svanlijnden Reviews

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)

A Rambling Piece of Cheese

[3/10 · 12 January 2016]

It has been a good long time since I saw a movie as massively, unintentionally cheesy as In the Name of the King. Lured into purchasing it on Blu-Ray as part of a batch offer, I already had my doubts about a film being marketed just on the basis of the lead having been in The Expendables. But seeing Jason Statham's hunky face on the cover made me walk into the trap regardless: I'm just superficial that way. After the purchase, I took better look at the director and saw the name Uwe Boll, in very tiny print. It was then that I knew for sure I'd been had.

Uwe Boll is known for his ability to make bad movie adaptations of game franchises, such as Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark and Far Cry. They are said to be generic and uninteresting at best, hilariously bad at worst. He once famously challenged his unflagging critics to take him on in the ring and settle their score man-to-man, apparently believing he could prove the quality of his work by punching a critic in the face. To be fair, based on his reputation I had always avoided his movies like the plague and had never given him a fair shake. But going by this movie, I should just have taken other people's word for it and spared myself two hours of low-budget mediocrity. The whole project is po-faced, misjudged and wobbly in all aspects from acting and script to special effects. Even the passionless soundtrack conspires to makes things drag.

In the Name of the King – a Dungeon Siege Tale is based on a Role- Playing game I know nothing about and stars Jason Statham as Farmer, whose day-job is evident from his name. He has a son and a wife, but not for long, as soon they are both taken from him by the 'Krug', who look suspiciously like Trolls and were probably renamed to sound less generic. The Krug have a silly semi-gorilla walk with corresponding sounds, unconvincing bodysuits and never let you forget that there must be an actor inside, feeling very bad for himself. There is a magical mastermind pulling the Krug's strings (the ever-evil Ray Liotta) and his plan is to take over the land by getting rid of the king (a strangely tightfaced and overly made up Burt Reynolds), with help from the king's weakling nephew (Matthew Lillard, better known as Shaggy from the Scooby Doo movies). Not to spoil anything, but Farmer stops him. The end.

I have left out some other characters like a magus/magician (the elsewhere admirable John Rhys-Davies) and Farmer's daddy substitute (the elsewhere fantastic Ron Perlman), but then none of them is especially memorable and they remain firmly 2D, if not 1D. One or two of the minor characters even risk travelling into negative space. It is the script's fault that people don't really say the things that would make the most sense in any given circumstance and that what does come out of their mouth sounds stilted, but since Boll is the producer and director, blame still lands on his plate. Watching the movie, I kept being tempted to reach into my television, yank out the script and do a quick rewrite. I also wanted to rewrite the beginning and get rid of a 'twist' that was probably intended as gritty and shocking, but really is just severely emotionally misjudged. It sets the wrong tone and shows that the makers are in denial about making a goofy fantasy action movie.

Even though In the Name of the King is very long and feels like it, somehow it doesn't get around to putting in all the information you need to comprehend what is going on. For instance: there is a baffling group of semi-ninja warriors that just appear in the middle of a battle – on two occasions – without set-up or explanation afterwards. If only Boll had tightened up the story, got rid of some unnecessary characters and scenes, cut out about 30-45 minutes and used the extra budget to invest in a dialogue polish and better special effects… This might have enabled them to make the fight scenes look like more than just a live roleplaying session in the woods. On the other hand, this would probably have meant we would have had to do without the awesomely silly tree-people who swing around on vines and are able to use them to attack people by way of unconvincing computer graphics.

It's a mystery how Uwe Boll keeps getting the chance to make more movies. There always seem to be people willing to invest some money in his projects – as a tax write-off, perhaps – and some actors willing to spend time hamming it up and chewing the low-budget scenery. I don't understand why all of the at least somewhat known actors I mentioned didn't take one look at the script and at Boll's reputation and ran in the opposite direction. The sounds of agents getting fired must have been everywhere during and after the filming. Beefcake Statham fulfills the stoic hero part as best as he can, given the circumstances, but is a lot more fun in movies where he has a sense of humor than in flicks like this and The Transporter, where he is typecast as a frowning, one-note action man.

To end on a positive note… uhmm… well, I guess some of the computer- generated vistas are actually quite nice and the Blu-Ray picture quality is crisp and clean. That's pretty much all I can come up with.

Despite this movie being a massive commercial flop, a sequel starring Dolph Lundgren is in the works, once again directed by Uwe Boll. God(s) help us all.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Warmly calculating

[8/10 · 12 January 2016]

There are no happy ever afters, as long as someone can think of a new story to tell. The heroes from the original trilogy were last seen celebrating at the end of Return of the Jedi, but it turns out that they have had a pretty rough time of it since. It is necessary to the plot, because happiness doesn't generate much drama, but it makes the return to the Star Wars universe bittersweet. It also takes away from the original victories. There is still a big, bad bully and the Jedi have not only returned but have left again in the intervening years, leading to a situation not unlike the one before Return of the Jedi, be it with mostly new players.

I won't go into further detail about the plot or characters, as that could easily spoil the movie. Suffice to say that you will see some of the original cast and that the new characters, played by Daisey Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac skillfully take over the baton. Especially the first two easily carry large parts of the film even without the assist of the old guard. They're aided by great special effects, a rousing score, a savvy script and charming dialogue.

J.J. Abrams pulled off a neat trick with the reboot of Star Trek, using an alternate reality to set up his new sandbox, without tainting the old one. With The Force Awakens, he succeeds once again in re-establishing a universe for many movies to come. Everything about the film breathes classic Star Wars, in a way the clunky, awkward pre-sequels never managed to. You can happily pretend those movies never existed. Midi-chlorians have been benched and will likely never be heard of again. The pseudo-science has been taken out of the pseudo-mysticism and the franchise is all the better for it. All the props, locations and aliens seem to logically flow out of what came before. Computer graphics, practical effects and miniatures form a nearly seamless whole.

There is an instant feeling of familiarity, which works to the movie's advantage for the most part. But the familiarity also extends to the movie's story. It feels like someone took all of the plot elements for A New Hope, threw them in a blender and reconstituted the new script from the results. Many story beats and the overall structure strongly reference the original. There is sometimes a bit too much of a distracting echo of the first movie.

A minor nitpick, but not a new one, is how small the Star Wars universe feels at times. People frequently bump into each other for no particular reason other than plot convenience. And troubled family relations are still very much a staple as well. Assuming main players aren't related to each other in complicated ways, you can lay equal odds that there will be a mystery regarding their past and/or lineage. A family counsellor could really clean up in this 'verse. Home is where the massive complications are. Another nitpick is that technology functions in vague but convenient ways. It is easily manipulated and ill-defined, again to suit the needs of the script.

But enough with the niggles. The Force Awakens is in the end a roaring adventure that easily carries you along on a tidal wave of charm and action. It casually references a lot of preceding events that will no doubt be detailed later in books, comics or spin-off movies. It clearly sets up the next film and leaves you with an idea of where it could be headed. The vast majority of the record- breaking amount of people who have seen the movie will be all too eager to climb back aboard.

I lost my big passion for Star Wars years ago. I was enthused about the first run of 'official' novels – which are now no longer 'cannon' – but bailed on them as they grew more convoluted and got further away from the source material. The Force Awakens didn't turn me back into a rabid fanboy, but it has reignited something that I thought was gone. You could say it awoke some kind of force. And then someone would punch you in the face.

More reviews @PopCultjunk / popcultjunk.com

Gone Girl (2014)

Gone over the top...

[7/10 · 12 January 2016]

Gone Girl director David Fincher is no stranger to twisty tales that are heavy on the moral ambiguity. (Also see: Se7en, The Game and Fight Club.) His latest movie is two-thirds of a thriller that is successfully tense, though you are likely to figure out where the story is headed before it arrives there. The last third of the film however, makes things convoluted, exits reality and ends up somewhere silly. By the time the credits roll at the end of the overlong journey, your eyes are likely to be rolling in disbelief.

When Nick (Ben Affleck) comes home to find his home empty with signs of a struggle, he alerts the police and a manhunt starts to find his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). Soon suspicion turns towards Nick, and he finds himself being scrutinized by both the police and the media. Where is Amy? Did he kill her? As the story progress, new revelations surface and the viewer's expectations get toyed with.

The movie is well-shot and well-acted overall, though subletly goes out the window near the finish line. Affleck is kind of a blank for the first half of the movie, but this works well for the intrigue as you can project your suspicions on him, like the media do within the film. An interesting angle here is the examination of how the media manipulate public perception in a high-profile crime.

For the screenplay, author Gillian Flynn adapted her own bestselling novel. Word spread that the ending of the book didn't match the ending of the film, which upset readers. But after some research online, it seems that actually the endings match pretty closely. And it is indeed a satisfying ending, it's just a shame that the film takes such an over-the-top route to get there.

If you haven't seen Gone Girl by now, despite all the hype surrounding it when it came out and if you somehow avoided spoiling the ending for yourself online, it is still entertaining enough to experience. Get settled in though, as the journey takes an unnecessarily long two and a half hours. The movie is too goofy to be especially memorable, but apparently Affleck's endowment can be spotted for half a second if you pause at just the right moment during a shower scene. So we'll always have that.

More reviews: @PopCultJunk / popcultjunk.com

Spectre (I) (2015)

A Spectre of His Former Self

[7/10 · 12 January 2016]

James Bond is a dick. That much is clear from the opening scenes of Spectre, the latest 007 movie. Bond endangers a large amount of innocent bystanders – in fact, he no doubt caused the death of one or two off-screen – and he murders someone who may just have been a pilot-for-hire. The doomed pilot seems more concerned about the bystanders than Bond is.

These initial scenes are visually impressive – taking place at a Day of the Dead celebration in New Mexico – but they are slightly wrong- footed, and they set the tone for the rest of the movie. It slavishly follows the overly familiar 007 recipe, hitting all the expected beats on the way to an underwhelming finale. But the writers didn't ponder the details too much. A lot of it doesn't track logically and emotionally, with some all-too convenient short- cuts showing off the creakiness of the script. Examples being an unbelievably convenient safety net and a very forced – and ultimately inconsequential – romantic crisis. Also, not being thrown off a train – or getting arrested – despite busting up the place and being able to blow up an entire compound with a single gun salvo. Seriously bad bit of construction there.

