Skip to main content

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam!
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

A superhero version of Big is such a no-brainer selling point, there’s even un homage to its giant keyboard in Shazam!, but tonally, the movie is much more closely affiliated to the darker Amblin/ Spielberg fare of the prior five or so years, the likes of Young Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Gremlins

Of the latter, if Joe Dante had made a superhero movie (besides passing on Batman and sadly falling out of The Phantom), I could quite imagine this being his baby, right down to casting John Glover as a particularly unsympathetic dad (quite something for Glover to dial down the charm to this extent, just see Donald Clamp for evidence of how difficult it was to retain the Trump parody in Gremlins 2: The New Batch once he was inimitably cast). That 1974 opening scene, establishing Mark Strong’s Thaddeus Sivana’s backstory, is all kinds of unrelentingly unrepentant nastiness, from rejecting the hapless kid as unworthy to having him then undergo tirades of abuse from his brother and father and thenexperience a car wreck his brother blames him for. It’s strong evidence for the merits of employing a “horror” director (David F Sandberg previously made Lights Out and Annabelle: Creation) who is sufficiently measured to dial it back – but not too much – for a family audience.

If anything, Shazam! is more extreme than I expected, given the goofy title and concept; I’d heard it had scary-for-kids moments, but some of the ensuing is tonally very dark, in particular adult Thaddeus (Strong is always reliable, and he is here, but it must be admitted there are diminishing returns in parading him as a villain yet again- he’s even done it for DC before in Green Lantern), showing up at dad’s board meeting and throwing his brother out of a window before leaving his dad to be dealt with by one of the Seven Deadly Sins (Greed, obviously; the others have made short work of the remaining directors).

As a villain, though, in terms of antagonist to the protagonist, Thaddeus is altogether less interesting – the false-eyed cartoon villain in the real world reminded me in passing of the much better Charles Dance in Last Action Hero – and Henry Gayden and Darren Lemke (respectively, the good fun Earth to Echo and less so Jack the Giant Slayer among their credits) never solve the problem of how to carry over his origins beyond the status of a rather one-note adult villain. It probably doesn’t help any that the hero is so engaging; Zachary Levi (in an appropriately over-inflated muscle suit) is having a ball as adult Billy Batson (the younger played by Asher Angel, absolutely fine, as only a kid could be whose parents gave him a name spelling an inevitable showbiz career), goofing off without using his powers to do good for far too long before he actually does (involving, along the way, nearly causing mass fatalities when his actions lead to a bus dangling off a bridge); Jack Dylan Grazer (It) easily eclipses Angel as motormouth, goofball sidekick Freddy, snagging all the best lines, and even the best maudlin sympathy votes (Angel has no mom, but Freddy doesn’t even have full mobility).

By far the best section concerns their discovering Shazam’s powers and not necessarily putting them to the best use (a hilarious sequence of a stopping a supermarket hold up turns into a dare competition of shooting Shazam in the bullet-proof face). In the mix are various side orders of caring foster parents (Marta Milans and Cooper Andrews), school bullies deserving a comeuppance, foster siblings destined to find out Billy’s secret (the standout being Faithe Herman’s talkative, hug-demanding Darla) and the quest for Billy’s natural mother, but as long as the picture balances its sincerity with a wilfully anarchic streak it stays the right side of over-sentimentality. Obviously, this is a family morality tale, so a strong take-home message is a prerequisite, and it’s a sign of the makers’ skill that this isn’t too sugar-coated.

The problem Shazam! encounters occurs during the extended showdown with Sivana. Billy has fled their one-on-one confrontation, unaccustomed to his powers and understandably unnerved by someone who can actually do his superhero self damage. Following a standoff in which the rest of his adopted siblings have been held hostage, Billy realises the extent of the powers bestowed by Djimon Hounsou’s Wizard, so granting his new kin their own super-abilities (including poor disabled Freddy, who can now float)… and as if by magic, the picture loses its footing.

One comedian with natural timing playing a superhero is not remotelythe same as five Big John Little John heroes struggling to do likewise, four-fifths of whom make their younger counterparts look like expert players when it comes to delivering zingers. More than that, the decision lets the air out of the specialness of the founding concept, diluting the uniqueness, brings it more in line with a lame Saturday morning kids show, but on a grand budget. Maybe that’s the kid in me speaking, resenting the loss of the different-from-the-rest premise, but if so, I’m proud to stand by my relative immaturity. If everyone’s super, there’s no cachet in the super-ness at all (unless all the little Nietzscheans can be superior little fascists together). Perhaps, if the results had been closer to a Mystery Men line-up of actually funny people (but in a consistently funny movie to boot, which is where Mystery Men went a bit wrong) it might have been different.

So I don’t know about the merit of the Shazam! sequel inevitably set up during the closing credits. Even without the Captain Sparkle Fingers Quartet, how much mileage is there in the teen-adult dichotomy now The Greatest American Hero element of knowing how super powers works has been done and dusted? More than that, though, how interesting will it be to have the superheroics equally apportioned to non-entities, rather than focussing on a performer who can solidly deliver the gags? So I’m not optimistic. Nevertheless, Shazam! is great fun for the most part, really well directed, highly inventive and possessed of a good heart. Hopefully Shazam will turn out to be a bit heartless and rescind his generous gifts of powers prior to the sequel…


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism