Baywatch

Is David Hasselhoff finally making his long anticipated comeback? First “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” and now “Baywatch?” Doubtful. This current tidal wave of projects crossing over TV to movie and movie to TV has been nothing short of overwhelming as of late. It was inevitable that the red-suited rompers crossed over given the unprecedented global success of the show. Grossing hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of a decade, the brand had been shelved as of late, but it’s back, and you can expect more if Paramount wants to continue making money. With a budget of just under $70 million, the likelihood of success is almost certain. If not in the US, then in Germany and Eastern Europe without a doubt (big fans of the original series).

Hasselhoff passes the torpedo buoy to Dwayne Johnson, who plays the legendary beach hero, Mitch Buchanan. He is known and revered on his beach, always vigilant, always helpful, always friendly. The opening credits emphasize that this is his beach, everyone else is just a visitor. Enter hot shot Matt Brody (Zac Efron). He’s been handpicked by the police chief to inject some youthfulness (and abs) to the Baywatch crew. They stumble onto a drug smuggling operation run by the nefarious Victoria Leeds (Priyanka Chopra) and take it upon themselves to get involved in keeping their beach clear of criminals.

Alexandra Daddario, Kelly Rohrbach, and Ilfenesh Hadera play the beach beauties, who, if we’re being honest, are the real draw for the moviegoer, but director Seth Gordon (“Horrible Bosses) does a tasteful and respectful job avoiding the temptation to exploit their… talents. They get to frolic in their red swimsuits, and run in slow-motion more times than is necessary (not that I’m complaining).

As the film progresses into full action/comedy mode, we begin to realize that this is a true buddy flick more than anything else. Efron and Johnson see their competition and friendship blossom and have tremendous chemistry, showing off their impressive physiques at every opportunity. To counterbalance the abundance of abs and biceps, there’s the doughy Jon Bass who plays Ronnie, the wannabe who makes the team because of his dedication and attitude. It’s a nice touch, and he’s not technically the comic relief, but adds some grounding and normalcy to the rest of the Adonis and Aphrodite beach bods.

The mood of the film is just right. All of the characters (except Efron) take their job as lifeguards dead seriously, and Johnson is a full-blown zealot with a total unawareness of the extent and limitations of his beach authority. It is fast-paced, action packed, and full of raunchy, yet appropriate humor.

Seth Gordon is a favorite director of mine in the genre. He started his career with one of the best comedic documentaries of all-time; “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters” and moved into mainstream cinematic humor via television, which makes him the perfect pick for a film rooted in a surprisingly light and fun buddy action comedy vibe.

Writers Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911!”) create more of their trademark potty humor, capitalizing on the hilarity of the male genitalia more often than necessary. Their jokes are sharp, but it’s the delivery by the cast where each character embraces their respective role and seem to be truly enjoying the process that keeps the film from sinking. Barely.

Let’s be honest, the unprecedented success of the “Baywatch” brand had more to do with Pamela Anderson’s assets than David Hasselhoff’s acting. It’s fine though, as the lifeguards are all about taking themselves too seriously, saving lives, and looking good doing it. “Baywatch” is exactly what you would expect, and not much more. Efron and Johnson have great chemistry, and watching it will either make you want to hit the gym, or feel deflated by physical comparison. It’s a fun comedy and decent acting, but the source material lacks any real substance. 5/10.

Alien: Covenant

I fancy myself something of an Alien aficionado. I grew up with the nightmarish, cone-headed, acid-filled xenomorphs, watching the first three films numerous times with awe and admiration somewhere between the ages of ten and fourteen. The imagination, raw fear and claustrophobia really struck a nerve in me and fed my love of film. Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and David Fincher (some say “Alien 3” was the beginning of the end for the beloved franchise, I say nay) created some of their finest works, bringing a terrifying species to life with primal science fiction glory. Imagine my giddy pleasure when it was announced that Ridley Scott would not only be following up his misunderstood and critical disappointing 2012 film, “Prometheus” with a bona fide “Alien” prequel, but that it would be moved up from fall of 2017 to summer blockbuster season.

The expectations couldn’t be higher. From the opening 20th Century Fox symphonic hook, there is a haunting, almost ominous vibe. We are introduced to the crew of the Covenant, a colonizing ship headed for a goldilocks planet, carrying precious cargo of two thousand colonists in hyper sleep. Then things go wrong. After receiving a mysterious signal, they decide to investigate, and find a perfectly suitable planet which presents a scenario that appears too good to be true. Of course, the audience knows that it is, but our hapless and optimistic colonists investigate to their own peril and the rest is now “Alien” canon.

