Baywatch review

Baywatch is the latest attempt at adapting a serious series into a comedy, and stars Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron as members of the titular lifeguard team.

Baywatch is not the worst comedy I've seen this year, it is also not the best. It's a very average comedy. Yes there are some scenes which are laugh out loud funny, but there are also several scenes of silence.

Dwayne Johnson is a very likeable guy. Like Tom Hanks, it would be very interesting to see him as a villain. However, here he is Lieutenant(?) Mitch Buchannon, head lifeguard. Of course he's likeable, yes he's funny, but the material let's him down somewhat. The best parts are when he's interacting with Zac Efron's trainee lifeguard Matt Brody, who is also a disgraced Olympic athlete. It is fun to see them interact with each other and there is a good running joke where Johnson refers to him as several popular young musicians. The rest of the cast don't have much to do. But Jon Bass, who I have not seen in anything else, does the best with what he's given. Yes, he is basically playing the funny, nerdy, fat guy, but he fully embraces it.

The writing is not very smart, and there are some jokes that sound like they are ripped straight from a conversation between a group of 13 year olds at school. Baywatch is trying to Jump Street the franchise, but when there are very few smart jokes, it's not going to succeed. The Jump Street films were funny because they poked fun at themselves and the show, pointing out how ridiculous many things were. This year, both this and Chips(which I purposefully avoided) have tried to replicate what was so good about the Jump Street films, but from what I gather neither understands why they were two of the most intelligent, and funniest, comedies of the last few years. The Jump Street films were self aware and never took themselves seriously. They were meta, self aware, embraced their ridiculousness while also questioning it at every corner. Baywatch thinks that what made them successful was adapting a cheesy show from 25 years ago and making it a raunchy r-rated comedy. It's because of this that Baywatch is not able to go anywhere near the heights of Jump Street.

I like a bit of realism in comedies. Absurdism is fine, but I like a few moments where a character points out the absurdism. There are a few moments when Efron reminds Johnson that they are lifeguards and not cops, but when the bland corruption story starts to unravel and the ridiculousness increases, I would have liked for a character to realise this and point this out. Throughout the film people die, and towards the end the lifeguards definetely kill some people, yet we never see any consequences for their actions. The only consequence is a temporary firing from the watch.

In short: Baywatch has its moments, but is mostly a waste of potential.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge review

Salazar's Revenge is the fifth installment in the Pirates franchise and follows Captain Jack Sparrow as he searches for Poseidon's Trident.

At this point if you are not a fan of the franchise you will probably never be. I watched these films as I grew up and have enjoyed them all. I enjoyed this one but it's not going to change anyones minds towards the franchise.

There are quite a few characters returning with Jack, including a small scene featuring Orlando Bloom, while also introducing Kaya Scodelario and Brenton Thwaites, who are introduced in hopes of being the new Elizabeth and Will. Also new is Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar, a ghost whose crew wants revenge on Jack Sparrow for cursing them years ago. Bardem is a welcome addition and his look, a mixture of makeup and CGI is certainly interesting. But Bardem has played some fantastic villains in the past (Anton Chigurh, Silva) and I don't think Salazar will be remembered as fondly.

It is visually really good. The production crew and the animators obviously knew what they were doing and did it well. That said, there are not too many memorable original scenes. There is one which is adapted almost exactly from Fast and Furious 5. And everything else, save one scene at the end, just doesn't stand out.

In short: It's a Pirates of the Caribbean film.

Colossal review

Colossal is about an alcoholic woman who returns to her hometown after her boyfriend broke up with her. Meanwhile, a kaiju is attacking Seoul.

Trying to describe this movie accurately is a challenge. Half of it involves Anne Hathaway's character trying to sort out her life and deal with her alcoholism. The other half is of a monster attacking Seoul and how the world reacts to this. These parts interact with each other and you wouldn't be able to fast forward to the parts you are interested in without losing key elements of the film. The way they interact is smart, interesting and original. I would compare it to The Guest (coincidentally also with Dan Stevens) in the way that the two completely different films meld together.

As mentioned, Hathaway portrays an alcoholic who returns home. Here she meets a friend from school, Jason Sudeikis, who offers her a job at his bar. Because of this she doesn't tackle her alcoholism in a traditional way. At the bar she hangs out with Sudeikis and two of his friends. Here they talk about how to improve the bar and, eventually, the monster. This was one of my favourite parts of the film: the realistic way people would react to a monster attacking a city halfway across the world. The social aspect is captured with the bar becoming busier, and insights into the theories surrounding the monster are overheard.

The way we are shown that Hathaway is an alcoholic is no different than many other films: her hair is not done up and her mascara is heavy around her eyes. While the look is familiar, it is how she portrays Gloria which is appreciated. Gloria's identity is not simply that she is an alcoholic, we learn more about her and her other troubles in the past which pushed her towards this point. I presume that the way she handles her alcoholism is realistic (I've never been familiar with it in my life). The dependency does not make her quirky and inhibits her in her life and career.

There is an event in the film which causes the rest of it to become very dark. This event helps to reinforce the idea of personal demons that everyone has. It also, like 10 Cloverfield Lane, shows that there are more types of monsters than those which attack our cities. It is this parallel that really makes the film memorable and worth watching.

In short: Colossal is an interesting look at both alcohol and monsters, and how they affect people's lives.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword review

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the latest retelling of the King Arthur story, this time brought to us by Guy Ritchie.

In this version Arthur is portrayed by Charlie Hunnam and is an origin story of how he became king of England. Because of this, the Knights of the Roundtable are barely there. But surely there will still be other parts of the lore? Nope! While the sword in the stone is in there, the Lady of the Lake is barely there, Merlin is only referenced, the full Knights are not assembled, and several other characters are missing. All of this makes it seem like sequel setup. This doesn't mean the film is not good. Everything else is what makes the film bad.

The story is as familiar as can be, think Hamlet with magic. This could make for an interesting film, Hamlet with animals certainly was, but it all feels completely unoriginal. The sets, set pieces and characters feel derivative of every fantasy project of the last 30 years. Action scenes reminded me of Lord of the Rings, Jude Law's King Vortigan had an Emperor Palpatine sense to him, it looked like they snuck onto Game of Thrones sets between seasons, and Hunnam's Arthur is every bland hero ever. In fact, the only original thing brought to the film is Guy Ritchie's style. But style doesn't make a film good.

I kinda like Guy Ritchie. I love his Sherlock Holmes films, The Man from U.N.C.L.E is really fun, and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was influential for a lot of British hard man crime films. Yes, I have heard horrible things about that Madonna movie and Revolver, but I've never seen them. It's a shame that King Arthur does not live up to the expectations I have from the films of his that I have seen.

I will say that the film looked good and I rather enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's music. But can we all agree to not let David Beckham act again, or at least until he has had a lot of lessons. Deadpool was not wrong about him.

In short: This latest take on King Arthur fails to entertain or come up with much original content.

Alien: Covenant review

Alien: Covenant is the latest installment in the sci-fi franchise, and follows a colony ship that finds a planet with better vital signs than the planet they are heading to.

My relationship with the Alien franchise is semi-interesting and recent. I watched Prometheus on TV a few years ago and thought it was a decent sci-fi thriller. I then watched all five of the Alien films in the three days before seeing Covenant. My quick thoughts on them are: great, a perfect sequel, meh, awful, still a decent sci-fi thriller. Going into Covenant I didn't have as much invested into the franchise as many other people did, and went in with a open mind as to what to expect.

Covenant takes place after Prometheus but is still prior to Alien. The title hints towards the original (the "Alien:" part) and Prometheus (the name of the ship in the title). As with the title, the film feels like a combination of the two films. Half of the film is bloody sci-fi horror and the other half is philosophical scenes of creation and discovery. Surprisingly these parts meld together fairly well.

Prometheus received a lot of hate because of its lack of xenomorphs and the way it handles the lore of the franchise. If this stuff bothered you about Prometheus (which shouldn't be what bothers you about it) you're probably going to be disappointed with Covenant. While the Alien parts are extremely gory and very fun, the rest of the film will bore and annoy you. These parts of the film I enjoyed as they explored similar areas to Prometheus, such as morality and creation, and expanded on the ideas of consciousness and further explored the androids.

The android in the film is once again played by Michael Fassbender, who continues to prove that he is one of the best actors working today. In Walter he is able to portray an android in a completely different way from David. The rest of the cast all do fine (I was pleasantly surprised by Danny McBride) but none of them hold a flute to Fassbender. There is one cast member whose presence I don't understand. They are essentially in the film to give a little bit of exposition before getting killed off. It's not the character I have a problem with, but the actor that portrays them. I've been trying to figure out why they were in the film, and the only conclusion I can come up with was that it was a favour for a friend.

I mentioned that people shouldn't have been annoyed with Prometheus' lack of xenomorphs and what it did to the lore. The problems I had with it were that there were some glaring story and character problems, and the rushed ending. Sadly, Covenant shares most of these problems. There are decisions made by characters that make no sense given their position. There are parts of the film that make you ask "What?". The ending is rushed and feels like Scott is saying that they need to include some xenomorph action to please those that didn't like Prometheus. If a third prequel is made I hope they are able to avoid these problems.

In short: Alien: Covenant is an enjoyable film with many of the same problems as Prometheus.

Sleepless review

Sleepless is an action film starring Jamie Foxx as a Las Vegas cop who enters a casino to get his son back.

Like comedies, I can give action films a pass if it does what it says on the tin well. From the opening scene, I knew I wouldn't be giving it a pass. Every 2 seconds there was a cut, and in a car chase you need to be able to see what's happening. I didn't know how long they drove for, or the number of cars involved. It didn't improve from there. In the whole film there are only a few shots that last more than 10 seconds. And the cinematography is very shaky. A good director would be able to hide the fact that it's not Jamie Foxx without having the camera shake as if the cameraman had arthritis.

The story is extremely familiar and in no way engaging. It is essentially Jamie Foxx does Taken. He spends the majority of the film trying to get back his son, to whom he is distant, and will kill anyone that gets in his way. We never learn anything about his son except for that the plays an unspecified sport. Because of this I didn't care about Foxx's fight.

Once in the casino it is just a disappointing bore. Foxx is running around, going back and forth with guns and cocaine and the such. It's boring, repetitive and none of the action is memorable.

The most disappointing part is the cast. You have Oscar winner Jamie Foxx, Golden Globe nominee Michelle Monaghan, David Harbour, Dermot Mulroney and Scoot McNairy. Everyone in the cast is great, but they are all wasted on a terrible script.

After slogging through the film comes the part which annoyed me the most. Right before the credits is the most obvious sequel set up ever. It doesn't fit with what has led up to this point. I don't want to return to this film and I hope they don't get their wish and make a sequel.

In short: Sleepless is *cue overused phrase* not a fitting title.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 review

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 continues the adventures of the team.

The first Guardians is an extremely fun comic book movie. Before seeing it I was not familiar with the characters, but afterwards loved them. Naturally my anticipation was high for this sequel.

This film is just as much fun as the first. It shows the team develop their relationships between each other while making the states higher.

Like a Fast and Furious film, this deals a lot with family. I feel that the F&F films don't develop the family theme other than Vin Diesel or Paul Walker or Michelle Rodriguez saying that they're family, though they do it nowhere near as badly as Suicide Squad. Here, they actually develop the team so that you semi-believe the family theme. It is further developed by Peter meeting his father, Gamora and Nebula's relationship, Drax having a surrogate father/daughter relationship with Mantis, and the team caring for Baby Groot.

Speaking of Baby Groot, he is the best part. Sure, he's an easy laugh, but his cuteness, innocence and hilarity completely won me over. Vying for second best is tough, as Yondu has the best arc but Drax has the best lines. Michael Rooker helped bring depth and soul to what was a side character in the first film. Dave Bautista has improved his acting since the first and delivers all his lines brilliantly.

Sadly it is not as good as the original. James Gunn has been left alone to write the film this time, and the James Gunn-ness has increased. The first time I saw Vol. 2 I was skeptical about the increased Gunn-ness, but the second time I wholly accepted it. There is also some story structure problems: the team is split up for quite a while, which made it a bit meandering.

In short: GOTGV2 is just as fun as the first, but not quite as good.