Tarzan, Ghostbusters receive revitalizing shots

The Legend Of Tarzan

Having read the original origin story of the Edgar Rice Burroughs classic, I initially thought the movie was a direct adaptation of that material. Good thing it wasn't. The Legend Of Tarzan is set years after the main character already embraced his nobleman heritage as Lord Greystoke and living quietly with his wife Jane (Porter) in their London estate.

This time, the former Lord Of The Jungle goes back to Africa that is under the threat of slavery under the Belgian empire. But behind the sinister takeover is a deal with the fabled Leopard Men's leader to have Tarzan delivered over to him in exchange for the diamonds of Opar that the Belgians want. 

When I saw the trailer I thought Christoph Waltz played D'Arnot, the French military official who was one of the jungle lord's true friends in the series. It turned out he played the film's main antagonist. With his trademark deadpan delivery and quiet menace that became a trademark; that also made perfectly cast as Blofeld in the recent Bond film. His Leon Rom is the perfect counterpoint for Alexander Skarsgard's Tarzan. While the villain is a frail, small man who relied on his wits and cunning, the protagonist is a force of nature who utilized his physical conditioning and instinct to get things done. Solid cast all around. Samuel L. Jackson, as always, is a scene-stealer. 

The original screenplay independent to Burroughs' established series is an admirable take on the legendary character. For that alone, the movie is a must-see.

Ghostbusters

Melissa McCarthy was the main reason I dropped all apprehension about the movie. Spy turned me into a fanboy while Kristen Wiig's involvement in films I liked of late like The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty and The Martian also helped in upping the optimism despite a sizable chunk of the original series' fans crying blasphemy about a remake (Strike 1) that replaced the original cast with an all-female group (Strike 2). Whatever.

No less than the original cast members, with the exception of the recently departed Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis (who refused to participate), showed their support by doing cameos in some key scenes in the story. 

Greatly entertaining and buoyed by a talented cast with impeccable comedic timing. Perhaps the most surprising revelation is Chris Hemsworth's self-deprecating humor that made him likable in ways his portrayal of Thor cannot. That, and the creepiest dweeb of a villain portrayed by Neil Casey make the film a laugh riot and one of the best comedy movies of the year.

The Conjuring 2

The thing about watching a lot of horror films, you tend to develop a kind of fright threshold not unlike some pharmacological concoctions a person uses to gradually increase the dosage of the drug to get the desired effects. The normal dose just wouldn't cut it anymore. 

Same with horror movies. You get introduced to some novel way of getting spooked, the next time it happens, it almost becomes an afterthought. Maybe that's why the first installments are the most memorable in an established series. There were a couple of these fright-fests I watched at a young age that made it almost impossible for me to take a piss in the middle of the night for fear of what ungodly abomination would grab my ankles from under the bed, or meet face to face in the darkened hallway on the way to the bathroom. Notable among these were The Exorcist, The first installment of Peque Gallaga's Shake Rattle and Roll series, and The Shining. There were others like George Romero's Night Of The Living Dead or John Carpenter's The Thing, but the antagonists on those were physical beings that cannot teleport to a place you consider to be a safe haven. There's just something about a good ghost story that inspires the inner masochist in people via scaring themselves to death. Even the popular Japanese ghosts from The Ring and The Grudge are set for a grand smackdown this month.

And ghosts and a good ghost story is one of director James Wan's many core competencies (The other is fast cars and death defying stunts that will put Looney Tunes characters to shame.).

The first Insidious movie was, and will always be the testament to Wan's exceptional talent in crafting spooky atmospheres, well-placed jolts that follow a cleverly-placed misdirection, and good storytelling. The offshoot film that followed the series, The Conjuring and its sequel, continues in the same vein, this time focusing on the real-life exploits of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. In The Conjuring 2, the couple assists a family in the receiving end of a deadly poltergeist activity in London, 1977.

As before, the beauty of Wan and his writers' execution of the story is not on what is presented onscreen but on the mystery behind what these ghost activities are trying to communicate. My only complaint about it, being a longtime viewer of films of this type, is that there are no more genuine fright that stays with you long after you have left the theater. Maybe its the sleek Hollywood production feel to it or that the main characters are played by well-known actors that makes it feel all the more like any other summer blockbuster you see in your mall cinemas. And I can't help but notice the same actor playing all the main boogeymen in all of Wan's movies. From the Darth Maul-like demon in Insidious to the hanged witch in The Conjuring. This time around the guy is playing a demon garbed in a nun's frock. That took another part out of the fright aspect. At least for me.

Time to go scouting again for obscure titles with no-name actors headlining them. Might be a gamble on potential turkeys (most of the time they really are turkeys) but when you hit paydirt with a good one, you can pat yourself on the back for another sleepless night and the inability to take a piss at the unholy hours just before dawn.

X-Men: Apocalypse

All things considered I think the new X-Men movie was decent enough. I certainly had fun watching it. Having read all those early reviews about how horrendous it was , especially one article I read that actually said it was slightly better than Batman V Superman---a movie I really loathed--- got me to think twice about seeing it in the cinema. There are movies that are meant to be watched in the cinema and some questionable ones that are better suited to see at home via cheap pirated copies of DVDs or free downloads. Good thing I decided to watch it on the big screen. Sometimes those reviews have a way of taking the fun out of potential roller coaster rides simply because you decided to see things the way the author insisted you to see it.

The movie takes place in the 80s this time around. First Class was the 60s, Days Of Future Past was the 70s and I'm guessing the fourth one will be in the 90s. Expect some Nirvana and loads of flannel on that one. 

They certainly had enough pop culture references during that decade: Return Of The Jedi, Nightcrawler's 'Thriller' jacket, and another one of those tongue in cheek soundtracks that  accompany Quicksilver's activities. This time around it's The Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of These) instead of Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle. Fun, but the novelty of that sequence worked a lot better the first time. 

Instead of indestructible robots we have a thousands of years old mutant as the major villain, plus four cohorts standing for the four horsemen and a much younger version of the original X-Men cast. And this  cramped party, I believe, is where the critics balked. There were just too much new faces and characters that a movie with a limited running time can accommodate. Even Magneto's motivation to do what he did in this movie seemed rushed and oddly detached compared to his quiet intensity and one-track mind in the previous two films. 

Oscar Isaac's Apocalypse is a good villain. A megalomaniac with delusions of being a god always looks great when he realizes he finally met his match. And we finally get to see how Prof. X gets his bald pate. Would have been more fun if the reason wasn't as serious as what the movie has shown. Like maybe simply shaving his head because of some counterculture fascination but that's just me.

Hang on tight for the fourth one set in the alternative 90s.

Captain America: Civil War

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

Having recently watched the movie and expecting it to be spectacularly good based on the Facebook posts of contacts who have already seen it ahead of me, I expected a bit of jaw-dropping experience from the entire proceedings. While it obviously ticked off the necessary features in the checklist found in every Marvel blockbuster movie especially The Avengers series, there's something about the entire movie I can't quite pinpoint as I left the cinema that I felt was somewhat lacking. 

The movie was not horrible. Far from it. It was brilliant in the way that it made the audience think about opposing ideas that have equal gravitas and well-taught out arguments. There's no easy way to choose a side considering the very ideas both are espousing are simply two separate parts of a perfect set-up. Tony Stark (Iron Man) argues about the need for some PR gloss by playing along with the UN for a much-needed security initiative to check the movements of a super-powered but dangerous team, and Steve Rogers (Captain America) counters with the notion that having a panel or an agency dictate when they need to move can be disastrous considering the institution they might answer for might be compromised anytime by both deadly threats or simple politics. One goal, different methods. This is the fundamental conflict that drives the entire movie forward. The main villain itself is simply reduced as a catalyst for the final showdown between the two heroes on opposite sides of the argument.

I guess my main objection about it is that I can't help that the movie ended in a cliffhanger that was not the least bit satisfying. I've had my fair share of 'bitin' endings in the past---especially on most European movies---that didn't have me scratching my head out of frustration. Even the thought of a sure installment in the Avengers franchise where you know for sure that the team is gonna be okay anyway, changed the fact that there was something off about the picture. 

I'm just nitpicking on trivialities here but I felt the movie should have been an Iron Man movie instead of Captain America. Near the end of the movie, Stark receives a letter from Rogers about why he did what he did, and all the other lofty ideals Captain America is known to spew out. But the overwhelming sentiment I had about it was that some sort of injustice was done to Stark considering he saw his parents murdered for the first time. Like the idea of them dying from an accident wasn't traumatic enough, his own friend took the side of his parents' murderer, justified or not. And all he got in the end was a letter of apology. That left a stale taste in the mouth. 

Having said all that, it made a good introduction for Tom Holland's Spider-Man and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. 

Still, Team Tony rules.

The Jungle Book (2016)

That gigantic primate---I think it was called a 'gigantopithecus'---played by Christopher Walken has got to be my favorite chracter in the latest film adaptation of the Rudyard Kipling classic The Jungle Book. Having seen the original oddball Disney animated movie, it was still laced with the same likable craziness of the then-orangutan incarnation of the same King Louie. This time, it's a giant ape short of King Kong and Mighty Joe Young bestowed with the deadpan and quirky characterization and singing only the likes of Christopher Walken can pull off. 

The whole movie is buoyed by a hugely-talented cast with the likes of Idris Elba (Shere Khan), Ben Kingsley (Bagheera), and Bill Murray (Baloo). Especially Murray, who seemed to relish going back to the carefree roles that made the likes of Peter Venkman (Ghostbusters) tick. His deadpan humor and irreverent streak alive once more after taking on more serious and introverted roles in recent years (Lost In Translation, Broken Flowers). Elba's masterful characterization of the notorious tiger made for a very effective and memorable villain who is a charming and calculating monster. Adept at making intimidating speeches and making short work of his victims, and making his desire to kill the man-cub adopted by the wolf-pack known to all. Ben Kingsley's Bagheera is the stern and protective guardian of Mowgli (Neel Sethi), always a cool and detached voice of reason in an otherwise chaotic environment.

