Let me start this review by answering the question from the title – no. Extraction is a decent action movie, where the one unbroken shot elevates it above others, so it doesn’t blend in with your typical “one man against city/army/bunch of camels” type of action movies. I just wish they had spent an equal amount of time on the script as they had on that unbroken shot.

I can’t help but feel that this movie is trying so hard to be “the next” John Wick or The Raid both of which are great action movies, full of stunts, focusing on hand combat, action pieces with long takes, where the story takes a back seat and you are there to enjoy the ride. And both of these movies had a successful sequels, which established and flashed-out their worlds even more (the reason I’m mentioning this is the obvious sequel bait ending, and it looks like it worked. Heads up, the article contains spoilers for this movie).

But where those two have succeeded and Extraction didn’t, is they weren’t relying on JUST one action piece, or one great sequence. Both John Wick and The Raid have several things that make them great, they are not remembered for “one really cool scene”. Whereas this movie will be remembered for that one, I don’t mind admitting, pretty kick ass scene. According to the IMDb trivia, it lasts 11 minutes and 30 seconds and trust me, you can feel it, in the best possible way as that’s THE part of the movie that tries to convince you, “hey, I am different, you better pay attention!” But everything around that is just… ok…?

Chris Hemsworth is still as buffed as he is charismatic, so he carries this movie on his massive shoulders with no issues, but I swear they wrote his character by opening the “Cliches and Whatnot, 101 Screenwriting Tips for YOU” book and took way too much from it, as he embodies almost every single cliche imaginable. Don’t believe me? Let me checklist it for you:

• Ex-soldier of kind? ✔
• Has a dead kid? ✔
• Is the only one crazy enough for this job? ✔
• Using pills for different injuries? ✔
• Doesn’t care about whether he lives or dies as he’s got nothing to live for? ✔
• Doesn’t blink when gun is pointed and shot into his face? ✔
• Grows attached to the person he’s hired to protect? ✔

And I could probably come up with a few more, but I think you get what I am trying to say. Extraction is a tale of three parts – the beginning left me hopeful, the single-take action sequence left me pumped up and wanting/expecting more, and everything else after that left me bored.

The next paragraph or two will contain SPOILERS!

What I did appreciate (except the single-take action sequence already mentioned) is that this movie wasn’t shy from getting dirty, where the kills are convincing and fights are usually not edited to pieces, so for the most of the movie you actually know where everything/everyone is, so that was a nice surprise. Did it have to be almost 2 hours? No. Would I rate it slightly higher, if the movie had the balls to give Chris “hero death” and not this open ended, sequel biting thing that happened? Yes.

And that’s the main difference between this movie and the other two great ones mentioned before – those were not planned as sequels, they stand on their own, and they had bit more meat on the bones, and that always helps, even if your movie is branded as “mindless entertainment”. More meat is nice, it gives the viewer something more to chew on, rather than the unpleasant experience of biting into a bone really quickly, realising the meal is not as appealing as it looks like.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

In order for you to understand what I mean by the “Genie Actually” comment, let me talk about the original Aladdin (1992) movie first.

We all know today, that the original is a decent movie, that’s made “above-its-pay-grade” amazing by Robin Williams and him only. His stand-up comedy persona was perfect fit for the role of Genie, and he managed “to steal” this movie without going overboard and even though he’s the best thing about the movie, you still remember Aladdin, princess Jasmine, Jafar and others, because it’s not just about the Genie. And that is the most fascinating thing about the original film, even though we all love Genie, he’s not there THAT much, so we can focus on the main story with Aladdin and also see both of them bond and develop friendship throughout, where we can see Genie actually caring about Aladdin, whether he lives or dies, whether he gets Jasmine or not.

While watching this movie, I was entertained enough, Will Smith actually did a good job, but there was something I couldn’t get over, something I couldn’t put my finger on. And then it happened – the party scene, where Genie talks to Aladdin and says:

Oh, well, you gonna need to go back to the room, then. You’re not messing up my night.

That was the moment, where a tiny light bulb appeared above my head, turned itself on with a pretty cool sound effect and it all clicked (does this happen to anybody else btw, or should I see a doctor about that…?) – this isn’t Aladdin movie. Sure, it’s named Aladdin, and it pretends to be about him, but the main star is Will Smith. Ever since he appears on the screen, he doesn’t seem to go away, and makes himself focus of most of the scenes. And when your movie shifts focus like that, you kind of notice, as it halts everything else. Suddenly, I’ve noticed how because of the movie focusing more on him trying to steal the movie, we don’t really have the bonding experience like in the original movie, so when the “drowning” scene comes along, it almost feels unearned for Genie to save Aladdin.

Nobody will ever recreate that magic from the original movie, not because it’s something that genius, or because Robin Williams is sadly not with us anymore, but because they didn’t plan to have Genie “steal” the movie the way he had! Even though they recognised what they had with Robin’s unique performance, they didn’t go overboard with it, so as amazing as his portrayal of Genie was, he was still the supporting character. This movie feels split, as ever since Will-Genie comes into it, he overtakes the entire movie. And it becomes quite tiring after a while, as Will Smith is funny, but not “balls-to-the-walls” funny. Also, just noticed something else supporting my theory about him being the main star – go and look at the movie’s posters with multiple characters – whose head is the biggest on all of them? Who stands out the most? I know he’s the most “profitable” star in this movie, but still…

Other than that the movie improved on nothing, they gave princess Jasmine one song about empowerment (which I actually quite liked) but her character is almost identical to the one from the original movie. Naomi Scott tried her best though and I’m hopeful and excited to see her in more movies going forward.

One last thing – all due respect to Marwan Kenzari, (the new Jafar) but he wasn’t menacing at all – don’t know whether it was his choice, or maybe Guy Ritchie (yes, it’s directed by Guy Ritchie, I mean, why? How? What?) told him to tone it down, but he definitely seemed to be a “downgrade” from the original, as his animated counterpart was much more menacing.

Overall, Aladdin is a slightly better than average movie, bringing (almost) nothing new to the story and making over 1 billion worldwide at the box office. Wonder how long will this work for Disney with these live action remakes…

That’s all for this fancy-schmancy rendition of Aladdin! What did you think? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

This movie could’ve been a disaster. Movies based on video games tend not to be great, and adaptations of different animes also don’t seem to win plenty of fans over. But somehow, Pokémon Detective Pikachu manages to not only be watchable, but also fun(ish)?

Let’s face it, it has something to do with Ryan Reynolds and his “performance” as Pikachu, where somehow it just works for him to be this big, yellow, ball of fluff and sarcasm.

This movie is not GREAT by any means, but I don’t think you will regret watching it either. It’s a good movie for the entire family, where if you grew up with the original Pokémon TV show, you might rate this slightly higher. Even now, while writing this review I’m not sure how I will rate this movie.

On one hand, it’s a nice, clean, family movie, with pleasant run time, good casting and pretty good mystery. I also liked what they’ve done with Mewtwo. On the other hand, the true Pokémon fans will probably be disappointed we didn’t get to see any proper battle, the obvious bad guy was fairly obvious from the very beginning and now, a mere day later, I can only recall one pretty good sequence that stood out (not going to spoil it, let’s just say really, really big Pokémons might have something to do with that).

It’s also a never good sign where you’re trying to write a review for a movie and struggling to come up with anything, as the movie isn’t great, but it also isn’t terrible, it just IS.

I feel like given everything I’ve said, I now know how I’m going to rate this film, but I need to stress out, I was surprised by this film, as I’ve expected this to be way, way worse than this. If you’re looking for something decent to watch, you might like Pokémon Detective Pikachu, just don’t expect anything more from it than a decent movie with really cute and fluffy Pikachu, voiced by the always reliable (at least over the past 5/6 years) Ryan Reynolds.

That’s all for this one? What did you think? Do you think there will be a sequel? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I have mixed feelings about The Player. On one hand I respect Robert Altman, I loved the unbroken opening shot where movie people are talking about unbroken shots in different movies (“I haven’t seen that one, I only watch American movies”) and I do love the “meta” thing Altman has going on (more on that later).

What I found hard to grasp is everything else – the story is pretty straightforward, so you won’t get lost, but I couldn’t help but feel disconnected from it. I don’t know how to put it in words – have you ever been in a situation where you knew “I should be happy right now” or “I should be sad” but couldn’t, as you were somehow disconnected from the world? That’s how I felt watching this movie, disconnected, emotionally blank. It might’ve been on purpose that we, as just a common viewer, weren’t meant to feel connected to these Hollywood types who refuse ideas on daily basis because “they only have a budget for 12 ideas/year.” If so, the movie succeeded.

