This one has kind of flown under the radar -- but it certainly has a better trailer than CAPTAIN MARVEL! Looks very funny -- if it can sustain this for the entire duration of the film, DC might have another winner. The "early reactions" (for what little they're worth) are positive.
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/early-reac ... 37931.html
SHAZAM - April 5th
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34442
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
Variety review is out -- hard to disagree with the first paragraph I'm quoting:
https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/s ... 203166877/..Maybe the reason “Shazam!,” in its fluffy-tasty origin-story way, feels like a perfectly timed tonic is that the universe of comic-book movies — not just the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or the DC Extended Universe (of which this is technically a part), but the whole omnivorous universe of big-budget comic-book films that is now threatening to eat cinema, if not our souls — has grown so top-heavy with its own fateful importance. A few of the individual films are dandy, but they’re part of something larger that feels fraught and diffuse, with a too-muchness built into its aesthetic fiber.
“Shazam!,” on the other hand, is just a light, funny, grounded, engagingly unpretentious sleight-of-hand action comedy about a boy in a (super)man’s body. The movie, in other words, is “Big” in tights. And it’s Zachary Levi who makes that work, in much the same way that Tom Hanks did.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9811
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
I'm all for a DC movie that doesn't want to make me slash my wrists. 
On the heels of the bright, colorful and humorous Aquaman, it seems like WB is finally getting a handle on their superhero properties.
On the heels of the bright, colorful and humorous Aquaman, it seems like WB is finally getting a handle on their superhero properties.-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34442
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
Agreed. And again, I just like the fact they aren't going to try and shoehorn "connectivity" into every one of these now -- a smart move since they are making a Joker movie set in the 80s, don't want to re-use Jared Leto at all, want to reboot Suicide Squad, Batman...just making independent movies that aren't forever LEADING INTO the next one like Marvel should make for movies that can just be movies. I realize Marvel fanboys love wondering how character #35 is going to show up in movie #22 if the movie takes place before movie #18, but I'm bored with it all.
And that aside, looks like they could have a hit on their hands here.
And that aside, looks like they could have a hit on their hands here.
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
I saw Shazam! yesterday. I suspect you are going to love it. The Variety review is on the nose.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34442
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
Looking forward to it, especially if I can convince my friend to see this and not PET SEMATARY. Just not in the "Dead Kids" mode anymore with a 5 year old running around!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34442
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: SHAZAM - April 5th
7/10
After the success of “Wonder Woman” and “Aquaman,” DC Comics attempts to score three in a row with “Shazam!” – an older property best remembered by 40s/50 somethings via Filmation’s live-action TV series from the 70s.
Updated for a new era of endless super-hero features, “Shazam!” works from the same basic premise as its comic book origins, with young teen Billy Batson gaining the powers of a muscular, older super-hero (in the guise of Zachary Levi). At first Shazam is content to grab money from patrons on the streets of Philadelphia for his newly-acquired powers, but the arrival of a villain played by Mark Strong – who was turned down for the mantle of Shazam as a boy – complicates things for both he and his new foster family.
With an earnest premise and more of a focus on “family,” I wanted to like “Shazam!” – in fact I was rooting for it – but the end result is a picture that’s probably too strong for little kids (one dad walked his youngsters out before the film was over and didn’t return) but not sophisticated enough for adults...especially those of us increasingly exhausted by this genre. Yes, Levi is fun, but there’s little development of its central concept, with all of its cards – dramatically and comedically – essentially shown in the movie’s trailer.
One would’ve thought the story of a high schooler who becomes an older, muscular super-hero would have room for a lot of heart and development of its domestic scenario, but outside of a scene with a security guard and a couple of bullies tormenting Billy’s new, disabled foster brother, “Shazam!” doesn't have much time for Billy's adventures away from the standard formula.
Instead -- and this is undoubtedly to sell the film globally -- the accent even here is on action and CGI and monsters and the bad guy, the frustrated former little boy passed over for the "champion's mantle," who's trying to steal Shazam's power. It's extremely familiar in its pace, scoring, editing -- there's nothing new or fresh here, even with the younger protagonists ultimately taking on the guises of adult heroes -- and like too many "origin films," it takes far too long for the film to get going.
In the end, “Shazam!” is cute but if you've seen the trailer, you've already seen everything it has to offer. Had this film been made 20 or, more over, 30 years ago, you would've likely had a lot more dialogue, less effects, and a stronger, more sophisticated screenplay -- now it's just one more of these pictures, mostly comprised of fully interchangeable parts, rolling off the line before the next one hits in a few weeks. (130 mins., PG-13)
After the success of “Wonder Woman” and “Aquaman,” DC Comics attempts to score three in a row with “Shazam!” – an older property best remembered by 40s/50 somethings via Filmation’s live-action TV series from the 70s.
Updated for a new era of endless super-hero features, “Shazam!” works from the same basic premise as its comic book origins, with young teen Billy Batson gaining the powers of a muscular, older super-hero (in the guise of Zachary Levi). At first Shazam is content to grab money from patrons on the streets of Philadelphia for his newly-acquired powers, but the arrival of a villain played by Mark Strong – who was turned down for the mantle of Shazam as a boy – complicates things for both he and his new foster family.
With an earnest premise and more of a focus on “family,” I wanted to like “Shazam!” – in fact I was rooting for it – but the end result is a picture that’s probably too strong for little kids (one dad walked his youngsters out before the film was over and didn’t return) but not sophisticated enough for adults...especially those of us increasingly exhausted by this genre. Yes, Levi is fun, but there’s little development of its central concept, with all of its cards – dramatically and comedically – essentially shown in the movie’s trailer.
One would’ve thought the story of a high schooler who becomes an older, muscular super-hero would have room for a lot of heart and development of its domestic scenario, but outside of a scene with a security guard and a couple of bullies tormenting Billy’s new, disabled foster brother, “Shazam!” doesn't have much time for Billy's adventures away from the standard formula.
Instead -- and this is undoubtedly to sell the film globally -- the accent even here is on action and CGI and monsters and the bad guy, the frustrated former little boy passed over for the "champion's mantle," who's trying to steal Shazam's power. It's extremely familiar in its pace, scoring, editing -- there's nothing new or fresh here, even with the younger protagonists ultimately taking on the guises of adult heroes -- and like too many "origin films," it takes far too long for the film to get going.
In the end, “Shazam!” is cute but if you've seen the trailer, you've already seen everything it has to offer. Had this film been made 20 or, more over, 30 years ago, you would've likely had a lot more dialogue, less effects, and a stronger, more sophisticated screenplay -- now it's just one more of these pictures, mostly comprised of fully interchangeable parts, rolling off the line before the next one hits in a few weeks. (130 mins., PG-13)