). What’s that? You don’t remember Dalia from the original? Well that’s because she’s a brand-new character, serving as Jasmine’s confidante. Whilst I can only assume her character was created simply because Jasmine is the only female character in the original, she serves nothing to the plot. Seriously, take Dalia out of the film and virtually nothing changes, apart from Aladdin having an easier time to get Jasmine alone.

And that’s why Dalia wasn’t in the original film, as it was to further enhance the fact that Jasmine feels all alone, with only her father and Jafar for company, hence fuelling her need to get out of the palace. Now, they did change Jasmine’s character a little so that she’s thinking more of the people than herself, but that doesn’t change the fact that Dalia adds very little to the film. The only other role she plays is that she’s the Genie’s love interest. Because that was apparently needed. Yes, it’s nice to see, but mostly this romance just feels forced, only in place to provide Genie a happy ending. Because apparently the hope of being freed from a millennium of slavery wasn’t enough.

In fact, the major character change that I didn’t mind was Iago. Going for the realistic approach, we’ve lost the Gilbert Godfrey chatterbox (which is sad), but the new Iago character is done so well that it doesn’t really matter. He’s funny, can show off that maniacal personality, he’s actually better written than most, if not all, of the human characters, and when a CGI parrot is the most convincing character in your film, there’s a problem.

In fact, Iago was probably the most convincing CGI effect in the film. For the most part. Nothing looked real in this film, nothing looked like it was actually in the room. No wonder we didn’t see the blue Genie for the majority of this. Heck, some of the special effects look more cartoon than the cartoon!

But something that is becoming increasingly obvious is that, by sacrificing animation for realism, the newer films are also sacrificing energy and momentum. And nowhere is it more obvious than the songs. Whereas the 1992 version of ‘Prince Ali’ was full of energy, the 2019 version looks slow and lethargic in comparison. ‘A Whole New World’ had the magic carpet doing loop the loops in the original, interactions with the clouds, Jasmine doing the Titanic pose as they flew. In the new one, I think the most that happened was Jasmine making herself a bit taller as she raised herself on her knees. Even ‘Arabian Nights’ was disrupted when partway through the song we stopped at the Cave of Wonders to see Jafar’s servant get eaten.

There is one new song called ‘Speechless’, which is actually pretty damn good. Part one of it was anyway, as it helped explain Jasmine’s character and aims to teach everyone about standing up for yourself and making your voice count. The reprise of ‘Speechless’ however, feels out of place. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all about Jasmine finding the strength to oppose Jafar, but it’s basically two minutes for something which I feel could have been a lot stronger had Jasmine just whispered a line to herself and then giving off a dramatic speech. Instead, she sings the reprise, with the choreography just consisting mostly of walking, and then gives the speech, so it feels like a waste of time as she’s now effectively repeating herself.

I do have an issue with another reprise though, with that being the ‘Prince Ali Reprise’, with my issue being THEY FUCKING CUT IT. The song which Jafar gleefully sang in the original as a means to spite Aladdin and gloat of his superiority, is instead replaced with dull dialogue.

Now, when I first saw this and left the cinema, I didn’t like it. I thought, like the other live action remakes that it was a hollow shell of the original. Reflecting on this through this review…I can see a lot more to it now. Sure, I still prefer the original to the new version and there are things which I feel the original did better (looking at you Jafar), there’s some good aspects to it. Will Smith and Naomi Scott give strong performances and, whilst it can deviate, the story has been updated fairly well.

With that being said, with the forgettable characters being outshone by a CGI parrot, a paint by numbers plot, including a climax which took a huge step backwards from the original film, and some pretty poor CGI, the new ‘Aladdin’ may not be as bad as I thought it would be, but I won’t be rushing out to watch it again any time soon.

And you know what? ‘The Lion King’ is just around the corner, and what could possibly go wrong with that?




Spoiler Section

Jafar’s first wish makes no sense. Admittedly it had been something which, over the years, bothered me with the original, but yeah, Jafar’s initial wish makes no sense. Jafar’s first wish was to be Sultan, but no-one acts like he’s Sultan. Aladdin, Jasmine, and the (actual) Sultan oppose his rule, while in the newer version the guards also turn on him. So, what’s the point in wishing to be Sultan, if no-one is going to follow you? I suppose it ties in with the Genie’s rule that he can’t affect free will and Jafar’s arrogance.