The Player does have an interesting story and where I wish it could’ve been bit more “meta”, aware of itself, as it seems somehow disjointed – are we meant to sympathise with Griffin Mill (I honestly wish to see Tim Robbins in more newer movies, as he’s such an underrated actor) even though there is no morality to him? I don’t think the character has one redeeming quality, but then again, the “metaness” (that’s 100% a word!) of this movie comes in where “the bad guy doesn’t have to punished”.

I really liked the meta factor of this movie, where for the entirety of it, people are pitching different movies (Graduate Part II is my personal favourite), usually starring Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis, so we can then see both of them at the very end in the movie that “is not even American movie, this is real, black woman goes to die in a gas chamber, they found out she was innocent and her man tries to rescue her, but he’s too late!” is not so subtle wink at Hollywood and their entire thing about being “real and relatable”. And nothing has changed in almost 30 years, go reckon…

This is one of the movies I can’t wait to re-watch in a couple of years to see whether I feel the same about it as I do now, because who knows? Maybe on my second viewing I’ll find it better than now, but for now, it is, what it is.

That’s all for this one? What’s your favourite Altman movie? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I need to preface something – I love these kind of movies. Shaun of the Dead is probably in my TOP 20 movies of all time, I even like when cheesy horror meets cheesy musical (I really need to re-watch and write a review for Repo! The Genetic Opera to see whether I still love it the same way I have a decade or so ago), so I was quite excited for this movie. And from a few people I trust on the internet I’ve heard it a pleasant movie, that’s worth watching.

Maybe that’s why I feel slightly disappointed with what I’ve seen. Anna and the Apocalypse is not a BAD movie, that’s not what I am trying to say. It flows well, the main protagonists are likable, I liked that they’ve taken some bolder choices regarding who survives and who dies and when, so far we are good.

My two big issues with this film are these:

1. The music is like something from the High School Musical movies. I’m really sorry to the creators, if that was the intention, but it didn’t work at all. I think it was supposed to add the “cheesy” factor to this movie, but I feel like it’d have worked better if only one or two songs were like that and after we would’ve gotten some kick ass songs. Opera/rock/metal literally any other style than what we’ve gotten for the entirety of this movie, because eventually they all blend together where there wasn’t any standout song. And I was patiently waiting for that ONE scene/song that would stand out above them all, something that would’ve embrace this genre more, something I might be inclined to re-listen after the movie was over, and nothing.
2. This movie wants to have a “heart” so much and I honestly wanted to love it even more, but it falls flat. There was something about it, where for a comedy it wasn’t funny enough, for a horror it wasn’t scary enough, and for a musical it wasn’t good enough. If only the director had managed to blend at least 2 out of those 3 factors successfully, it’d have been a better film with some heart, but it falls flat so many times where it’s supposed to shine (some deaths we were supposed to care about more didn’t hit me as much as they should have).

I feel like by a complete (and I guess unwanted) accident, this film only highlights how brilliant of a director Edgar Wright truly is for making Shaun of the Dead and blending the horror genre with comedy so flawlessly. That movie has no (W)right (see what I did there? Ok, I see myself out now…) to be as brilliant as it is.

I’m really hoping I get to see more of Ella Hunt in the future, as she’s tried her best to make Anna and the Apocalypse work. If it wasn’t for her, my rating would have been lower.

Is Anna and the Apocalypse worth seeing? Let me put it this way – if you have a chance, see Shaun of the Dead first. If you don’t have the means to see it, and your only other choice is this movie, I’d go for it, don’t expect much, maybe you’ll be surprised. I wanted to be, believe me.

That’s all for this movie? Did you see it? If so, what did you think? Am I too harsh, or were you underwhelmed too? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Let me just preface – I did grow up on some comedies starring Bill Murray, so I absolutely adore the guy. Ghostbusters is one of my favorite comedies, and I also like (I’m taking a cover while writing this) Ghostbusters II – both of these movies I love to this day. That’s why I went into Stripes expecting a good time.

What I got was a movie that’s split into thirds – first one was alright, second was pretty funny and the third one totally unnecessary.

The first part of the movie to me was anything prior our protagonists (Bill Murray and Harold Ramis) join the army, and unlike one of the later episodes of Family Guy, I didn’t mind it and I didn’t think it dragged on (the joke in question was about a movie you remember fondly, but it’s now dragging on). We’ve established characters, what are they about and I wish more newer comedies would take some time to do this and not feel the need for the audience to laugh every 10 seconds with some attempt at humour.

The second part was them joining the Army, going through the training and clashing with Sergeant Hulka. I thought it was well paced, some funny scenes, but nothing where you would properly burst into laughter, but enjoyable nonetheless.

The third part was after our heroes finish the training and then being shipped to Italy, where just so it happens, they end up in Czechoslovakia (hey, that’s where I’m from, except it’s been Czech Republic and NO, I refuse to call it Czechia) where there is the obligatory “action scene”. This part was totally pointless, didn’t really add too much to the story except additional 30 minutes, where at the end the movie felt like a chore.

Had the movie finished with some funny montage of them doing random/hero stuff right after the training session, my rating would’ve been better, but it didn’t. I also wonder if I were to grow up watching this movie the same way I grew up watching the two Ghostbusters movies, how would my rating be affected, but we will never know that now.

When I wrote “comedy that didn’t age well”, I didn’t mean the scene in a strip-club where John Candy is wrestling at some point 5 different women, or the fact John Larroquette was spying on some showering women with binoculars, because that wouldn’t be fair. Yes, by today’s standards, it is 100% wrong, but back in the 80’s nobody cared. I am one of those people that judges the film based on its merits and won’t pretend that had I seen this film in 1981, when the movie was released, I’d have been “woke” enough to say that’s wrong, no I probably wouldn’t. This is not me defending the movie, but the fact of the matter is, nobody paid any attention to this, and not just in this movie (this one is actually tame by different 1980’s movie standards).

What I meant by “didn’t age well” was the pacing, and most of the jokes – as they are harmless jokes, where today, we are used to something totally different, so they won’t amuse you as much. You could say “hey, but that’s judging the film based on today’s standards, you just said you don’t do that!” but it’s not really, because if movie won’t make you laugh where it’s supposed to, it doesn’t matter whether the movie is from 1981, or 2001.

Just to be clear, most of my favourite comedies are from the 80’s and 90’s (already mentioned Ghostbusters, Coming to America, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop series etc.) and these have never failed to make me laugh.

If you want an army comedy from the 80’s, might I recommend often overlooked Private Benjamin from 1980?

That’s all for this one, what did you think? Was I harsh? Do you adore this movie? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Elizabethtown is a strange movie. It’s almost 2 hours long, it’s directed by Cameron Crowe, so you know he was trying for something more, it’s got really decent cast and Crowe’s signature, great music selection.

If I was to rate this movie based on the soundtrack alone, it’d have been almost a perfect movie, there is and never was a question about Crowe’s music taste. But overall I’ve expected more.

First let me start with the cast – some of the biggest names are here, Orlando Bloom did a decent job, Kirsten Dunst did well with what she was “allowed” to do (because of the trivia section on IMDb I’ve learned this performance coined the term “The Manic Pixie Dream Girl” and honestly yeah, can see why) as she doesn’t really have an agenda of her own, except her mysterious boyfriend “Ben” who I believe never existed, as that was just Crowe’s justification of her having some “character”. If it wasn’t for the funeral scene, Susan Sarandon would have been wasted in this movie too, but at least she had that (and it was highlight of this movie).

Bit of a side rant, as this is not just Elizabethtown‘s issue, but Jesus-jumping-Christ, give Judy Greer something to do in movies! I always thought she’s seriously underutilized in almost any major movie, and even in this one she doesn’t really contribute to much. Honestly, if her character was cut from the movie, it would literally not change the movie at all.

The main issue I have this with movie as some of the “feel-good” moments felt cheap/fake. I don’t know why, but there was something about the majority of the movie where I knew how was I supposed to be feeling, but I never “gave in” as something felt off. Maybe it was the screenplay, maybe lack of character development, maybe slightly more interesting story…?

As I’ve mentioned before, the emotional highlight of this film was the funeral scene, where Susan takes the microphone and starts talking about her deceased husband. Don’t want to spoil anything further, but the entirety of the scene was one of the few ones that felt real.

The rest of it is as average as it gets. And that’s why I believe it’s eventually a failure, as a movie with that kind of “pedigree” should’ve been better than just an average movie with one really great scene. Specially given the fact the whole movie is about how you should shoot for the stars, no matter how spectacularly you might fail, and even if you fail, deal with it and try again (which is a great message). Shame the movie didn’t listen to itself.

That’s all for this film. What did you think, did you like it, or will you avoid visiting Elizabethtown? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke