Before watching this movie, I had no idea about this movie. On the one hand, after more than ten years of bombardment of the superhero movie frenzy, as a former half-hearted fan of the United States, I have long been numb. Cinematic images built around sensory stimuli don't last much longer. On the other hand, with the perfection of visual experience and aesthetic system (I was under 20 when The Dark Knight came out), purely entertainment-oriented commercial movies are not enough for me.
Some sci-fi films in the past, from the far-sighted classics like "2001 A Space Odyssey", down to the highly enjoyable time-travel theme like "Back to the Future", and even the intense doomsday complex and human-machine portrayal of "Terminator" are not only It is known for its visual effects, but also has a relatively speculative and worthy of scrutiny. Although it is also superficial, it at least provides the audience with a certain space for interpretation and reverie, so it is still memorable after decades of publication.
When superhero movies first entered the mainstream film vision, the "historical deconstruction" of the old version of "X-Men", the "full-loaded emotional curve" of Sam Raimi's version of "Spider-Man" and Nolan's "Deconstruction of History" were born. The Dark Knight's "Film Noir Modernization". Regardless of their quality, these manga-modified films are not completely separated from the expression of traditional "New Hollywood" films, but only connect the creative experience with alternative superhero themes to achieve varying degrees of deep meaning in terms of play, style or theme. .
Although 2008's "Iron Man" precedes "The Dark Knight" on the timeline, it is actually a link between the past and the next that heralds a change in the direction of Hollywood blockbusters. After several Marvel Cinematic Universe works came out one after another, people's aesthetic concepts have also quietly shifted. The new generation of superhero movies represented by Marvel continues to absorb traditional Hollywood genre elements while breaking with the previous genre format, eliminating any possibility of going deep, and continuing to emphasize the legitimacy of entertainment first, forming a large-scale advocacy The public opinion effect of "popcorn function".
The Marvel Cinematic Universe was reluctantly diversified in the early days, but now, specifically since "Guardians of the Galaxy", it has been completely fixed into a highly unified model product. This is a fixed model based on Marvel's own business experience, big data analysis and market research. It's not that they don't know that artistic creation needs to be flexible, but they don't need to take risks to change, and they don't have the heart to study art. Now that the mass base and the legitimacy of "entertainment is above all else" have been established, we will use the safest way to grab benefits. Marvel Studios has taken Hollywood's pipeline of mass-produced movies to a new level.
This realm is only for business people, and for those film artists and audiences, it can hardly be called a good phenomenon. So in the same area, it is necessary to continue to see Fox's new "X-Men" (including "Deadpool") series and "DC Cinematic Universe", of course, now Fox "no longer exists". Then, the only thing left to strip and confront the existing Marvel model is Warner DC of the same size - we can't expect Marvel to kill itself in a short time.
Although I have given negative comments to almost all the works of the "DC Cinematic Universe", I have never denied the form it pursues. However, from "Man of Steel" to "Batman Vs Superman", every time it is because of huge flaws in the text, this extreme aesthetic style becomes a castle in the air. This is the most deplorable place. Since content and form cannot always be self-consistent, we can only step back to find a compromise, dissolve some stylistic extremes, and strengthen the text. So although there is nothing new, the controversy between "Wonder Woman" and "Aquaman" is much less than before.
Thunder Shazam! 》 is also the product of the change of thinking from DCEU. First of all, the movie reduces the "dark style" to the second place, tonally on par with the Marvel mode, but still maintains a sufficient distance. Secondly, it is a children's film, and the serious adult theme of DC movies has been further weakened. So from the propaganda caliber, Sha agrees to be the first "sand sculpture hero" of the DC universe. Combining the recently released "Captain Marvel", as well as the history of competition between DC and Fawcett Comics, Marvel and DC for the title of "Captain Marvel", "Thunder Shazam! "The temperament and positioning of this film is more subtle and interesting.
Overall, this film is just passable in my opinion. It's just different from the way of previous DC movies, but there is no improvement in audio-visual language and narrative structure, let alone any breakthrough in the theme of superheroes. Also, it throws away some of the good traditions of DC movies, like the intense color grading, which is missing in this film. If the previous "Man of Steel" and "Batman v Superman" were super blockbusters in terms of shape and color, "Thunder Shazam!" " can only be regarded as a big online movie. In fact, the art design of "Aquaman" is already terrible.