But this then brings me to a point mentioned earlier, regarding Jafar wanting to go to war with a neighboring country. Obviously, this was to show Jafar’s lust for power, to show he wanted to create an empire rather than just rule Agrabah. But if that was the case, why didn’t he just wish to be ruler of the Earth? The original Jafar was content with just Agrabah (at least for the time being), but Jafar seemingly wants to conquer the whole planet. Why didn’t he just wish to be conqueror of the planet?

The thing is, this is an easy fix; don’t have Jafar saying he wants to go to war with a neighboring country. Have Jafar wish to be Sultan, and then show his hunger for more power, show that it didn’t satisfy him and that his original wish was flawed. Otherwise he might as well have just wished to be Supreme Overlord of Earth and save himself the time and effort.

Yesterday (2019)

"Yesterday skips over the cliche and campy to be one of the best films of the summer." "‘Yesterday’ is the Beatles-themed feel-good movie of the summer." "A glowing tribute to The Beatles and their music, this is both a toe-tapping pleasure to watch and a smart, occasionally scathing look at how we get things wrong."

.......Really?

Okay, to be fair, there's plenty of reviews which reflect the bad things of this film as well, but I hadn't looked up any reviews regarding this film. All I had heard, from word of mouth, were good things about it, which was surprising when I first saw the trailers for this. I mean, one person finds he's the only one who knows the Beetles, which gave me the impression that either something wiped the Beetles from existence, or young people nowadays don't know who the Beetles are, which, believe me, isn't that far fetched.

So yes, 'Yesterday' finds wannabe musician Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) struggling to make it in the music industry. One night during a worldwide power cut, Jack is struck by a bus and admitted to hospital. When he comes to he finds that no-one else remembers the Beetles, and decides to use their music to make a career for himself.

First things first, I really hate this concept. Not the whole "world has forgotten the Beetles" thing, oh no, that's actually interesting. It's the "stealing someone else's work" bit I don't like. It's not like he has a debate with himself whether it's a good thing or not, he spends the evening looking up any references of the music group, then decides to use their music.

That being said, Himesh Patel does a decent job with the role, as well as being a good performer, not really putting a foot wrong. Meanwhile it's always great to watch Lily James (as Ellie Appleton), though she is underused, which is probably because they cut out a love rival which makes some of her actions a bit bizarre. Kate McKinnon meanwhile provides a brilliant performance as the "evil" agent who tempts Jack with success, with some...comments on the music business.

And then there's Ed fucking Sheeran.

Oh boy I did not like him. You know, he's a good musician with some catchy songs, but...he's not the best actor let's say. His performance on 'Game of Thrones' felt out of place and, bizarrely, he feels out of place here. He just seemingly pops up out of nowhere, having saw Jack perform on local television. Even more weirdly, they seem to try and build up his appearance, with his face being obscured by a fancy glass design, this is despite the fact that he was named about five minutes beforehand. The only real decent thing, was watching him having his spirit broken when Jack's "new" song beat Sheeran's new song. Then they went to the other extreme by saying Ed Sheeran was just warming up the world for Jack, effectively saying Ed Sheeran is the greatest musician of our generation.

Really?

I mean, admittedly I can't think of many other musicians who would be better suited for the title. Adele? Taylor Swift? Sam Smith?....Justin Bieber I don't know! It certainly seems like they put in Ed Sheeran's contract "we will name you the greatest musician of our time in exchange for breaking you"

And that actually raises an issue with the film. It's not that the Beetles are wiped from everyone's memories, the timeline has actually been changed. Oh yeah! They do still exist, they just never formed the Beetles. And because of that, that should mean the entire landscape of the music industry should be completely different to what we know now. The Beetles are widely considered the most influential band of all time, so if they never existed, the music industry shouldn't be the same. There should be a much wider impact to removing the Beetles from history.

Speaking of which, by removing the Beetles from history, and then trying to use their songs to kick start your music career, it raises the question of whether the Beetles would actually be successful in today's era. The film sort of touches on this, both in a good and bad way. It praises the Beetles by, as mentioned earlier, saying their songs are vastly superior to Ed "greatest musician of the modern era" Sheeran's, and having people stunned into silence by their songs, but then suggests that their songs are dated, like "Hey Jude" being changed to "Hey dude" due to Jude sounding old, or the names of Beetles' album covers being ridiculed. With the songs originally being released in the 1960s/70s, people can understand the subject matter of the songs. Having them "originally" released in 2019 raises a serious doubt about how successful they would be.

So, to be fair, there isn't anything inherently wrong with the film. It's well acted and the songs are well performed, while the film has an interesting premise. So, why didn't I particularly like it? Well, in all honesty, it's because of a number of issues. I've already touched upon how they treated the Beetles legacy, in particular how Jack basically steals someone else's work to further his own career.

