Reviewed: Power Rangers (2017)

Power Rangers. Depending on when you grew up, this title will produce very different responses: perhaps fond nostalgia, else a cringe of distaste. Or maybe, like me, you aren’t familiar enough with it for either reaction.

Hence I went into this movie with an open mind and zero expectations. I came out with the following verdict: this movie is good. It’s like The Breakfast Club of superhero movies, but with plenty of action and spectacle. Sure, there are plenty of movies where the underdog(s) flip the tables (or get superpowers) and save the day, and this could fall into that category too. But it’s a shining example of why that trope works so well.

We don’t get to know the whole cast of Rangers that well, not really, but we’re shown enough to understand that they’re all broken people. Unhinged, or crushed under the weight of expectations, and generally misunderstood by those who should understand them best. But they’re thrown together and forced to work with their brokenness, accept it, make it part of them, and grow as a team. It’s a reminder to all of us that no one has it all together, but that shouldn’t hold us back.

(Full disclosure: I’ve seen only brief clips from Power Rangers of the 90s, but from what I’ve seen they wore cheesy like a glove and it’s how most people remember the series.)

The new suits look great (speaking as someone who found the original ones cheesy as hell) with a more evident sci-fi aesthetic; the campy dance routine where they all jump into position with weird hand gestures is gone—though a shadow of that camp emerges now and then, accompanied by the classic music. The electronica in the score reminds me of Tron: Legacy‘s soundtrack, which I loved, so it gets points for that. The CGI works, by which I mean it serves its purpose despite looking unconvincing at times. The movie actually feels a bit rushed, which is an achievement for any movie over 2 hours. It could have fleshed out some of the Rangers more, and the villain, but then the movie might have dragged for some viewers so it’s probably best they decided to keep it to 2 hours.

Basically, they took a cheesy 90s franchise and turned it into a more respectable action flick, not unlike what’s been done with Transformers or G.I. Joe in the past few years.

The Power Rangers of the 90s.

The Power Rangers of today.

At the end of the day, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It inspires me to push past my own issues and refocus on my goals, which is a great legacy for a movie to have. And it tells people it’s alright to be different. Hurrah for weird people! They really do make the world more interesting.

Reviewed: RoboCop (2014)

A large portion of responses to movies nowadays seems to be, “Eh, not as good as the original.” There’s no denying that the film industry has a fascination with spitting out reboots and remakes of old classics, and it could indeed be said that they are sometimes inferior to the source material. But most of the time we’re simply too quick to judge. If the original film holds any sort of nostalgia for us, then we denounce the new film’s claim to greatness the moment we notice any slight departure from the creative direction of the version in our memories.

I didn’t see RoboCop in 1987 when it first hit cinemas – probably because I wasn’t alive then – but I did make it a priority to watch the original film before the 2014 reboot. Needless to say, they are quite different films. The original was darker in tone, while the reboot glosses over the more grisly details of Alex Murphy’s injury and paints a brighter depiction of the future. The differences are things like: In the original, Alex Murphy had a white female partner in the police force; in the reboot, he has a black male partner. In the original, his family was never shown on-screen; in the reboot, his wife and child play a somewhat major role. In the original, his memory was wiped when he first became RoboCop; in the reboot, it was only after several field tests that they began manipulating his brain, and then only to suppress his human emotions, leaving his memory intact. In the original, Alex Murphy’s character is shown to be mostly calm and reserved; in the reboot, he’s first introduced having a heated argument with some fellow officers for making suspiciously little progress on their case.

Both films tell a similar story of corporate greed and corruption, however. The message of the original film was well-hidden – it was clear who the good and bad guys were, but what was the point of the whole story? To say that privatised law enforcement is a bad idea? By contrast, the reboot’s message is more heavy-handed: Alex Murphy is a pawn in a larger scheme to put fully-automated robots on the street to better protect Americans. The question here is whether a robotic police force would actually be better than a human one, and the film addresses that question with gusto. Samuel L. Jackson’s segments where he plays a highly biased talk show host are entertaining to watch, and his overzealous manner makes you actually think about the issue instead of agreeing blindly. There’s also the moral question – whether unfeeling robots should be allowed to fight crime on our behalf – which is addressed as well.

The reboot pays homage to the original in many ways. “I’d Buy That For A Dollar” was a rather strange TV show in original film’s universe, and while it’s not present in the reboot (thank goodness) it is cleverly referenced at one point. The original Alex Murphy had a habit of swirling and holstering his handgun Wild-West-style to impress his son, and likewise the new RoboCop has a similar quirk, though it’s no longer something that identifies Murphy to his partner. Other such homages are present in both the screenplay and dialogue for those old enough (or interested enough) to have seen the original film.

What really stands out in the reboot though is the performances of Michael Keaton as the head of OmniCorp (great evil-corporation-name, that) and Gary Oldman as the doctor who works on RoboCop. Both are exemplary actors and they breathe life into every scene they appear in. Their roles are inherently conflictive – Gary Oldman, as a doctor, wants to act in Murphy’s best interests, while his boss demands results at any cost. The cycle of problem, clash of morals, solution is more than anything what engages the viewer and makes you empathise with the characters. Jackie Earle Haley’s great too, as always.

One of the main interests the film held for me was the discourse on AI: how much should we allow automation to rule our lives? Today we live in a world where computers are (as yet) less intelligent than humans but far more efficient at processing information, leading to useful applications in expert systems, data retrieval (think Siri), and self-driving cars (they’re coming, slowly but surely).
In the world of RoboCop, they’re also able move around (an achievement in itself), identify both known felons and other threats to public safety, and swiftly act in response. But should they? Or should we keep a human element in the loop, a la RoboCop? Or should we keep some things – like law enforcement – as human-operated as possible? Even the best-checked computer system is prone to bugs, hardware failure, or other unforeseen scenarios.

On another note, is human consciousness something we can or should manipulate as we do a computer? Are our values and decision-making process determined solely by chemicals in our brain? I don’t believe so, but there are many who do, and many who would augment our mental faculties in any way possible.

RoboCop offers but a glimpse into these questions, but it’s a compelling glimpse that sparks a debate we could well be having in a number of years.

The film’s presentation – its visual design, RoboCop’s first-person HUD, the special effects, writing, and so on – is naturally more modern and hence more approachable than the 1987 film, which is definitely a mark in its favour. The nay-sayers would probably have a valid point about the somewhat wooden acting of Murphy and his wife, but they have reasonable excuses (he’s half-robot; she’s distraught for much of the film) and the shining performances of Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, and to a lesser extent Samuel L. Jackson and Jackie Earle Haley, more than make up for any hollowness on the leading man’s part.

If you’re at all interested in AI or automation or a fan of the aforementioned actors, RoboCop is definitely a film you’ll enjoy. Now, if only it paid homage to the hilarious scene in the original where the giant bipedal robot tries ascending some stairs…

In other news, I apologise for the lack of a new post last week – my family and I were busy getting sunburnt. But henceforth I’ve decided to update this blog every fortnight instead of every week, partly because the university year will be starting again soon but mostly because I intend to spend every other week working on a novel. It’s shaping up well so far, and I’d like to invest more time into fleshing out the story I’ve had floating around in my head for a few years.

Reviewed: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

For a long time my metric for how good a movie is has been the emotional response it evokes in me. I figure that regardless of the budget or the quality of the special effects, acting, music, or story, if it pulls at the heartstrings in all the right moments then the movie is a success. If it leaves a positive emotional impact, then whatever vision the director had was realised.

The problem with this metric is that it is subjective. Not only to each individual, but even within my own movie-going history. I change. We all do. What resounds with me today may not have a year ago, and what bothered me a year ago might simply produce a shrug today. Even on a day-to-day basis, our mood going into a movie can drastically change how we receive it.

Yet there is an inescapable satisfaction to be had when a movie truly inspires you. When you don’t simply walk out of the theatre with the feeling you got your money’s worth, but with a resolution to redouble your efforts in that one pursuit you’re ready to give up on. When you’re inspired to pick yourself up, shake off the dust, and continue striving towards your goal.

For me, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was such a film. It seems almost a shameful admission to make, because it means that in spite of the pockets this film will fill and the gears of the corporate machine it will grease, it was still a creative success. It’s often easier to turn up our noses at blockbusters because of the corporate greed they so often fuel, yet I must concede that this one really worked.

But I’ve beaten around the bush enough. I hate it when a review simply states, “this is a must see!” without reason, so I will give mine. Let’s start with the formalities: The Amazing Spider-Man 2, released this year, was an expensive film to make. It has the dazzling special effects (or “sparkles”) that you would expect of a movie starring a super-villain who controls electricity, and they do look fantastic. Some creative angles were used in capturing Spider-Man’s movement throughout Manhattan – an exhilarating over-the-shoulder perspective among others.

The acting was ideal: Andrew Garfield continues to be the perfect match for Spidey’s light-humoured temperament and has some great on-screen chemistry (both in-suit and out) with Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacey (undoubtedly made all the more authentic by the fact that they’re also a couple in real life), who in turn shows she has the acting finesse to match that adorableness. Sally Field portrays Aunt May with credibility and gravitas (and I’m pretty sure she sees right through Peter’s feeble excuses for his erratic behaviour), and Jamie Foxx brings just enough personality to his character arc for him to be more memorable than a typical villain. My only qualm with regards to acting was with Dane DeHaan who played Harry Osborn, because he came on a bit too strong too early in the story. Since seeing him in Chronicle I fear he’s been typecast as the angsty adolescent with much to prove and little tact to prove it with.

The music isn’t something you normally pay attention to in a film when it’s done well, and this score was no different. At times tense, at times light, at times full of intrigue, and at times full of action, it was at all times appropriate to the screenplay that conducted it. Additionally, it was nice to hear a few callbacks to the classic Spider-Man theme song from the old cartoons, with Peter even whistling it himself on some occasions. And on that note (har har), a few scenes made me laugh just by how neatly they played out, which really speaks highly of the quirky expression that comes across in the screenplay.

And finally, the story itself. There were a lot of narrative arcs packed into this movie, and some were handled better than others. Without entering spoiler territory, I’ll just say that it’s clear we’re going to have to wait until the third film to see the main arc come to any satisfactory conclusion; the mystery of Peter’s parents’ disappearance was explored further here, but many questions still remain unanswered.

Now we get to the meat of the movie. Having dealt with the formalities, we arrive at the reason I felt inspired to write this review in the first place. A movie that keeps you rooted in your seat for a solid two or more hours is quite the feat of entertainment, but it would ultimately be wasted time if there wasn’t a lingering message after the credits roll.

Spoilers are unavoidable here, so read on at your own peril.

Gwen’s valedictory speech near the beginning of the film was pertinent both to the movie’s narrative arc and real life: an uplifting reminder to make the most of the unknowable length of time we have in our lives. But unlike such tragedies in real life, I knew going into the film that Gwen Stacy would not survive it. It’s in the comics, and having seen Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy I knew Peter would ultimately unite with Mary Jane Watson. So each time Peter and Gwen had a cute moment together I was thinking, “Aww, they’re so adorable and why does she have to die?!” But truly, nothing else could have given greater weight to the words she delivered as valedictorian (which, as an interesting bit of trivia, were actually written by Emma Stone herself):

“Like our brief four years in high school, what makes life valuable is that it doesn’t last forever. What makes it precious is that it ends… So don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Make yours count for something. Fight for what matters to you, no matter what, because even if we fall short, what better way is there to live?”

Despite the extraordinary (alright, “amazing”) abilities Spider-Man possesses, even he is unable to save the one he loves. This isn’t a movie that has a happily-ever-after. It’s not a movie where every misdeed is brought to light or where every injustice is righted. It’s a movie where power corrupts good people and where heroes struggle with sharing the hope that others see in them. It’s a movie that delivers a poignant reminder to make the most of our life while we yet have it.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 provides an engaging entertainment experience, packing action, romance, intrigue, and comedy into one stylish package, even if the package has a few scuff marks under close scrutiny. But more than that, it leaves you inspired – and that’s what makes a great film amazing.