Saban's Power Rangers (2017) - A Mighty Morphin Blockbuster for All Ages

Talk about false advertising being a good thing for once! That is to say, this was definitely NOT what I was expecting from everything I've been seeing. The trailers and posters for producer Haim Saban's new reboot of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers made the film look like a drag to say the least. It looked murky and dreary, trying to be overly droopy and dramatic when that's not what Power Rangers was known for. The classic 90s series about five kids who are recruited to morph into high-tech suits and fight monsters was partially an amusing cheeseball about teenagers dealing with after-school special problems and partially a flashy, high-energy action series, so naturally, it was a gigantic hit with the kids, and naturally, it held a huge nostalgia factor, and therefore, it had to be rebooted. Despite my worries, however, I can safely say that the high energy and amusing charisma of the original show carries over here, as Power Rangers turns out to be a fun, exhilarating, and surprisingly well-developed adaptation of the show.

The story follows five teenagers who, through many strange circumstances, come across a strange rock that reveals to them five crystal coins that give them amazing superabilities such as super strength, invincibility, and the ability to leap long distances. Through further investigation, they all come across a ship where they meet Zordon, an alien who used to lead a team of warriors known as the Power Rangers who protect the Earth from an evil mistress known as Rita. To make matters more complicated, though, Rita also returns to life and starts searching for a giant crystal that, if tampered with, could destroy the Earth as we know it. So, the five have to learn to fight and work together before Rita finds them and the crystal.

Looking at the film from a critical standpoint, the plot is cheesy and makes no sense, the characters are flat and one-dimensional, and the style over substance doesn't add up to much. However, looking at it as a Power Rangers movie, the plot follows the original show to a needle point, the characters are a lot of fun and very relatable, and the style over substance is what makes it kick so much a**. If you go into this expecting some groundbreaking masterpiece of cinema, all I can say is you're better off Netflix-ing The Imitation Game. This is Power Rangers, dude!

There are two things in particular, though, that I felt not only helped make this a better adaptation of the show, but perhaps even surpassed the show itself. The first thing is the kids here. You relate to every single one of them through surprisingly compelling drama alongside, like I said before, vastly more charisma and amusing antics than what was presented in the trailers. The funniest one by far was RC Cyler as Billy; this kid made me laugh just about every time he was on screen! On top of that, though, they all meshed just as well as they did on the show, and the way they come together and decide that they have to get along and work together was a compelling arc.

The second aspect that definitely surpassed the show was Rita. In the show, she was mostly watching things from a distance while her monsters attacked, and she was mostly there just to scream and rant. Here, though, she's way more involved in the action, even having a few hand-to-hand combat scenes herself, and the way she's portrayed is intimidating beyond belief. This is one of the many aspects I expected to hate about this movie, but she was portrayed beautifully.... Err, disgustingly.... She was a great villain.

Honestly, it's hard for me to say that the film has problems, given that the show wasn't exactly five-star material itself. It's not going to turn any heads or earn the franchise any new fans (although definitely bring the kids, because they'll love it), but as far as what these filmmakers were trying to adapt, the new Power Rangers definitely takes new turns where it's needed and stays true to what made the show so enjoyable to begin with. For that reason, I'd say it's worth a shot for any fan of the show.

Brett Ratner's Rotten Mark (aka The Tomatometer and How to Use It)

Source: http://movieweb.com/rotten-tomatoes-destroying-movie-business-brett-ratner/

So, Brett Ratner recently posted about how the famed website Rotten Tomatoes is destroying the filmgoing community as we know it. Being a fan of the site myself and seeing it as a tool if used correctly, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring on this matter.

For those who don't know, Rotten Tomatoes is a website that gathers up an enormous amount of online reviews from famed critics and gives a percentage of how many of those reviews are positive. So, films like Schindler's List, The Godfather, Jurassic Park, and Pulp Fiction range from 90-100%, while films like The Last Airbender, Pixels, and Movie 43 range from 0-20%.

