hyoga_saint

A Saint Seiya fan since 1991, I knew going in that this movie would differ from the source material. The trailers were clear enough. A faithful adaptation, I did not expect. But maybe there was a decent film in there, with some elements of the original manga/anime. While not a trainwreck, a good movie this is not.

So how much does it stray? Well, there *are* some callbacks to the original IP. A few notes in the musical score, taken straight from the anime soundtrack. Some visuals that made my heart skip a beat, including the very first, somewhat misleading scene. They are all too few, though. This is not the Saint Seiya we grew up with.

The armors are way too different - and not particularly appealing. The fighting scenes, heavy in martial arts, guns, and military vehicles, are not what the original series was all about. Hard to tap into nostalgia when you turn your back on 90% of what people liked in the first place. But again, the main trouble lies in the story.

It's bland. The characters are poorly written. Their arcs, poorly developed. Key scenes late in the movie are laughable, including some that were supposed to be poignant. It's not altogether surprising: rather than adapt the 80's masterpiece, this movie is based on the more recent Netflix adaptation, which flopped commercially and critically.

The film's about a young man struggling to accept his destiny as a knight while spouting that nobody's fate is predetermined and the reincarnated goddess he's supposed to protect, a spunky young girl who lived in fear of being unable to control her immense power, in a rehash of the (also poorly adapted) Dark Phoenix saga from the X-Men.

It feels all-too familiar, especially with Famke Janssen (Jean Grey in the X-Men movies) overlooking the action as the movie's antagonist. There's also Sean Bean (LOTR, GOT, etc.) and Marc Dacascos (Crying Freeman, John Wick 3) in there, but everyone's acting is flat throughout. Hard to shine with the run of the mill story and dialogue.

As for newer faces, Mackenyu looks the part, but there's something lacking. You feel he may have done a better job with more decent lines. Madison Iseman as Sienna showed some charisma, but she too fell victim to the plot holes and inconsistent behavior that plague her and all the other characters.

Could the sequel, with the expected introduction of some key characters, come closer to evoking the thrills the original story did? Perhaps, but I doubt they'll get the chance to do so after botching the launch of what was expected to be a multi-picture saga. Then again, I'm not confident this creative team could have done a good job at it.

No, this is not Dragonball Evolution. The glimpses - teases, really - we get of the original Saint Seiya hint at what could have been a great film. The action scenes are well-choreographed and the main two characters, sympathetic enough. It's all 100% watchable, but nobody's recommending it to anyone, and it will be forgotten soon.

It's a shame. You had some great source material. You could have gotten an awesome movie out of it. Why the lack of faith in it? I came away disappointed and suspect many others will, as well. You want to like or at least enjoy it, but you just end up frustrated at the missed opportunity.

(+) A select few callbacks to the original manga and anime, particularly at the very beginning, in the training scenes, and for a few seconds in the movie's climax. Some actions scenes are decent, albeit heavy in martial arts.

(-) Spotty plot. Lousy third act. Bland characters and storylines taken straight from Netflix's poorly received adaptation. Movie really strays from the source material to tell a rather unoriginal story - and tell it poorly, to boot.

As a reader of the original novel, I wondered if I should not watch the Swedish adaptation first, rather than what I figured would be an Americanized, dumbed-down, and sanitized remake, the likes of which we've seen all too often in the past with other foreign movies. I was very pleased to see my concerns were completely unfounded.

Rather than a remake, this is more like a new adaptation of the modern thriller classic. A faithful one it is, too, set in the original Swedish locations of the novel and with characters speaking and acting much like their original literary counterparts. Even the controversial decision to speak in pseudo-Nordic accents is one I actually approve of. I liked the results.

Particularly great is the talented Rooney Mara, who looks a little like Natalie Portman but, while not having the same fame or level of recognition, may be just as good an actress. Her Lisbeth Salander is probably *the* character that was going to make of break this film and thankfully, it is a resounding success: she is very much the blunt, complex, riveting girl you picture when you read the book.

Though Mara's magnetic performance in many ways supports the film just fine on her own, she is helped by a strong cast in which Plummer and Wright, in particular, shine, while Skarsgård, Richardson, and Craig also more than hold their own. The music sets the tone wonderfully, while the pacing and editing are also strong points, with 2,5 hours flying by.

As for the story, as I said, it remains faithful to the original while trimming down some of the excess baggage and taking a couple of actually satisfying shortcuts, improving on some of the slightly groan-inducing aspects of the book. However, some of the richness, depth, and mood of the novel inevitably get lost when translated to film, preventing this very good adaptation from becoming a classic.

(+) The story is faithfully adapted to the screen. Good pacing, editing, music. Mara nails it as Lisbeth Salander

(-) Some of the finer points and subtleties of the novel get lost in the silver screen, especially in regards to the Hedestad part of the story.

In many ways a period piece, this indie film captures a very special time period in San Francisco, a time when counterculture flourished and withered, people experimented and abused all kinds of substances, and teen artist Minnie experiences a lot of firsts, in the eternal search for acceptance, love, and a sense of purpose.

In spite of a brave, earnest, and raw performance by a deliberately exposed Bel Powley, very believable as a teenager in the aforementioned period, and of a subtle, nuanced and understatedly magnetic one by the great Alexander Skarsgård, this movie falls short because its characters are sadly just a bit too immature, selfish, and unlikable.

While that sounds very much like the typical description of the stereotypical youth, it remains nonetheless a major fault in the script how unsympathetic Minnie is throughout, with no real point of self-reflection or regrets over some of her actions, refusing to deal with the consequences of even her more heinous ones.

Surrounded by egotistical, likewise emotionally stunted, at times manipulative adults, it may be no wonder that the main character is unable to learn or grow much, but the level of navel-gazing is still a bit too grating, with the protagonist of this clearly autobiographical story experiencing life events without any sort of moral compass whatsoever.

The film drags towards the end, perhaps because of the fragmented, increasingly hazy way the story is told as the movie progresses, but also because by then we care very little about the fate of the different characters. Though this intimate film does hit some high notes in terms of mood, acting, and cinematography, the end result is unsatisfying.

(+) The reconstruction of 70's San Francisco is very well done. Some of the scenes really hit the point. Mood and color palette also well done.

(-) Unsympathetic characters, starting with the amoral, self- centered protagonist, doom the movie.