Prime Time: The Tomorrow War (2021)

Here’s an idea. A race of aliens invade our planet, seemingly unstoppable, and the population of Earth manage to create two time portals, one in “the present” and one in the midst of the war against the aliens. The people of the future then come to our present, telling everyone that they need to enlist citizens for army duty. Chris Pratt plays Dan Forester, an ex-soldier who is now focused a science teacher, as well as a loving husband and father. When he is called up for duty, the aliens won’t know what is in store for them. Or maybe they will. Maybe the war is futile, unless Muri Forester (Yvonne Strahovski, playing the adult version of Dan’s daughter) can come up with a way to change the past.

Director Chris McKay has delivered some very enjoyable entertainment with his past few movies. The Tomorrow War wouldn’t make you remember that. It is, at best, competent. But, at worst, it drops every interesting idea in favour of brainless sequences that have Chris Pratt, sometimes teamed up with J. K. Simmons (playing Pratt’s father), fighting vicious aliens. Those sequences are perfectly fine, the action is done well enough and the CGI maintains a high standard, but they’re not good enough to remind you of the stuff not being explored.

I’m not sure if the fault lies with McKay, or with writer Zach Dean. Knowing that an alien race are about to devastate the planet and kill us all, people start to riot and act as if nothing really matters. Because nothing really matters. An interesting part of the film, dropped after being shown for about ten seconds. The whole third act, unable to avoid a major paradox, decides to just hurtle towards the end credits and hope you don’t realise how poorly plotted it is. You do, however, realise how poorly plotted it is, and not just with the time travel element.

Pratt is decent enough in his lead role, although he is much more comfortable in action man mode than he is in any of the family scenes (acting opposite Betty Gilpin, playing his wife, and/or Strahovski and Ryan Kiera Armstrong, both playing Muri at different points in her life). He does better with Simmons, but that’s mainly due to the two of them having a fractious relationship for most of the runtime. Sam Richardson and Edwin Hodge are good, playing people with two very different skill levels in the heat of battle. And you get a smattering of other supporting players who all do decent work.

If you want a sci-fi action movie that entertains then this does fit the bill. The first extended fight sequence against the aliens (weird spider-squid hybrid creatures) alone makes it worthwhile. Just be prepared to ignore anything that even hints at being thought-provoking, because it really doesn’t want viewers to think. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: He's Out There (2018)

A straightforward slasher movie (or, maybe, a stalk 'n' slash movie), He's Out There has sone things worth recommending. It's made well, has a decent cast, and creates some nicely atmospheric moments. But there are also some big mis-steps.

Yvonne Strahovski is Laura, a mother to two young daughters (Kayla, played by Anna Pniowsky, and Maddie, played by Abigail Pniowsky). The three arrive at their isolated holiday home, hours ahead of hubby/dad Shawn (Justin Bruening). Things start to get dark and strange when the girls find a small outdoor tea party, and one eats a cake that doesn't give her the happy full feeling that cake should. It may actually have been poisoned. And then everyone finds that he's out there. But who is he, and what does he want?

First of all, and I hope this doesn't sound too patronising, this in no way feels like a debut feature from director Quinn Lasher or writer Mike Scannell. The criticisms I have of the film aren't in line with criticisms I would have of some flawed first outing. Scannell certainly frames the central story in an interesting way, and Lasher enjoys the simplicity of the concept while building things to what many may view as a tense and interesting final act.

Strahovski walks a fine line between sheer panic and always keeping enough of her wits about her to ensure that her daughters are the focus of any plans to get to safety, and both of the Pniowsky girls (sisters? I'm going to go ahead and assume so) do well, even if the girl playing Maddie spends the majority of the movie being sick and tired, in a post-vomit state. Bruening isn't on screen for long, but he's fine in his role. You also get Julian Bailey as Owen, a young man who lives nearby and meets the family when they first arrive. I guess he also plays a main suspect once the terrorising begins, but that leads me to the more critical viewpoint.

There's far too little tension here. If you're going to keep the central cast so small then you need to be able to really ratchet up the tension, and this doesn't. There are one or two fine moments, but as soon as you realise that the film-makers aren't going to take things in a certain direction then it simply becomes a waiting game until the end credits. Everyone involved should have kept going down the tunnel, as it were, to darker and darker depths. Alternatively, throw in more disposable characters, allowing for a few more moments of gratuitous bloodshed throughout. To fall in between the two just leaves the end result a bit less satisfying.

There's also not enough here to make it satisfying in terms of movie logic. While Scannell can be praised for creating something that feels like a nice, macabre, fairytale, it holds together like wet tissue paper when you get to the end. The motivation never feels legitimate, and this is one of those films in which some people are killed immediately while others are left in pain as the killer procrastinates long enough for a fight back to start.

It's worth a watch. I'd go as far as saying that this is better than quite a few better-known horror releases of the last few years. Just try not to think too much about all of the stuff that doesn't work. 

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

I, Frankenstein (2014)

If there's one thing that can often be relied upon to upset horror fans it's the misappropriation of the Frankenstein name. As each and every one of them will hasten to tell you, Frankenstein was the creator. The creature was called . . . . . . . . well, he was called by a variety of names, but none of them were/should have been Frankenstein. Call me pedantic, but I guarantee that many will agree with me.

I, Frankenstein starts off by upsetting horror fans with this central point. The title is more understandable by the time the credits roll, but there are one too many occasions between the beginning and end that have people referring to the central character as Frankenstein when they really shouldn't.

The film then continues to upset horror fans by being pretty horrible from the start - a potted version of the classic tale retold in one or two minutes - and then continuing to be horrible right up until the very end. Think of Underworld, a movie with which this shares a LOT of similarities (including shared cast members in similar roles), and then remove the style, the better cast members, and the decent action sequences. I don't even need to rehash the plot here, as it's so close to Underworld that you can figure it out for yourself. I'm serious.

Although it's Stuart Beattie in the director's chair, a lot of the blame for this mess can be laid at the feet of Kevin Grevioux, who also gives himself a small role onscreen. Grevioux, funnily enough, came up with the original story idea for, yep, Underworld, and has developed a number of stories since that have seemingly sprung from the same well. The overriding thought that ran through my head as I watched a creature caught amidst a battle between good and evil was that the well has all dried up.

I don't want to spend much time on the cast because they don't make any decent impression. Not a one. It's as if they realised that they would be overshadowed by lame action and overdone CGI anyway, so decided not to bother. I guess, however, that I have to namecheck the main players. Aaron Eckhart is the creature - AKA Adam - and is stuck with one of the worst interpretations to ever be excreted on to film. I like Eckhart, but he needs to bury this film with better choices as soon as possible. Yvonne Strahovski is a female scientist, and does okay with what she's given (translation = she spouts science stuff while looking very purty). Bill Nighy is almost exactly the same as he was in Underworld, Miranda Otto tries to overcome the weak dialogue that she's given, and Jai Courtney can quit acting any time he wants without worrying about me being upset by it. Please. Seriously, Jai Courtney, please. I can already envision a sports bar that would be perfectly suited to your ownership.

There are one or two good moments, mainly in the first half of the movie when the lead character finds a way to release a lot of anger, but they don't help to make this a less painful viewing experience. Like Frankenstein's creature in his darkest moments, it's awful and soulless.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Frankenstein-3D-Blu-ray-Aaron-Eckhardt/dp/B00IKM5N1G/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409085946&sr=1-2&keywords=i+frankenstein