Movie review - "Return of Swamp Thing" (1989) **1/2

 Fun Jim Wynorski where it's great to see Heather Locklear out of soap stuff having a fine old time. Sarah Douglas is lots of fun and Louis Jourdan. The Jaws spoof of people showing scars was not originated in Clerks  - Wynorski does one here with Monique Gabrielle.

Movie review - "Acquaman and the Lost Kingdom" (2023) **

 Big, loud, dumb. Who cares about Jason Mamoa and Patrick Wilson being brothers? Who cares about the random villain being bad. Some interest in seeing Amber Heard's role being minimised - I guess she'd be too heroic? They may as well have killed her. Or kidnapped her. And Nicole and Dolph.

Dull.

Movie review - "Batman and Robin" (1997) **

 Look, yes, it's bad, but not one of the worst films ever made. It does have a vision - bright and colourful. Young kids will like it. Clooney wobbles his head still a lot at this stage but he's fine. Chris O'Donnell whines a lot but he doesn't have much to play.

Film has bad emotional core. Who cares about Robin sulking around Batman? Or the villains? Elle MacPherson is the beard. Alicia Silverstone is wasted as Batgirl. Film should have been about her. Bane is wasted.

They borrow structure of Batman Forever with Uma Thurman as mad scientis and Arnie as the established villain. Good showmanship to have Arnie as villain.

Movie review - "The Suicide Squad" (2021) **

 This sounded like a great idea - get James Gunn to have a crack. Margot Robbie is terrific once more. Actually all the actors are good except John Cena, who struggles with the comedy.

But this has a black heart. There's a whole segment where the Squad go and shoot all these people - sometime electrocute them, cut their heads, etc... then, hahahahaha, it turns out they're friendly revolutionaries, hahahahah.

And there's a sequence where they discover all these people who've been tortured and mutated over 30 years. Is that fun?

And the team operate with an incredible lack of professionalism - going to a bar and boozing on.

Then we're meant to care when the characters are given backstory involving their parnts?

The film must break some kind of record for killing off NS guards. After a while I started to feel sorry for her.

Daniela Melchior is fun as the sleepy rat girl. The shark is entertaining (Stallone did the voice).

It's just a mean spirited film. I also think Americans don't go for films where their government is really really bad.

Movie review - "Wonder Woman 1984" (2020) **

 Why didn't this work? The trailer was great. Cast great. Story pretty good. Bring back Chris Pine. Set it in 1984, have Cheetah...

It follows the template of Batman sequels, the early ones, in that it is an origin story for two villains. Only both are very sympathetic (Max Lord just loves his kid and was bullied by his dad, Cheetah just needed love) maybe too sympathetic. What's wrong with just a baddy?

The finale felt false with people renouncing wishes. It's alright for Diana, she's hot and immortal with superpowers... the rest of us maybe don't return to something so great.

It lacks energy. They could have used the 1984 thing more. Why flash back to the Amazon Island? The romance between Chris Pine and Gal Gadot feels so, so perfunctory - like both are phoning it in.

Movie review - "Birds of Prey" (2020) ****

 Really fun. Bright. Wonderful tone. Good actors. Margot Robbie a solid lead, Ewen McGregor and Chris Messina having the time of their lives as villain. Funny moments.  Great production design.

Took too long to get going - the story doesn't start until 40 minutes in. Didn't need all that set up.  It's actually a simple story about trying to get a diamond. It didn't need the rest.

Also didn't need to be R. Why? A key character is a 12 year old girl (or some age like that). Why not let them go see it. A few trims of language and blood and surely they would have been fine and this would have made that much more. I'm Monday morning quarterbacking now.

Movie review - "The Lego Movie Part 2" (2019) ****

A delight. I haven't seen any others in the series but this was warm, funny, clever, packed with gags. The script is so smart, working on different levels - watching it a second time you note all the set ups. It's so clever, and funny and fast. There's cute songs. I'm surprised it didn't do well at the box office it's  a really good movie.

Movie review - "The Joker" (2019) ***1/2

Joaquin Phoenix is terrific - the role is a fantastic one but not fool proof as Jared Leto indicated. Todd Phillips keeps Phoenix front and center as any Elvis Presley movie and is well rewarded.

The look of 1981 New York, sorry, Gotham, is convincing - bows to the art department - and I was gripped for a lot of this. A lot of it I was wishing I could take out my phone. It felt needlessly long. I did love how Thomas Wayne was a prick and even the butler Alfred was mean.

Two main gripes, one minor:
* the film started off feeling realistic but then as it went on felt less show - surely they would have vetted him more before going on a talk show? And I didn't buy everyone in clown masks praising him... that tends not to happen. Privately maybe but did, say, people rally around Lee Harvey Oswald? I think these things could have been fixed easily - you actually didn't need everyone running around praising Joker at the end, it would have worked fine with him being carted off and a lunatic fan then shooting the Waynes.
*a major gripe - the only people who are killed in the film deserve it. The mother who let her son be abused. Thomas Wayne who is horrible. The racist bullying gun happy clown. The yuppies on the train. The smug talk show host. If the film had shown someone nice and innocent being killed - the nice neighbour, her kid, one of his shrinks, a guest on the talk show, a member of the audience - then the movie would have been really grown up. But this is a Hollywood movie. And to be fair so was Taxi Driver where no one nice or innocent got killed either.

Movie review - "Acquaman" (2019) ***

A big broad silly movie that works on its own terms. Unlike too many DC films it has a real vision - James Wan wants to pack it with cool stuff, so there's huge underwater civilisations and battles and soldiers riding sharks.

The script borrows well from the 1978 Superman and deals with the difficult DC timeline. The support cast is very strong - Patrick Wilson is a decent villain and Amber Heard suits the superhero world. Its lots of fun watching Nicole Kidman spear people with a trident though the CGI kung fu wasn't very convincing. Jason Mamosa has plenty of swagger. I wish he'd given his kingdom to Amber Heard at the end though.

Script review - "Superman" final revisions by Tom Mankiewicz

From accounts by Mankiewicz and George MacDonald Fraser the writing of this was uncommonly tricky - Mario Puzo, Robert Benton and David Newman were among others who did it,though Mankiewicz is the only writer credited here.

It's 240 odd pages but is two scripts, Superman 1 and 2. The 1 is closer to the final film and it feels very close -although the ending doesn't have any going back in time by Superman which I never noted.

Some key differences in 2 - the nuclear explosion which releases Zod and his cohorts is from Superman who throws Lex's hijacked missiles into space (which I preferred), we hear from Superman's dad at the end (the Salkinds refused to pay for Brando). But basically it's the time including reversing the Fortress of Solitude, etc.

It's a very good script - wholesome and positive and full of lively comedy: Clark and Lois of course but also Lex and Otis and Eve. There's not that much action. There is plenty of heart - and its surprisingly fast moving. The sort of script that gives comic book movies a good name.

Movie review - "Justice League" (2017) **

The movie gets off to a wonky start with Superman talking to camera - not a bad idea itself but he's got this wonky face thing happening which I gather was because the CGI'd out the actor's beard. Then it gets worse with a cover version of "Everybody Knows" which smells of try hard cool for trailers, and a silly slow mo sequence of a fat bald man smashing up a store which I think is meant to show disintegration of society.

The film doesn't work. It feels just silly - Wonder Woman and Batman and Aquaman. I didn't buy that they lived in the same world and knew each other. It was tired and uninvolving.

The villain was so dull - some creature who wants a box for world domination. No complexity, no shade. A bunch of Amazons get killed. Then underground people. I did worry for the Russian family. There's random terrorist attacks like the silly one led by the Game of Thrones guy who is beaten by Wonder Woman.

Ben Affleck looked tired. Jeremy Irons is miscast - I don't buy him as a servant; the lacks the warmth someone like Michael Caine or Billy Connolly would have brought to the role. Gai Gadot tries but struggles without a decent emotive plot like rebelling against her family or falling in love or clashing with the new world.  Amy Adams feels wasted. Diane Lane looks wasted.

Ezra Miller is lively as the Flash - he at least has a clear relationship with the others, clingy with Batman, a crush on Wonder Woman, bewildered by Acquaman. I wasn't sure how Batman felt about anyone. I guess it was cool Acquaman mocked Batman - the film could've used more of this interpersonal stuff. But he kind of stuck out in the group. Jason Moama is okay in the role - his character feels weird.

