Morman reviews ‘Power Rangers’

0
1763
"Power Rangers." Courtesy of Lionsgate

The 2017 film “Power Rangers” had a low set of expectations upon its release. Past film iterations of the angsty teens in ninja suits have delivered the nonsensical campiness that people of a certain age have come to expect from the television version of the series.

Most people believed that this film wouldn’t present much in the way of enjoyment but even with the low bar it had to clear, I was pleasantly surprised at how decent “Power Rangers” was at film’s end.

“Power Rangers” tells the story of five teenage students from the city of Angel Grove who stumble upon five power crystals that imbue them with superhero powers and access to large mecha-vehicles, called Zords. The five rangers receive training from Zordon (Bryan Cranston) and Alpha 5 (Bill Hader), two beings that protected the earth from evil more than 65 million years ago.

Jason (Dacre Montgomery), Billy (R. J. Cyler), Kimberly (Naomi Scott), Trini (Becky G.) and Zack (Ludi Lin) use their powers to protect Angel Grove from Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), an ancient villain who has been awoken and now seeks a powerful crystal that has the power to destroy the world.

The narrative for “Power Rangers” isn’t all that complex. It’s not meant to be. One thing that makes this film more enjoyable is understanding the source material it stems from. This film lives and breathes the mythos established in the 1990’s show of the same name. The writers didn’t try to change much from the structure of the television series and because of that, “Power Rangers” feels very familiar to those who, like me, who spent their youth watching cheesy teenage ninjas in spandex suits.

Some changes were made to the film, and almost all of the changes improved “Power Rangers” from its television counterpart. Unlike other recent films that are based on ’80s and ’90s television shows (“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Transformers”), the development team for “Power Rangers” wasn’t afraid to embrace the features that made the original beloved, while also tweaking ideas and concepts of the source material that feel dated and ridiculous today.

The characters have depth. The story has the feel of a logical mythos and history, and the whole film feels like it was made to make the audience have fun. Coming across like a combination of “Chronicle” and “The Breakfast Club,” “Power Rangers” uses familiar tropes of the superhero origin story but isn’t afraid to make fun of itself along the way.

Kimberly (Naomi Scott), Billy (R. J. Cyler), Jason (Dacre Montgomery), Zack (Ludi Lin) and Trini (Becky G.). Courtesy of Lionsgate

I think some of the early trailers for the film were misleading. They seemed to imply that the film was going to be a serious take on the Power Rangers, but pretty much after the first couple of scenes it becomes fairly apparent that this film is designed for nostalgic parents to enjoy with their kids. It keeps a lighthearted tone for most of the film, draws heavy themes from the TV show but also makes some important changes.

One of the best changes to the Power Rangers mythos was that of the character Billy (the Blue Ranger). In this film, Billy is autistic, but the way they portray his autism doesn’t make him a victim, and autism is portrayed as normal and not something that prevents a person from being a hero. Billy is smart, funny and the best character of the movie. R. J. Cyler, in his performance of Billy, does a fantastic job giving children of all types a hero they can be inspired by.

The film is full of issues, though. From pretty odd VFX to glaring plot holes and narrative inconsistencies, “Power Rangers” is far from a perfect film. I think the major issue I had with the film was the portrayal of Rita Repulsa. Elizabeth Banks is a fantastic actress, but her portrayal felt off. It almost felt as if she was phoning in her performance while the young and unknown actors she was working with were giving their best effort.

Parts of her performance had me questioning her casting, and that honestly surprised me because of what a high-caliber actress she is. Going into the film, I thought she would be too good for the film, but in the end I didn’t think she was good enough. I didn’t find her a convincing villain, and some of the motivations for the character were a bit inconsistent. I think both the writing and performance of Rita failed, and that’s a shame.

Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Courtesy of Lionsgate

The writing also had a lot of issues. A few times a character would end up going from one place to another, and the gap between those two positions was so substantial that they needed a quick scene to establish the transition. The dialogue could also be pretty corny at times and not in a good way that’s endearing to the younger audience. Some lines were just pretty bad.

As I said earlier, the VFX wasn’t that convincing. Whether it was the Power Ranger suits in action, the Zords or some of the background scenery, something looked off whenever computer effects were used. That could be attributed to $100 million budget, but I feel like I’ve seen better effects in films with equal or even smaller budgets.

After all is said and done, though, if you go into “Power Rangers” expecting a horrible film, I don’t think you’ll find it. By the same token, if you’re going into the film expecting a masterpiece, I’m afraid you’ll be just as incorrect. What is “Power Rangers” then? It’s a fun time that those who grew up loving the Power Rangers as kids should enjoy alongside their own children, who might be experiencing them for the first time in this film.

I give “Power Rangers” 7.25 /10

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.