Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
Showing posts with label ryan reynolds. Show all posts
"This franchise has nowhere to go but up!"

Hobbes and Shaw is the first spin-off of a franchise that ran relatively long (eight movies by my count), and by the looks of it, it might continue for a few more movies. That's because the filmmakers understood one very important piece of knowledge: human beings love action, fast cars, and hot women.

I'm guessing no one saw this coming, though. Who would've thought it would be relative franchise newcomers Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham that would take the wheel of the spin-offs? Everyone was thinking it would have been Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris in the spin-offs before The Rock and Statham came along. And Gibson hasn't been secretive about is displeasure with the direction the producers were taking.

You know what I think? I think the reason the producers ditched Gibson and Ludacris for Johnson and Statham was chemistry. Sure, Gibson and Ludacris had chemistry, but it was more because they had shared status as the franchise's comic relief. But Hobbes and Shaw is a different combination altogether: they're an action duo, they can fight, and they are also a natural comic duo. That's like a three-for-the-price-of-one promo. Their rivalry is evident, but their chemistry is undeniable.

Anyway, let's go to Idris Elba. Black Superman? Of course he is. I'm just not sure why no one even claimed that title before. Maybe no one dared use it? I don't know. If anyone was going to be called Black Superman, you'd think he'd come from the world of sports, like an athlete or something. But Elba shows us his athleticism in this film, and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually did most, if not all, of his stunts for this movie.

"I still have a full head of hair, motherfuckers!"

As far as action heroines go, Vanessa Kirby is fast becoming my favourite. You wouldn't have thought that from seeing her in The Crown, but after Mission: Impossible – Fallout, I think she showed the world that she can go toe-to-toe with her male co-stars in giving a good onscreen ass-whooping.

But even without Vanessa Kirby, or even without any female lead for that matter, audiences will still flock to see this flick because of the car chase sequences. This is, after all, still part of the Fast & Furious franchise, and this film becomes nothing without the fast cars. The chase sequences will leave you on the edge of your seat with all the adrenaline, and the stunt driving is so good that there definitely has to be some CGI in there somewhere. If there isn't, God bless you, stunt drivers. The world is definitely a better place with you.

Finally, for the first time in the franchise, we get to see Samoa. Personally, I think taking the Fast & Furious franchise to off-road locations wouldn't work in the long run. Not that it's not practical, it's just that stunt driving looks absolutely breathtaking when the cars weave in and out of traffic, and you can't really do that driving in the jungle. So beautiful as it is, I hope the producers don't come back to Samoa. I mean, if they want to go back there, at least let them do shoot the chase sequences in downtown Apia. That's Samoa's capital, for those too lazy to Google.

"Is that Idris Elba getting his own spin-off?"



Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbes and Shaw. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 7.4/10
Vanessa Kirby's hotness: +0.1
Helen Mirren: +0.1
Kevin Hart: +0.1
Ryan Reynolds: 0.1
Roman Reigns: +0.05
Samoa looking like Mindanao: +0.05
Final rating: 7.9/10
"I feel like I'm ripping off Arthur Conan Doyle with this deerstalker."

Warner Bros. and Legendary Entertainment, two Hollywood powerhouses, join together to bring us Detective Pikachu. The official title of the movie, according to IMDb, is Pokémon Detective Pikachu, because Detective Pikachu refers to the Nintendo 3DS game. But this review isn't for the game, so there really won't be any confusion when I refer to the film as simply Detective Pikachu.

So anyway, is this movie based on the game? I don't know, I've never played it. So this review will not be referencing the film's gaming roots in any way.

I admit, I was a casual fan of the cartoons. Wait, scratch that. I am a casual gamer of Pokémon Go. So with the cartoons, what's less than a casual fan? A sporadic fan, maybe? I'm not sure. Point is, my knowledge of Pokémon isn't that solid to begin with.

Remember back in 2007, when Michael Bay released the first Transformers film (which incidentally was the very first film reviewed on this blog)? You might remember the backlash it received from fans for not staying true to the eighties TV show. Why’d they make Bumblebee a Camaro, they asked, when Bumblebee was a Volkswagen Beetle, and a Volkswagen Beetle only, nothing else. The only thing they retained was the colour, because Bumblebee can only be yellow. Wait, what was my point?