Ray Fisher isn't very good as Cyborg but he had the best character - a teenager moody and lonely because he was half machine. That's a great emotional core around which to build a film - surely he would be more annoyed at dad (Joe Morton)? But he doesn't get enough screen time.

A film that tries to do too much and none of it well.

Movie review - "Catwoman" (2004) *

Catwoman is one of the all time great super hero roles - the leather, the alter ego, the urst with Batman. Her appeal had already been thoroughly road tested on the small screen and in Batman Returns. How did this go wrong?

Because it is a bad film. 

It's not misunderstood, they didn't try a brave new direction - it's just bad.

For starters, Halle Berry is simply miscast. A talented actor, who has a very likeable screen presence and is stunning looking, she seems out of place. Too nice or something. Sharon Stone, who is very good as the villain, would've been ideal - ditto others considered (Ashley Judd, Nicole Kidman) or others who did it (Michelle Pfeiffer).

It doesn't help that when she's meant to be the ugly duckling she's still very attractive, just has messy hair and baggy jumpers - and she is story wise too because she can attract Benjamin Bratt.

Maybe she could have worked with a stronger script. Things get off to a bad start with narration that pretty much spells out everything we seen on screen, then is dropped (was this added after test screenings?) but it's not too horrible... until the transformation into Catwoman.

The script is fully of silly bits - she's attracted to catnip, wants jewellery, is good at basketball, jumps around. Her leather outfit is explained because it's a gift from her friends. She orders cream at a night club. Then she does a dance with a whip. Eats a lot of tuna. Urgh! It's awful.

The reason she's transformed into a cat woman feels dumb - she's licked by a cat who's a messenger for an Egyptian God. (It's the sort of thing that isn't worth doing because it raises too many questions eg are their other people who do this? Why her? Is the crazy old lady blessed as well?) Why'd they give her superpowers - isn't the point of Catwoman that she doesn't have them? Why not use the source material?

The villain plot is dumb too. Sharon Stone's developing a cream that you have to keep using or it'll hurt you... Isn't that easily combatted by going to the authorities or the newspaper?  Why isn't Catwoman a thief here? Still they should've had more story instead of crappy scenes of Catwoman being cat-ty. Why doesn't Catwoman know Stone is in on the plan? How did Stone learn to fight so well she can match someone with special powers?

Bad acting by the guy who plays Stone's husband. Standard Benjamin Bratt performance as the male love interest.

It lives down to the hype.

Movie review- "Suicide Squad" (2016) ** (warning: spoilers)

So many good things about it - the concept, the cast, the production design, the ideas. It's made by talented people. But it doesn't work. It was written too quickly. It doesn't click.

Like Batman vs Superman there's too much going on. The film should be relatively simple - bad guys get out of prison to get someone even badder. The Dirty Dozen did it well - establish the characters, give a few of them back story, spend act two having them bond (the training/war games sequence) then send them into battle for act three. Pick some to actually die to give it some stakes.

So we have Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo. That's all good. The Lee Marvin character is Amanda Waller - oh and also Rick Flagg. And now things get confusing because Flagg is in love with June Moone who is possessed by the Enchantress. The Enchantress wants to... rule the world I think.

Deadshot's motivation is clear - it's for his daughter. Harley is tormented by the Joker. I got Flagg's issue. I was confused by El Diablo.

The Flagg stuff is interesting - too interesting. It pulls focus from the Suicide Squad. I like the story - give it to the Suicide Squad people - El Diablo or someone. They would've been better off dumping Flagg and the Enchantress  - having Amanda Waller do the Lee Marvin role. And make the Joker the villain. That's right, the Joker is a supporting character - you could cut him out of the movie and it wouldn't affect anything.

Margot Robbie is amazing. Will Smith is good as is Viola Davis. Jared Leto isn't very good. I hope they get to do it right for the sequel.

Movie review - "The Mummy" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)

A famous misfire, one of those films that inspired a "pile on" of critical disdain. There are some good things about it - technically its very fine, handsome looking with some impressive effects. I like Jake Johnson and Russell Crowe (ideal casting as Jekyll and Hyde!) and Sofia Boutella has a great look. The start of the film is solid, even if it was a slight stretch to have Cruise go treasure hunting while on patrol for the arm (and why need that? Why not have him as ex army).

But it's confusing - I had trouble following what was happening especially after Cruise died and came back to life. There was stuff about possession and souls and back from the dead and gods and daggers and rubies and stuff - I got lost.

There's no emotional underpinning of anything. I never knew why Tom Cruise was so important to Boutella's mummy - she wanted him to be her husband was that it? In the best mummy movies the mummy was driven by love - he was a former priest going after the reincarnation of his former love. Very simple - that powered everything. Why not just use that - have Boutella think Cruise was the reincarnation of her lost love or something? Everything would've made sense - her drive, the rivalry with Annabelle Wallis.

The movie is also hurt by miscasting. I have so much affection for Tom Cruise but he's not growing into his looks - he's in great shape for a 55 year old but he's no longer a cocky kid. What's a 55 year old doing as a sergeant in the army and fortune hunting on the side? Why not use his age? Why not cast him opposite someone more age appropriate?

Wallis is poor as the female lead. There's so many other good looking female actors out there they could've used (how much would Kate Winslet have cost?)

I went in with an open mind. I wanted to like it. I feel it needed to be simplified. And maybe add a few more scenes that were scary.

Movie review - "Wonder Woman" (2017) **** (warning: spoilers)

It took a bizarrely long time for Wonder Woman to get the big screen treatment, especially since her origin story is so good and she's probably the most famous female super hero.

It's not a perfect film - I couldn't help wonder what might've happened had a German washed up on that beach, and the movie feels built around sequences rather than a cohesive whole.

But the sequences are amazing - Amazons training, Wonder Woman going into no man's land, the death of Steve Trevor (though couldn't he have flown out into the ocean or something?).

Gal Gadot's acting is limited but she's a movie star - she looks like a goddess, can do the acting, and is likeable. Chris Pine is perfectly suited for this sort of role - I think he's better as a support star.

Danny Huston camps it up as a villain. Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are perfect as islanders; ditto Elena Anaya as a mysterious doctor and Lucy Davis as a fellow spy (bringing some much needed warmth and levity to the film). There's even a cute little gang including Said Taghmaoui, Ewen Bemner, and Eugene Brave Rock.

I was surprised it was in World War One, not Two, but it is a bit fresher that way. It was very entertaining.

Movie review - "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016) **1/2

This starts off pretty well - I enjoy the brooding Zak Snyder world and the booming Hans Zimmer score. Ben Affleck is a strong Bruce Wayne/Batman, helped by greying temples and the fact you believe he's (a) tormented (b) rich (c) a bit crazy.

The Honest Trailers version of this summed up the film better than I could - it's a good Batman film, a confusing Superman film, which features some really cool action sequences and goes on far too long. There's not enough Batman vs Superman - the conflict it set up quite well, from Batman's POV anyway, you can understand why Batman distrusts Superman. It's a bit wobbly why Superman doesn't like him, and Lex Luthor's plan is super confusing. The dispute is resolved in a famously unconvincing bit of business.

The appearance of Wonder Woman and cameos from Acquaman and the Flash were a little bit enjoyable but I get the feeling the film might've been better off without them because it felt overloaded. The last third was very loud and noisy.

It's always nice to see Oscar winners sparking up a comic book movie - Holly Hunter, Jeremy Irons - though also depressing because you know it means they don't have any other gigs going. Gal Gadot impresses as Wonder Woman but Henry Cavill really isn't killing it as Superman.

Movie review - "Man of Steel" (2013) ****

I enjoyed this so much more than I thought I would, helped by an excellent script via David Goyer who assumes we know the Superman story and so plays around with structure, shoving us right into it. Henry Cavill isn't a particularly interesting Superman/Clark Kent but he's okay and there is superb support from Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Amy Adams and Michael Shannon.

Shannon's Zod is a worthy antagonist and has some great knock-down brawls with Cavill. It looks terrific and there's a booming Hans Zimmer score which is perfect.

Movie review - "Superman" (1978) ****

The first hour - the origin story - is magical, helped immensely by John Williams' rousing score (yes the theme is marvellous but I also get chills up my spin especially with "The Planet Krypton" tune). The stakes start off big - Marlon Brando (so not phoning it in) telling the council that the planet will be destroyed, having to send off his son in a little capsule across the galaxy (though where are he and Susannah York running to when the planet starts exploding - it's like there's somewhere they need to go).

Then little Superman meets Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter (very well cast as all American types), and grows up to be Jeff East, in some touching all-American stuff, wanting the girl and being picked on by the bully, etc. (NB what if Superman had landed in Stalinist Russia?) It builds satisfactorily to the visit to the Fortress of Solitude - every teenager needs one!

The middle action in Metropolis is also a lot of fun. This is mostly rom com stuff between Lois and Clarke - director Richard Donner made the completely accurate decision to focus on the love store, and pays off in spades. Chris Reeve is perfect, the best ever Superman, and I've never seen a more spot on Lois than Margot Kidder's, a superb combination of wise cracks and big heart. It beautifully culminates in that perfect flying sequence - okay, well, perfect except for the Margot Kidder song and some iffy effects.

The last section is the least good - Lex Luthor's plan. It's a decent plan, and there's some fine playing by Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine, but it's too much like a not particularly good Bond film: complete with Luthor trapping Superman, explaining his plot, then leaving him alone, thereby enabling him to be conveniently rescued by Perrine. And the ending involving time travel and Margot Kidder is a downright cheat.

Still, as comic book movies go, this one is hard to beat.

Movie review - "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) ****

A bit of a mess but mostly great - they've pulled back on the Hans Zimmer, which I found I missed, and there's some very poor casting of the smaller roles - like the guy who plays the CIA agent at the beginning, the unmemorable mayor, the chubby cop, and Bane's soldiers, who all seem like chubby dudes who've strolled in from the pub.

Stuff you think they'd easily ace is poor - Michael Caine overacts in his emotional scenes (is Chris Nolan too intimidated/tired to give him direction?), the continuity is poor, there are big gaps in logic (e.g. unarmed policeman rushing and overpowering men with semi automatics, people are hostages one minute walking free the next) and really lazy screenwriting (an incredibly convenient speech left in a jacket, a foreshadowing-the-ending-scene that would have been laughed at by the writers of Point Break). This is one of the few movies where you feel it might have been better if it ran ten or twenty minutes longer

But it's a great spectacle: plenty of terrific stunts and action sequences; the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman is actually a good one here (this and Batman Begins are the only films in his series you can really say that about). It's ambition is very endearing: a whole city is shut down, parallels are drawn with the French and Russian revolutions, there is an intriguing political subtext. There's some very satisfying emotion - the drive of Bane, comeback of Batman, redemption of Selina Kyle.

Anne Hathaway, who I thought would be lame as Catwoman, is terrific - lithe, sexy, complex. Marion Cotillard is good too, ditto Bale and Freeman, with Thomas Hardy making an excellent villain. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is okay - I don't know if I want to see him as an action hero in anything. The audience applauded spontaneously at the end and for all the movie's faults, it deserved it.

Script review – “Shazam” by William Goldman (2003 draft)

Not great Goldman but there have been worse comic book adaptations and the source material sounds a little silly to start off with. I can’t think of a film with an orphan hero where the orphanage he lived in at the beginning of the story was such a nice place – Billy has hot Jenny to drool over, and a nice billionaire overseeing the whole thing. It’s not great for creating sympathy. 

There are some terrific bits – cockroaches spilling out of the main villain’s corpse, the warden Hackman (presumably a nod to Gene) who refuses to believe the villain is dead and insists on having him tested, saving Jenny from crashing on rocks by breathing her up. 

The main villain is probably treated a little too comically (for a genius he’s failed a lot – it makes it less of a threat), the finale involving a brain test isn’t that visually gripping (Goldman admits he struggled with his endings – taking a stadium full of hostages feels tacked on), it feels as though Billy has too many ways to get out of trouble without using his own skill (eg saying Shazam and turning into Captain Marvel, having Captain Marvel draw on the skills of Zeus and Solomon at key points, being rescued at the end by the villain’s daughter). 

Lots of Goldman references in the big print to things like Jean Simmons, James Cagney, Willie Mays etc. (Would a modern day teenager really have pictures of Jean Simmons on her wall?).