Fast X (2023) Review

Time: 141 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence
Cast:
Vin Diesel as Dominic “Dom” Toretto
Michelle Rodriguez as Letty Ortiz
Tyrese Gibson as Roman Pearce
Ludacris as Tej Parker
John Cena as Jakob Toretto
Nathalie Emmanuel as Ramsey
Jordana Brewster as Mia Toretto
Sung Kang as Han Lue
Scott Eastwood as Little Nobody
Daniela Melchior as Isabel Neves
Alan Ritchson as Aimes
Helen Mirren as Magdalene “Queenie” Ellmanson-Shaw
Brie Larson as Tess
Rita Moreno as Abuelita Toretto
Jason Statham as Deckard Shaw
Jason Momoa as Dante Reyes
Charlize Theron as Cipher
Director: Louis Leterrier

Over many missions and against impossible odds, Dom Toretto and his family have outsmarted and outdriven every foe in their path. Now, they must confront the most lethal opponent they’ve ever faced. Fueled by revenge, a terrifying threat emerges from the shadows of the past to shatter Dom’s world and destroy everything — and everyone — he loves.

I am a fan of the Fast and Furious movies, even with their obvious absurdity and issues, I have fun with them. So I was interested in the upcoming movie, but I was particularly interested in the fact that it the series is apparently coming to its close, with Fast X essentially being a 3 film (previously 2 film) story. I had a lot of fun with this one.

Plotwise, it is certainly in line with the past movies, so if you’re familiar enough with them, you can figure out quickly whether you’ll be into Fast X or not. The last movie F9 got a little too convoluted, but Fast X is refreshingly straightforward. While it is apparently building up some vague ‘war’, at its core, it’s about the main villain going after Dominic Toretto and his family for revenge. Like F9, Fast X has the Fast family splitting off into separate groups with their own subplots, and once again it did feel a little awkward and overstuffed at times. Thankfully, it retains the tone and approach that makes these movies so endearing. I maintain that the sincerity is the key ingredient that makes these movies uniquely entertaining, and at least different to any other modern blockbuster involving cars. The Fast and Furious franchise is basically a big soap opera, whether it be characters dying then later revealed to be alive, or villains becoming friends (or at allies). This adds a unique flavour to these movies which make theme particularly enjoyable, although they can get a little too carried away with this sometimes. Fast & Furious (2009) got a little too self serious with its revenge plot, and the flashbacks of F9 fell into that too. Fast X is more balanced however, it is willing to defy the laws of physics for entertainment, but isn’t snarky or self conscious about it, and is genuine with its story and characters.

It is a fairly long movie at 2 hours and 20 minutes in length, but is well paced enough that I was generally entertained throughout. The exceptions are a couple of scenes which halt the plot purely with comedy, the standout being a scene involving a celebrity cameo which I really could’ve done without. As I said earlier, Fast X is really part 1 of a 3 part story, and its worth knowing that before going into it. It’s actually surprising that it wasn’t added in the film’s title or addressed as such in the opening or closing credits. That’s really the only explanation I have for why much of the story feels incomplete, with plenty of unanswered questions, and characters which didn’t receive as much attention as others. So I can imagine some unaware viewers will be frustrated by its cliffhanger ending. I am willing to wait and see how the next two movies continue this story, but much of Fast X’s quality will depend on whether they can deliver. For what it is worth, if you have some investment in the franchise, you should probably stick around for the mid credits scene.

Much of the main Fast and Furious cast return, with Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Ludacris, Nathalie Emmanuel, Jordana Brewster, Sung Kang and more reprising their roles. They do well enough in their screentime, though some get to do more than others. For example, Jason Statham but doesn’t have much to do here, no doubt because his scenes are just setting up things for the next films. On the other hand, John Cena was one of the highlights in a far less villainous role compared to his last appearance. Charlize Theron also returns in a different sort of role here, and while she isn’t the driving force of the movie or anything, this is probably her best appearance in the franchise yet, even getting to do some action. There are also some newer actors to the series, including Daniela Melchior, Alan Ritchson, and Brie Larson, and they’re good in their screentime. However, the standout of the whole movie is Jason Momoa, who is by far the best villain of the franchise, but also the most fun I’ve seen an actor have in these movies. It helps that the movie does well at framing his character Dante as this unstoppable force, but Momoa also delivers a highly campy and charismatic performance (which at times feels like he’s riffing on the Joker). The movie lights up whenever he comes on screen; he knows what kind of movie he’s in, and Fast X would’ve been a much worse movie without him.

Justin Lin was originally directing the movie, but left part way during filming due to ‘creative differences’. He was replaced by Louis Leterrier, and I wasn’t sure how it was going to be since his filmography is a bit of a mixed bag. That said, Fast X is one of his stronger movies. The action is entertaining, over the top and contains some absurd stunts. I even like the creativity in the way things are filmed, especially with the use of drones. Otherwise, the direction is on a level that you’d expect from a movie of this franchise. As far as technical issues go, the opening scene started things on an awkward note. It calls back to Fast Five and places Jason Momoa’s character in the climax of that movie, and the messy editing did make it a bit weird. I also noticed some other weirdly edited moments in the first third, but I think it improves as it goes along.

As expected, Fast X is another absurd, wonderfully melodramatic and entertaining entry in the Fast and Furious franchise with over the top action, and is boosted by a delightfully villainous Jason Momoa. It’s better than the last few movies but doesn’t quite reach the heights of 5-7. Needless to say, if you’ve never enjoyed any of these movies, this won’t change your mind. If you get any kind of enjoyment from them however, I think you’ll have some fun with this one.

Advertisement

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) Review

Time: 150 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence & offensive language
Cast:
Chris Pratt as Peter Quill/Star-Lord
Zoe Saldaña as Gamora
Dave Bautista as Drax
Karen Gillan as Nebula
Pom Klementieff as Mantis
Vin Diesel as Groot
Bradley Cooper as Rocket
Will Poulter as Adam Warlock
Sean Gunn as Kraglin
Chukwudi Iwuji as the High Evolutionary
Linda Cardellini as Lylla
Nathan Fillion as Master Karja
Sylvester Stallone as Stakar Ogord
Director: James Gunn

Still reeling from the loss of Gamora, Peter Quill must rally his team to defend the universe and protect one of their own. If the mission is not completely successful, it could possibly lead to the end of the Guardians as we know them.

The Guardians of the Galaxy movies are weird for me. For many, they are among the best movies within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and have quite the fanbase. Even as interest in the MCU declines, many detractors have claimed that GOTG 3 would be their last movie before they drop off the franchise for good. Personally I have found them to be pretty good, but there’s plenty preventing me from loving them. So I wasn’t exactly the most excited for Vol. 3, not helped by the recent string of fairly underwhelming MCU movies (like Ant Man 3 and Thor 4) and the uninspiring trailers. So it’s to my surprise that it ended up being one of my favourite MCU movies.  

Some of my criticisms with James Gunn’s past comic book movies is that some of the attempted emotion and sincerity don’t always works, especially with how its paired alongside an otherwise goofy story and silly antics, leading to a very tonally inconsistent film (The Suicide Squad being a big example of this). Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is a massive improvement on this however. This surprisingly darker story and the more resonant moments are quite present throughout; I was able to buy into everything that was happening, and was emotionally invested with the characters and their journeys. For what it’s worth, I’d highly recommend rewatching Vol 1, 2 (and maybe Infinity War and Endgame) before this, because it really helps to emphasise the progression that these characters have gone through. As said earlier, Vol. 3 has a much darker story compared to the previous two movies, with a heavy focus on Rocket’s past, and taking on certain topics including animal testing and eugenics. The flashbacks on a younger Rocket are very well done and hit in the ways that they need to. There’s some good character work here, and the heart and emotion delivered as intended. I also liked the lower stakes of the plot; even when it reaches the climax of the movie, Vol. 3 isn’t about saving the whole world like the previous movies were. While the main antagonist is certainly very powerful and dangerous, the thing that causes the Guardians of the Galaxy to come into conflict with him is more personal. James Gunn’s humour is a little hit or miss, and generally it doesn’t work for me like it does for others. However, it felt less forced in Vol. 3 and doesn’t halt the story for elaborate comedic hijinks. For what it’s worth, it’s most effectively funny of the three GOTG movies. There are some sections in the first half that I potentially could see dragging on a rewatch, but on my first viewing I was on board for the 2 hours and 30 minutes runtime. There’s only one subplot which I felt was unnecessary (which I’ll mention later), but it didn’t take away from the rest of the movie too much. Without getting into it, Vol. 3 is clearly intended as a conclusion, and it was satisfying seeing where the characters end up. Unlike most of the MCU, there is a distinct feeling of finality that really added to the movie.

The actors of the Guardians of the Galaxy with Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper are great in their parts. The found family thing was a little hard to buy into in their earlier appearances, but by Vol. 3, it’s completely believable. The chemistry between them is great, and they deliver on the comedic and emotional scenes. I liked seeing how far the characters have progressed, especially Nebula and Drax. The villain of this movie is named The High Evolutionary and is played by Chukwudi Iwuji. He is over the top, isn’t particularly complex and isn’t given much backstory. However, the writing and the committed way Iwuji plays him makes the character work, and is by far the most hateable villain in the whole MCU. Definitely one of the better villains in the franchise. Not all of the characters in the movie are great, this is especially the case with the roles played by Will Poulter and Elizabeth Debicki. Debicki reprises her role from GOTG 2, and she gets to do even less here. Poulter plays the character of Adam Warlock, and he is funny in his screentime. That being said, my only explanation as to why Warlock is even here is that James Gunn felt obligated to include him after teasing the character’s appearance in Vol. 2’s credit scene. While he is critical to the plot in a couple instances, he easily could’ve been written out of the story, and it would be made for a slightly better movie.

James Gunn’s direction is pretty good, definitely the best work I’ve seen from him so far. The visuals are pretty good, especially when compared to the look and CGI of the recent MCU movies. The production design is solid, and there’s a lot of great prosthetics and makeup. As expected with it being a GOTG movie. the songs are well picked, and the score from John Murphy is also quite good.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is a surprisingly heartfelt, dark, and emotional conclusion to the GOTG movies, with a great cast and characters, and entertaining action. While it’s certainly possible that it won’t work as well on repeat viewings, this movie really worked for me considering that I was a massive sceptic going in. Of the 3 solo Guardians of the Galaxy movies, it’s by far the best, and is also one of the best films in the MCU.

The Last of the Mohicans (1992) Review

Time: 112 Minutes
Age Rating: PG – Violence
Cast:
Daniel Day-Lewis as Nathaniel “Hawkeye” Poe
Madeleine Stowe as Cora Munro
Russell Means as Chingachgook
Eric Schweig as Uncas
Jodhi May as Alice Munro
Steven Waddington as Major Duncan Heyward
Wes Studi as Magua
Director: Michael Mann

When a British officer’s daughter, Cora, gets caught in the crossfire during the French and Indian War, Hawkeye, a man adopted by the Mohicans, must save her.

I just knew The Last of the Mohicans as being a Michael Mann which started Daniel Day-Lewis in the lead role. This is a particularly different movie in Mann’s filmography, considering that it’s a period piece and he’s more known for his crime movies like Heat, Thief, Collateral and Public Enemies. Overall, I thought it was pretty good.

The Last of the Mohicans is an historical period piece war drama, and definitely delivers on being grand and epic. At the same time it has a very human approach, with a well scripted and tragic story. There are some great scenes and it gets surprisingly emotional at points. With that said, I admit that I wasn’t as invested in the movie as I wanted to be. However, it does end with a strong and powerful third act, and I especially loved how low key and intimate the finale was.

The acting was all good. Daniel Day-Lewis plays the lead role and gives a charismatic and strong performance as expected, even if I wouldn’t call it one of his all time best. Madeleine Stowe is good, and while her romance with Day-Lewis wasn’t that engaging to me, it was believable enough. The supporting players were good too, with Russell Means, Steven Waddington, Eric Schweig and Jodhi May being great in their parts. However, the standout to me was Wes Studi as a fantastic and complex villain. His character of Magua is multilayered, a force of nature but one driven by understandable motivations, and Studi plays him incredibly well.

Michael Mann’s direction is great as always, and the movie is strong on a technical level. The cinematography is stunning and makes great use of the locations, the action is top notch with brutal battle sequences that hold up today, and the score is really good too.

The Last of the Mohicans is a solid period piece war movie, greatly directed by Michael Mann, and it has some fantastic performances. It doesn’t rank on the higher end of Mann’s filmography for me, but it is still pretty good.

The Hunt for Red October (1990) Review

Time: 135 Minutes
Age Rating: PG – Violence
Cast:
Sean Connery as Captain 1st rank Marko Ramius
Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan
Joss Ackland as Andrei Lysenko
Tim Curry as Dr. Yevgeni Petrov
Peter Firth as 1st Lieutenant Ivan Putin
Scott Glenn as Commander Bart Mancuso
James Earl Jones as Vice Admiral James Greer
Sam Neill as Captain 2nd rank Vasily Borodin
Stellan Skarsgård as Captain 2nd rank Viktor Tupolev
Director: John McTiernan

CIA analyst Jack Ryan thinks Soviet nuclear submarine commander Captain Marko Ramius is planning to defect but only has a few hours to find him and the submarine.

John McTiernan’s The Hunt for Red October is an adaptation of the Tom Clancy book of the same name. It would also be the first appearance of Clancy’s character Jack Ryan on screen, who would be portrayed in future movies and shows by multiple other different actors including Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck. It’s not a great action movie, but it is nonetheless pretty good.

The Hunt for Red October is a pretty solid cold war thriller about Jack Ryan being brought in to deal with a tense situation when Sean Connery’s captain steals a Soviet submarine. With it being mostly set in submarines, the movie is deliberately paced and does drag a bit, especially for the first hour. This does somewhat come as a consequence at the grounded and realistic approach to the story, but for the most part that works to the film’s benefit, and helped with the immersion. It felt a little overlong, especially at 2 hours and 15 minutes in length. Still, I was invested with the plot throughout, and they do well at ramping up the tension over the course of the film.

The acting and character development are pretty strong overall. Sean Connery plays the lead role incredibly well and brings such gravitas, even if his accent is a little all over the place at times. Alec Baldwin is the co-lead playing Jack Ryan. This is definitely early years Ryan with him being a CIA analyst (unlike the action hero in most of his other portrayals), and Baldwin plays this convincingly. There’s also a lot of good supporting performances from Sam Neill, Scott Glenn, James Earl Jones, Tim Curry, and Stellan Skarsgard.

As expected with other action movies under his belt like Predator and Die Hard, John McTiernan helms this very well. It could’ve easily just been a rather standard submarine action movie, but he directs it in a creative way. Its visually strong, well shot with some good lighting, the sound design and sound effects are ominous, and it is edited to pretty much perfection.

The Hunt for Red October is not one of John McTiernan’s best and it is on the slower side. However, it is an overall well directed and tense submarine thriller with great performances, led by Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin. Worth at least one watch.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 (2015) Review

Time: 137 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence, horror scenes & content may disturb
Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark
Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy
Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket
Julianne Moore as President Alma Coin
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee
Jeffrey Wright as Beetee
Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman
Donald Sutherland as President Snow
Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen
Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair
Jena Malone as Johanna Mason
Mahershala Ali as Boggs
Natalie Dormer as Cressida
Director: Francis Lawrence

After realising that she is no longer fighting for survival, Katniss Everdeen sets out to assassinate the tyrannical President Snow and liberate the people of Panem.

After the rather underwhelming Mocking Part 1, we finally get into the conclusion of The Hunger Games saga. I can gather a general consensus on each of the movies, The Hunger Games is generally well received, Catching Fire is loved and known as the best of the movies, and Mockingjay Part 1 has a more mixed reception and generally known as the worst. However, the reactions to Mockingjay Part 2 are a little all over the place. While it has its issues, I still like the movie overall.

For what it’s worth, I think Part 2 is best seen back to back with Part 1. Part 2 does a good job at making everything feel dramatic and big, and translates the bleaker moments from the book. The stakes are high; the already dark story gets even darker, plenty of named characters die, and it shows the consequences of war. I was engaged with the story a lot more than I was with Part 1. The middle act is the strongest part of the movie with some really tense action sequences. There are also some great moments in the third act, but some of the resolution felt a little rushed, despite the story being split into two parts. The ending was somewhat anticlimactic, but that’s unfortunately the nature of the book too.  Some of the pacing is a little weak and it has some of that Mockingjay Part 1 issue of having scenes stretched out longer than they needed to be. Despite the issues, I found Mockingjay Part 2 a satisfying enough conclusion.

Once again, there are some great performances, with Jennifer Lawrence delivering as usual and Josh Hutcherson doing some great work and having much more screentime compared to the last movie. Those two are essentially the leads of the film, and they do very well in their parts. The supporting cast in Woody Harrelson, Jeffrey Wright, Mahershala Ali, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Dormer, Donald Sutherland, Julianne Moore, Sam Claflin and Jena Malone give commendable performances, but most of them are a little under-utilised and sidelined, more so than in Part 1. That being said, Sutherland as main villain President Snow is still a standout in his scenes.

Francis Lawrence’s direction is pretty strong once again, and has a great handle on the movie. There’s some great imagery and cinematography, a good mix of solid practical and CGI effects, and some tense and large action sequences.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 again suffers from the choice of splitting the last book into two, and despite the amount of time given to the story, the conclusion still felt a little rushed and anticlimactic. It isn’t 100% satisfying, but is still pretty good, and benefits from the strong direction and performances. It’s at least better than Part 1 and potentially even better than the first Hunger Games. Catching Fire might be the only really great movie in the Hunger Games quadrilogy, but I liked the movies overall.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014) Review

Time: 123 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Mature themes and violence
Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark
Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy
Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket
Julianne Moore as President Alma Coin
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee
Jeffrey Wright as Beetee Latier
Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman
Donald Sutherland as President Coriolanus Snow
Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen
Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair
Jena Malone as Johanna Mason
Stef Dawson as Annie Cresta
Mahershala Ali as Boggs
Natalie Dormer as Cressida
Director: Francis Lawrence

After putting a permanent end to the games, Katniss Everdeen, Gale, Finnick and Beetee join forces to save Peeta and a nation that she has inspired by her courage.

As I was rewatching the Hunger Games movies, I was curious about what my updated thoughts on the Mockingjay films would be, specifically Part 1. After such a surprisingly great sequel to the first movie in Catching Fire, the first film of the two-part conclusion was rather underwhelming. While I do like it more now compared to when I first watched it, it still has its issues.

Mockingjay Part 1 is not without its strengths. With a much slower pace and approach, it does touch on the more political aspects, and gets into things like the rebellion and propaganda. There are also some very strong and powerful scenes and sequences which work really well. While I wouldn’t call the writing bad, it’s not that good either. I do know that adapting Mockingjay was a bit of a struggle, because while it’s been a bit since I read the book myself, it is widely known as the worst of the trilogy. But what didn’t really help is that they decided to split the shortest book of the series into two parts. I can only assume that the decision was made because previous adaptations of books with younger fans in the early 2010s like Harry Potter and Twilight did that too. Compared to most people, I’m not inherently opposed to the splitting the book into two movies. It does at least set the stage for Part 2, plus having an extra movie presents the opportunity to expand on a lot of things with the story and characters. Unfortunately, the outcome is not that good. While I wasn’t uninvested, the story is a little dull, and is filled with a lot of exposition. Not much happens in the plot and while you could make an argument that its more of a character piece for protagonist Katniss, it doesn’t really pull that off either. Characters don’t really change or develop that much and a lot of it feels like filler. There are long stretches of dialogue or emptiness and, it can’t help but feel like padding. I’m all for changing things up, but if they really wanted to commit to making Mockingjay a two parter, they really should’ve done more in that first movie.

For what its worth, the performances helped to keep me invested in the story. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is one of the best parts of these movies. So much of the movie relies on her, and while there isn’t as much development as I would’ve liked for her character here, Lawrence sells every scene. Josh Hutcherson, Donald Sutherland, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks and Sam Claflin reprise their roles and as usual deliver, with Sutherland, Hoffman and Harrelson being the standouts and Hutcherson making the most of his limited screentime. The new additions were pretty good, especially with Mahershala Ali, Natalie Dormer and Julianne Moore.

After the success of Catching Fire, it’s not surprise that Lionsgate got Francis Lawrence to direct every Hunger Games movie afterwards. While his work here doesn’t reach the heights of that previous movie, it’s solid overall. The visuals are great, and they help to bring across the setting. It is definitely lacking in action, but the action scenes here are fine if a bit too shaky with the camera at times. James Newton Howard’s score as usual is pretty good too.

Mockingjay Part 1 was better than I remembered it being. The great performances and solid direction made it decent enough for me, and it even had some really good scenes and moments. However, it is definitely the worse of these four movies. While the structure of the story itself is fine, so little happens in the movie (both in plot and character) that they might as well have made Mockingjay into one long movie.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Review

Time: 146 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence
Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark
Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy
Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket
Lenny Kravitz as Cinna
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee
Jeffrey Wright as Beetee Latier
Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman
Donald Sutherland as President Coriolanus Snow
Toby Jones as Claudius Templesmith
Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen
Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair
Lynn Cohen as Mags Flanagan
Jena Malone as Johanna Mason
Director: Francis Lawrence

After Katniss and Peeta’s victory sparks hope and possible rebellion from the citizens of Panem, the two are targeted by the Capitol that wants to quell the revolution before it is too late.

When I heard about the upcoming adaptation of the Hunger Games prequel (The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes), I decided to rewatch the original movies. It has been years since I had watched them, mostly back at the cinema. While I hadn’t exactly looked on YA adaptations fondly, in the past few years I admit I sort of missed that era, and it doesn’t feel the same without them. The first Hunger Games was pretty good, but felt like it could’ve been much better than it was. Catching Fire however is a notable step up in quality, and improves on the first movie in every way.

In some ways the first movie was solid, the worldbuilding, the characters, the setup was there. They were done decently, but felt like they were lacking something. Catching Fire handles all of this much better, it’s a great sequel with a solid script. It has been a while since I read the book, but I heard from many more familiar with the source material that it improves from the book. The plot is gripping and makes sense, the pacing is steady, yet the movie flies by. I found myself more emotionally invested in the story, and the characters felt more real. The first movie was already pretty dark from its premise, but the sequel is even darker. You really feel the oppression and weight of everything with a sense of dread, mainly everything regarding the Capitol. The worldbuilding is very solid, it doesn’t try to rush into the hunger games and actually spends a good amount of time away from it. It ends with a cliffhanger which has you wanting to check out the sequel immediately afterwards.

Much of the cast were solid in the first movie, but they do feel stronger on the whole here. Jennifer Lawrence was already good as Katniss Everdeen and is even better in Catching Fire, really conveying everything that her character has to go through. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are also pretty good as Peeta and Gale, though they don’t really stand out much in this movie. Other returning actors Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, and Elizabeth Banks are also great again in their parts. The biggest notable improvement of the returning actors/characters however is seen in the main overarching series villain President Snow, as played by Donald Sutherland. Snow appeared a few times in the first movie, but he never felt like the main villain or much of a threat. Catching Fire does a stronger job at establishing him as that, upping his screentime. As far as villains go, Snow isn’t anything special, but Sutherland plays him with such menace that his scenes are standouts. There are also some newcomers to the series who play their parts really well, including Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright.

Francis Lawrence directs, and while I don’t want to rag on Hunger Games director Gary Ross, Lawrence is a notable improvement. It’s really no surprise that he would go on the direct the rest of the Hunger Games, including the upcoming prequel. It’s a very well shot movie and there are some stand out sequences. There’s this particular impressive moment where the aspect ratio changes seamlessly as Katniss enters the game. While I could get behind some of the action of the first movie, it cuts way too much. The action of Catching Fire is better; it’s a lot easier to see, abandoning the quick editing and shaky camerawork, and the violence still feels really punchy when it needs to. James Newton Howard’s score was great, and the soundtrack on the whole is solid.

Catching Fire is by far the best in the Hunger Games series and is up there as one of the best YA adaptations. It improves on the first movie in just about every way, from the tone, writing, direction, action, and with some great performances. If you watched the first Hunger Games and thought it was just okay, I’d recommend checking out Catching Fire because its even better.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) Review

Time: 134 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence, offensive language & horror
Cast:
Chris Pine as Edgin Darvis
Michelle Rodriguez as Holga Kilgore
Regé-Jean Page as Xenk Yendar
Justice Smith as Simon Aumar
Sophia Lillis as Doric
Hugh Grant as Forge Fitzwilliam
Chloe Coleman as Kira Darvis
Daisy Head as Sofina
Director: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley

A charming thief and a band of unlikely adventurers embark on an epic quest to retrieve a long lost relic, but their charming adventure goes dangerously awry when they run afoul of the wrong people.

I’m not familiar with Dungeons & Dragons, I never played it, but I definitely heard about it. The last attempt at making a movie based on the popular tabletop roleplaying game was back in 2000, and from what I heard it was to less than stellar results. 23 years later however, they are giving it another go. Despite a cast led by Chris Pine and being helmed by the writers and directors of the underrated Game Night, I had my reservations going into Honor Among Thieves. The trailers weren’t the best and made it look like a generic fantasy action comedy with typical MCU style quips. However, it turned out to be one of the more surprising movies from this year.

As someone who hasn’t played Dungeons & Dragons, I can’t speak with high creditability as to how accurately it captures the game, but from my limited knowledge, the movie did feel like a D&D game. The plot really isn’t anything special, so it is just as well that the writing is as great as it was. The story is cliché and predictable but is nonetheless well handled. It plays like an old fashioned fantasy adventure and strikes the perfect tone. It is fully aware of the genre it is in and doesn’t take itself so seriously, and its quite charming. There’s a lot of good and clever humour, and most of the jokes land. High fantasy action comedies are hard to pull off, but Honor Among Thieves does a wonderful job at it. For those who have seen Game Night, it is more in line with that movie than you would initially think, especially with the comedy. Despite all that, there are some surprising emotional story beats and character development that play at the right level, it’s not too serious and retains the self-awareness, but is genuine and earnest enough for you to care about the characters and what’s going on. With this being a fantasy movie, there’s a lot of worldbuilding and plenty of backstories given to characters, items and fantasy races, which is probably why the end film is 2 hours and 14 minutes long. The movie entertained me from beginning to end, but perhaps they could’ve cut down a little on the exposition.

So much of the movie is helped by the great and likable cast of characters, who have really good chemistry together and help to sell the comedy. You can tell that everyone was having a lot of fun making it. The central band of characters in Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith and Sophia Lillis are great and fun to watch. Regé-Jean Page is a standout and steals the scenes he’s in, I’d watch a whole spin off movie focussing on his character. The villains really are pretty generic, but that’s fine for this story. Still, it helps that one of the villains played by Hugh Grant is very entertaining and funny in his scenes, even if he’s not in the movie as much as you’d like.

John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein directed this well. The visuals are good with some very nice scenery and good sets. There was a surprising number of practical effects, including animatronics. Occasionally the CGI can look really off, but that is easy to look past, and it looks really good for the most part. The action is also strong, whether it be smaller scale fights between Michelle Rodriguez and multiple people at the same time, or much larger set pieces involving dragons. There’s a lot of creativity in these scenes, especially when it comes to the camera movements. Lorne Balfe’s score is also great and fits the movie and its tone really well.  

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is a surprisingly fun, cleverly written and entertaining fantasy action comedy, with great and likeable performances and characters. I wouldn’t mind if we got more of these movies, whether it continues the story of these characters or focus on a different set of characters in the universe. Even if you were turned off by the trailers, I think Honor Among Thieves is well worth checking out, especially in a cinema with a crowd.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023) Review

Time: 130 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Violence
Cast:
Zachary Levi and Asher Angel as Billy Batson/Shazam
Jack Dylan Grazer and Adam Brody as Frederick “Freddy” Freeman
Rachel Zegler as Anthea/Anne
Grace Caroline Currey as Mary Bromfield
Ross Butler and Ian Chen as Eugene Choi
D. J. Cotrona and Jovan Armand as Pedro Peña
Meagan Good and Faithe Herman as Darla Dudley
Lucy Liu as Kalypso
Djimon Hounsou as Shazam
Helen Mirren as Hespera
Director: David F. Sandberg

Bestowed with the powers of the gods, Billy Batson and his fellow foster kids are still learning how to juggle teenage life with their adult superhero alter egos. When a vengeful trio of ancient gods arrives on Earth in search of the magic stolen from them long ago, Shazam and his allies get thrust into a battle for their superpowers, their lives, and the fate of the world.

I remember liking the first Shazam when it released back in 2019, yet I felt rather reluctant to watch its upcoming sequel. The trailers looked fairly average, and certain other elements didn’t help, like the looming James Gunn DCU reboot on the horizon. Still, I decided to watch it in the cinema, and for what it’s worth, I enjoyed it more than I expected to.  

The plot is very average and formulaic, just another average superhero plot. It’s very safe, and nothing much of consequence happens. There are some bland mythology and worldbuilding and that’s it. Much of the story feels rushed, like this was a first draft, and the conflict, stakes and emotional beats feel off. While the overall plot of the first movie wasn’t special, there was a family dynamic aspect which made it work. However, its sequel doesn’t take advantage of this, and there’s no development or change whatsoever. Any potential emotional beats here are just obligatory, and the big heart and emotions in the first movie doesn’t feel genuine. While the comedy in the first movie mostly worked, it is really mixed here. It is funnier than most MCU movies nowadays, but for every joke that hits, there’s another joke that misses (usually ones involving Shazam himself). There is an appearance of a notable DCEU character, and all I can say is that I hope the actor was paid well for it because it’s the worst appearance of that character in the DCEU, even worse than the Joss Whedon Justice League from 2017. The mid credits scene is absolutely terrible, and the end credits scene felt almost like a parody of credits scenes, so I liked the last one at least.

Asher Angel and Zachary Levi return, with Angel reprising his role as Billy Batson, and Levi playing the grown-up superhero version of him, Shazam. As I was watching the movie, I wondered why I liked Zachary Levi in the first movie at all. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that so much of my enjoyment of the sequel was taken away by Shazam’s characterisation and Levi’s performance. There is such a disconnect between the two actors its weird, you can hardly buy that they are meant to be the same person. It’s especially a shame because Asher Angel does seem the better actor but has less than 5 minutes of screentime. The strangest thing is that the other kids in the Shazam family are more mature, and at the very least their older actors are believable as the superhero versions of their younger selves. Billy is around 17 years old, but it’s like his brain reverts to that of a 10-year-old whenever he becomes Shazam. I can only conclude that Zachary Levi worked as Shazam in the first movie because there they divided the screentime between him and his younger version decently, and it is easier to buy into his childish behaviour because its believable that a kid who suddenly gained superpowers would act like that. The first movie is about Billy Batson, but the second movie leans into Shazam, and unfortunately we have to sit through many of his childish antics. Supposedly he went through some sort of arc in this movie, but I didn’t really see that at all. Compared to the first movie, he just doesn’t go through any sort of progression, terminally stuck in default goofy mode.  

The rest of the cast are pretty good. Jack Dylan Grazer is again a standout actor reprising his role of Freddie Freeman, and Adam Brody is believable as an older superhero version of Grazer. A surprise returning actor is Djimon Hounsou as the wizard, who had an important but small role in the first movie as he granted Billy Batson superpowers. He gets to do a lot more in this movie and was one of the highlights. The villains are played by Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu, good casting let down by their bland characters. At the very least though, they seem to be having fun in their roles; Mirren especially hams it up and is fun to watch.

David F. Sandberg returns to direct after the first movie. The visuals are a very mixed bag and the quality of the CGI changes depending on whether the scene was set at night or at day. The CGI is pretty good when the lighting is darker or it takes place at night, but whenever it looks terrible at daytime. It is quite lurching watching a dragon initially look decent and straight out of a fantasy movie with a good budget, to looking like its from a CW show. The action is passable, same as the first movie, but its nothing that impressive. It is entertaining enough, especially the last act.

As far as “bland and generic superhero movies that don’t do anything special” go, Shazam 2 is one of them but its not one of the all time worst. There is more enjoyment to find here than in say Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. It is entertaining enough, and there are some good performances (aside from Levi). Regardless of the coming change in the DCEU, Shazam 2 just isn’t that special, and is pretty much just a worse version of the first Shazam. Still, if you liked the first Shazam, Fury of the Gods might have enough for you to enjoy it.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2022) Review

Time: 124 minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man
Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne/Wasp
Jonathan Majors as Kang the Conqueror
Kathryn Newton as Cassie Lang
David Dastmalchian as Veb
Katy O’Brian as Jentorra
William Jackson Harper as Quaz
Bill Murray as Lord Krylar
Michelle Pfeiffer as Janet van Dyne
Corey Stoll as Darren Cross/M.O.D.O.K.
Michael Douglas as Hank Pym
Director: Peyton Reed

Ant-Man and the Wasp find themselves exploring the Quantum Realm, interacting with strange new creatures and embarking on an adventure that pushes them beyond the limits of what they thought was possible.

The Ant-Man movies aren’t among the best movies in the MCU by any means, but they were fun, charming, and worked as pallet cleansers following major Avengers movies. I rewatched the two movies for the first time since I saw them in cinemas, and I appreciate them a lot more now, especially compared to much of the MCU nowadays. So with that in mind, making the third Ant-Man movie the introduction of the MCU’s next major villain (named Kang) was certainly a strange decision. I had doubts that it would work, but I thought that it would end up working itself out. Turns out I was a bit too optimistic.

The first 5 minutes of Quantumania resembles the Ant-Man films with a light and comedic tone. From the moment the main characters are transported into the Quantum Realm however, everything falls apart. Gone is the familiar charm and humour, as it moves from familiar locations into a sci-fi setting. It even lacks some of the supporting characters and cast from the previous two movies, including Michael Pena, Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale, which is a little disappointing. A lot of what made Ant-Man appealing was his operation in a normal sized world, whether he shrunk down or grew larger. Setting the movie in an already microscopic world removes the uniqueness of those abilities. Not only that, but instead of focussing on relatively smaller stakes, the film is at an Avengers level scale with higher consequences. If Quantumania is meant to be a trilogy ender, then it’s a terrible note to end on. So as that, it’s very disappointing. However, even on its own, it is a very generic sci-fi movie. The familiar plot involves a revolution against a dictator (Kang) and it’s just so hard to care about anything that’s going on. There is barely any development to any of the characters, and not much for Ant-Man or The Wasp to actually do. Honestly, they could’ve swapped Ant-Man out for any Avengers character, and it would’ve worked the same. Much of the movie feels dull and on autopilot. I tolerated the first two acts because of the mystery it was building, but I would struggle to get through it a second time since it’s a whole lot of nothing. Most of it consists of people moving from place to place with a lot of exposition dumped about the Quantum Realm or Kang, and then occasionally something somewhat exciting happens. The third act did have a somewhat entertaining climax, at least in contrast to the aimless first two acts. Even the Quantum Realm is a very dull and standard sci-fi setting. Much of it plays like a bad Star Wars knock off. The creatures and ships are weird, but in a half-hearted way, as if the visuals and the writing were generated by an AI. It has some humour, but it’s less like the comedy in the Ant-Man films and is more of the obligatory Marvel humour in most of their movies nowadays, which misses more than it hits. For what its worth though, it doesn’t drop to the level of the humour in Thor: Love and Thunder. Quantumania is essentially a 2 hour trailer for what’s to come with the Kang era. The “setup for the next movie” criticism can apply to many of the past MCU movies, Iron Man 2 being an example. The difference is that you can still find an actual story and movie in that, and you feel that things are at least moving. Quantumania however feels hollow, not much of consequence happens, and not much of significance happens with these characters. And while it aims to get audiences interested in what’s to come, I don’t think it really succeeded.

Paul Rudd once again plays Scott Lang/Ant-Man and as always, he’s effortlessly charming and delivers in his scenes, whether it be with the comedy or the drama. As I said earlier though, it feels like there’s not much for his character to do. Despite being a third of the title, ironically The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) doesn’t play that significant of a part, and doesn’t leave any impression on the movie. Kathryn Newton plays Scott Lang’s now grown-up daughter Cassie, and I don’t think she was very good. That being said, the writing given to her was terrible. The dynamic between Cassie and Scott looked like it was going to be a major part of the movie, but this arc is sorely underdeveloped that you could practically miss it. It doesn’t help that Newton and Rudd have virtually no chemistry. Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer reprise their roles as Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne, and they are mostly just fine. Pfeiffer at the very least had a much bigger role in this movie compared to the last, and does handle her part well. Douglas however seems like he doesn’t want to be in these movies anymore. Bill Murray is in the movie for a bit, but he leaves so little of an impression that they really could’ve hired anyone for the role.

So much of the movie is hyping up the main villain and next major antagonist of the MCU, Kang. To be fair, actor Jonathan Majors is doing some heavy lifting and makes the character better than it was written. The movie picks up somewhat whenever he’s on screen. It’s just as well that they got an actor on his calibre considering that Kang’s first appearance (outside of the Loki show) wasn’t the greatest. Quantumania’s idea of building up Kang comes from people talking about all the things he’s done, despite himself not actually doing anything significant in the movie. Contrast this with Thanos; multiple films had characters talking about the things he’s done and how dangerous he is, and then when he finally served as a central villain of a film, he killed significant MCU characters and erased half of the universe. I can assure you that nothing of the sort happens in this movie with Kang. It really doesn’t help that they keep him hidden for much of the movie, with characters referring to him as “him” or “the conqueror”. While I get that they wanted to build suspense, his character ended up being really underdeveloped and with unclear and generic motives. Any depth that was given to the character was provided by Majors. As for how they convey how dangerous Kang is, any possible threatening factor he has is nullified by the fact that his first opponent in the movies is Ant-Man, and he isn’t able to instantly kill him without a second thought. Honestly, he made a much bigger impression in the Loki Season 1 finale. There’s another villain worth mentioning, Kang’s henchman in the form of MODOK, who’s pretty much a guy with a giant head and a small body. He’s a ridiculous character in the comics and so a ridiculous character here, and they really lean into the silliness and comedy. The writing isn’t really that funny, so it’s just as well that actor Corey Stoll performs it in such a way that it is funny. For what it’s worth, the movie does actually pick up a little whenever he’s on screen.

Peyton Reed returns to direct the third Ant-Man movie. While I liked his work in the previous two films, his work in Quantumania is severely disappointing. His direction worked for the smaller stakes and identifiable setting, but it didn’t work so well for a sci-fi epic. The action is fine but very generic and basic. Quantumania very likely tops Thor: Love and Thunder as the worst looking MCU movie. The visuals are beyond terrible, so much of it looks fake, and there are multiple points where it straight up looks like Sharkboy and Lavagirl (which came out nearly a couple decades ago). I lost track of the number of times actors would be standing in front of blatantly obvious greenscreen, with nothing in the scene looking real. Even Ant-Man’s ability to shrink and grow isn’t that special this time around. As I said, making Ant-Man grow large to the size of a building or shrink down to the size of an ant worked in his previous appearances, because there’s identifiable scale. When it happens in the Quantum Realm, it just doesn’t have the same effect. The creatures and alien designs are certainly strange, but almost ripped from aliens in other sci-fi movies. And if that’s not enough, there’s also the look of MODOK, which is quickly one of the biggest jokes from those who have seen the movie. I get that he’s supposed to look weird like he does in the comics. However, instead of coming across as creepy or gross, in Quantumania he just looks like a guy who just can’t get enough of a wide angle lens snapchat filter, or a villain in a rejected straight to dvd sequel to Sharkboy and Lavagirl. However, I’m not going to harp on MODOK’s design too much despite how hilarious of a misfire it is, because it did provide some unintentional entertainment.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is yet another low point for the MCU. A product that is lacklustre, dull and generic with terrible visuals, and was mostly a slog to get through.  It sacrificed the fun and charm of the previous Ant-Man movies for a bad sci-fi flick to set up future films in the MCU, and it didn’t even succeed at that. There are some enjoyable moments, some of the action is entertaining enough, and the performances from Paul Rudd, Jonathan Majors and to a degree Corey Stoll elevated the experience somewhat. Overall though, it’s at least in the top 2 worst movies from the MCU alongside Thor: Love and Thunder. That being said, despite being a worse movie, at least Love and Thunder wasn’t trying to be “The Beginning of a New Dynasty” as Ant-Man 3 so boldly claimed it would be. While I liked most of its movies, Phase 4 was a meandering mess for the MCU, and Quantumania was meant to kick off Phase 5 with a bang. Alas, it looks to be even worse.