It was a pleasant and surprisingly engaging movie considering most people have already seen the tale's incarnation in countless forms since it was published. The treatment of the production team made it a riveting adventure yarn updgraded to today's sensibilities. When you hear the bear do a one liner kiss-off ('Kid, that's not a song. That's propaganda.")  everyone in the audience gets it. Despite the liberties in taking on a more contemporary approach to a classic story, its essence was undiluted. And that's what makes a lot of movies great.

Midnight Special

I'm sure it will end in a cliffhanger that does not explain anything about some curiosities audience members will definitely ask about, like the supernatural circumstances surrounding the main character and who he really is. In short, it will be an ending that me and a movie-fanatic uncle jokingly refer to as A European Ending. The type where everything ends abruptly without further exposition of things and ditching that spoon-fed scenario where that ever-annoying "What happened in the end" query from less-engaged audience members always ask. Which is totally fine by me. Because judging from the brilliant second trailer I watched repeatedly ever since, those concerns are, to be blunt, trivial and unimportant. At least in the overall scheme of things, or in the context of the whole movie.  While those factors are interesting tools to give spice and propel a good story, they are simply incidental and mere tools that highlight the core of a seemingly sci-fi adventure fare: A family drama. 

Take away the supernatural powers, government conspiracies, and religious cults and it comes down to a simple, but engaging story about a small family's struggle to protect their only child at all costs. And the inevitability of letting go of our loved ones. And it's not like Jeff Nichols broke any new ground in terms of making this type of movie. The director said he made an homage to the kinds of movies he saw growing up in the 80s. Similar themes had already been explored by the likes of ET, Starman, and J.J. Abram's own homage to the genre: Super 8. All had elements of fantasy and sci-fi wizardy and share of its "freaks" who reinforces the bonds of the humans they interact with in one way or another. Midnight Special certainly belongs to this pantheon. Where a young boy with mysterious powers attracts the attention of everyone.

You see a divorced father with his son in tow, escaping from both the government (who think his son is a weapon) and a religious cult (who thinks his son is the messiah) across the US with some hair-raising cat and mouse chase that put everyone's life at risk, with a few glimpses of the boy's power every now and then. As played by Michael Shannon, the father takes a desperate race against odds that are increasingly going against him to take his gifted/cursed son to a predetermined site chosen by the boy. Will it save him? Kill him? All of the above? Those questions are---while significant---hardly important.
 
What we have instead is a gripping synopsis on the type of futile struggle every parent must do to shelter their children from whatever impossible threat that comes along. Be it the external forces like the ones given in the film or the very nature of the child himself that hinges on self-destruction any given second. It's all these and more until the end where the only question that matters is the one only a parent will ask.

Back to basics

Of all the music albums I own, I always come back to the likes of Nevermind, Siamese Dream, The Downward Spiral, Superunknown, and the rest of the early 90s alterna-groups that were ushered into the era by the massive commercial success of Nirvana's second album. Suddenly music that was supposed to be an alternative to the pop music that dominated the airwaves hijacked MTV and got 24/7 attention and substantial following from youth across the world; and that, ironically, 'alternative music' became the new pop.

Not since the Beatles had bands enjoyed mass popularity and support. It was not uncommon during the early 90s to tune in to MTV and see videos of guitar-based groups populating different programs of the iconic media giant. For every one featured pop artist like Seal, Mariah Carey, or Toni Braxton, ten bands were next. From the testosterone-heavy (Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots) to riot grrls (Hole, Babes In Toyland, L7) to college favorites (R.E.M, Pavement, 10,000 Maniacs) to buzz bands (Live, Dig, Cracker, Collective Soul), it was, for an impressionable little boy like me on the onset of puberty, perfect.

Perfect timing in a sense that rock music got into high gear when I was in that impressionable age. With the perpetual scowl of the 'go away leave me alone' phase of adolescence. The introspective lyrics and critical self-examination of the musicians that dominated that era profoundly affected a lot of my generation's outlook well beyond the school years. It was pop music that aimed to commune and communicate to its audience telling everyone they know how they feel despite the gloom-laden messages, instead of the prancing and preening about of pop musicians these days telling everyone how rich, how great and how deserving they are of people's undivided attention.

It was an era when concert-going was like a religious experience. Where people came not to be seen, but to feel and commune with like-minded misfits who exorcised their frustrations, alienation, and anger through the band who also felt, identified, and even looked like the audience. It's gone now. And in its place are pale, superficial imitations bludgeoned even deeper to obscurity by big-named "artists" who have very little in common with the people who idolize them.

But that's the thing about recordings. You can play them again over and over and relive what it was like to be in a certain era you were proud of. And maybe, if you're lucky, take new audience members for the ride and let them in that past-but-hardly-forgotten era when listening to music was exhilarating and gave the listener a sense of belonging.