Bookended by a fantastic first encounter and a pleasantly satisfying ending, what comprises the majority of the rest of the film lacks real teeth. Once we are introduced to the iconic creature (and its new incarnations), the film reverts to a less suspense, less chilling narrative that is more “Prometheus” and less “Alien” if you know what I mean. This serious lull is problematic considering the way the film was brilliantly advertised. The red band preview from Christmas promised a seriously frightening experience, yet, delivery was not made in the end.

Katherine Waterston follows the trail blazed by Sigourney Weaver as Daniels, the reluctant heroine thrust into action in a far less convincing way than her predecessor. Her innocent, deer-in-headlights visage revokes her believability as the strongest of the bunch. I’m not saying she was necessarily mis-cast, but her fights with the hideous alien lacked the emotional intensity of Weaver’s various encounters. Speaking of Waterston’s fight scenes, they were unnecessarily complicated. I found myself thinking “why wouldn’t she just…” more times than I could count.

Michael Fassbender stands out in dual roles as Walter and David (an homage to two of the producers). Although both androids, they are yin and yang in personality, and Fassbender clearly enjoyed playing out these inhuman characters. His existence is the epicenter of the story either driven to engineer the perfect organism, or protect the humans. His acting is essentially the highlight of an otherwise bland ensemble cast with some wasted roles by more than capable actors, and untied loose ends that are teased in the barrage of online marketing.

Ridley Scott returns to the franchise that started his illustrious career in the sci-fi genre, and honestly, I was expecting a bit more after decades honing his craft. This was an opportunity for a tour de force, but he seemed to coast through the film in a formulaic manner, shunning genuine opportunities to inspire fear and recapture the tone of the 1979 original, instead deferring to the existentialist alien origins story that was the downfall of an otherwise well-done “Prometheus” back in 2012.

Aside from one thrilling sequence and a commendable ending, the plot and characters were quite weak. The crew tended to make predictably bad decisions seemingly just for the sake of gore, and none of the humans were memorable or captivating in the slightest. The aliens tend to be the selling point, but it’s the conflict for superiority that I really missed. The tough guys in the crew needed to put up a better fight.

All in all, this is a somewhat fun film for a fan of the franchise, but be warned, the previews are misleading. This is not an action-packed thrill-ride, and the visual effects are not remarkable. The beginning and end are well done, but the rest is moderately disappointing. 7/10.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

There’s a lot to criticize about this film, mostly from an objective angle; costumes, dialogue, underdeveloped characters, even gaping plot holes. But if you strip away the layers of expectation, there is some pretty entertaining action going on in “King Arthur.” Of course, some action is never quite enough to carry a feature length motion picture.

The legend of King Arthur and his mighty sword, Excalibur, is a cornerstone of medieval literature with his origins dating back to Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century. The lore has evolved over the centuries, but the story remains uncorrupted. Sorcerers and mages, knights and ladies, kings and villains. It’s the epitome of feudalism fused with English swordplay and archers. Castles and peasants, heroes and mystical creatures. You know the tale, but you’ve never seen it portrayed like this.

The first dozen or so minutes brings you into a poor man’s Peter Jackson film, and to be honest, I was a little excited. But then, Guy Ritchie’s signature stylized camerawork emerges and kills the fantasy tone by bringing us back to the flashy close up slow motion or fast forwarded frames that might work on a low-budget London-based independent film, but don’t do the Knights of the Round Table much justice. Glitzy special effects at times look cheaply done, and overall the vibe never really grabs hold of the audience. There are too many different genres or styles to enjoy any one of them, and it’s actually quite a shame.

Charlie Hunnam (“Sons of Anarchy,”) plays the titular role in his perfectly coifed beard and ruggedly handsome haircut. He sticks out like a sore thumb among his co-stars. He exudes confidence, but not in a good way. He’s a bit too cool to be the reluctant hero, and I do believe he was miscast, and it will have a great detriment to the success of the film. As far as Brits go, I would have preferred a Henry Cavill, Nicholas Hoult, Douglas Booth, Sam Clafin, or Taron Egerton for the role as they are all handsome, but have darker features that seem a bit more, I don’t know, Medieval England.

Jude Law plays sleazy better than just about anyone, and his character, King Uther Pendragon’s little brother, Vortigern, is as sleazy as they get. Power hungry and slightly wizardly, he impressed me with his snide sneer and eloquent and sinister dialogue delivery.