For some, it's a nifty tool in helping figure out whether or not they should see a movie, but for others, it's a pretentious representation of how big of snobs critics can be. Brett Ratner's argument in particular for this deals with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad, which, if you've seen my reviews of those, you know I personally did not like either. But it's not just a case of critics not liking something he liked; he feels the ratings for both ended up affecting the box office numbers.... which, considering how many bombs we had last year, they both stood out as the more financially successful. Just sayin.

Regardless, I can understand where he's coming from. There was one point where I looked at the percentages for every movie coming out, and after a while, I couldn't help but feel like my opinion was affected by that percentage. Now that I'm doing movie reviews on my own blog, I can't always look at the percentages for that reason.

I won't speak too much on how to look at critics in general, as the Nostalgia Critic made a great video on that here, but if you're like me and you let the Tomatometer mold your opinion, here are a few things I do to avoid that and form my own opinion.

1.If a trailer alone intrigues me, I see it and avoid (or at least ignore) the ratings

Suicide Squad has one of the best trailers I have ever seen. Hands down. When I went to see it, I was expecting it to be this insanely fun anti-hero movie with witty lines, wild action, and breathtaking performances, even with critics ultimately giving it 20-30% on Rotten Tomatoes. I entered in with a clean slate, and my review of it was based off of my personal experience with a jumbled, incoherent, and often times boring flick.

Regardless, I ignored the reviews, went in based off of my anticipation from the trailer, and ended up leaving disappointed. Sometimes, though, that's not always the case. I personally enjoyed the Hotel Transylvania movies, despite those getting poor reviews. The two G.I. Joe movies are enjoyable in their own rights, despite their reviews. My point is that film is a personal experience and should be left at that.

2.If I'm not sure if a film looks good, I'll look up the ratings and see if they're good

Most of the time, this tactic doesn't surprise me. I wasn't sure if the new CHiPS movie looked good, and the film ended up getting a low percentage. Sometimes, however, there can be a few surprises. Last year's Central Intelligence, for instance, had a horrible trailer (I swear, when I saw Dwayne Johnson as a fat man, I had nightmares for a week!), but when I saw that it had a fairly high percentage, I gave it a watch and ended up having a fun time!

This is why I say that Rotten Tomatoes is a good tool. If the trailer alone intrigues me, I see the film regardless of ratings, but if the trailer alone doesn't intrigue me, then I wait for reviews to come out to see if critics can persuade me to see it. (Many people went to see Paul Feig's Ghostbusters for that reason.)

3.After seeing the movie, I go onto Flixster and compare my opinion with others

Having a free form opinion is one of the greatest feelings in the world while also being one of the worst. Trying to understand why so many people loved the live-action Beauty and the Beast when I thought it was sub-par at best is both intriguing and confusing. But let me tell you: As confusing as that is, it's nowhere near as empty or soulless feeling as conforming to the norm.



But back to Ratner's point: Is the Tomatometer affecting box office numbers? Not likely. If that were the case, Paul Feig's Ghostbusters should have been a smash hit. Viewers are most likely just seeing what they want to see, and seeing as how ratings and reviews haven't affected the box office numbers for Grown-Ups, the Smurfs movies, the Transformers movies, or again, the Hotel Transylvania movies, I doubt they're affecting them now. Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman most likely got the numbers they got more because of word of mouth; as much as the DCEU still holds a large fan base, there's also a large amount of people freaking out over the misrepresentations of Doomsday, Lex Luthor, and the Joker.

If you are one of those people using the Tomatometer to automatically say whether or not a film was good rather than basing it off of your own personal experience.... Stop that. Just.... Stop that. However, I don't think such an epidemic is so bad that the entire site should be shut down, and I certainly don't think it's destroying the business. If anything, it's enhancing the business. As mentioned in the source article, Erza Miller mentioned that the bad ratings for the DCEU are only making the cast and crew more determined to make Justice League a success, and that's exactly what the Tomatometer should do: encourage filmmakers to make their projects better, and encourage filmgoers to see projects that have challenged even the most astute critics.... or at the very least, amused them. Just remember, a filmgoer's experience is not based on a percentage, but their own personal, emotional experience.

Hey folks, wanna stay updated on my blogs, or see my reactions to all the latest news updates and trailers? Click on any of the links at the top of the page to follow my Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Flixster accounts! Or to see my older video reviews, check out my YouTube channel, also linked above!

DC's Lame Basket of Marketing Cliches.... I Mean, Justice League Trailer

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiAmnKUaNmc

So, just to be clear.... This is the grand, epic team that DC was well-known for? Because it looks like a lame, forgettable, boring superhero action flick to me.

This trailer looks less like DC's version of the Avengers and more like a crunch-up of every marketing cliche out there. "Ooh, let's put together a team of superheroes and have them fight generic baddies, because people loved it when Marvel did that! And for the trailer, let's put in a line of conventional action scenes backed up by some cheap rock songs along with a few 'witty' lines thrown inbetween!"

Frankly, as someone who loved Man of Steel, I don't even think Superman would have made this any less boring.

I still have hopes for Wonder Woman, but as far as Justice League goes, don't call me excited in the least.

Wingmen: The Gordon-Levitt Picture Show

Source: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/joseph-gordon-levitt-directing-channing-tatum-musical-comedy-1202015783/

So, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is currently producing, directing, and starring in his own R-rated musical known currently as Wingmen, snatching Channing Tatum as a co-star in what he described as "Pitch Perfect meets Book of Mormon" where two pilots crash-land in Las Vegas and.... well, we can probably guess what happens from there. (Sounds more like Hotshots meets The Hangover by this point.)

Now, Gordon-Levitt has proven to be an extravagant director with his superbly (and insanely) directed Don Jon, and we've seen his musical talent on HitRecord on TV (which, if you haven't seen at least one episode of that, definitely look into that). If everything goes smoothly here, this could be the game changer for musicals as well as R-rated comedies in general.

GO JOE!

Reboots, Remakes, and Adaptations: How to Do Them RIGHT

Here's something you probably never noticed (sarcasm): Reboots, remakes, and adaptations of popular mediums are EVERYWHERE! If you were to name every blockbuster coming out every year for at least the past ten years, chances are 90% of them are either reboots of a previous film franchise, whether it's a long-awaited sequel or a complete re-vamping of a previously popular film series, remakes of old classics, or an adaptation of a book, video game, comic book, or event that has had plenty of attention in the past. Heck, this month alone holds the third Wolverine movie (not to mention, the tenth X-Men movie), a reboot of King Kong, a live-action adaptation of Disney's Beauty and the Beast, and a Power Rangers reboot!

Many people lash out over the fact that Hollywood is utilizing old ideas rather than coming up with new ones. Me personally? I've more or less accepted the fact. Hollywood needs a good, economical way to bring audiences in, and typically, nostalgia and/or familiarity play a big part of their game plan. Sometimes, that just means relying on a gigantic name to bring audiences in, whether it's an actor like Leo DiCaprio or a well-known director like Christopher Nolan, but not every Hollywood name that has proven to be talented can be big enough to bring audiences in by itself, so they have to rely on something most adult audiences grew up with and are familiar with, which Doug Walker explains well in this video.

With all that in mind, perhaps the question shouldn't be why Hollywood makes these (because we all know why) or whether or not they should (because we know they're going to regardless), but rather.... How can they do it RIGHT?

Death Note Looks.... Not Terrible?

Okay, let me be frank here: Americans doing adaptations of anime is about the dumbest idea we've had since transporting our nation's president in a hoodless convertible, but doing a live-action adaptation of anime is about the dumbest thing that anybody could do (yes, even the Japanese themselves; LOOKING AT YOU, ATTACK ON TITAN MOVIES). With that said, though, Death Note, speaking as a guy who's so far gotten about halfway through the series about an intelligent high school boy who comes across a book that allows him to kill whoever he writes the name of in it, seems to be one of the easiest to convert. There would have to be some liberties taken in the designs for the demons that accompany said book in order to allow them to appeal to American audiences, but other than that, what I've seen thus far has been a battle of the wits, something that not only can be done with live-action American filmmaking, but has been done several times.

As far as the recent teaser goes.... It looks like it's going for a horror movie vibe, much like Netflix's recent series, Stranger Things, which is an.... interesting angle for the film, to say the least. However, if they are to depart from the battle of the wits aspect of the series, I do have a creeping suspicion that it would make the film feel soulless. Other than that, again, I am waiting to see the design for the demons, which could be so close to the original that most audiences would find it laughable or so far away from the series that previous fans would be outraged. Either way, it's bound to get some bashing in these next couple of months, but call me.... inconclusive.

Willem Dafoe though.... THAT'S some ideal casting. ;)

Beauty and the Beast (2017) - A Tale That Should Have Stayed as Old as Time

I'm gonna say something that will leave controversy all over the internet (other than this movie is mediocre and I would not recommend it).... I'm not against remakes or reboots, not just because I see their potential for improving upon the original material or giving a new spin on an old classic from a new director's perspective, but also because I understand why they're so frequent in our day and time. Nostalgia and familiarity are a big factor in drawing audiences in; people don't know for sure if Fences or La La Land are going to be any good, but everyone knows that a new Star Wars film and the latest Marvel flick are both worth at least a glimpse.

However, there are two things I am against, the first being shot-by-shot recreations of genuinely perfect classics (because if we create Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho frame-by-frame, then it won't matter for a second who we cast as Norman Bates). The second one is live-action adaptations of animated films or TV shows.... Well, some of them anyway. Sometimes, it can be an improvement to take an animated film or show that was obviously on a tight budget and therefore had sub-par animation and turn it into a big-budget phenomenon, live-action or animated, hence why Disney's live-action Jungle Book worked loads better than its animated predecessor. However, in this case, when the animation is already an enormous advantage in terms of style, tone, and creativity, why take away that advantage by converting it to live-action? Just one of the many miscalculations in Disney's attempt to continue their stream of success of live-action recreations of their animated classics with Beauty and the Beast, a watered-down, awkward, misguided recreation of easily my favorite animated Disney movie.

The story, for those who don't know, follows Belle, a girl living in a provincial French town where the same thing happens over and over again, where she sings about wanting adventure when she reads books about lovers and romance and.... Ugh, we'll dwell on that in a minute.... while her father creates a music box that he takes out of town to sell when his horse is misguided over to a castle. Here, he finds a bunch of cursed servants turned into antiques, as well as the master of the castle, who was turned into a beast by an enchantress years ago. Belle eventually finds this castle and exchanges her life for his, and the servants see this as an opportunity to break the spell, as the beast must learn to love a woman and earn her love in return before the last petal on a rose the enchantress left him falls in order for the spell to be broken.

Now, I will give this movie a little more credit than Alice in Wonderland by at least saying that they do (to a certain degree) respect the original's story, keeping the same beats, keeping the characters in their places (for the most part), and even adding on a few scenes that do lead to a few occasional moments of character development. However, when it's trying to be the original, it feels rather soulless, mostly because the characters lack any kind of personality. Belle was all about adventure, swordfights, magical realms, and enchantment in the original, and here, she emphasizes more of an interest in romance novels about lovers and Romeo and Juliet and..... COME ON, THAT'S NOT AHEAD OF THE TIMES! IF ANYTHING, THAT'S BEHIND THE TIMES!!!! Worse than that, though, is the beast. Let me put this bluntly: There is nothing beastly about the beast. Whether in the opening or the end when he's human or throughout the film when he's a beast, he remains mostly calm and nonchalant, never having the outrage moments that he has in the original. Lumiere and Cogsworth never have any scenes where they share chemistry, Kevin Kline is a pretty pointless choice as Belle's father, and the rest of the servants are completely forgettable. If there's one cast member giving it their all, though, it's definitely Luke Evans as Gaston; he definitely knew how to bring the comical Disney villain to life here!

The musical numbers range from either watered down recreations of the classic songs from the original or completely forgettable new songs. The village song, Belle, mostly feels like a series of theater extras putting in minimal effort to get their checks (alongside Emma Watson, who mostly gets drowned out in autotune), Gaston's song, while at least slightly amusing, feels like it would have been better on stage, the ballroom dance sequence, aside from that one luminous shot you all remember from that trailer, would pale in comparison to some guy on Youtube recording Dancing with the Stars, and aside from that, you could hold a gun up to my head and I still wouldn't be able to tell you what the new songs were about. The only one that stood out to me was the new version of Be Our Guest; I'd have to rewatch the original to tell you if it was any better, but for a few mere moments, I did feel a sense of inspiration, like the movie, even for a few minutes, knew exactly what it was doing.