Billy Batson's transformation into Shazam's outfit is so unremarkable. He's not as textured as Superman's clothes, nor the gloom and power of Batman's suits, nor the retro design of Wonder Woman's materials and livery. The costumes and props in this film feel quite cheap, like children's toys. Shazam's clothes were bulging and appeared to be filled with Styrofoam. The yellow lightning bolt on the chest is simply an LED light wrapped in a plastic shell, only the cloth of the cloak looks okay. It's not that the style of the battle uniform in the original book is simple, so you can abandon the design of the costume. I don't think he is so unbearable in the comics. All in all, the costumes and modeling design of this film are quite simple, but they fit the overall rough temperament of the film inexplicably.
Other aspects of audiovisual language are roughly at the level of "seeing". The camera movement is a Hollywood template, and the insertion of the montage paragraph is also type-modeled. The villain's design is still very watery, lacking originality and oppression. The Seven Deadly Sins monsters aren't as clever as those in games like Devil May Cry and Dark Souls. They certainly reference the features of certain palace statues and gargoyles, but the level of completion is very low.
There are key spoilers below, especially mentioning what may be the only exciting part of the entire film. If you haven't watched the video, please read it carefully.
Because this time it is roughly a children's movie, the story is also very simple and linear, without any complicated themes and branches. As an orphan, Billy has only one motive for his actions, that is, to find his mother. When he gained the power of a wizard, he forgot about finding his mother and immersed himself in the pleasure brought by super powers. This kind of single-line treatment of course has more than one place, which not only hurts the coherent factual logic of the film, but also has a negative effect on the compact establishment of the narrative structure.
In fact, the idea of the second act is quite good. It involves a little bit of the loss and conceit of the immature teenager after gaining infinite power, and has some reflections on the attributes of superheroes. In particular, Billy made it clear when he accidentally hit a bus and almost caused a catastrophe while performing a superpower performance on the street. However, the film does not seem to have any intention to amplify any speculative themes, so this plot is only a little involved, and it does not go into more in-depth discussion, which is not enough to support the main theme of the film.
At the beginning of the film, Dr. Shivana's childhood magical experience has merit in the control of the atmosphere. However, the entire film presents an incongruous look and feel in tone. The brisk character relationship and the tone of the dialogue are not very suitable for the temperament of the cool image. The lack of expressive depth of field shots and the proliferation of low-light scenes make the film in a dilemma between gloomy and cheerful, and disintegrate the work's bearing. Freddy, whom most people affirm, is essentially a character model used in many films, and his prominence speaks to the paleness of the other characters, rather than how brilliantly Freddy is really portrayed.
But the movie did a very clever little trick in the later stages that made me smile. Because I'm watching Thunder Shazam! "Before, I didn't pay a lot of attention to the promotion of the film, I only knew who the main actor of the film was, and I just saw a main poster and a pilot preview. So, due to my ignorance, when "Shazam Family" appeared in the film, it really surprised me (some brand of toys actually spoiled...). But this surprise only lasted for a few tens of seconds. Then, under the chaotic action scenes, the film made every child who became Shazam adapt to his new identity and ability in a market-like manner, which was far-fetched and outdated. At this time, the lights, colors, scenes, actors' performances and costumes on the screen all came together, as if I had seen the shocking "Super Team" two years ago.
The action part of the whole movie is very stiff, the layout is not big, but the rhythm is messy and the scheduling is weak. Dr. Shivana, who was supposed to be extremely vicious, was shown more like the uncle next door who played the house with these children. There are no iconic destruction scenes or refreshing combat moves, and it all just goes by without a hitch. Even the appearance of Superman at the end made fans excited, but also seemed a little bit scratchy. There's no Henry Cavill, just a "Stupid Superman" with his head chopped off by the edge of the screen.
I can't judge "Thunder Shazam! "There is nothing to watch, but it is indeed a movie full of holes and will pass. The whole movie basically relies on a few pitiful flashes of light that make people motivated to watch it reluctantly. In the process of watching the movie, I did not form any expectations for the following episodes from beginning to end. Almost every shot, every line, every transition, seemed so familiar and prompted me to recall countless works. And the monotonous and rough image texture is not even like the A-level production of Hollywood or DC universe. With a length of 132 minutes, it is impossible to rely on only two or three occasional highlights from "Shazam Family" or "Stupid Superman". However, under the simple appearance, these rare bright spots are even more eye-catching.
View more about Shazam! reviews