As mentioned earlier, Kate McKinnon's character, Debra Hammer, is a character designed to tempt Jack by promising him success. So it seemed like the film was going to lean towards Jack having fame, success and/or money go to his head, and we've already seen that done a hundred times. 'Rocky III', 'Citizen Kane', 'The Candidate', 'Dead Rising 2: Off The Record'

Hell, it's been done in 'The Lorax'!

But 'Yesterday' is so focused on making Jack likable, they never go all the way. Jack is always hovering on the edge, never really making him become egocentric, but not really debating enough whether he should come clean, therefore it doesn't seem he go through any lessons.

There is one other thing I want to touch upon, but it's basically a spoiler so I'll leave it for the spoiler section.

So, whilst there isn't anything really wrong with the film, it's largely a waste of time. The acting and performances are good, but with a cliche script not really knowing what it wants to do it fails to capture the attention of the audience. It has clever ideas but never fully explains them or go all the way with them, so it's an unsatisfying payoff. And for a film that, primarily for the audience, is supposed to celebrate one of the best bands of all time, it doesn't really do that.

In all honesty, there's not really much that the film offers, there's no real reason why it exists. It's just a karaoke film; someone who can sing really well singing covers of another band's music, for which, again, there's a hundred films like that as well. 'Sing', 'Rocketman', 'Bohemian Rhapsody', any of the 'High School Musicals'. You can get the exact same experience by looking up The Beetles on Youtube, minus the story. If you enjoyed the film, good for you, but I can't see why this film would be considered anything other than background noise.




Spoiler Section

Nothing of consequence happens to Jack. Two people reveal they also remember the Beetles, but rather than tell anyone, they just tell Jack they're happy that the Beetles songs continue to exist, thanks to Jack. So, they could have been cut from the film and nothing would have changed. And then! Jack goes to an Ed Sheeran concert to reveal that he didn't write the songs...but only after he performs again. If he was truly repentant he would surely just tell everyone rather than have one last performance for his ego.

And then! He finally reveals that he didn't write any of the Beetles songs, and that he tricked everyone. He stole other people's work, he plagerised another band's work, he's a fraud, a liar, a thief. But he's in love with Lily James so no-one but Kate McKinnon cares! On top of that, since the Beetles have been wiped from the timeline, no-one knows who Jack plagerised, therefore he gets no punishment! The only thing that happens is that his music career is tanked, but that's a self inflicted wound, Jack knew what he was doing.

So yeah, I wanted to put this into the main conclusion above, but as it goes over the ending, it was a spoiler.

Skyscraper (2018)

So a couple weeks ago, I decided to go see three films across three days. I have a Cineworld unlimited card, why not? Anyway, on the Saturday I saw 'Incredibles 2', it was a great film, probably prefer the first one but that's not to say the sequel wasn't good, it's a great film. On the Monday, because the car park at home was being repainted, I went to see 'The Secret of Marrowbone'. It was alright, early on it generated a great atmosphere but lost it towards the end, but it was still pretty good. In between them on the Sunday I saw 'Skyscraper'. It was stupid.

Oh, yes, the film which started off looking like a reimagining of 'The Towering Inferno', tried to reimagine 'Die Hard', and in the end had no idea which film it was supposed to be, turned out to be a bit of a mess. Most of the things I want to comment on are spoilers so there'll be a spoiler section.

In 'Skyscraper' we find Will Sawyer (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson), a former FBI hostage rescue team leader but now runs safety checks on buildings from his garage, (at one point they list a whole bunch of stuff off his resume which really makes his career path strange) is tasked by his former colleague Ben (Pablo Schreiber) to assess the world's newest largest building in the world, The Pearl, owned by Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han). However evil terrorists, led by Kores Botha (Roland Moller), threaten to burn down the building and steal something from Zhao. However, Sawyer's wife, Sarah (Neve Campbell), and their kids, are trapped in the building, so Will goes in to save his family.

Now, one of the main problems with this, is The Rock. Yeah, the character's name is Will Sawyer, but let's face it, it's The Rock. Now there's nothing wrong with The Rock, his acting is great, he's probably the best thing in this film. But, the main thing I like to see in a film is the hero facing a challenge. Having the Rock as an amputee helps, but when he climbs a crane at least 97 stories high (the fire is started on the 95/96th floor, details are a bit hazy after two weeks, and the fire has to go up the building) and suffers zero fatigue, as well as pull off so many other implausible stunts, the idea of him being vulnerable is...thrown out the window of the world's largest building. How can we expect The Rock to be in certain danger when he seems invulnerable.

