Mortal Kombat Review

CGI-enhanced people rip each other apart with all the fake blood and gore fans want. You wanted a review, there it is.

Of course we're talking about "Mortal Kombat," the third theatrical adaptation of the popular video games, which debuts on HBO Max and in cinemas. This is a sort of "meat and potatoes" movie that is best enjoyed on the biggest screen, but if you, like me, watched it on your home setup, then save yourself the costly fifteen buck a month subscription and just watch someone play the latest game on YouTube. Digital entertainment, including video games, have been getting better looking every year since, well, their inception, and unless you have a 4K setup with surround sound and all the fixings, well, any other recent "Mortal Kombat" media probably looks just as good on your average home TV. Hollywood has done very little to distinguish this from anything that can't be, or hasn't already been, done on your PlayStation or whatever, so please, let me ask this, why does this even exist?

To make money, of course! It doesn't bother much with expanding the familiar cast of characters, who snarl, growl, and beat each other into a pulp just like fans want. Now I'm not going to lie and say that I can tell you that Sonya Blade, played by Jessica McNamee, for example, was a member of the special forces in the games, but I'm trusting she is, because the movie told me that. Why would it lie to me?! I mention this because, the plot, doesn't really matter. Each, er, kombatant is introduced, their "special power" shown off (we even get to see some learn them), and they end up having as much backstory as an arcade flyer from the early nineties. Meaning, they have a gimmick, and you'd better hope that gimmick doesn't suck.

By gimmick, I mean a unique way to kill people. Jax (Mehcad Brooks) has robot arms, Sub-Zero (Joe Taslim) can summon ice, etc., etc. This makes for varied hand-to-hand combat, sword fights, the works. No two altercations are the same. It's great for short attention spans, but to the average viewer, you might want to, oh I dunno, know all their last names (we can't all be Miss Blade, if that is her real name). I'm sure the interwebs can tell you that, but remember, short attention spans.

Serving as a complete revamp of the movie series, "Mortal Kombat 2021" is a confusing prospect. It shares its name with the original 1995 film, the first and ninth game in the series (and I'm sure other various pieces of media), as well as the franchise overall. Existing fans already know all this- they'll probably have already pre-purchased their ticket months in advance. But what if they're describing this to their friends, someone not privy to the MK universe?

Fan: "Hey did you see "Mortal Kombat"?"
Pal 1: "Isn't that a game?"
Pal 2: "Wait I think I saw that in high school"
F: "No it's a "new" movie"
1: "So it's the sequel?"
2: "No the sequel came out in 1997"
F: "No no this is a complete reboot.... and.... blah... blah... blah..."

Hold on to your razor-sharp hat, I smell naming nomenclature confusion brewing.

Anyway. None of this matters. What matters is that for about two hours, we see people beat each other up. I'm sure if I saw this in a theater, diehard devotees would be cheering every time their favorite hero or villain made their appearance, said their favorite line or used their favorite move. Alas, I did not see it in theaters, and no one was cheering.

That doesn't mean I didn't like it. I appreciated it's authenticity to my cursory knowledge of the brand, how it didn't shy away from the bloodshed that made the games famous, and its relatively well-staged action. Where it stumbles is in its pacing, how it glosses over any backstory or nuance in favor of vague declarations of "the prophecy" and setting up the inevitable slew of sequels and spinoffs. This gets in the way of its one job, to showcase violent ways for people and creatures to meet their end.

The narrative involves a tournament between the Earth and Outworld, in essence, between the good and bad guys. We primarily follow Cole, played by Lewis Tan, an MMA fighter with a family. After meeting Jax, him and his kin are attacked by the wicked Sub-Zero. He drops off his wife and kid and meets up with Sonya, where him and the audience are given a brief exposition dump, learning the truth about the dragon tattoo on his chest. This means he has been chosen to fight in this "Mortal Kombat." More characters are introduced, fights happen intermittently, more story is dropped unceremoniously, rinse and repeat.

At one point Cole's daughter is in danger, about to be smushed at the (four)hands of the giant evil Goro. (She doesn't, fortunately.) It's never said how old she is, but I'm guessing she's still in school. Let's hope in this fake movie-world she's on April break, because  I can only imagine her telling the teacher she didn't do her homework because she was busy not getting killed by a four-armed monster from another realm. She'd probably get detention.

Thunder Force Review

Superheroes are inherently silly: they wear rubber suits, capes, have "catchphrases" and defeat equally goofy villains who's plans are usually "to take over the world!" Yet a lot of movie adaptations play it decidedly straight, but why? Why oh why can't Hollywood see the humor built into the material!? Sure, there are exceptions, but most are huge spectacles with millions of dollars spent on fights, explosions and other CGI unnecessities that you could easily forget that they originated as colored pictures sold to children.

"Thunder Force," starring Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer, doesn't do that. Of course the budget was probably in the millions, but this Netflix release isn't interested in visual fidelity: instead, we watch our leads fumble their way through an evil politician's plan to win the election, then kill the winner when he loses, to ultimately become President. McCarthy plays the slob and Spencer is the smart one, and well, you could probably write the script yourself based on that description.

The action here is purely to service the punchline, so don't go expecting anything Marvel or DC worthy (or even worthy of Netflix's own "The Old Guard" or "Project Power"). That's fine if the writing is any good, but here, it's just passable. Surely, the team behind "The Naked Gun" or "Austin Powers" were not involved.

There is an amusing subplot involving "The Crab," played by Jason Bateman, who unsurprisingly has crab hands. That's about as far as his "power" goes, which I'm not convinced is a power to begin with. He's one of several henchmen to the baddie here, "The King," played by Bobby Cannavale (and before you ask, "no," there isn't "The King Crab" puns here). This alone is a pleasant diversion, but the film goes further with it. The best part is his relationship with Lydia, played by McCarthy, a few pats of butter and a tin of Old Bay seasoning.

The actual set up here isn't based on an preexisting superhero, but it's narrative is purely based on stereotypes of the "idea" of superheroes. Bad guys who show up suddenly? Check. City unable to stop them? Check. Heroes who inject themselves with a serum to give them powers? Check (not "double-check," Octavia's character takes a pill). The list goes on and so could I, but does anyone care? What you the reader want to know is if this is worth its runtime, and perhaps also if this could be McCarthy's critical comeback. Both of those go unchecked.

I didn't hate "Thunder Force." I chuckled a few times, grinned more than that, and only winced at the one or two corny moments. It didn't have to be this mediocre, but it is. That's good enough for Netflix, and apparently America (the flick is number one at the time of this review). And for a lazy Sunday, it's good enough for me too.

"But!" you ask, "why does this gets two and a half stars yet something like "Wonder Woman 1984" gets only two?" It's a good question; the two aren't comparable! This isn't something designed to compete with the marketing muscle of the two big superhero brands, but instead a breezy, high-concept comedy that sets its sights on mild merriment and nothing else. If you find the sight of Melissa McCarthy drinking beer in inappropriate places hilarious, well, then, put down your own beer and log into Netflix.

Godzilla vs. Kong Review

On a certain level, "Godzilla" movies are invulnerable to western audiences reactions: they are a Japanese product, even when they involve the completely American King Kong. Oh sure, we love our creature features here in the states, but even when a familiar face or production company crops up in one of several Hollywood takes on the famous kaiju, it isn't really for us. (Save for 1998's TriStar "Godzilla," but then again it wasn't really "for anyone," except for those who like when movies go "boom" real good.) Anyone with internet access can see that the last few installments, the ones in Legendary's "MonsterVerse," have made a bulk of their box office returns from international territories. We are simply window dressing for the real audience: everyone else in the world.

Fortunately, that hasn't kept the franchise from the American eye for the past decade-plus, and debuting day and date with theaters, HBO Max showcases the latest installment, "Godzilla vs. Kong." A gloriously dumb film that doesn't shortchange what it promises: two monsters fighting each other. Well, I mean there are human characters, but they're about as interesting as an instruction manual. They do the same stupid things anyone has ever done in a previous Godzilla or Kong movie, exclaim inert dialogue and convey about as much emotion as the CGI titans they're fighting for or against.

To dissect the plot would be pointless, as every moment is designed to set up the next bash between the title duo. It would also be a disservice to you the reader- be honest with yourself, do you really "care" why the two battle it out? If the narrative involved Godzilla burning his lip on some tea Kong prepared and he got all pissy, it would still rack in millions. Enough to recoup its outrageous budget? I doubt it, but you get the point.

All you need to know is that, in the span of less than two hours, we infuriate secret corporate laboratories, travel to the center of the Earth, zip in subterranean train cars from Florida to Hong Kong, resurrect a fan-favorite, save the day, and still find time for a throwaway joke about underage drinking. 

It's instead more interesting to point out all the silly moments, like when it's revealed early on that Kong can read sign language; how did a team of scientists studying him not notice? How many words does he know? How does he know the word "enemy" or "Godzilla" if he's been taught by the little girl Jia (Kaylee Hottle) in a secret fake jungle? How can he see the tiny child when he's so tall? At what point did the filmmakers realize that the idea was ridiculous and decide against giving Kong a voice synthesizer ala Amy in Michael Crichton's "Congo?"

Outside of all the monster mayhem, the most interesting bits are when we're at the core of the Earth, "Hollow Earth" in the film, where we find all sorts of smaller creatures living about their days amongst the namesake behemoths. This gives us our first honest look at life other than titans or humans in this so-called "MonsterVerse," and I stood off of the couch wishing we got more of these scenes. The fictional animal kingdom, where we can observe the food chain, their day-to-day lives outside of the hypothetical boxing ring, could go a long way in giving us a new reason to care about what's onscreen. Alas that's not what we get, but maybe next time!

A franchise about computer-generated giants duking it out can only sustain itself for so long, unless they come up with new ways for them to fight. In "Godzilla vs. Kong," in tradition to its legacy, throw punches at night in a neon-lit cityscape. Is it original? Absolutely not. Is it entertaining? You better believe it. This is not high-class filmmaking, but it is mass audience popcorn, supersized, salted and with extra-butter.