If you're going to reboot a character or a franchise-particularly one as beloved as Batman-you have to walk a tightrope between being true to the fundamentals of the property and doing something fresh and unique with it. Hey Hollywood? How about trying to make something original for a change. At this point further adventures in this universe are just reheated leftovers.
Ghostbusters 2 is an agreeable enough but utterly unnecessary sequel. until the threat is proven to be real and those who laughed now have to beg them to save the world. The story of the GB's is about a group of men who start a business that make them the butt of jokes. The window for a true Ghostbusters 3 closed the minute Harold Ramis died. That it works half as well as it does is a credit to a game and charming cast, but in the end it's a pretty rusty machine where nostalgia greases the gears just enough for it to shake and shimmy to the finish line. What follows is nearly 2 hours of brainless fan service supported by one of the weakest scripts in recent memory. But don't mistake any of that for originality. Instead the focus is on Egon's grandkids and the setting is a very un-New York small town in the South West. Here at least we're spared the indignity of watching the original crew break their hips while busting ghosts (the surviving three make a glorified cameo in the final act). That brings us to Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a re-start of the 80's franchise that had already been rebooted back in 2016 with rather disastrous results. Even if the story is told, the book is never closed so long as an idea bankrupt Hollywood thinks there may still be even a shred of meat left on its bone. Classic properties can no longer just "be". Originality is dead, replaced by reboots, re-imaginings and re-starts. But these minor issues aside, Top Gun: Maverick is a refreshing throwback to a time when Summer films were fun, and after nearly 20 years of increasingly banal comic book, cgi shennanigans, it really hit the spot that much more. The enemy is also faceless and nameless, likely in an attempt to not offend any particular market though to be fair this was also the case in the original. The romance between Cruise's Maverick and the gorgeous Jennifer Connelly's Penny is a tad perfunctory, even though they do share a nice chemistry and Connelly is particularly good.
#Fluke skywalker movie
He truly is the last real movie star, and I find myself appreciating him more and more with each passing year. Whatever you or I may think of Tom Cruise's "religious" beliefs, I dare anyone to say that there is an actor working today who brings the kind of passion and commitment to excellence to everything the way he does. It's a movie that just wants to entertain, and entertain it does. It's got plenty of humor and, most important of all, it isn't saddled with preaching a "woke" message or poking us in the chest with some ideological finger. That doesn't mean it's some sort of post-modern deconstruction of the titualar character or a naval gazing treatise.
Top Gun: Maverick follows many of the same story beats as the original, but the tone here is far less. And damn if they don't just manage to make it worthwhile, if still unnecessary. Just because a movie is good doesn't mean it needs a sequel. The original Top Gun didn't exactly leave us with a bunch of unresolved issues or end on a cliffhanger. Top Gun: Maverick is a totally unnecessary film and on the surface it would seem to be Hollywood once again gnawing on a bone long since picked clean of any meat. Scary isn't it?) might be the thing that points the way to their salvation. It's ironic then that a sequel to a nearly 40 year old film (You read that right. Content to strip mine the comic book genre and reboot/reimagine and regurgitate beloved franchises, it had become stale and tired. Hollywood had lost its way long before streaming services and a global pandemic nearly made going to the cinema obsolete.
0 kommentar(er)