Yeah sure, we've had the same thing in the past, Superman for one, though I've never been a big Superman fan.  There's James Bond, he's saved the world God knows how many times, but he's the best of the best of British Intelligence, he's had years of training. John McClane in the Die Hard films, he's a detective but in the first film they had him run across broken glass and then have to pull out the shards of glass of his feet. The Power Rangers reboot, they had Rita Repulsa beat the hell out of the Rangers before the climatic battle. It's better to see the character or characters vulnerable or fail before they overcome their challenge/s. Not overcome them no matter what from the outset.

Now the other characters....hmm. The only really fleshed out character is Sarah, The Rock's wife, played by Neve Campbell. Sarah, to be fair, isn't the stereotypical damsel in distress, in fact she takes it on herself to do....some things, and Campbell does a good job. Their kids, played by McKenna Roberts and Noah Cottrell,....are there. As someone who did a "most annoying child actors" list they did fine, but they only serve as a rescue plot device.

Then we have our main villain Kores Botha, where again, Roland Møller did a good job. Or at least I've seen worse. The thing with Botha is that he and Zhao have a history and Botha wanted the building to burn down whilst Zhao watched helplessly, whilst stealing from him. The problem is that...why couldn't he have set the building on fire AFTER stealing from him? Wouldn't that have made EVERYTHING easier? There'd be no police presence, no Rock in the building, and you'd be on the way to freedom. Believe me, I'll be coming back to this in the spoiler section.

Supporting cast include Noah Taylor as Mr. Pierce, Hannah Quinlivan as the assassin Xia...I think, I don't think her name was ever mentioned, or at least it's stated only once and never again, Byron Mann as Inspector Wu, and Adrian Holmes as Ajani Okeke. Again, they were alright. Taylor was probably the worse, but they did alright. Although Xia...now that I think about it, I don't think has any lines. She must have had one or two, but most of the time she just does a sexy evil glare towards the camera.

So, overall, the acting isn't the problem, it's how the characters are written. It's the same cliches from 80s and 90s action flicks. Even Mann and another detective, I'm pretty sure it's Elfina Luk as Inspector Han, are the "I'll be the one who wants the whole story while you be the one who automatically assumes The Rock is the bad guy" couple. Taylor is the stereotypical British guy in an American film (again, I'll mention this in the spoilers), in fact, apart from The Rock, and probably Schreiber and Han, we don't actually deal with any other character long enough to develop them. When we're introduced to Pierce and Okeke, Pierce has one line basically saying hi and Okeke says nothing. To be fair, I loved Adrian Holmes, he was great.

The effects, can be hit and miss. The explosions are cool, and who doesn't love explosions, the hollodeck in The Pearl looks stunning, and the views to the ground actually managed to set off my vertigo, but other things like the crane swinging or bridges falling down just don't look good.


So, admittedly looking through that it sounds like I'm overall praising the film doesn't it? Well, to be fair, it isn't that bad. The acting is pretty good, especially from the Rock, but the story is a mess and predictable, the characters are weak, and it adds nothing new to what we've seen a hundred times. That's not to say it's a bad movie, it's okay at best, it's good to have on in the background, but it's a stupid film which has been much better elsewhere. In fact, go watch 'The Towering Inferno' and/or 'Die Hard'.

Now the spoiler section



Spoiler Section

Firstly, when I mentioned when Pierce and Okeke are introduced one is a British guy saying one line and the other saying nothing? Well, it's at this point where I though that the terrorists couldn't pull this off without someone on the inside. Now, who will it be? The British guy or the guy who didn't say anything? Not even sure if it's a spoiler, it's so blatantly obvious.

But it's not just that, they have TWO people on the inside, the British guy, and Ben. Ben was involved in the same incident that took Rock's leg, but left him with a scarred face. This has resulted in Ben being in pain and...somehow in debt with the terrorists. Obviously, the Rock is surely also in pain, he lost part of his leg, but Ben works at one of the most technologically advanced buildings, if not THE most technologically advanced buildings, in the world, how can he be in debt? We are never told why, it's just passed over with Ben saying how Rock got a hot wife and family and Ben got nothing, but that's it. The Rock was working in his garage, surely Ben earned more in a week than the Rock did in a year.

Oh but wait, the biggest stupid thing is yet to come.

