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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…