Oh yes, the fans. So the fans actually taught Hollywood a valuable lesson when it comes to adapting existing source material. If the source material is a book, then visual interpretations may be free for all, except for very specific descriptions the author used. But if the source material is another visual medium, such as a comic book, or a children’s cartoon in this case, then of course there must at least be a semblance of visual similarity, because that is what the viewers will be looking for.

And who are the viewers in this case? Although the studios may argue that these films are meant to draw in new audiences, let’s face it: these films are driven by nostalgia, and are really directed at those who were young once and now are employed and thus have money to spend at the cinema. That’s the same with every piece of adapted cinema that is released twenty years after its source material, such as Charlie’s Angels, the Transformers franchise, Inspector Gadget, and many more. (One can also argue that Mission: Impossible started off like this, but has grown so big that it has taken a life of its own now, with fans that don’t know and don’t care about the 1970s television show that inspired it.)

Wait, what are we talking about again? Oh yes, Detective Pikachu. Particularly visual similarity. Well, all I have to say is that the adaptation of the flat two-dimensional animated Pokémon into their three-dimensional computer-generated counterparts was extremely faithful. None of that “Bumblebee is a Camaro” crap. The Cubones you see on the big screen is exactly the same as the one in your childhood memories. So are the Squirtles. The Growlithes. The Gastlies. And of course, the lovable Pikachu. Except for one small thing: Pikachu’s voice.

No more “Pika Pika” cuteness here. Instead of miming and context clues, the filmmakers gave Pikachu a voice, and that is Ryan Reynolds on cocaine. I’m kidding, of course, it’s just regular Ryan Reynolds. It is of course a bit jarring at first, but don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.

Detective Pikachu went to great lengths to give us something that deserves being called a detective flick, with the cinematographer even shooting on 35 mm film to make it feel more like Blade Runner. Aside from Pikachu sporting a deerstalker–an obvious homage to Sherlock Holmes–all the elements of classic mystery storytelling are here, albeit toned down for a younger audience. Don’t expect a great whodunit, though, because the plot’s fairly easy to predict. Just sit back and suspend your disbelief, is what I would suggest. It’s the ride that matters, anyway.

"Am I gonna get my own movie?"



Pokémon Detective Pikachu. USA/Japan/Canada. 2019.



Original rating: 7.2/10
Pikachu sounding like Deadpool: +0.1
No Kathryn Newton nudity: -0.1
Justice Smith: +0.1
Bill Nighy: +0.1
Ken Watanabe: +0.1
Psyduck: +0.1
Final rating: 7.6/10

R.I.P.D. literally stands for "Rest In Peace Department". And for good reason. They deal with the Dead-O's (the undead, or more specifically, the dead spirits who came back here in another form.)

Not the kind of dead-o that you're thinking about.

They're kinda' like the aliens in M.I.B. where somebody has to keep the freaky-looking weirdos in check or else chaos ensues.


Green Lantern FAQs:

Q: Who is the Green Lantern?

A: Not “who is”, but rather “who are” the Green Lanterns.

Q: Okay, who are the Green Lanterns?

A: Their full name is the Green Lantern Corps. They are the intergalactic peacekeepers. Kind of like the Jedi, but colored green.

Q: You mean like Yoda?

A: Uh... no.

Q: Why green?

A: Green, according to the story, is the color of will. As in will power. And this, they say, is the strongest energy source in the universe.

Q: So all the Green Lanterns wear some kind of ring. Is that ring the lantern?

A: No, that ring is a ring. It gets its power from a device that looks like a lantern.

" Yeah, I guess it looks like a lantern."

Q: How many Green Lanterns are there?

A: According to the story, one Lantern for each of the 3,600 sectors in the galaxy.

Even the Jedi don't have jellyfish-like beings.

Q: So that’s how many Lanterns?

A: Can you not count?

Q: Never mind. Who’s that chick that plays the girlfriend of Ryan Reynolds? Is she also a Green Lantern?

A: That’s Blake Lively. She’s not a Green Lantern. But she turns my mind green.

"Oh, no."

Q: What?

A: Nothing.

Q: Who’s the red-faced guy with the neat moustache?

A: That’s Senestro.

Q: No, I mean what’s the name of the actor who plays him?

A: Oh, that’s Mark Strong.

"Problem?"

Q: No kidding! He doesn’t look like Mark Strong. Anyway, what power does the ring have?

A: It can create anything that the wearer’s mind can think of.

Q: Really? Anything?

A: The only limit is the imagination.

Q: So if I were Ryan Reynolds, and I had the ring, I could create a green Blake Lively and have sex with her?

A: Wait, what? If you were Ryan Reynolds, why would you want a green Blake Lively when you already have the real one?

Q: Uh, threesome?

A: Whatever. Next question, please.

Q: That geek friend of Hal Jordan... is that the curly-haired guy from The Big Bang Theory?

A: What? You mean the guy who played Tom? That’s not Johnny Galecki. His name is Taika Waititi.

"Seriously, do I look like Leonard Hofstadter?"

Q: Oh... okay... (snickers)

A: What? What’s so funny?

Q: You said “titi”.

A: Seriously? Come on, next question.

Q: Okay, who’s that guy who plays Tim Robbins’s son?

A: That’s Peter Sarsgaard.

Q: Oh, Swedish?

A: No, he’s American. He was in An Education with Carey Mulligan.

Q: Isn’t he Swedish? I thought he was related to Stellan Skarsgård.

A: No, he’s Peter Sarsgaard, not Skarsgård. He doesn’t have that “A” with the circle on top.

"You look nothing like Stellan Skarsgård."

Q: So how do you do that "A" with the circle on top?

A: Seriously? It's Alt+134. Okay, this question and answer’s over.



Green Lantern. USA. 2011.



Rating: Six out of ten.




*some info from IMDb
GIFs from VLC
Some people question my ability to enjoy a film but still give it a low rating. This is one such film, and I shall explain why.

First, I enjoyed it. End of story. No, it wasn't a waste of money. Wolverine and I go way back. Like fifth grade. No, fourth grade. I've known about his powers and his adamantium skeleton even before I learned to play "More Than Words" on the guitar. So that's it.

And now, why I gave this film a low rating:

1. The opening credits were great, but that back-to-back pose that Logan and Victor did...I mean, Liev Schreiber could've toned down his pose a bit. Just a little bit. And I don't know how to pronounce Liev Schreiber's name. Whenver I talk about him, I refer to him as "that guy from The Manchurian Candidate and Defiance."

2. It's pretty annoying to see Victor (the future Sabertooth) mounting an attack like a jungle cat. The motion is too---how do you say it---unreal. I could actually tell that they did that with bungee cords. I've also made a mental note that to pull that off realistically without resorting to CGI would be to shoot it in Zero G. You know, that zero-gravity aircraft that they train astronauts in. Bungee cords just won't cut it for some types of motions.

3. That scene where there were two cars blocking the road, and Logan's girlfriend did this I-can-control-your-mind-when-I-touch-you thing? Two words: TOO CONTRIVED. The screenwriters could've done better. But then again, screenwriting is hard work. Sorry.

4. Patrick Stewart's makeup was freaky. It was supposed to make him look like Professor X thirty years younger or something, but the result: Failed! Like they injected his face with Botox. Ugh. Why couldn't they do it properly like Benjamin Button?

5. They seem to have made this film for women. Check out the score: Poster boys: four (that's Hugh Jackman, Taylor Kitsch, Daniel Henney, and Ryan Reynolds); hot girls: one (Logan's girlfriend). That's it. Boo.

6. And finally, we all know Wolverine loses his memory somehow, yet how does it really happen? Adamantium bullets to the head. Based on the flimsy theory that a brain concussion may not kill him, but it sure as hell would erase his memory. Lame-O!

So there you have it. It was a superb superhero flick. Makes me want to wait for X-Men Origins: Magneto. Or so I've been told that would be next on the Origins list.


*some info from IMDb
pic from thecia.com.au


X-Men Origins: Wolverine. USA. 2009.


Rating: Six and a half out of ten.



You may also want to read other X-Men reviews such as X-Men: First Class.
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato