A Review of Saban's Power Rangers (2017), Without Spoilers

Against all rational expectation, this film does not suck. I don't wish to oversell it. There's legitimate reasons to dislike the movie, like product placement, and it hovers around competency rather than greatness, but it does not suck. We certainly had every reason to think it would suck in the run up to its release. It seemed to be aping the Michael Bay Transformers films, which suck. It seemed to be a dark and gritty reboot of children's TV show, which tend to suck. Its another movie that assumes a sequel, which is cheeky and usually sucks. It was was gonna be an origin story, which don't automatically suck, are so over done as a concept it often results in suck anyway. And its source material, while I would not say it sucks, its not exactly starting from a position of high art. The Power Rangers brand, long-story-short, is a toy advert cobbled together from Japanese stock footage, which equates to suck in most formal review styles. There was no reason to assume that the result would be tolerable, and despite the content of this blog, I have no nostalgia goggles to apply. However, the film ends up working, to the point where I was honestly surprised at the amount of fun I was having with it.

I say again, Power Rangers, somehow, does not suck.

It has a shaky start. There's some obnoxious camera-work, and a red flag in the form of a“bull milking” joke. Fortunately this is brief, as the film moves into teen drama territory. It does not rush into morphing time, and a majority of the movie is characterisation first. This bears unexpected yet admirable fruit in that one ranger is autistic and another of the LGBT persuasion, facts which are treated as just part of life with little fanfare. Its not the earth-shattering leap forward that some have made this out to be, but diversity matters, so have a brownie point. The tone is initially serious, but lightens into a sense of wonder and fun by the films end when the rangers armour up and start promoting toys. While the design aesthetic is butt ugly, seeing the Zords in action is an undeniable high point, with a sprinkling of fan service and being easy to follow. Even the alien designs for Zordon and Alpha 5 grow on you, something undoubtedly help by a subplot involving Zordon's actual existence, and Bill Hader's vocal performance. The plot has its contrivances, and its influences are worn on its sleeve, but Power Rangers earns its high points and doesn't make any overt mistakes. That's faint praise I know, but the film does seem to have been made by people whom took pride in their work and weren't embarrassed by what they were adapting. As long as Batman V Superman exists, and Michael Bay keeps doing Transformers films(1), that's something.

Perhaps the nicest thing about the film however is Elisabeth Bank's depiction of Rita Replusa. While another visual departure from the TV series in that she looks like something Elven out of Warcraft, Rita matches the changing tone of this film. After being made a definite threat by killing people personally, not being at full power and scrabbling for resources, she becomes increasingly flamboyant as the story progresses in her favour. The result is an actress wallowing in the ham a role provides her, going full panto by the end of it, chewing the scenery like she hasn't ate in days. Whatever you feel about the film, you will remember this performance. Especially, if you have a phobia about teeth.

All-in-all, Saban's Power Rangers is not a film that will stand out in the crowd, but one that as a pleasant surprise. Low expectations probably play a big part with this, but its nice to be wrong about something. Its not great, but it doesn't mess things up either. It is what it is. If you end up watching this with your kids, you won't have a bad time.

As mentioned, it does not suck.

Foot notes

1) The creators seem to have been of a similar mind, there's a joke/FU in this film worth the price of entry.

Image Copyright Saban, used under fair use provisions.

A Review of Logan (2017), With Many Spoilers

Logan represents the latest instalment in Fox's long running X-Men franchise. Using Marvel characters, while not actually being part of the MCU, this franchise can be best described as patchy. Most are OK, some have aged poorly, several are dire, but with the notable exception of Deadpool, they've yet to completely nail it. One thing they did however get right first time was Logan A.K.A Wolverine A.K.A James Howlett, A.K.A Mutant McStabbyhands, the antisocial berserker of an ensemble cast. Logan the character is probably only just below Batman in terms of recognisability, but most of the films about him are meh at best. Logan the film, what we are talking about today, exists mainly because actor Hugh Jackman wishes to retire from the role after sixteen odd years. And fortunately, it isn't meh. In fact, its probably gonna be on a lot of people's shortlists for best Superhero film, 2017.