If you ever wondered about the continuity between all the Bond films, it is now even more official; James Bond is not a code name being passed on from one guy to the next. Why Bond bothers having the code name 007 when he is constantly going around telling everyone his actual birth name is still up in the air. It turns out that only the Daniel Craig Bond films are currently cannon. Bond's big love is stated here to have been Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) from Casino Royale. Which sidesteps that Bond once planned to marry Tracy (Diana Rigg) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and that he was fond of quite a few other women as well over the years.

This entry feels very much like old-fashioned Bond. Too much so. Women are firmly relegated to a supporting role and Bond gets designated the usual amount of two love interests, one for a brief fling and one for keeps. Or at least one for keeps until the next movie. Shockingly to some, Bond beds a woman close to his own age in this movie, although the other love interest is 17 years younger, so the usual Hollywood standards are still mostly in place. Moneypenny, Q and the new M get more to do than usual, but are never at risk of outshining the main player.

The money is on Daniel Craig returning for one more movie before bailing. He has publicly stated that he doesn't like doing the Bond movies – Spectre was a very troubled shoot – and it seems that he doesn't feel artistically challenged by Bond. You can kind of see that the emotional range of the character is limited and that he would be boring to portray over the course of multiple movies. But Craig doesn't phone it in and he seems engaged enough. Apart from one scene where the make-up was distractingly overdone and he looks vaguely draggy, he still looks the part. And the cinematography in general is very well done, everything looking cool and stylish.

As always, Bond will return. But will he have new tricks up his sleeve when he does, or will it be spy-business as usual?

More reviews: @PopCultJunk / popcultjunk.com

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Witness Imperator Furiosa! (Oh, and Mad Max too.)

[8/10 · 2 June 2015]

'Mad Max – Fury Road' is a very good action movie that makes you realize that physical stunts give a kick that special effects just can't quite match, no matter how good they are. Not that there isn't CGI here, but during the chase that makes up the majority of the movie, there is a sense that you're watching something real and tangible, even if it's taking place in an obviously fictional and far-out context.

The context is a trek through the dusty post-apocalyptic world seen in previous Mad Max movies. The original director returned for this (George Miller) but thankfully the titular role is no longer filled by the deeply unsympathetic Mel Gibson, who has been replaced by Tom Hardy. Funnily enough, it's not Max who takes the lead though. He's mostly tagging along and ultimately helping out in a story revolving around 'Imperator Furiosa' (Charlize Theron), whom he begrudgingly becomes an ally to. This has made some of the fans of the series grumble, but works really well for the movie. It remains to be seen if Max could carry another movie by himself unless they go a lot deeper than simply painting him as a traumatized loner, unable to move on.

Theron has received a lot of praise and it seems her role is headed for iconic female action star status, on par with Ripley from the Alien movies. I would be surprised if they don't make her part of the inevitable sequel, assuming she doesn't get her own spin-off. Hilariously, the focus on her and a few other strong women has made some insecure males get into a huff. They don't like that someone has taken what should have been a total sausage fest (in their opinion) and has turned it into feminist propaganda (again, their opinion). Still, as critics and audiences have embraced the movie in droves, I doubt Warner Bros will care much about this wacky minority.

The movie is not flawless. Since it is basically one long chase, with a few short breaks in between, it does feel like there is some repetition going on. But the trek gets peppered with enough variety that it doesn't really get old. As said, the reliance on stunts over special effects for the majority of the time, makes the action more involving. Add some sly humor and weird Viking-like cultural proclivities ('Witness me!') and the mix keeps you intrigued and entertained for the duration. You may like or dislike some of the campier elements. My personal highlight is the Evil Camp's soundtrack truck, which has four large drums on the back and a Metal-playing guitarist on the front, with a flame-throwing guitar suspended on bungee cords.

The ending seems a bit naive, resolving things more neatly and faster than makes sense. But because of the goodwill that the movie has created by that time, by being thoroughly enjoyable, you won't really care.

Space Station 76 (2014)

Campin' out in Space

[7/10 · 2 June 2015]

I consider myself a fairly 'typical' viewer. By which I mean that I tend to find myself agreeing with the professional critical consensus on a book, movie or film. (Rather than the popular one, which tends to get distorted by rabid fans on one side and equally rabid haters on the other end.) Personal mileage can vary of course, but it is rare that I find myself really enjoying something that – according to most critics – sucks. Space Station 76 is such a thing.

The movie is a loving pastiche of scifi from the sixties and seventies, sporting some impressive retro styling and understated but modern special effects. It introduces us to the crew of the titular space station through the eyes of new arrival Jessica (Liv Tyler). A she will discover, the people on board have their share of issues. And Jessica has some of her own to add. Though the size of the station and the extras milling about in the background indicate that there is a large crew, the story focuses on just a few of them and makes them feel isolated and alienated. Some of their problems are timeless, such as cheating and the tribulations of parenthood, some have consciously been given a dated feel. Being gay is a shameful secret in this retro- future and emancipation is only just starting to be a thing. This is a future in which smoking around babies is no big deal and fashion shows are best viewed on stereoscopic slides with a cutting-edge plastic viewmaster.

I can see how this movie would turn people off. It walks a fine line between being funny and being poignant, trying to engage your emotions while also going for the occasional cheap laugh. The cast is game, playing it mostly straight – even some of the more absurd bits – and going slightly camp when a moment calls for it. Like the space station itself, the story moves slowly and doesn't really end up getting anywhere surprising. You have to be fond of the kind of movies that Space Station 76 pokes fun at and you have to allow yourself to get enveloped by its weird mood and funky synth music. Seeing it in the dark on a big screen is definitely recommended. Fail to tune into its frequency and you will be left with a boring slog through phoney-looking sets that goes nowhere. The movie could have used more sting in its tale, but I couldn't help but be seduced by it.

Please Like Me (2013–2016)

What's not to like?

[8/10 · 10 January 2015]

'Please Like Me' seems a bit needy, as titles go. But it's not hard to like this Australian series, which is a dramady with a documentary, understated feel to it. The lead is Josh (played by Josh Thomas), who gets dumped by his girlfriend in the first few minutes of the first episode. Things haven't been working out, she says. 'Also – you're gay.' Josh only begrudgingly comes to terms with this and he doesn't really feel like really having a proper coming out because the concept is 'so 90's'. As it happens, his best friend's colleague is only too happy to help Josh on his journey of self-discovery. This despite him seeming to be out of Josh's league looks-wise. That's not me being mean, that is something repeatedly stated in the series, by Josh himself.

Josh is an interesting character. He tries to avoid conflict, but is also outspoken, and he keeps finding himself in situations he does not quite want to deal with. He is a bit aimless still, apparently studying – though we never see him do it – and he doesn't have a job. His parents keep him afloat financially. He's smart, funny, stubborn and maybe a bit lazy.

The other character who plays a central role, especially during the second season, is Josh's mum (Debra Lawrance). She is suffering from manic depression. This leads to scenes that are sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking, and she gives Josh plenty to worry about. We see her at her worst and also as the ultimately normal person at the core, who is just trying to cope with her illness. Rounding out the main cast are Josh's anxious, ineffectual dad and his feisty new wife, Josh's ex and his roommate best friend who is amusingly bad at expressing himself when it comes to emotions.

They're a sympathetic bunch, well-portrayed and dealing with relatable crises. They're flawed and don't always do the right thing, but how they act makes sense given who they are. You will enjoy hanging out with them, even if you may be happy that you don't have to live with them full-time. Two seasons of 'Please Like Me' have been made so far, the last episode completely focusing on Josh and his mom taking a long trek through nature, just sharing thoughts and feelings. This is by turns funny, sad and awkward, in line with the rest of the series. Thankfully, Please Like Me's journey will continue in an upcoming season of ten episodes. More reviews at: popcultjunk.com / Twitter: @PopCultJunk

The Originals (2013–2018)

Enjoyable if not entirely original

[7/10 · 10 January 2015]

The Originals plays like a supernatural Dallas set in New Orleans. It's about shifting alliances and power struggles, with frequent but doomed romances thrown into the mix. There be vampires and witches and werewolves duking it out to gain the upper hand. The series starts off with a tension challenge because the three leads, two brothers and their sister, are all Original Vampires – the first ones – and are therefore seriously hard to kill. But the writers are creative enough to find multiple ways of making them suffer. And there are always some recurring characters in the cast who are more vulnerable and at risk of getting offed. The one most at risk is a werewolf who will be giving birth to a miracle-baby, who will be half werewolf and half vampire. A considerable amount of people want her dead.

The main three characters will be familiar to a lot of viewers, The Originals being a spin-off. The dysfunctional family already spent a few seasons causing trouble on parent show The Vampire diaries. Now striking out on their own, the dynamic between the siblings doesn't take long to grow a bit stale. There is brother Klaus, who keeps manipulating people and then complains that people don't trust him and betray him. There is his sister Rebekah, who has a hard time forgiving Klaus for all the Evil things he has done – and is still doing – to her and to others. And there is the relatively noble Elijah who wants to do the Right Thing and thinks Klaus is not yet beyond redemption. The three seem to have trouble breaking out of their holding patterns, but thankfully the series shakes things up about two-thirds into the season in a way I will not spoil. To think that their petty infighting has been going on for centuries boggles the brain. It doesn't make immortality seem all that appealing.

Like in The Vampire Diaries, viewers could easily get emotional whiplash from all the turnarounds and betrayals. This whole town is in a codependent, abusive relationship with itself and you half wonder why everyone doesn't just pack up and get out of each other's face. Instead, people will end up bedding former enemies, who may very well end up trying to kill them again a few episodes down the road. It's entertaining but a bit exhausting to watch. Because the series keeps the twists coming hard and fast, you don't often get a chance to feel bored or to ponder just how ridiculous it all is. (A trick also employed by The Vampire Diaries.) The acting is okay for this sort of thing, with some wood-adjacent performances not spoiling the fun. The cast seems to relish chewing the scenery and especially enjoys getting all arch and Evil.

When a new episode rolls around, I will often completely have forgotten what happened the previous week, so the recaps at the beginning are useful. And yet, I can't help but watch. The Originals is like candy-floss, pleasant on the palate but it quickly evaporates. It disappears straight out of my mind after watching, as if it has been rejected by the memory bank. A guilty pleasure then, just like the series that Sired it, even if The Originals does not feel very original. More reviews at: popcultjunk.com / Twitter: @PopCultJunk

Looking (2014–2015)

Watch out for the must-see Looking! (See what I did there?)

[8/10 · 30 June 2014]

Looking follows a trio of friends in San Francisco as they deal with various dating conundrums and relationship drama. The first season consists of just eight, 30-minute episodes – which sucks, because this series is great and addictive.

Some people have called Looking the gay(er) version of Sex and the City, although that doesn't do the newcomer justice. There are funny bits, sure, but these flow naturally from everyday, believable situations. The tone is more documentary, far less exaggerated, and there isn't a new hook or theme each week. It's just a continuing story that is soap-like without getting soapy. The series doesn't rush, giving intimate scenes – with engaging, natural dialogue – room to breathe. Andrew Haigh's influence as a director is clear. He previously made the well-received movie Weekend, which has the same style. (Though not he but Michael Lannan is the main writer and creator of Looking.)

The cast is charming and convincing. And fairly hot, which doesn't hurt, as there is some not-too-crude nudeness. The three main players are Patrick Murray (Jonathan Groff) a twinky game designer who has awkward sexual tension with his boss, Agustín (Frankie J. Alvarez) a scruffy artist who has trouble finding his inspiration and Dom (Murray Bartlett) a mustached, beefcake waiter with ambitions of opening his own restaurant. Supporting are the scruffy artist's boyfriend (O.T. Fagbenle), Dom's business partner and potential love interest Lynn (Quantum Leap and Enterprise's Scott Bakula), Patrick's aforementioned boss (Russell Tovey of Being Human), Dom's best girl-friend Doris (Lauren Weedman) and last but not least; Richie (Raúl Castillo), Patrick's hot and sincere love interest. An entire, sweet and sexy episode simply follows Richie and Patrick on their first date.

It's great to see a group of characters who are representative of gay life without trying too hard. They aren't caricatures and the series doesn't strain something trying to check all the boxes of all the sub-scenes within the gay scene. It doesn't run screaming from gay stereotypes but also doesn't overly sashay towards them. The Big Gay Issues have yet to take center stage – marriage, adoption, discrimination – the show being less militant than something like Queer as Folk. (Opinions may differ on that being good or bad for the gay cause.) Though there is barely a straight person in sight, and only one recurring woman in the cast, anybody watching the series could easily relate to the emotional turmoil these characters go through, regardless of their own orientation.

I generally prefer quality over quantity, but Looking is too high- quality for me to not want more quantity. So it's good that a second season is in the works, due late 2014 / early 2015. I guess that it will feature a love-triangle (or two) and I hope that it will show a bit more of the origin of the 'main three'. You don't see them together a lot and their dynamic with each other hasn't really been explored. As long as it stays this good, I will certainly keep Looking.

More reviews at: www.popcultjunk.com / Twitter: @PopCultJunk

Snowpiercer (2013)

On the Right Track

[8/10 · 25 June 2014]

Snowpiercer posits an intriguing near-future scenario. It's the year 2031. To fight global warming, a chemical component was released into the air and things went horribly wrong. The world froze over and mankind is all but wiped out. Around 1000 survivors circle the globe on a giant railway track, in a self-sustaining microcosm aboard a train. As you can see, Snowpiercer requires you to suspend your disbelief quite a bit from the very beginning. Let's not be nit-picky and assume the inside of the train has indeed managed a delicate ecological balance that allows it to keep 1000 people alive indefinitely. Let's even assume that there is an engine that can keep generating energy without a clear source. The major hurdle is that a train could keep running in loops on a track without any upkeep to the tracks or to the outside of the train. Here in The Netherlands at least, a stiff breeze and some leaves on the tracks are enough to make the railway system grind to a screeching halt. The train in Snowpiercer has been zooming around non-stop for 17 years. That's not a feat of engineering, that's a miracle.

In any case, this fascinating milieu serves as the backdrop to a social allegory. The people in the front of the train live in luxury and comfort, the people in the back are downtrodden and live in squalor. There has been an uprising or two, but nothing that took. Now another one is brewing, this time led by Curtis (Chris Evans) a man still hunky despite being covered in layers of grime. The scene seems set for a brainless action movie, but what results is more odd and thoughtful, despite there being no shortage of bloodshed. There are some beautiful sets as the rebels travel forward through the train, showing a world only about three meters wide that seems to go on forever. The acting from the upper class is over the top, with especially Tilda Swinton turning in an entertainingly batty performance. There is a bizarre, Terry Gilliam-esque feel to the second half of the film.

The ending is downbeat, calling to mind scifi from the seventies. And the final shot is hopeful, but does leave you wondering 'Okay. So now what?' The story obviously doesn't really end when the movie does and it offers poetic closure more than practical closure. But for all the cracks in the foundation of this scifi story, it is entertaining and tickles the imagination.

More of my reviews at PopCultJunk.com / Twitter: @PopCultJunk

Godzilla (2014)

Godzilla Rocks It, Shame about the Humans

[7/10 · 15 June 2014]

Does Godzilla need a motivation? Don't we just want to see him mindlessly wreck cities, preferably while fighting other monsters? In this new movie, if I understood things correctly, he is trying to 'restore balance' according to a scientist. Get this – Godzilla goes New Age! In any case, during the high points, the movie simply shows him doing what he does best. I haven't seen any of the original Japanese Godzilla (Gojira) movies in full, just the not very memorable US version from 1998. But it seems like large parts of the 2014 version are respectful of the source material. Only instead of a guy in a suit, we get grade A special effects simulating massive property damage and countless deaths. I liked the nods to Japan, acknowledging Gojira's roots, even if the movie cant resist dragging the climax over to US shores.

Some viewers have complained that you don't get to clearly see Godzilla enough, but I don't know what they are talking about. It takes the movie quite a while to work up to showing him in full, but once the movie gets to it, you can take good, long looks at him. But then, some people have also complained that Godzilla looks too fat here. Seriously? We're fat- shaming Godzilla now? So sometimes opinions are suspect.

The people in this movie are pretty ineffectual when you look back on it. The biggest direct, positive impact they have on how events play out, is just a lucky happenstance of something that was – admittedly – a smart longterm play by one person. I can't be more specific without getting too spoilery, alas. But the human part of the cast is mostly around to observe, offer explanations about motive and to either get killed or narrowly escape. The main guy is one of those magic everymans who is both just-a-dude and someone who constantly happens to find himself in the thick of things. The family drama part of the movie is fairly by-the-numbers and the script doesn't actually follow through on its 'you must do everything to save your family' (paraphrased) plot- thread. By the way, no matter what the trailers promised you, the lead is not the oft-worshipped Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad fame. Instead, we get the fine-but-no-Bryan-Cranston Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

I was glad to see that the movie didn't feel the need for an after- credits tease or one of those annoying last scenes that open the door wide for a sequel. Instead, we get a surprise ending in that the final shot doesn't seem like it will be the final shot, but then the credits start to roll. Ah well, goodbye for now Godzilla, when it's sequel time, I doubt you will have trouble busting through the door.

More reviews at: PopCultJunk.com / Twitter: @PopCultJunk

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

All You Need is Tom Cruise?

[8/10 · 14 June 2014]

Edge of Tomorrow is based on a novel with the more oblique but interesting title All You Need is Kill. Aliens land on earth and seem hellbent on conquering the planet, wiping out humanity as they go. People fight back, but the enemy always knows their next move already and keeps pushing forward. Then something strange happens to the high- ranking Bill Cage (Tom Cruise). He keeps dying on the battlefield and reliving the same day over and over again. So, what's up with that, and can it help turn the tide against the invaders?

I don't know what the tone of the novel is, but the movie turns into a darkly comic SciFi-variation on Groundhog Day. It's not often that shooting your lead character in the head becomes a running joke. (The psychological fallout of getting violently killed again and again is not explored.) It's not all laughs however, the other frame of mind here is 'epic action movie'. The Grand Finale is a disappointment in that it overloads on fast-moving special effects shots, making the characters seems less like humans and more like sprites from a video game. It is still fairly tense because of the build-up before then, but it becomes clear that the laws of physics - and believability – have been suspended for the sake of spectacle. Something smarter and more low-key would have served the story better.

It's just as well that Cruise's character starts off as a douche and only gets sympathetic as the movie progresses. You don't have to like him at first, you can slowly work up to it. And Cruise does win you over – mostly - though I can think of a list of actors I would have preferred in the role. Emily Blunt makes for a charming leading lady, although her character is no lady, and all the better for it. The movie runs a bit long, taking its time to set up the Groundhog Day scenario, but stays interesting throughout. The internal logic makes less sense the more you think about it, particularly the reason behind the time reset and the way in which the aliens function. But despite this and despite an attack of the stoopids at the climax, the movie is definitely worth seeing. @PopCultJunk

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Retcon Done Well!

[8/10 · 14 June 2014]

With X-Men – Days of Future Past, director Bryan Singer makes a welcome return to the mutant universe. He had helmed the first two films but jumped ship on the third one, directing the morose Superman Returns instead. Brett Ratner took the helm for X-Men: Last Stand and almost sank the franchise with a rambling mess of a movie, which badly flubbed the classic Dark Phoenix storyline from the comics. Trying to salvage the franchise, the next movie (X-Men: First Class) jumped back in time to tell an origin story, with not too much regard for continuity with the trilogy it followed. X-Men – DoFP forms a bridge between First Class and the trilogy by way of time travel, and is based on another iconic story from the comics. In the movie version, Wolverine's consciousness is sent back into the past, into his younger body, to prevent an assassination that will lead to an all-out, devastating war between humans and mutants. To effect this, he will have to convince Xavier and Magneto to make nice with each other.

X-Men – DoFP again plays fast and loose with continuity, ignoring most of what happened in The Last Stand, but oddly not all. If you saw the scene from the end credits of The Wolverine, or simply saw the trailers for X-Men – DoFP, you may have been wondering how how Magneto got his powers back and how Xavier is alive. Well, keep wondering, as the movie does not explain either of these things. Admittedly, The Last Stand hinted at both developments with its final shot and the end credits sequence respectively, but it feels like a pertinent part of the story was skipped. Not that I can see how it could have been squeezed into this outing, apart from just blurting out one or two lines of exposition. X-Men – DoFP is already longish and focused on other things. In any case, most people – myself included – will be happy that X-Men – DoFP clearly gives its blessing to people pretending that The Last Stand never happened, or was an alternate universe, or whatever. Messing around with time travel, has now given future X-Men films leeway to pick and choose with regards to continuity. Just show Wolverine raising an eyebrow and have him go 'Hey, that's not how it happened!' and you're in the clear.

But aside from all that – is X-Men – DoFP any good? Yup, quite. I know it plays fast and loose with its comic book source material, but the cast is engaging, the action sequences are spectacular and the plot is a fine piece of hokum. There is a good balance between character moments and action, though the movie stuffs in a bunch of mutants who get cool fights, but are given no personality to speak of. If you've read the comics, you can project depth onto them, but they will be intriguing but flat if haven't done your nerdy research. Most of the focus is on the cast from First Class, but there are some surprising cameos from the 'original' cast.

The most interesting 'new' character is Quicksilver (Evan Peters) a kleptomaniac speedster. Those in the know, know he is – in fact – Magneto's son, but though the movie drops a cheeky line of dialogue hinting at this, that's all you'll hear about it. People were all ready to hate this incarnation of the character when pictures surfaced with him in an awful, silvery costume. And it is indeed a horrible costume, but one that is only on-screen for a very short amount of time. There is a scene in which Quicksilver takes out a room full of guards – seen from his superfast perspective – that will make you want to cheer, and Peters makes him charming and cocky. It's a shame he doesn't hang around for longer. The next Avengers movie (Age of Ultron, due 2015) will also feature a version of this character, as Quicksilver – confusingly – is both part of the mutant universe (movie rights held by Fox) and the Avengers universe (movie rights held by Marvel, but any mention of mutants is iffy). Another blow to continuity, but *shrug*.

Despite having a good time with the movie, I was scratching my head at the grand finale. Though changes were made to the original timeline, it seems that what happened instead wouldn't exactly have made things better for mutants in the long run. Except that it apparently did. And who am I to argue with the vagueries of cause and effect? As long as I can purge The Last Stand from my mind completely, it's all good. @PopCultJunk

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

A Very Good and Spectacular Conspiracy Thriller

[8/10 · 15 April 2014]

Like Superman, Captain America is a tricky character to make interesting. As conceived, they both stand for moral absolutes. In Cap's case, for 'truth, justice and the American Way' though thankfully, that last part isn't overly emphasized. The second (semi) solo movie handles Cap very well, throwing the ultimate Good Guy into a conspiracy thriller and making him have to doubt the morals of everyone around him. It is also pretty current, tackling the topic of safety versus freedom. How much are we willing to give up of the latter to gain more of the former?

I won't get into the plot much, for fear of spoilers. Let's just say that Black Widow kicks a lot of ass, Robert Redford does the same with his acting and that Samuel L. Jackson has a very good action sequence. Cap's shield is used in a variety of cool ways and Chris Evans makes Cap a likable guy you root for every step of the way. There is also the introduction of a new superpowered character or two, one of whom looks a bit silly in action. While most of the heroes and villains here rely on hand-to-hand combat or guns, the outlier seems to belong in X-Men, rather than in this relatively grounded outing for Captain America.

Maybe my use of the word 'grounded' is unfortunate, given the climatic scenes. They are visually impressive, especially on a big screen in 3D, but things do get a bit convoluted and messy. There is silly pseudo- science at work in them – or rather pseudo-technology in the shape of three doohickeys – and the heroes' strategy for the endgame ends up relying on quite a bit of luck. Also, it's funny that Evil technology has red lights which turn green when Good people hack it. Who knew morals were colorcoded into hardware? Evil is 'no', Good means 'go'!

Two more nit-picks. As in other stand-alone movies from the Avengers crew, it's not clear why the rest of them aren't called in to help. And what kind of glass is in all the windows in this movie? You could base a drinking game on the amount of people throwing themselves out of a building by effortlessly crashing through one. Even if these buildings are otherwise heavily secured, the windows shatter right away. I would have loved to see at least one instance of a character bouncing back off a window and onto his ass.

Nitpicks aside, this is one of the best Marvel movies, only slightly below The Avengers and on par with Iron Man 3. Up next is Guardians of the Galaxy, full of characters I've never heard of, but blessed with a great trailer. Bring it!

