Striking The Iron - The WGA and SAG Strike

 

    For those of you who have yet to keep up in the world of entertainment news, The WGA (Writers Guild of America) has been on Strike since this past May, joined by SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television & Radio Artists), earlier this month (July). This marks the first time both unions have been on Strike simultaneously since the 1960s and raises some awareness of what's happening in modern Hollywood. Despite what some folks would like us to believe, Tinsel Town lost its shine long ago, hasn't tried to polish or fix the problem causing it, and is now paying the price for its negligence. Let me explain what I mean. 

Why go on Strike?

    Many companies have had workers go on Strike for unfair wages, toxic work environments, etc. Always to gain a better quality of life from their work. In the case of why two of the most prominent artistic unions have chosen to Strike, it's not all that different. In both cases, writers & actors suffer from the greedy actions of studio executives and the apathetic approach toward the entertainment industry's myriad changes. Not to mention the rise of brand new technology that, while potentially helpful within the arts under proper circumstances, threatens a hostile takeover of the human condition metaphorically and literally, but we'll get to that later. 

    The most important thing to note is that most writers and actors within their respective unions are not famous celebrity millionaires; they just happen to work for them. 

Loss of Residuals

    Residuals are royalty payments regularly made out to creators for the continued use of their content. For example, if you wrote or starred in a hit T.V. show, you would receive a residual payment whenever that episode was used. Before streaming services came along, television shows were often sold to other networks after their initial run from their home network, often appearing on the channels in reruns and the like. There are also residual payments from selling physical copies of your creation. For the most part, this was a decent, guaranteed way to continue making money from your art. 

    However, with the rise of streaming services, not to mention the near lack of sales with physical media, residuals are significantly more challenging. Streaming services don't need to pay that much for the use of classic television shows. As such, many writers who received regular residual payments for their past work saw a noticeable payment dip. One writer reportedly went from receiving $12,000 a year in residuals to $26 a year. For an average writer trying to make a decent living in the entertainment industry, that's a big problem. 

The Rise of A.I. 

    Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the issue that threatens writers and actors alike. While we may not yet be concerned with the potential robot apocalypse, á La The Terminator, we should be concerned with the potential removal of humanity in the arts, á La S1m0ne. Even though A.I. isn't really all that intelligent (yet), as it's nothing more than crappy digital guesswork based on tons of external information, it still poses a significant threat to the human condition. 

    For one, Studios are incredibly attracted to the idea of feeding basic storytelling principles into a computer, allowing the A.I. to draft a script based on the intel, and only paying a human writer for quick & basic editing, despite how likely it is that the script in question will have no creative human voice or, for want of a better word, soul. 

    Actors face a similar threat. With A.I., studios can scan an actor's likeness for regular reuse in multiple projects without the actor's consent nor with any form of compensation outside of the upfront payment for the time spent getting scanned into the computer. 

    This is all nothing more than a massive example of what I call Filmmaking by Corporate Accountants: removing as much humanity from the artistic business as possible for no reason other than making as much money as possible for the executives and shareholders. Speaking of which...

Apathy from the Higher-Ups

    Not too long ago, the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger, commented on the Strike. He claims that because studios are regularly losing money with massive flops at the box office, not to mention how expensive it is to make movies these days (apparently), the demands for better situations for the writers and actors are "impractical and unaffordable." Says the man who delivered this statement from a luxury resort reserved for multi-millionaires requiring a private jet for arrival after making millions of dollars for doing nothing! 

    Furthermore, the only response from most of the other higher-ups at the studios is to starve them out. Wait for when they get evicted from their homes and can't afford food & water anymore before allowing anyone back to the negotiating table. No doubt likely inspired by the piece of vile crap masquerading as business literature titled "The Art of the Deal." 

What is the Solution?

    While many things can be done to assist and resolve the problems that caused the Strike, the one solution is also the most obvious: spend less money on your movies! 

    Consider the massive flop released last month, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. While I have yet to see it (and likely won't), I am still waiting to hear something that would make it sound worthy of my time. Even so, I cannot comment on the movie itself, but I can talk about it as an example of the failing Hollywood system. 

    Setting aside the usual issue of being a product of desperate brand recognition, its most significant issue is its three-hundred million dollar budget. For a summer blockbuster, that seems excessive (and it is) but also justifiable (at least perceivably) when considering the cost of the special effects & the high-profile talent involved. 

    However, despite that, most of the movie's budget went into marketing: posters, trailers, T.V. ads, toy deals, etc. This may be essential when producing a movie as you want to ensure people know about it and are excited to see it. However, spending more money to advertise the movie than it must have cost to make it in the first place is unnecessary. 

The Creator

    Later this September, director Gareth Edwards, previously known for Monsters and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, will release his science fiction epic, The Creator. This movie features high-profile talent, tons of CGI special effects, and a classic story of a man helping a child. All were produced on a budget of eighty-six million dollars, with a seemingly minor budget spent on marketing. 

    However this movie will turn out (I'm hoping it's good), it is at least proof of the value of wise spending when producing a movie. From the trailers alone, the film looks incredible and promises a profound parable. If nothing else, it renders the remarks of Bob Iger and his would-be possie of studio executives incredibly moot. 

Conclusion

    The WGA and SAG-AFTRA are well within their rights to demand better from their bosses and prevent the loss of humanity from the arts. Hollywood has found itself trapped in this corner for many reasons, all pointing back to its negligence and refusal to reevaluate its relevance. Significant changes must be made if Hollywood expects to survive in the modern world! And if the powers-that-be continue to ignore the folly of their present and apathetic actions, power to the Strike until they wake up! Otherwise, their demise is much closer than they want to believe. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Power to the People! 

Stretched Out - A Brief History of Anamorphic Lenses

 

    Since the dawn of cinema, creatives have been developing new and unique ways to create fascinating images, from adding color to mind-blowing special effects, along with many other experiments that came and went along the way. One such experiment was born out of desperation to get audiences back into the theaters when at-home distractions were becoming too convenient and commonplace. No, it wasn't mobile phones, computers, or the internet, but it still involved a little box with a screen and a light inside. 

    This is a brief history of Anamorphic Lenses and their place in modern-day cinema. 

    Between the 1920s and 1940s, movies were shot on celluloid film with a fixed aspect ratio (image area space) of 4:3, a square-shaped image that was the standard for most (if not all) photographic equipment. Even so, filmmakers can frame their images with their choice of aspect ratios by adding a matte to the edited image. A practice that is still used today regardless of the capture format. 

    However, in the 1950s, a small invention started invading people's homes providing free fantastic images beamed directly into their living rooms. A fancy box with a glass face and a giant light bulb inside that could deliver visual otherworldly entertainment without losing the comforts of home. It was called...The Television!

    Suddenly, spending money to go to the movies seemed unnecessary. Since the box in the living room provided the exact same image space as the theater screen and didn't charge the consumer for the entertainment (at least not at the time), not to mention the quality of storytelling was more or less on par with that you'd find at the movies, going to the theaters didn't feel as remarkable as it once did. 

    Movie studios were terrified of television. They realized they had to step up their game to remain relevant in the new world of convenient at-home entertainment. But how could they compete against free entertainment on a little screen? 

    The solution, make the screen BIGGER!

    

    So, exactly how do they increase the screen size when celluloid film can only capture a square-shaped image? By manipulating the image with special lenses! French astronomer and inventor Henri Chrétien is the guy who developed the first anamorphic lens in 1927. However, it wasn't given much attention until Twenth Century Fox bought the rights to the design in the 1950s, dubbing it their new "CinemaScope" process. The concept is to capture an image with a specially designed lens to squeeze more content into the more petite frame. This image is then corrected with another unique lens attached to the projector, resulting in an image that is wider in scope while retaining naturalistic proportions (mostly). 

    Anamorphic lenses popularized the wider & rectangular 2:35 aspect ratio used in most movies today. Even if a movie doesn't use anamorphic lenses, some filmmakers frame their images with this ratio in mind. 

    Today, anamorphic lenses are still available as an option for cinematographers. Although no "practical" need exists for them today, they produce beautiful aesthetics many filmmakers admire and appreciate, such as unique bokeh effects, softer edges around the frame, and unusual lens flairs. 

    These aesthetics may have originated from anamorphic lenses, but they are not exclusive to them. These days, many of the visual qualities attributed to anamorphic lenses can be easily replicated by other means. Digital effects in most editing software, lens filters, and special lens adapters can easily replicate anamorphic beauty on any budget. 

    There you have it. One of the many bits of fun proof that what is old can be new again. While I haven't dabbled much in anamorphic lenses (preferring to stick with traditional spherical glass), you may soon see something of mine in this unique format. We will see as the year goes on. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

The "Home-Movie" Look - The Cinematic Possibilities of Video Aesthetics.

 

    Some of my beautiful readers may recall me mentioning the Dogme 95 movement on this blog more than a few times, a filmmaking revolution that, among other things, served as the jumping-off point for using digital video for cinema. For those needing a quick refresher, the Dogme 95 movement was a set of rules laid down by Danish filmmakers Lars Von Trier & Thomas Vinterberg intended to challenge filmmakers and, by extension, the perception of cinema as presented by the Hollywood system. The goal was to encourage filmmakers, especially up-and-coming ones, to get closer to what cinema is all about; profound stories with compelling characters that explore the wonders of the human condition. 

In case you're curious, the rules are as follows: 

1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must be kept from being brought in. If a particular prop is needed for the story, a location must be chosen where it may be found. 

2. The sound must always be produced in the images and vice versa. Music must only be used if it occurs within the filmed scene, i.e., diegetic. 

3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. 

4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. If there is too little light for exposure, the scene must be cut, or a single lamp be attached to the camera.  

5. Optical work and filters are not permitted. 

6. The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc., are prohibited.) 

7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say, the film must take place here and now.) 

8. Genre movies are not acceptable. 

9. The final picture must be transferred to Academy 35mm film with an aspect ratio of 4:3. Originally, the requirement was that the film was to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions. 

10. The director must not be credited. 

    These rules gave way to using consumer-level digital camcorders, allowing them to remain within the established guidelines and function on lower budgets. Most Dogme 95 films were captured on Sony DV camcorders, like the DCR-PC3 and the DCR-VX1000. 

    The images produced by these cameras would look incredibly amateur by today's standards (and when the films were released). Still, they were the perfect match for the purposes and the kind of stories encouraged by the Dogme 95 rules. Because most films produced under the Dogme 95 banner were simple human dramas, the images' video aesthetics enhanced their stories, creating a sense of immediacy and intimacy to the narratives. Not to mention the use of smaller & lighter cameras allowed some filmmakers, like cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle who photographed the Dogme film, The Celebration, to create unusually creative shots that further enhanced the story. 

    For a few examples, check out this short video essay on YouTube, A Brief History of Dogme 95.

    Digital video has come a long way in terms of aesthetics and quality. Nearly every movie made now is shot and edited on a digital platform, with the Arri Alexa raining as the supreme digital cinema camera, having been used for nearly every major and independent movie produced in recent memory. Digital video has become nearly indistinguishable from classic celluloid film in terms of image aesthetics and quality. Maybe too much so. 

    Don't get me wrong, I love the incredible images many of these remarkable modern-day cameras can produce. Even so, are we still allowing ourselves to fall down the rabbit hole of trying to find "the perfect image?" 

    

    Digital video has come a long way from being scoffed off as an unacceptable means of image capture to the most utilized option. But let's remember how hard digital had to fool viewers. 

    Digital spent most of its early days struggling to emulate celluloid film. Any image captured on a digital platform had to be adjusted, manipulated, and dressed up to look as non-digital as possible. This often entails pushing the color style, adding extra texture (typically in film grain emulation), and building larger image sensors that could create the coveted shallow depth-of-field (blurry backgrounds). All of which succeed in creating a specific aesthetic that is commonly recognized as "cinematic." 

    I have defended and advocated using digital video for cinema many times here on this blog, but I have yet to suggest that it's still okay to make a movie that looks like video. 

    Aside from found-footage horror movies (or the occasional Jean-Luc Godard film), video aesthetics are often ignored or disregarded. Even today, movies shot digitally are expected to replicate the aesthetics of classical celluloid, be it in color style, other blemishes like grain, or a shallow depth of field. In other cases, such as with Marvel movies, the images are expected to be clean, sleek, and vibrantly colored with little to no unsightly blemishes in sight. Even when some filmmakers want to utilize imperfections in their images, such as cinematographer Rachel Morrison wanting to get what she called "digital grain" when shooting Black Panther, such ideas are often shot down by producers or, in this case, the special effects teams. Not to say that their input or needs for the project aren't valid, of course. 

Avengers (2012) Filmed on the Arri Alexa and heavily color graded

Monsters (2010) Filmed on the Sony EX3 with special lens adapters. 

    Please understand I do not mean to imply that these images look bad or are invalid as cinema. That would be ludicrous! These are just a few examples of the possibilities of digital video. Replicating the look and feel of any given classic image style is now easier than ever with digital video, but what about the pure, unaltered look of video itself? 

    Part of what draws me to the video aesthetic is the immediacy, intimacy, and reality it can bring to nearly any genre. Because video tends to occupy specific areas in our recollection (home movies, documentaries, etc.), it can trigger our brains in profound and nuanced ways when applied to narrative filmmaking. 

    Consider the 2004 drama Land of Plenty, directed by Wim Wenders, the feature film debut of five-time Acadamy Award nominee Michelle Williams, and filmed on the Panasonic DVX100, the first consumer-level camcorder to offer 24p recording. 

    While the story and characters of this film are indeed profound and some of the most insightful responses to one of America's greatest tragedies (albeit not entirely perfect), it is also one of the best examples of utilizing video aesthetics to enhance the story. Director Wim Wenders wanted to make the film feel intimate and personal, treating the camera like a character who happened to stumble upon the protagonists. In essence, he wanted to make the film feel like a documentary without actually making a documentary. One of the ways he and cinematographer Franz Lustig accomplished this goal was by filming in digital video with little to no changes in the image. 

    At that time, digital acquisition was still in its early acceptance phase. The Dogme 95 Movement was reaching the end of its run with well over thirty films under its belt, George Lucas had released Attack of the Clones (the first feature film shot and distributed in high definition) just a few years prior, and Michael Mann released his HD shot movie, Collateral, the same year. All contributed to the acceptance and widespread use of digital acquisition for cinema.

    Even to this day (in some circles), what had yet to catch on was the idea of theatrically released movies that looked like video. While most of the films listed above were well-regarded and recognized (Land of Plenty and Collateral receiving awards & nominations for Best Cinematography), many still criticized them for "looking too much like video." To which I reply, why is that a problem for you? 

    

    Personal aesthetic preferences aside, despite what the Hollywood system or any given camera & celluloid film company (especially Kodak) wants you to believe, video is cinema! While we can manipulate the look of the images however we want for the purposes of the narrative, the "video look" is a valid option, plain and simple. 

    

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

65 - Pitch Black meets Jurassic Park (sort of)

 

Rent it on Apple TV, Google Play, Amazon, and YouTutbe. 

    For understandable reasons, SONY has developed an obsession with stories that boil down to a tough guy escorting a child through a dangerous environment for some typically noble cause. Arguably starting with The Last of Us (the original PS3 game from 2013) and going on from there. To be fair, SONY didn't invent this storyline. Its earlier rendition is more famously known as the Japanese story Lone Wolf and Cub, which has served as the basis for Western-oriented stories like Road to Perdition.

    It's a simple setup that can work in just about any genre or situation, which has been at least partially proven in today's subject, simply titled 65. A science fiction adventure starring one of our greatest modern actors in a story penned by a pair of talented creatives who know their way around a good monster movie. It's too bad that it doesn't quite stick the landing as well as it could have, but there's just enough entertainment value to be had that its shortcomings are relatively easy to forgive (mostly). 

    The story follows a humanoid alien named Mills (Adam Driver), a pilot on a particular long-distance galactic trek across the galaxy. After getting hit by an unexpected asteroid field, the ship crash lands on an "unknown" Planet, with Mills and a young girl named Koa (Ariana Greenblatt) as the only survivors. Koa speaks in another language unfamiliar to Mills, causing some difficulty in communication. Despite this hurdle, they must travel to the other half of the crashed ship to use the available escape pod to get off the Planet. Little do they know that here, there be monsters. Or, in this case, Dinosaurs! 

    Right off the bat, the film hits an exciting concept that should be explored more, depositing the idea of humanoid aliens visiting Earth during the prehistoric era. The idea of humanoid aliens who appear exactly like ourselves today is ripe for some fascinating stories that could make for exciting movies. Sadly, 65 appears to be less interested in that idea and only uses the humanoid alien concept as an excuse to avoid coming up with a time travel concept. Granted, it's still an exciting idea that hasn't been explored before, but the film itself doesn't seem as interested in the idea as it should be. 

    Instead, the film opts for the most minimal amount of world-building and character depth in favor of pitting Adam Driver against as many Dinosaurs as possible. Admittedly, it is always fun to see Adam Driver flex his chops as an actor and former Marine. Still, it feels wasted in a movie with a significantly more fascinating idea lurking in the background. While what we get in terms of drama is at least serviceable, it can't hold a candle to what might have been. 

    On the flip side, the performances and chemistry between the two leads are solid and entertaining, and the visual effects & production design are well done. The cinematography delivers creative, engaging shots with excellent lighting and clever camera work. Though overdone in parts, the music hits every beat with decent precision. And, of course, Adam Driver continues to cement himself as one of those actors whom I could enjoy watching on stage reading the phonebook. 

    65 is a film with an incredible idea that needs more focus. It's impossible to tell if the writers were not interested in the idea or if SONY demanded more blockbuster stuff. Still, in any case, this feels like a film that wanted to be more than it was, only to be denied the chance to become so. This may lead to further exploration of the more interesting concepts, but until then, it's a mild curiosity at best and a wasted opportunity at worst.

    Give it a look if there's nothing else. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Extraction 2 - Less Forgettable

 

Streaming on Netflix 

    I had less than favorable feelings about the first Extraction film in the foulest year of our lives, which was 2020. Admittedly, my feelings about most things during the beginning of the pandemic were less than optimistic, as I'm sure they were with you as well, my beautiful readers. In a time when we were in dire need of decent distractions, movies like the first Extraction film felt too lazy and unengaging with their by-the-numbers repetitive action scenes, lackluster story, and overdone action hero archetypes. The first Extraction film may not be the absolutely worse film of this particular subgenre, but it's not the most favorable on my personal list, either. 

    The follow-up movie, Extraction 2, is technically better than the first film, but not by much. While it still retains many previous issues (which I will get to later), there is a better sense of emotional investment and personal steaks to make the proceedings somewhat engaging, but don't be too surprised if you still find yourself checking your phone more often than usual while watching. 

    Taking place sometime after the events of the first movie, expert soldier of fortune Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) has successfully recovered from his previous ordeal and is trying to enjoy retirement at his remote cabin. His quiet time is short-lived when a mysterious figure approaches him with a job offer similar to the one he barely survived. However, this time around, it's personal to him, as it involves his ex-wife, her sister, and her two young children. As it turns out, the sister is married to a European crime boss and has arranged for his family to rot in prison with him. Tyler is hired to extract the sister and two children from the prison and into witness security for a better life. The only question is just how ruthless will the opposition be? 

    This has the potential to be a profoundly emotional and resonating story that would make the action all the more engaging. Sadly, much like the first film, there's simply not enough time spent on the little things that would have made the more significant things grandiose. 

    Like in the first film, repetitive action is emphasized too much. What little nuance that might have enhanced the action is briefly mentioned and then tossed aside in favor of another gimmicky fifteen-to-twenty-minute action sequence involving chases, shootouts, and fist-fights, all seemingly in one continuous take. Technically admirable, but no longer really awe-inducing. Not to mention that the vast majority of the action scenes tend to follow similar beats with little to no variation, other than one briefly neat moment where the perspective shifts into Snoricam for a little while. 

    The bits of potentially compelling human drama are more present here than in the first film and provide enough justification for emotional investment in the story. Plus, director Sam Hargrave (who helmed the first film) shows some promise of improvement as a storyteller rather than a mere stunt coordinator in way over his head. However, more is needed to excuse the lack of variety in the action. We can only enjoy watching Chris Hemsworth plow his way through a bunch of bad guys using the same tactics so many times before our eyes are drawn to our watches. 

    Extraction 2 is little more than a new option for the white noise you play in the background while you finish your daily chores. While it's at least a decent improvement over what came before, there still needs to be more here to call it a good movie. Maybe by the time they get to the fourth or fifth movie, they will finally have found a balance between narrative & action, but honestly, at this point, I have more faith in Arnold's FUBAR show on the same streaming service. Netflix may start creating better action content with The Terminator in charge. 

    Bottom line: Extraction 2 is a slightly improved version of a previous idea that still can't hit the target. Only check it out if you are mildly curious. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Double Feature: BlackBerry & Sisu

 

    That's right, my beautiful readers; it's time again for another Double Feature Review. Two movie reviews for the price of one! 

    Both movies in this review are of excellent quality and provide unique experiences, as any good movie should. While both are recommended by me, their being in a Double Feature Review should maintain their potential for enjoyment. There's not much to say about these movies other than they're well done and absolutely worth your time. Perhaps one more so than the other, but we'll get to that soon. 

    Let's start off with something simple yet complex. 

For Rent on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube 

    The early days of mobile phones (before the arrival of the iPhone) were a time of wonder and invention. The idea of transforming a pocket-sized device into a portable computer was unheard of when mobile phones were just phones. Colorful bricks that could send and receive calls, and that was it for a while. It was when a group of talented nerds at the Research In Motion Company introduced the world to the BlackBerry, one of the first efforts towards portable computing, mobile phones, and text messaging all in one. 

    BlackBerry, the movie, chronicles the rise and fall of the early Titan of mobile phones. The story follows a timid but brilliant inventor, Mike Lazaridis (Jay Baruchel). After partnering with an assertive and shady businessman named Jim Balsillie (Glenn Howerton), the little-device-that-could skyrockets into mobile phone dominance, becoming one of the biggest names in the mobile phone industry until the announcement of the iPhone in 2007. 

    The film boasts a distinct style combining visual motifs from documentary to vintage late 90's cinema. Director Mike Johnson, who also plays Mike Lazaridis' best friend, Doug, glides through the highs and lows of the company's history while delivering a compelling drama. 

    The performances are all on point, with Jay Baruchel as the greatest stand-out, delivering a performance so far out of his previously received range; I almost didn't believe it was him. His performance is expertly executed even during scenes shared by Glenn Howerton, who spends most of his screen time chewing the scenery by shouting obscenities and insulting the other characters. If that is how Mr. Balsillie behaves in real life, I hope I never have to share a room with him...ever! 

    This leads to my one nitpick with the film; the lack of entirely likable characters. While it is possible to thoroughly enjoy a film with unlikable people in the leading roles (look at the filmography of director Milos Forman for proof of concept), and even with the notion of this story being based on actual events, I was personally disappointed that I was left with no one worth rooting for. At the very least, their story is one of the consequences of hubris, and in most cases, there are not too many people worthy of our cheering. 

    In many ways, BlackBerry reminded me of the David Fincher classic, The Social Network. Both are well-crafted stories about the early days of modern innovations created and built up by people I would rather not have a beer with. In that way, these are both excellent examples of modern cautionary tales, essential lessons about how not to succeed in your chosen fields. In both cases, they deserve to be seen and their lessons heard. 

    Okay, now let's move on to something more primitively satisfying. 

For Rent on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube

    Finish writer/director Jalmari Helander has built himself a fantastic reputation as a filmmaker I greatly admire, an artist who doesn't care about being realistic! His energy and disregard for the plausible are so courageous and heartfelt that you can't help but enjoy every moment. Even when the more graphic moments kick in, a sense of tastefulness reads less like an overgrown adolescent and more like an experienced craftsman with a maintained spark of madness. It's the kind of movie we desperately need more of these days, not because of the violence but because of the unrestrained creativity and entertainment value that can only come from a playful disregard for reality. 

    Set in Finland at the tail end of WW2, an old and mysterious man is out searching for Gold. Upon finding a motherload of the stuff, he packs it up and makes his way into town to cash in his find. Things take an unfortunate turn when he runs into a platoon of Nazis who try to steal his treasure, only to find themselves cut down by the old man's hand. It turns out that the old man is a legendary and deadly former Finish Commando with a haunting reputation and over 500 confirmed kills. Despite this knowledge, the arrogant Nazis press on, trying to part the old man with his Gold. Little do they know how much pain they're in for. 

    Much like my review for the underrated Overlord, a movie in which Nazis are brutally and justifiably getting the everlasting snot beaten out of them is automatically great. The film also continues to showcase Jalmari Helander's talents for visual storytelling and character focus. Not to mention a penchant for finely crafted action scenes. 

    I will provide a fair warning for the movie's graphic violence. While it is in service to the story and hardly overstays its welcome, it can be a deal breaker for some viewers, at least potentially. While I still recommend this movie, if you're squeamish about graphic violence, your hesitation to check this one out is entirely understandable. 

    Also, a minor spoiler, the Dog lives! 

    Thank you, my beautiful readers, for joining me in this latest Double Feature Review. I hope you enjoyed it. Be on the lookout for an upcoming Retro Review of an action classic. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

SHAZAM: Fury of the Gods - Atlas Shrugs

Streaming on MAX 

For Rent on Apple TV, YouTube, Google Play, and Amazon 

    The first SHAZAM movie from 2019 was an unexpected and delightfully welcome gem in the world of superhero movies outside of Marvel. At the time, there was little to no hope for the folks at Warner Brothers & DC Comics, who were trying too hard to strike the superhero-cinematic-universe iron while it was hot, despite neither party knowing how to properly wield the hammer. In the wave of undersaturated colors and outdated adolescent angst, SHAZAM broke the mold and provided an experience that was fun, entertaining, and super heartfelt. 

    Four years later, we're presented with a sequel from most of the same creative team in the hopes of making the lightning strike twice. While certain elements succeed in providing fair entertainment value, the overall experience could have been much better. 

    Taking place a few years after the events of the first movie, Billy Batson (Asher Angel) has grown fond of his foster family and is now living his best life possible. His fortunate situation is further enhanced by his and his foster siblings taking on the role of their town's resident superhero team. Uttering the word SHAZAM transforms Billy into The Champion (Zachary Levi) and his siblings into his partners in fighting crime. However, as of late, Billy has become too clingy to his family and fears losing them if he doesn't hold them together well enough, to the point where his siblings view superhero-ing as less of a family adventure and more of a chore. Things only seem to get worse when a group of ancient gods, known as the Daughters of Atlas, show up to wreak havoc on the world as vengeance for their initial banishment. Can Billy and his siblings rise to the challenge, or will their dysfunction be their undoing? 

    The most significant issue with this film is an apparent need for polish. Despite having four years to fine-tune the script (admittedly, the pandemic didn't help much), it feels too much like an early draft on screen. Many of the character beats seem to move excessively, parts of the dialogue feel unnecessarily forced, and the increased abundance of special-effects heavy scenes detract from the more intimate character moments far too often. 

    There was a grit to the first film that gave it a sense of humanity and verisimilitude. The emphasis on the character's journeys and relationships made the first film enjoyable and memorable. Yes, it also featured moments of superpowers with incredible special effects, but there was a better balance between the extravaganza and the story that is, unfortunately, lacking in this much-anticipated next chapter. Although to be fair, a film with as many vital characters as featured here can challenge any filmmaker. 

    On the flip side, the chemistry between the cast is still solid, the villains are some of the best seen in a DC superhero movie, and the visual effects (though overbearing at times) are incredible to behold. Especially when it comes to some mythological creatures towards the film's climax. All I will say is, "Taste the Rainbow, Mother%&#@er!" 

    SHAZAM: Fury of the Gods is not the worst DC superhero movie I've ever seen, but it is an unfortunate disappointment. While there are enough good parts here and there to render the experience at least modestly entertaining, it can't hold a candle to the first film. This is sad because I can't help but feel that it should have. 

    If you're curious, give it a look. Otherwise, just wait for Superman: Legacy. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.