The main reason is its conceit. This film has an unusually bleak premise with subtle themes of dystopia, which honestly put me in mind of one of those non-canon/elseworlds/what-if stories. Its NOT directly based on the Old Man Logan comic series, with the only real similarity being Logan happening to be an old man in a crappy world. Mutants are dying out, not at the hands of killer robots, but due to the mysterious lack of mutant births. The X-Men are gone, with seemingly the only survivors being Wolverine, and Professor X A.K.A Charles. Neither is ageing well, with Charles having a brain disease and Wolverine working as chauffeur to support both of them, now needing glasses to read. Into this comes Laura A.K.A X-23 a new mutant of about 10, and a team of cyborg mercenaries chasing her. With extreme reluctance, and the promise of money, Wolverine drives her to safety. Unfortunately for him, and those he must protect, Wolverine is dying, his mutant healing factor all but spent. He does not survive the trip, and at one point discusses suicide.


As I say, bleak. Wolverine, the embodiment of male bloodlust and endurance, hobbles around covered in scars, drinking his regrets, and finding even his claws are failing him. But more than that is the sense of regret. The X-Men failed. Mutants look to be going out not with a bang, but with a whimper. Professor X is not only in mad grampa territory, but did something Wolverine won't discuss. And Wolverine himself has killed more men than cancer, and has nothing to show for it than guilt and a broken body held together with painkillers and booze. The world they live in is not overtly hostile, but one of faded glory, run-down tourist traps, and corporations. With the film having scenes in Mexico, its easy to draw comparisons with Trump's America, but that's not the point. The point is legacy, as evidenced by the X-Men comics Laura adores, but Wolverine decries as false. And blood. Lots of blood, and how it marks a person. Logan invokes the classic Western Shane, both featuring scenes and dialogue from it to hammer home this point. And the result is a powerful drama that owes more to the Western genre than superheroes, with some unapologetically brutal fight scenes. And make no mistake, this isn't the “GRIMDARK” or “edgy neon” favoured by the DC stable so far. This bleakness is earned, not an affectation.  

That said, Logan's flaws manifest in the third act, where some time-honoured superhero cliches, and Fox's general incompetence, come home to roost. One of the monsters chasing Laura which Wolverine must defeat, proves to be an evil clone of himself in black, something so chronically unimaginative as to ruin my first viewing. While not without symbolic meaning, its symbolism wielded like a cosh, and feels much dumber than everything before it. A better way? Make it someone more intimately involved with Wolverine, such as his male offspring Daken, or Sabretooth. You add lots more drama that way, this just feels like a cost saving. On a similar note, the fate of mutant kind and the machinations of Xander Rice feel as trite as any previous X-Men film that tried similar. Perhaps these plot elements should have been left unexplained. Then there's the matter of basic continuity, which is broken in ways both big and small. This is best evidenced by the casting of Stephen Merchant as Caliban, but this character was also played by Tómas Lemarquis last year in Apocalypse, and while not to diminish either actor, the performances are also incompatible with each-other. It seems nobody at Fox realised the character was in both films, which is face-to-palm stupid. The film does not match up with Days of Future Past either, with neither timeline fitting this narrative.Given that this movie is sold on Jackman's retirement following an unusually long tenure, that lack of continuity is shameful. While these errors are easily ignored in the experience of watching, this contracts sharply with the care taken with characterisation and direction. Paradoxically, its best viewed as a separate entity from the previous films, while being reliant on the broad strokes for most of its impact.

While all of the above disqualifies from true greatness, Logan is undoubtedly the best of the "serious" X-Men films. Part of this undoubtedly is a matter of timing and context. We've finally got Wolverine in a film with an age rating that fits, at a time there's a market for darker Superhero films. So, yes, if you wanted to see Wolverine in a production where the studio allowed for buckets of blood, it does that. What makes the film worth watching is the characterisation work, admittedly benefiting from Jackman's career choices, but let's not diminish the talent on display. Jackman, Stewart and Dafne Keen all own their roles. The narrative, despite nitpicks, works fabulously.

Its a good film. Fox might finally be getting their act together.

Image Copyright Fox, used under fair use provisions.