At the start of the film, The Rock is given a tablet that biometrically scans his face so only the Rock can use it. Ben orchestrates a mugging of Rock's bag, but it turns out the Rock put the tablet in his jacket pocket and not the bag. So the terrorists, after Ben dies at the Rock's hands, send Xia and a squad to get the tablet. They get the tablet, and then force the Rock to unlock the tablet. What this means is that when they thought they originally had it, they still needed the Rock's face to unlock it! What was the point in stealing it earlier if you still needed his face to unlock the damn thing?!

Now later in the film, the bad guys have the Rock and his daughter (Campbell and his son have escaped). The terrorists want the Rock to open a panic room where Zhao is, because Pierce told them that Rock is capable of opening the door. Why Pierce, one of Zhao's right hand men, isn't capable of this, who the fuck knows. Anyway, Rock tells them that the only way to open the door is either inside, or the anti-fire systems on the floor are activated. Well, then that's fine, the bad guys control the systems...
Botha: You're going to open the door
Me: Uh, what?
Botha: Or else we're going to throw your daughter off the roof
Me: But...but you can just turn on the anti-fire systems to open the door. You control the system!

Yeah! Seriously, the bad guys make the Rock go on a stupid Spider-man climb round the side of the building to a wind turbine to open the door, when all they had to do, was activate the anti-fire systems. The terrorists don't need the Rock! They can just kill him! What, are they worried about the fire not destroying the building they're in? Well, maybe they could have waited until they stole this device they wanted, and THEN set the building on fire!

Now, the reason why they don't just enable the anti-fire, I believe it's because the locked the system down. After unlocking the tablet Xia and her squad go to an off site facility which runs the system for the Pearl. Here, Xia and her squad kill the people there and use a hacker to get into the system to turn off the anti-fire mechanics. After the hacker does this, he enables the tablet for all users, then I believe he says that he put his algorithm into the system so only he can access, he is then shot by Xia. The thing here is, if he was going to enable it so no-one can access the system, why did he enable the tablet to be accessible by ALL USERS?!

Oh! It's because Neve Campbell can't access the tablet otherwise! But wait, that hacker's algorithm means she can't turn the system on, oh well, I guess Rock and daughter are dead. Oh who am I kidding, she saves the day. And how does she do it? Well, imagine the stupidest thing you can do with a computer system that won't work properly SHE TURNS IT OFF AND ON AGAIN.

Are you serious?! This hacker's algorithm, this thing that was supposed to stop people accessing the system, prevent people from turning on the anti-fire systems, was fixed by turning it off and on again?! What the fucking hell?! It's stupid! The film's stupid! Stop being stupid movie! It's not even like the terrorists couldn't figure it out, the instruction came up in English! So they could have just turn the system off and on again, turned on the anti fire systems, open the door, and get Zhao! It's infuriatingly stupid!

Most of the film I could forgive, but this turn it off and on again bit, God!

Trailer Talks: Ghostbusters (2016)

Hey guys! I'm back at the posts! I know I haven't done a post in AGES and I have a tremendous amount of backlog so at this point I might as well wipe the slate clean. Random reviews I will hopefully still get around to but...*clears throat* "new" releases will be scraped. Whether I do these reviews, I doubt it, but won't say I won't.

Now, I'm sure everyone has heard about it by now, but there's a new Ghostbusters on the way, and the trailer came out earlier this week.

Normally I don't really think so much of a trailer, but this one is...it's just so...talkative?

Now, before anyone says anything, no I don't have a problem with an all female cast. Saying that, I would have prefer a mixed gender team, like Extreme Ghostbusters did almost twenty years ago. But I don't have a problem with a team that only allows one gender. What I do have a problem is that if anyone has a problem with Paul Feig's Ghostbusters, they're automatically accused of being sexist. People have bad things to say because the new Ghostbusters looks shit. Got it?

Now I will start this by saying that I didn't hate the trailer...as much as I thought I would. But all the problems I thought it would have are there. Firstly, the cast. Kristen Wiig is her ususal comedic self and Melissa McCarthy is her usual uncomedic self. Yeah, I am not a big McCarthy fan. She generally tends to play the same lovable, clumsy but vulgar character who everyone loves in the end. Granted we don't see THAT character in the trailer except for that clumsy persona.

But my main talking points are on Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones' characters. Firstly, Jones' character Patty, who is only there because, unlike the other people who live in New York, she knows where things are in New York. They have gone down the stereotypical black person route, which is extremely evident in the part of the trailer where McCarthy's character is possessed and Patty exorcises the ghost by bitchslapping McCarthy. I am fucking serious.

You may remember in the original 1984 film Sigourney Weaver's character is possessed by Zuul. Apparently all Billy Murray's Venkman had to do was punch her in the face, can you imagine? It's almost like saying Patty's role is bigger than Winston Zeddmore's and in reality she could be replaced by a bloody sat-nav. Then again a sat-nav wouldn't have been able to do a Southern Baptist impression.

Now McKinnon's character, which is so obviously a rip off of Venkman. The only real difference (apart from being female of course) is that she comes off a bit more...punkier? Either way, she's the Venkman knock off. That's really my only problem with her, but if you're going to do a remake (or reboot, whatever term the kids want to use these days), how about you make the film your own and not rip off the original? There is a returning character though, Slimer, who does look good.

Speaking of the original, it would appear the first ghost the team comes across is the Librarian. And in all fairness, the 2016 Librarian does actually look pretty cool, with the glow and the design, it actually looks pretty scary

until it starts throwing up

and then it looks fucking stupid.

It's really quite amazing how hope is raised here, and then it is quickly dashed. It is the sign where the seriousness of the Ghostbusters franchise is gone and becomes the vulgar and crude Paul Feig comedy which only teenagers should find funny. Which, in relation to my earlier "make it your own film" comment, well, congratulations you made it your own subpar comedy. I'm calling it now, the new film will have a scene where the characters are scared of a spider.

Of course, the original films had its own case of silly looking ghosts, demons, and/or Gods. Like we had;

      um...a dragon?                                                                                              Godzilla?            










     and...whatever this is

But when you have ghost which looks like a weirder thing to see walking around New York than the Stay Puft marshmallow man, you have a problem

Oh, and as you probably heard from the trailer, someone is apparently behind the supernatural phenomena. So it will most likely be Wiig's love interest. Maybe McCarthy's. Also, just want to quickly point out, Kristen Wiig is really the only cast member who can pull off the scientist character to me. McKinnon I've never seen in action before, that's why my only problem is the Venkman rip off, I've no idea how funny she can be. Though if the best she can do is put on a silly wig and hat...admittedly that brought a smile so it may be good. McCarthy though I can't take seriously as a scientist. It's like how they made out to be a superspy in 'Spy', I just can't believe it. Admittedly this is most likely because I absolutely hate Melissa McCarthy.

We also get a glance of the gadgets used in the new film, and like the ghosts, it starts off with a cool factor, before immediately going "what the fuck?". The good bit, are the pistols (I assume we'll just call them proton pistols), which McKinnon's character has to emphasize by licking one of the pistols...which, if they are the same machinery as the proton packs, is actually really stupid to do since they will be radioactive. Also, since we see these pistols don't have a power source like the proton packs, then presumably these will run out of power quickly, or there's no need to carry around the heavy proton packs anymore, unless they charge in the proton packs...I've just written myself out of liking the proton pistols.

Alright, the other gadgets...McCarthy has a proton knuckle duster. I...I can't even...who the hell came up with this?! Who the hell thought "we need McCarthy to punch a ghost in the face to be funny"? Obviously this is supposed to be a joke because no-one would take punching a ghost with a special knuckle duster seriously. Yes, I know this is about women taking on ghosts.

And yet, the proton knuckle duster is NOT the stupidest look gadget in the film. That belongs to the ghost bear trap. I am serious. They develop a bear trap for ghosts. This, I can only assume, is a prototype and nothing more. Firstly, how the hell are they going to carry that thing?! Look at it! It's bigger than their bodies! Secondly, how is it meant to trap ghosts? I'm sure they'll explain/show in the actual film, but for now it looks like the ghost can get through that big gap you see when the trap is closed.

Let's go back to the original films and look at the simple yet effective ghost traps, They look like they can actually trap something, and as shown in the 1984 film, also allows a simple method to put the ghosts in the containment unit, and is easy to carry around.The bear trap looks heavy, complicated, and stupid. It's a clear sign they're going flashy with the gadgets instead of actually thinking about the design.

And that's really all I can say from the trailer. It was more miss than hit for me, and definitely confirms what I was worried about; that they are only doing this for a quick buck, with no thought about the originals and what made the originals so great. Obviously we will need to wait and see what the whole product delivers but right now, it's not good.

Thanks for reading guys, obviously it's something different to what I have posted in the past and I may do more 'Trailer Talks', improving it here and there...and may come up with a different name, who knows. I am sort of thinking of doing one for 'Batman vs Superman', maybe as a way to help get me back into posting regularly.