Pratt, Chris

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares199 Views

    ‘The Electric State’ Review: 1990s Robot Apocalypse? As if!

    by

    Who needs dystopian artificial intelligence to destroy faith in humanity when you can watch this sci-fi extravaganza?In “The Electric State,” a young woman and a silent robot slowly make their way across the carcass of the United States, littered with beached war ships and drones. In this alternative history, machines got on a fast track to sentience during the 20th century and waged war against humanity, which barely won. By the alt-1990s, hyper-capitalism and virtual reality have destroyed communal and social bonds — people are so addicted to V.R., which they mainline via helmet-like neurocasters, that they can go into vegetative states, oblivious to the world around them. The story is muted and evocative, and it leaves you with a powerful feeling of bereavement and grief for what we, as a species, have brought on ourselves.I’m sorry, I was talking about the illustrated novel “The Electric State” (2018), by the Swedish artist and writer Simon Stalenhag.Anthony Russo and Joe Russo’s movie version, streaming on Netflix, is quite different.It does have the same context and setup, but whereas the book is elliptical in narrative, muted in color palette and melancholy in mood, the movie is obvious, garish and just plain dumb. (For those interested, the Prime Video series “Tales From the Loop” is a much worthier adaptation of Stalenhag’s universe.)Naturally, a film can have an autonomous worth, equal but distinct from its source material (“Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and “Blade Runner” come to mind). But even considered on its own, this “Electric State” remains a hyper-processed industrial product packed with sugar and sodium (in the form of quips and battles), along with such wonderful additives as goopy sentiment and automatic-pilot acting.We still have a young woman, Michelle (Millie Bobby Brown), and she is still accompanied by a robot, Kid Cosmo (voiced by Alan Tudyk). But she is no longer central to the story or even the cast, having teamed up with a swashbuckling smuggler, Keats (Chris Pratt), and his own bot sidekick, Herman (voiced by Anthony Mackie). Because it’s easier to blame epochal collapse on one bad guy than on collective apathy, we also get Stanley Tucci as Ethan Skate, a tech tycoon up to no good.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Garfield Movie’ Review: This Feels Like Too Much Effort

      by

      Garfield, voiced by Chris Pratt, is joined by Samuel L. Jackson as his father, in an inert big-screen adaptation that fundamentally misunderstands its protagonist.Since Garfield’s debut in the 1970s, Jim Davis’s orange tabby has become one of the most successful brands to evolve from the humble American comic strip. And fortified by a reliable stream of cartoon shows, video games and a couple of bland Bill Murray-voiced films in the early 2000s, Garfield is now one of the more enduring images of the American imagination.Even if you’ve never consumed Garfield in any prolonged form, you probably know who he is and what he represents. (Mondays: reviled. Lasagna: beloved. Effort of any kind: a fundamental misunderstanding of life.)It’s particularly odd, then, that the latest iteration of the Garfield empire, the animated “The Garfield Movie,” somehow doesn’t. The film, directed by Mark Dindal, is an inert adaptation that mostly tries to skate by on its namesake. In other words, it’s a Garfield movie that strangely doesn’t feel as if Garfield as we know him is really there at all.Part of this can be attributed to the voice — Chris Pratt, an overly spunky casting choice that was doomed from the start — but there’s also a built-in defect to the very concept of the big-screen Garfield treatment. An animated, animal-centric children’s movie tends to require a narrative structure of action-packed adventure, — the antithesis of Garfield the cat’s raison d’être.Instead, after a perfunctory origin story of Garfield’s life with his owner, Jon (Nicholas Hoult), and dog companion, Odie (Harvey Guillén), the film is quickly set into adventure mode when Garfield and Odie are kidnapped by a pair of henchman dogs working for a vengeful cat named Jinx (Hannah Waddingham). Garfield’s estranged father, Vic (Samuel L. Jackson), quickly comes to the rescue, but it’s Vic that Jinx is really after. After Jinx demands a truck full of milk as payment for a botched job she took the fall for, Vic, with Garfield and Odie in tow, are off to find a way to pay his debt.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Tomorrow War’ Review: Future Schlock

      by

      Chris Pratt leaps to 2051 to save our planet from aliens in this hyperventilating sci-fi spectacle.It is never good news when a phalanx of armed, balaclava-wearing dudes falls from the sky in the middle of a World Cup soccer game.“We are you 30 years in the future,” their leader announces to the stunned crowd. “You are our last hope.” Heeding the call is a high school biology teacher named Dan Forester (Chris Pratt). Dan has a doting wife (Betty Gilpin), an adoring young daughter (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) and — because action heroes rarely embark on wholesale slaughter without some unhealed psychological hurt — the requisite estranged father (J.K. Simmons).Dan also believes that his life has a special purpose, and so does “The Tomorrow War,” Chris McKay’s time-travel spectacle in which clichés rain as fast and as furiously as bullets. In 2051, an alien civilization is in the process of gobbling up humanity, requiring a worldwide draft of present-day citizens who will “jump” into the future to join the war effort. This process — which resembles the Rapture, except the destination is hell instead of heaven — dumps the terrified conscripts on a post-apocalyptic Miami beach. From there, Dan and a handful of confreres (including an amusing Sam Richardson and Mary Lynn Rajskub) battle a welter of special effects to reach an undersea laboratory where a military scientist (Yvonne Strahovski) is developing an alien-fighting toxin.Sucking ideas from across the sci-fi spectrum — “Alien,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” “Starship Troopers,” “Jumper,” I could go on — Zach Dean’s screenplay grows more ludicrous by the minute. People are launched into the mayhem without basic training (Richardson’s character can’t even load a gun). And when saving the world requires the assistance of a volcanologist, the sole option is a 12-year-old boy. (Dean does deserve credit, though, for a plot that both hints at global warming and insists scientists will be our salvation.)As for the extraterrestrials, we’re almost an hour in before we see one: Bleached, tentacled and maximally toothy, they’re so exhaustingly aggressive it’s a relief to learn that, like the Creator, they’re only active for six days a week. That’s about as long as this 140-minute assault feels, with its crude dialogue (“We are food, and they are hungry”), overexcited score and characters so formulaic they might as well be cereal-box figurines. “The Tomorrow War” is betting its flash will blind us to its vacuity. And why not? It worked for “Avatar.”The Tomorrow WarRated PG-13 for death, destruction and alien abuse. Running time: 2 hours 20 minutes. Watch on Amazon. More