@PopCultJunk

Riddick (2013)

All Chronicled Out

[6/10 · 6 February 2014]

When Pitch Black came out in 2000, it seemed like an unassuming, stand- alone horror-movie which borrowed heavily from Aliens, while adding enough uniqueness to the formula to make it interesting. It starred Vin Diesel as the not especially talkative Riddick, the enigmatic prisoner of a bounty-hunter. Stuck on a planet with a little group of people and swarms of deadly creatures, it was unclear if he was friend or foe to his companions. The movie became somewhat of a cult classic and I really liked it.

However, writer/director David Twohey and lead actor Vin Diesel were not done with the character and his universe yet. The Chronicles of Riddick followed, once again plopping the titular character into captivity, but this time as part of an overblown, special-effects riddled space opera powered by what seemed like intergalactic Egyptians and metaphysical meanderings. It didn't do so well, but Twohey and Diesel persevered, using their own capital, so now there is a new chapter in the saga, simply called Riddick.

Riddick – the movie – bookends itself by referencing Chronicles but seems to want to get back to its Alien-esque roots. It's divided into three distinct acts. The first is an overlong section about one man's survival on a hostile planet, the second one is a pretty standard action movie involving mercenaries, and the third one is a monster movie that apes Pitch Black but lacks tension and the element of surprise. Flowing throughout is some truly awful dialogue between the characters. They try – and miserably fail – to sound tough and cool. It's like they just filmed the first draft of a script, one that apes better sci-fi and action movies without understanding what actually made them work .

Riddick – the character – gets less interesting the more we see of him. Cornball dialogue hurts his appeal and he just seems to be a bit of a dick, as well as creepy in seemingly unintended ways. Among the mercenaries is woman who is matter-of-factly established as a lesbian (played by Katee Sackhoff of Battlestar Galatica fame) but that doesn't stop Riddick from hitting on her and commenting on, among other things, the color of her nipples. (Don't ask.) Of course, this is also the kind of movie where he intrigues her and she flirts back, because in this macho fantasyland, all it takes to turn a lesbian straight, is to meet the right, über-butch guy. (Natch.)

You'd hope the Riddick saga would end with this movie, but it doesn't. The final scenes set up yet another sequel that would head into space opera territory again. Twohey and Diesel seem determined to continue expanding their universe, even if it takes them decades and even if they have to self-fund the undertaking. So whether or not Riddick makes its money back, there may indeed be a sequel. You have to admire their dedication, even if it is hard to admire the final product.

Ps: there is also duo of prequel video games named The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay and Assault on Dark Athena. Especially the first game received high marks from reviewers, so if you want more Riddick, you may be better off hunting down these games. Specifically the X-Box 360 version, which bundles them together.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Good Gods, bad MacGuffins!

[7/10 · 2 January 2014]

The guy with the big hammer is back! He is still mostly the straight man in a story that mixes Shakespearian family drama with mythical mumbo-jumbo. Mind you, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his Asgardian kin are not Gods, because that could cause all sorts of controversy among the believers of various 'legit' religions. The movie takes the Lord of the Rings approach by throwing you right into an epic battle with explanatory voice-over. It introduces the movies villains economically, making no compromises to people who may need a moment to transition from their daily routine to this fantastical world. You'll either have to go with it or just go.

In time, you do stop worrying about the plausibility and practical aspects of life in Asgard and the other realms. What becomes more of a problem is some really silly science being used on the earthbound side of the story. The mythical worlds are so far removed from reality that applying credibility seems inappropriate. But hanging a whole lot of gibberish pseudo-science off two fake-looking devices with a dubious- looking remote control , and making the grand finale hinge on the vague workings of it, is annoying. Sure, I can understand that these doohickeys simply do what the script needs them to do, but they are such obvious plot devices that the lazy writing is hard to miss. The writers have some fun by playing around with the effect the thingamajigs cause, and even use it for some good comic relief, but it does throw you out of the story. The writers expose themselves too much as puppet masters.

Now, all this makes it sound like I didn't have a good time watching Thor: The Dark World. But it is fun, in a cheesy, over-the-top kinda way. Most of the cast from the first movie is brought back in, including the great Tom Hiddleston as Loki, though I don't quite like how the movie handles him. In-between this movie and The Avengers, he does seem to be spending an awful lot of time hanging around in a cell. And being a trickster, a character you can never get a handle on, he risks going from intriguing to boring in the end. Nathalie Portman is back as the love-interest, brought together 'by fate' according to Thor, though I'd say it was the script, working really hard to maneuver her into place. I like Portman in the role and it's always a joy watching her slap people in the face. Her assistant Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) works well as the comic relief, though the funniest moment involves a very quick and unexpected cameo from one of Thor's former comrades-in-arms. Idris Elba also returns, as gate-keeper Heimdall, a lot more well-known by now and still looking hot despite the colored lenses. I look forward to seeing him in the Mandela biopic.

The main problem with Thor: The Dark World is one of tone. Sometimes it takes itself very seriously, sometimes not at all. That can work if the comedy is in the dialog and the interplay between characters. But as a viewer, you do want to feel that the writers are dedicated to telling a solid, well-thought out story and are not just having a laugh.

@PopCultJunk