And as I mentioned earlier, the conversion from animation to live-action is a major disadvantage here. The original was so vibrant in its colors, so stylized in its backgrounds and designs, and so ultimate in what it took advantage of with its potential for animation, and it's so disheartening to see that get traded in for a film containing two colors, bland designs, and little to no potential for anything advantageous. With animation, the potential for what could be done is unlimited, and time after time, some of the best animators out there, including the people who worked on the original Beauty and the Beast, have blown me away with their astonishing animation. Live-action, despite many filmmakers trying to prove this wrong with their big-budget adaptations, just doesn't have that same advantage. With animation, you can control the environment. In live-action, the environment moreso controls the filmmaking process. In animation, you can control your characters' expressions (at least visually) however you want. In live-action, the advantage of visual expression is handed over to the actors. All of these problems are present in this film, as the expressions are mostly foregone, the landscapes are dull and forgettable, and even the expression on CG servants are extremely limited.

Honestly, I could break this down scene-by-scene if I had to (which I might do at some point), but for this review, I'll say it bluntly: This new version of Beauty and the Beast is a major misstep in Disney's overall impressive attempt to breathe new life into old classics. The characters are empty shells, the songs are nothing to behold, and the conversion to live-action is, in this case, a major disadvantage. It doesn't all fall apart, as there are a few glimmers of inspiration here and there, but for the most part, you're better off watching the original.

Marvel's Iron Sucker Punch?

Well, that's unfortunate.....


So, after Marvel's nearly decade-long streak of winning fans and critics over, Marvel's latest Netflix original series, Iron Fist, got massively panned recently by critics. To be fair, though, it's not like the MCU has been dubbed as exceptionally perfect; some films, like The Incredible Hulk or Thor: The Dark World, received barely positive fresh marks on Rotten Tomatoes, and even the most well-acclaimed franchises have their fair share of haters (I, for one, stopped watching Agents of SHIELD

after seeing that monstrosity that was Ghost Rider in season 4). However, this isn't the case of certain people bashing a harmless comic book venture; this is a Batman and Robin level hatred of what should have been a well-constructed, well-written, and well-developed superhero franchise like the rest of the franchises in Marvel's line-up, and even though the trailer wasn't entirely well-received, I am quite surprised that the ratings turned out like they did.







Now, since the series isn't being released until this Friday, I have yet to watch a single episode (Nor have I read any Iron Fist comics to back up whether or not this could have been foreseen), but even if this is the blunder that critics are making it out to be, I do still hold faith in Marvel to deliver the goods with the rest of their franchises, especially set alongside the crap that third-party studios such
as Sony and Fox have released. Marvel understands their source material the same way that Tony Stark understands his suits, that is to say, like no one else does. They know what it is about the source material that brings audiences in, they know what elements to add in to bring in newcomers, and they know just what elements to change in order to transition from the wacky, strange experience of comic books to the wacky, strange experience of cinema.


This was just a simple misstep, something that's not uncommon for most filmmakers. Remember when Cars 2 came out? (Yeah, me neither; I don't blame ya.) Pixar was this unstoppable giant that never released a bad movie beforehand (maybe a few less-than-fantastic movies, but definitely no bad movies), and people were shocked that
they would put this much slick animation into something less than riveting. Within the following years, however, Pixar started winning fans back with Brave, Monsters University, and my personal favorite in their line-up, Inside Out. Hell, M. Night Shyamalan just got out of his long streak of awful, AWFUL movies by making two critically-acclaimed psychological thrillers back-to-back.




Now, none of this is to say that Iron Fist won't be as awful as critics say it is, or that this won't be the start of a collapse for their franchises. However, this simple misstep isn't going to prevent me from watching The Defenders, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Spider-Man Homecoming, or Avengers: Infinity War. I guess my main point with writing this blog is that we shouldn't let it worry us. Marvel has spent nearly a decade maintaining our trust, and we shouldn't let it slip.... Not yet, anyway.