Showing posts with label Rupert Friend. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rupert Friend. Show all posts

Friday, October 10, 2025

Jurassic World: Rebirth

Memo to all screenwriters: giving your script’s unfamiliar characters a set of background sob stories does not make them automatically sympathetic. That constitutes one of the large problems with this movie: you don’t really have much sympathy for the group of mercenaries who form the core of the cast, so whatever is going to happen to them comes across from the start as low-stakes. Things are mildly better with the vacationing family, who at least come across as relatively innocent and thus worthy of the viewer’s consideration. Perhaps the story should have opened with them, and then there would  have been a rooting interest from the first scenes. As it is, it’s only well into the action that you start to care about what happens to these people. (Except the sociopathic corporate type, who practically has “dino food” tattooed on his forehead.) The aforementioned “action” is the key element here; the action set pieces are the most effective elements throughout the film, more so than any individual plot point or character or even the creatures themselves. Whereas once upon a time the identifiable species were the real stars, this outing mostly features a bunch of weirdo hybrids that are scary, yeah, but have no real personality or charisma. (The best sequence in the whole flick may be the one that features the good old-fashioned T. rex.) Mix it all together and you wind up with a competent but not all that compelling franchise entry that mostly makes you wonder, “When is this thing going to go extinct?” So long as no one comes up with a better idea, the answer to that question should be "now"— but the real-world answer will be, alas, "not anytime soon" (if there's money to be made). 

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Asteroid City

See, this is why artsy types get beaten up. Wes Anderson’s flamboyant use of artifice and affectation keeps growing ever more out of control with every movie he makes, to the point now where a former fan such as myself is forced to ask, is all the weirdness for the sake of weirdness a strategy to hide behind? Or is it a means to hide the simple fact that there’s actually no there there? I’m not ready to declare Anderson a total fraud—I think he does still have interesting stuff on his mind—but it is less and less evident that he can be successful in putting said ideas on the screen. This film serves as a model for that problem: everything is so unusual, and seemingly without much point to it, that it’s hard to give this work credit, even though there’s enough going on to hold the viewer's attention throughout (even when the story drags a bit). Put together, you get a movie that is not bad so much as it is baffling, even for a viewer who wants something more sophisticated than cookie-cutter entertainment. It is also worth noting that this film’s huge ensemble cast works against it; the audience is so wrapped up in noticing who is on the screen to pay as much attention to what is actually happening. (Apparently, there’s a reason for the typical “two stars plus a cast of minor players” movie formula.) It would be nice to see this auteur return to his earlier standards of work, but at this point it seems like he is too lost in his own head to ever connect with a broader audience again. Talk about being lost in the stars.