Guy Ritchie and fellow screenwriter Joby Harold (“Edge of Tomorrow”) create a commendable take on the legend, but it’s basic and formulaic at best. There are some truly valiant attempts at paying homage to various elements of the original story, but what is intended as humor comes off as sloppy and a crutch for a lack of creativity.

I like sword fights as much as the next guy, but I was disappointed, from a critical aspect. With zero expectations and no filter for scrutiny, this might well be an entertaining film, but it’s difficult to separate critic and audience, so alas, I have to share my disapproval. The costumes, dialogue, camerawork, and characters were all just a bit too scattershot to manage. Guy Ritchie should absolutely stick to what he’s good at, which is modern London-based crime capers. “Snatch,” “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” and “RocknRolla” are where he and his uniquely talented style excel.

There is a reason that the release date was pushed back nearly a year, and it isn’t to capitalize on a prime box office weekend. Squeezed between “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” and “Alien: Covenant,” it will be an afterthought in a week. With an estimated $175 million budget, it will be lucky to pull in half of that domestically. Internationally, I could see it crawling its way into the black, but at this point, Warner Bros. should put this one in the rear-view mirror and look forward to “Wonder Woman,” “Dunkirk,” “Ninjago,” and “Blade Runner: 2049.” You should too. 4/10.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Take a deep breath. The sweet smell of summer blockbusters is in the air. With dazzling special effects, brilliantly chosen 1970’s music, and a genuine movie-going good-time vibe, “Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2” hits the big budget bullseye.

The first Marvel film since last year’s surprise hit, “Doctor Strange” is finally here, and it kicks off an exciting progression in the Marvel Comics Extended Universe (MCEU) that will continue this summer with “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” and this fall with “Thor: Ragnarok”. Guardians is a bit more of a cosmic fantasy than typical Earth-bound superhero fare, but it is fun, funny, and engaging through and through.

Peter Quill/Star Lord (Chris Pratt) and his band of misfit mercenaries are at it again, this time at odds with Ayesha and a species of genetically perfected humanoids called “sovereigns” (completely covered in gold, it’s a nice touch). With the help of Star Lord’s long-estranged father, they discover more than they bargained for about the universe, and each other. The plot takes a few twists and turns that prevent further disclosure here, but rest assured, all your questions will be answered and you will be wildly entertained.

From the opening scene where the Guardians are battling a giant space octopus, highlighting each of their strengths and personalities, the tone is set. Electric Light Orchestra’s Mr. Blue Sky blasts as Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) shimmies across the screen, highlighting the visual feast (and humor) that is to come. The magic doesn’t let up until the very last frame, and the party continues through the credits, where there are multiple scenes to sit through, including the unveiling of the next bad guy if you’re willing to do a little research.

Director James Gunn returns to the helm, and the core cast of Pratt, Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer, Vin Diesel as Baby Groot, Bradley Cooper as the foul-mouthed Rocket Raccoon, Michael Rooker as Yondu, and Karen Gillan as Nebula reprise their roles with relative ease and clear joy. Joining the fray this time are Kurt Russell as Ego, the living planet, who also happens to be Peter Quill’s father, and Elizabeth Debicki as the stone-faced leader of the “Sovereigns,” Ayesha. It is a fantastic and diverse cast who shine in each their own way and complement each other through their wildly eccentric personalities.

Ensemble casts are challenging, but I have been impressed time and time again by the way that Marvel and their directors have delicately balanced the characters’ screen time and dialogue. Of particular note is the use of cutting edge CGI to make Baby Groot one of the best infantile characters in film history.

I imagine that in 30 years, the Guardians will rival Star Trek and Star Wars in the pantheon of iconic science-fiction adventures. Chris Pratt may in fact become the Han Solo of his generation, but with a bit more flair, and better special effects (no disrespect to George Lucas.) The characters created in the universe warrant a costume or make-up design award with particularly strong attention to the sharpness of the primary colors used. Bold, bright, and beautiful yellows, reds, and blues highlight what are truly memorable non-human beings.

“Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2” is a winner. With the characters slated to appear in next year’s “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the inevitable volume 3 in 2020, there will be no shortage of their presence in the MCEU. Expect toy sales and merchandising to dominate this summer’s retail universe as well, which will raise awareness even further. “Guardians Volume 2” is a fantastically entertaining sequel, a rare and unexpected improvement on its predecessor. 9/10.