'Straight Outta Compton' Might Turn Out Being as Groundbreaking as N.W.A.

Straight Outta Compton is the surprise movie of the year.  No one was expecting this movie to be this much well received.  I also like the movie, but probably not as much as the general acclaim that it’s currently receiving.

This movie is a biographical film about N.W.A., the revolutionary hip hop group that originated from Compton, California.  It chronicles events from how Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, MC Ren, and DJ Yella formed the group in the 80’s up to Eazy-E’s death in the 1995, which covers the rise of N.W.A, their cultural impact, feuds, and personal struggles.

I enjoy some hip hop songs but I’m not particularly a fan of the genre.  I’m familiar with some hip hop history and culture, but I have to say that I’m not so knowledgeable about them.  I know who Ice Cube (because he has become an actor) and Dr. Dre (because Eminem, who I liked as a teenager, thinks highly of him) are, but I can’t remember having heard of Eazy-E and the others prior to this movie.  Thus, I find Straight Outta Compton a very fascinating and informative look on hip hop history and culture.  Most of the things that the movie presented are new to me.

But more than being a fascinating study, Straight Outta Compton really works well as a movie.  The production values are terrific, perfectly embodying where and when the movie is set on.  The direction is both energetic and polished, and the acting is quite engaging.  Many say that the actors’ portrayals of the N.W.A. members are spot on, but I wouldn’t really know – except for O’Shea Jackson, Jr. as Ice Cube – since I don’t know most of them, but I believe this is true.  I also enjoyed seeing Aldis Hodge (he plays MC Ren) on screen again; I really liked the guy as Alec Hardison in Leverage.

The movie also touches upon some relevant themes and social issues, which is interesting.  There are some insights that I have to nod in agreement, but I don’t really agree with much of the overall message of the movie – or N.W.A. for that matter.  The writing is probably being manipulative in sending its message, but I understand where it’s coming from.

Overall, I don’t think Straight Outta Compton is the potential classic that many think it is.  But I could be wrong.  Time might find that it’s as groundbreaking to biopics as N.W.A. is to hip hop music.  Either way, it definitely has enough interesting things going for it to make it one of 2015’s most important, must-watch films.  

Read More

Strong Performances Help 'Southpaw' Overcome a Hackneyed Plot

Southpaw is a boxing drama starring Jake Gyllenhaal as Billy “The Great” Hope, the undefeated junior middleweight champion of the world.  With his loving wife (Rachel McAdams) by his side serving as his chief adviser, Billy enjoys a successful career, the love of his family, and a lavish lifestyle.  However, tragedy strikes when a brawl breaks out during a charity event and his wife is accidentally shot in the chaos.  Broken down, Billy begins to abuse alcohol and drugs, and his life spirals downwards as he loses his title, his money, his house, and – due to succumbing to a destructive lifestyle – the custody of his daughter (Oona Laurence) as well.  Hitting rock bottom, he finds an unlikely shot at redemption at the hands of gym owner Tick Willis (Forest Whitaker).  With Tick as his trainer, Billy begins his grueling journey back to the top.

Southpaw has an unoriginal plotline.  It’s a story that I've seen in different forms for countless times already.  And yet it’s not boring to watch this familiar story unfold again.  This can probably be attributed to the all-around riveting performances of the cast – especially from Jake Gyllenhaal, Forest Whitaker, and child actress Oona Laurence – who kept me absorbed on the narrative.  Gyllenhaal won’t get an Oscar for it, but his performance in this movie is another testament that he’s one of the most talented actors around today (seriously, he should had at least received an Oscar nomination for Nightcrawler).

In addition, the in-ring action is intense, gritty, and beautifully choreographed; the drama brings the feels and induces misty eyes; and the clichéd “riches to rags to riches” plot outline is actually executed in perfection.  Moreover, I’m sucker for well-done redemption stories, and Southpaw is a solid though unimaginative one.  So, yeah, despite the cheesy elements and narrative flaws, Southpaw has enough going for it to be considered an enjoyable and touching movie.

Read More

'Magic Mike XXL' Offers the Same Stuff from the First Movie

The thing I liked about the first Magic Mike movie is that it wasn’t just an excuse to have a feature-length show of male sexy dances that women can go gaga for (as how it was being promoted).  It has that aspect, of course, but it’s more than that.  It surprisingly has dramatic depth, an actual well-thought plot, and great performances from the cast.  I love how Rotten Tomatoes worded its evaluation of the movie: “[it allows] audiences to have their beefcake and eat it too.”  That perfectly sums it up.

This 2015 sequel, though not as smart, has the same merits as its predecessor.  It has the sensual sequences that will please the ladies, but it also has a strong story and a sincere message (for the record, I don’t subscribe to most of the philosophy that the movie is preaching, but there are interesting lessons worth considering if they are taken away by themselves) to tell.

Three years after “Magic” Mike (Channing Tatum) leaves the stripper lifestyle, he finds himself missing the excitement of performing and hanging out with his Kings of Tampa mates.  Thus, when the guys drop by and inform him that they intend to end their stripping careers in a high note by participating in an annual stripper convention in Myrtle Beach, Mike goes on leave from his furniture business and decides to reunite with the Kings of Tampa crew for one last blow-out performance.

So it’s basically a road trip movie… but with a lot of stripping and dancing involve.  It has a couple of absurd narrative elements and coincidences, but if you can get over the ridiculousness of the idea of a stripper convention – I don’t know if that’s an actual thing in real life – then all other things fall into place of making Magic Mike XXL hold up as an adequately thoughtful piece of entertainment.

Read More

Instead of ‘Minions’, It Would Have Been Infinitely Preferable to Have a ‘Despicable Me 3’

The immense popularity of the Minions from the Despicable Me movies led them to star in this spin-off movie.  The plot of Minions is basically a prequel – set years before they met and got employed by Gru.  The movie shows us the Minions’ passage through history as they seek to serve the baddest of the bad.  However, from a T-rex to Napoleon, they continuously fail in keeping a master.  The Minions, unable to accomplish the purpose of their existence, fall into depression.  In order to get the Minions out of their slump, a Minion named Kevin takes it upon himself to embark on a journey in search for the ultimate evil boss for his race to follow.  Bob and Stuart accompany Kevin, and the three of them eventually encounter the supervillainess Scarlet Overkill (voiced by Sandra Bullock – a phenomenal actress, but doesn’t have the energy and investment in voicing Scarlet), who they potentially see as the master mistress that will finally save the Minions.

The movie is hilarious.  That is a given, since we’re talking about the Minions after all – their slapstick contributed significantly on giving the fun and uproarious vibes of the Despicable Me movies.  The problem is the Minions are one-note characters that work best serving supporting roles in a thoughtful story centered on an actual developing character like Gru.  As supporting characters, the hilariousness that the Minions bring is at the right dosage and boosts the charm of a movie – just like in the Despicable Memovies.  On the other hand, a full length movie loaded with the Minions’ brainless, juvenile humor is just too much that it’s already borderline annoying.

Moreover, the Minions’ personality, though adorable, doesn’t have the facets that a thoughtful, heartfelt story can be anchored on.  Hence, Minions entertains, but is pretty stupid and shallow; it has no concrete moral or message; and the narrative is predictable – in fact, the trailers have already given away the first two-thirds of the plot.

Minions is a clear money-grab movie.  A big reason why it was made is to sell Minions merchandise.  And it succeeds at it.  For example, when McDonald’s had Minion toys in its Happy Meals, customers skyrocketed.  I witness this firsthand in the local McDonald’s chain.  I myself was compelled to get a couple of them for my toy collection.

Furthermore, Minions succeeds in making money as a movie itself.  It has grossed over a billion dollars and has become the third highest-grossing animated film of all time.  My fear is that due to its financial success, the producers will instead decide to make a Minionssequel instead of a Despicable Me 3, which I infinitely prefer.  I don’t want to hate the Minions as pop culture characters, but I feel that if more Minions movies are made, I would eventually grow to.

Read More

‘San Andreas’ Is Solid in the Spectacle, Shaky in the Storyline

The premise of San Andreas is pretty simple: the shifting of the San Andreas Fault causes a massive, vicious earthquake across western USA, and Chief Ray Gaines (Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson), a search-and-rescue helicopter pilot for the Los Angeles Fire Department, has to fly amidst all the chaos and destruction to rescue his teenage daughter (unbelievably played by 29-year-old Alexandra Daddario) and estranged wife (Carla Gugino).

San Andreas has a good amount of action and excitement as a solid disaster movie.  But that’s all it is.  It doesn’t have much depth, originality, and surprise.  There’s some attempt to add a bit more drama unrelated to the disaster aspect, but the execution isn’t good enough to actually add something interesting.  The story is dumb and cheesy.

It’s also burdened with a couple of uninteresting or needless characters.  Good thing that Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson is headlining this, as he injects his magnetic personality into this movie.  So there’s at least one character – the Rock’s character, Ray Gaines – that I was able to easily root for (though I kind of hate that he has to abandon his duty as a LAFD rescuer so that he can go after his family); having him is somewhat enough to be kept invested on the narrative until the end.

San Andreas is not a great movie.  But nobody was expecting it to be one anyway.  It just needs to entertain as a standard popcorn flick.  And the spectacular visuals and the Rock – a charismatic, badass action hero – ensure that it does.

Read More

LeBron Made Me Curious About 'Trainwreck', but It's John Cena That Surprised

Trainwreck is not the kind of movie I usually go see.  But I got intrigued of it because of LeBron James.  There were some praise being thrown regarding his performance, and it really got me curious.   I wanted to verify the hype.

The plot: after her reprobate father impressed on Amy Townsend (Amy Schumer) as a young girl that monogamy isn’t realistic, she lives her life as an adult boozing, partying, getting high, and sleeping around – unwilling to have a serious commitment.  However, an assignment from her editor sends Amy to interview and meet Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), a prolific doctor that treats the injuries of sports superstars.  Amy attempts to keep everything between them casual.  But as the two of them spend more time with each other, and grow liking each other more and more, Amy begins to consider if it’s time to leave her life of non-commitment behind and start cleaning up her act.

It’s a familiar rom-com premise.  But I actually found some freshness in it, too.  It does not have the smartest plot, but I found sprinkles of cleverness here and there, and the humor generally hits the mark.

I’ve never been a fan of Amy Schumer, but I was impressed of the fact that she wrote the script of this movie.  After watching Trainwreck, I’m still not a fan, but I gained some appreciation for her.

And as for what I thought of LeBron James, who plays himself in this movie and the best pal of Dr. Conners… well, he actually did a solid job – actually better than any of Shaq’s acting roles.  But he wasn’t really hilarious – “hilarious” was the emphatic adjective that some positive reactions were using to commend his performance – nor terrific to finally win me over to the idea that a Space Jam 2 starring him would be great.

John Cena, however, is the surprise.  I’m not a fan, but he is phenomenally hilarious in this movie.  Even counting the early days when he was still in his likable “Doctor of Thuganomics” persona, this guy has never been this funny and appealing.  Sure, the writing deserves a good amount of the credit of making Cena’s character hilarious, but his delivery also contributed considerably.

Like Ted 2, this movie has a good deal of cameos.  But unlike Ted 2, its cameos work well, and aren’t annoyingly gratuitous.  The scenes with Marv Albert and Amar’e Stoudemire are pretty funny.

Actually, come to think of it, Trainwreck’s ensemble – both cast members and cameos – generally did a fine job.  No one was terribly out of place in the movie.  And, worth noting that, once again, I had found Tilda Swinton unrecognizable and it surprised me that she was playing that character in the movie.

Trainwreck isn’t great, but I had fun with it.  It’s a solid rom-com movie that both lovers and haters of the genre will find entertaining and carrying a thoughtful message.

Read More

'Inside Out' Rivals 'Toy Story' Movies As Pixar's Magnum Opus

If I will be writing now my list for best movies of the year, Inside Out will take the number one spot.  Of course, it is possible that I would still get to see a movie this year that I will deem better.  However, if I’m rating movies, I will give Inside Out a perfect score – an A+, or a 100%, or five stars out of five.  So it would take something so awesomely flawless to unseat Inside Out.  And looking at the movies left this year, I think Star Wars is the only potential contender.

Inside Out tells the story of 11-year-old Riley and the anthropomorphized emotions living in her head – Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust, and Anger.  Riley’s emotions do a fine job in keeping Riley’s life steady and happy… until Riley’s family moves from Minnesota to San Francisco.  With Riley struggling to adjust to her new life, it is up to Joy and the other emotions to guide her through this stressful, life-changing period.

It’s not the first time that a story used the concept of the human brain as a world or command center with personifications of emotions/neurons/cells/thoughts working inside it.  But Inside Out uses the concept in such a fresh, enjoyable, and vibrant manner that it has established itself as the best of such stories.  It presents some innocent but smart insights on human psychology, and succeeds in delightfully embodying some of its concepts in amusing fantasy models and metaphors.

Beautiful animation and a well-written, funny, and heartwarming story are things to be expected from a Pixar feature.   But Inside Out is truly special.  It is superior to most Pixar movies.  Up, Wall-E, and The Incredibles are all terrific timeless classics, but I really think Inside Out is better than them.  No other Pixar film since Toy Story 3 has the thoughtfulness, storytelling depth, and feels that Inside Out possesses.  The Toy Story movies are still my favorite Pixar films – these movies made much impact on me – but if somebody say that Inside Out is better, I won’t correct them.  Inside Out truly makes a strong case of being Pixar’s best.

Inside Out is brilliant and flawless.  The quality of this movie is comparable to the best of animated classics as it will effortlessly make its audiences laugh, cry, reflect, and feel warm and good inside.  And that makes the best kind of family entertainment.

Miscellaneous SPOILER-y musings:

• I also did love Lava, the touching short that run before Inside Out.  Really did a fine job of prepping the audience’s emotions and attention for Inside Out.
• An Inside Out short is coming later this year telling the story of Riley on her first date.  And I guess a full-length sequel is something eventual to happen.  Now, I’m curious what kind of storyline can surpass, or at least match, the perfectness of the first one.  Will it be better if Riley’s story continue after a significant time skip? In high school? Or even college? Will additional emotions be appearing in Riley’s later years?  (Though I doubt that, since it was seen that adults also have the same 5-emotion lineup as 11-year-old Riley.)  I really have no idea how Pixar can expand Inside Out further and offer something unique from the first one.  But I guess if anyone can do it, it’s those Pixar guys.  If it could be a sequel better than the original, then Inside Outcould be the next Toy Story property.
• A character, Bing Bong, Riley’s forgotten imaginary friend from her younger years, basically died in this movie.  A character death in a “G”-rated animated feature isn’t really something disturbing or impossible.  But I wasn’t expecting a character to die in this movie.  It was a shock, but the development added additional depth to the story.
• Later, a bunch of “imaginary boyfriends” – who declared that they “would die for Riley” – actually sacrificed their lives.    Again, not really too disturbing.  But this is just an indication that Inside Out has some subtly dark elements.  And, again, it adds additional depth.
• But the most interesting shocker was the implication that the whole ordeal had put Riley at risk of becoming a sociopath.  Exagerrated, but definitely improved the movie.
• This made me want a more mature story taking place in the Inside Out world to be made.  In the ending credits, we get fascinating and funny glimpses of what’s going on in the minds of different kinds of people as well as a dog and a cat.  Now, what’s more interesting is to Inside Out the mind of a person with a mental disorder, like schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder.  Very intriguing, eh?

Read More

Part 1 of Live-Action Movie Dishonors ‘Attack on Titan’

Prior to watching this, I had already got warning from some sources that those who love the anime would likely hate this live-action movie.  This used to be a movie I was really excited of seeing; I was presuming that it was going to be, at the very least, as awesome as the essentially faithful Rurouni Kenshin live-action movies.  But because of the negative buzz, I already lowered my expectations so that the blow of disappointment will somewhat be softened.  Going into this movie, I felt I knew what I was going into.

But I found myself still taken aback by how different – and less – it is.  In an attempt to make itself fresh and distinctive from the anime, it took a lot of risky liberties.  In a way, I feel that I get where the producers are coming from, and appreciate a bit what was trying to be done.  By completely diverting from its source, surprising everyone – even the fans of the anime – became a possibility.

However, the Attack on Titan anime series is one of the greatest anime epics ever.  Everything about it is perfect (or close to perfection).  It knocked my socks off when I saw it for the first time, and it has been deeply venerated in my consciousness.  So I really find myself unable to see this live-action adaptation in a whole new perspective.  I can’t help but compare it to its source material, which is impeccable in my eyes.  Therefore, I’m generally underwhelmed and frustrated by almost all of the deviations, and, by this, was hindered of enjoying the movie as it is.

At some point while watching, I came to the conclusion that this live-action movie is an atrocity to the anime.  Not only does the live action not do justice to its source material, but it also gives the feeling that it has diluted and neutered the awesomeness found in the Attack on Titan anime.  All the unwelcomed departures from the source caused blandness and lack of depth in the storytelling; poor characterization and development of characters, leading to the difficulty of liking and rooting for them; and an overall sense of inferiority in quality.

Moreover, the live-action movie fails in being visually pleasing.  Compared to the exciting and gorgeous visuals of the anime, the live-action severely pales in comparison.  The visual effects, production value, and camera work only looked a step above a ScyFy made-for-TV movie production.  Most of the actions scenes are boring, and there is no beauty in its sets.

Waiting for the second season of the anime (delayed till next year), it’s much more rewarding to re-watch the first season for the nth time (I already did it twice, and I might do it one more time) than watching this live-action movie.  That said, I’m still on board for Part 2.  Hopefully, by that time, I would have got over my disappointment of not seeing a faithful adaptation and would have developed more tolerance for all its second-rate reinventions – or, more preferably, that the story would actually get better from its stubborn assertion to go as far from its anime source as it can (which I doubt).  Besides, the nerdy completist in me just requires seeing this through to the end. 

Miscellaneous SPOILER-Y musings:

• The most exciting sequence in the movie – when Eren finally transformed into a Titan and started beating the crap out of other Titans – came around the last five minutes of the movie.  So, yeah, the movie was boring at most parts.
• A human character judo threw a Titan.  I face palmed at the pure ridiculousness of the scene.
• I was satisfied by the depiction of Titans in live-action by actors in costume and makeup.  I find a sense of enjoyment of seeing them being as hilarious as they are terrifying.  On the other hand, the CGI Colossal Titan was plain garbage.
• The most badass Attack on Titan character, Levi, is not in this movie.  BUMMER!
• My biggest peeve is the post-apocalyptic industrialized setting (yep, more than not having Levi).  I think the anime’s medieval-like world that has developed many years after the appearance of the Titans is more interesting.
• I find the “death” of Mikasa twist nearly as unexpected as the anime’s brilliant “death” of Eren twist.  But at that point of Mikasa’s “death”, the narrative had already established how completely different the live-action movie is from the anime that the surprise did not bring as much dramatic impact as it should.  It would have been a welcome mindblowing surprise if that was the first deviation from the anime that the movie presented.
• Mikasa was introduced as this girly, weak character that I had no problem when she was killed off at the start.  That’s not the Mikasa I know anyway.  Even when it was revealed that she didn’t really die, and she reappeared later on now having the familiar badass, cold personality associated with the character, she still isn’t exactly the Mikasa we love in the anime.  It would have been actually more interesting if she remained dead.
• It’s hard to get invested on the annoying, inaccurately-portrayed, and poorly-written characters.  The Attack on Titan anime did a fine job of making you care for its characters that deaths really deliver emotional blows.  On the other hand, I was actually cheering the live-action Titans to devour the live-action characters most of the time.
• I hate the SS Nazi uniform of the Military Police.
• Is it just me or is there implication that the Titans are mutated humans that resulted from the mysterious nuclear/biological apocalyptic war of the past?  That’s actually legitimately intriguing, and the best thing that I can take from this awful movie.
• Let me put this one last thing on a tall pile of disappointments: the awesomely stirring Attack on Titan theme, “Guren No Yumiya”, isn’t used in the movie.  It could have been a huge redeeming factor.  I was really hoping that it would be the music during its ending credits.
• Seriously, when are we due to have another perfect live-action anime adaptation as Rurouni Kenshin?

Read More

Brilliant Hungarian Drama 'White God' Makes the Case for an Oscar Category for Best Animal Acting

White God (Fehér isten in its native tongue) is technically a 2014 Hungarian film.  But for the rest of the world, this counts as a 2015 film.  Hence, it qualifies to be considered when I make my list of best movies at year end.  And it’s a solid contender for a spot.

The movie centers on a mutt named Hagen who is separated from his guardian, Lili, when her estranged father refuses to pay the excessive fine imposed on owning mixed-breed dogs.  Toughened and driven by his experience with human cruelty in his adventures through the streets, Hagen assembles and leads a pack of street mongrels in rising up against their human oppressors.  Meanwhile, Lili involves herself in a perilous search for Hagen.

White God is the kind of film that I enjoy watching one time and won’t likely re-watch.  It takes time to get invested on, and sometimes felt tedious to go through.  But all the effort really pays off in the end.  I found it pretty rewarding.  The story appeals to the emotion deeply and naturally provokes thought.  It really hit me with the feels.  Hard.

The thing about this movie that blew me away is the acting.  And I’m not really talking about the human actors.  The human actors did great, but what’s really remarkable is the acting of the dogs.  Not only were their physical performances astoundingly organic and precise, but infinitely more impressive was how these dogs convey legitimate emotions through the sounds they make, facial expression, and their body language.  Kudos to whoever the trainer/s is/are (that is, if no form of animal abuse was involved to bring this about).  Seeing these canines’ phenomenal performance is enough to make this movie something worth seeing.

It’s been a while since I found a pet-and-its-owner drama this beautiful and compelling, probably because the movie is not as simple as that – it’s also horror, social commentary, and more.  There’s a clear sense of freshness in its premise and delivery.  And even if you find its message pretentious or absurd, you will probably acknowledge – as I do – that White God is a profound, brilliantly-told modern fable, made very engaging by its cast of dogs.

Read More

Please Keep These 'Lego DC Comics' Direct-to-Video Movies Coming

In 2013, Lego Batman: The Movie – DC Superheroes Unite, a direct-to-video animated movie inspired by the Lego Batman game franchise, was released.  I extremely enjoyed it (it didn’t make my list for best 2013 movies for I saw it in 2014).  And I guess I’m not the only one pleased by it because Lego and DC decided to make more movies like this.  The short film Lego DC Comics: Batman Be-Leaguered (which I only saw earlier this year) premiered as a TV special in 2014.  And this 2015, two Lego DC Comicsdirect-to-video animated movies are released.

The first 2015 movie, Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League vs. Bizarro League, was released in February.  The second, Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League: Attack of the Legion of Doom, has just been recently released this month.  But I’ve seen them back-to-back recently.   That’s why this mini-review is for both.

In Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League vs. Bizarro League, Superman’s Justice League teams up with Bizarro’s Bizarro League to save both Earth and Bizarro World from Darkseid.  And in Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League: Attack of the Legion of Doom, the supervillains, tired of being constantly defeated by the Justice League, decide to form their own team – the Legion of Doom.  The plots of both movies are pretty uncomplicated that to give more elaborate synopses is unnecessary.

I like the second movie better, but both movies (as well as the previous Lego DC Comics films) possess similar attributes and nature; hence, the following evaluation applies to both.

The animation is wonderfully beautiful, and the voice work is impeccable.  The story is undemanding and light-hearted – these movies’ target audience are kids anyway – but it’s still appealing to adult sensibilities.  And, most importantly, the utilization and combination of Lego logic, parodies of DC Comics tropes, clever gags, non-annoying puns, and charming slapstick create a unique kind of hilarious, wholesome comedy that can’t be found anywhere else.

I hope that the Lego DC Comics franchise will be around for a while.  Even if there’s already that upcoming Lego Batman movie set for theatrical release, I hope the production of these brilliant direct-to-video animated movies won’t cease.  These Lego DC Comics movies are cartoon gems, and I don’t think I’ll get tired of them anytime soon.  

Read More

'Shaun the Sheep' Is Yet Another Stop-Motion Animation Gem

“If it’s a stop-motion animated movie, then it must be good” is a presumption that have always held true to me through the years.  Yes, like traditional hand-drawn animation, stop-motion animation has a soft spot in my heart and appeals to my old-school sensibilities.  But it’s not only that.  I truly haven’t encountered a bad widely-released stop-motion animated feature before.  Of course, not all have the makings of a classic like The Nightmare Before Christmas or Coraline, but I found all of them to be fun, thoughtful, and very entertaining.  There’s the possibility that a bad stop-motion animated feature is out there, but I haven’t seen one yet.  You are welcome to point it out to me.

Shaun the Sheep – also known as Shaun the Sheep Movie – is, so far, the only stop-motion animated movie out this year (I also watched The Boxtrollsearlier this year, but that was a 2014 movie).  I haven’t seen the TV series of the same name that this movie is based on – a spin-off of another great stop-motion property, Wallace and Gromit – so I have no preconception, except for my usual presumption for the guaranteed good quality of stop-motion animated movies, before I watched this.  And I’m pleased to say that this movie further enforces that presumption.

Shaun the Sheep focuses on the titular Shaun who grows tired of the monotonous daily routines of being a sheep at Mossy Bottom Farm.  Conspiring with the other sheep, Shaun hatches a scheme that will give them a day off.  The plan goes smoothly, until a mishap sends the Farmer to the city and makes him lose his memory.  So Shaun, along with the other sheep of Mossy Bottom Farm and Bitzer the farmer’s dog, goes on a hilarious city adventure in search of the amnesiac Farmer.

As what was already stated earlier, Shaun the Sheep is a gem.  It is effortlessly pleasant, lovely, funny, and likable.  The animation is painstakingly detailed and beautiful.  Its kid-level slapstick humor is the kind that adults will also enjoy well.  The story lacks substance, but the dialogue-less narrative is brilliantly coherent and thorough in expressing both comedy and plot.

As of writing, Shaun the Sheep absurdly sits at 99% in Rotten Tomatoes, making it the best reviewed summer-season movie of 2015.  I personally don’t quite agree with the critics’ consensus – I think it’s overrated, considering that Inside Out, which, as implied by the general thought of the reviews it has received, is supposedly set to become the best animated film of the year (I haven’t seen it yet to know for sure), only has a 98% rating – but that’s still saying something about how good Shaun the Sheep is.  It’s a wonderful family-friendly animated movie, and (maybe until I finally get to see Inside Out) my most favorite animated movie of the year next to Justice League: Gods and Monsters.

Read More

'Terminator Genisys' Wastes a Brilliant Reboot Concept

Terminator Genisys is the fifth installment of the Terminator franchise.  It was an attempt to drag the fallen franchise out of the muck.  Unfortunately, Genisys further dragged it deeper into it instead.

The plot of Genisys reboots the Terminatortimeline.  Just the same with the first movie, Kyle Reese is sent back in time by John Connor to ensure his existence by protecting his mother, Sarah Connor, from a Terminator that is sent back in time intending to assassinate her, as well as to make his conception possible (since, as everyone familiar with Terminator mythology knows, Kyle is actually John’s father).  However, in this new timeline, an enemy T-5000 has infiltrated the resistance.  And Kyle sees it attack John Connors while he’s about to be sent back in time.  Moreover in this new timeline, a reprogrammed T-800 – the good guy Terminator – has been sent back further back in time to protect a 9-year-old Sarah.  This Terminator, which Sarah has affectionately named “Pops”, serves as her father figure while growing up.  When the original bad guy T-800 arrives in 1984, an adult Sarah and “Pops” are ready for him and destroys him.  Meanwhile, a T-1000 is also sent back to 1984 by Skynet to kill Kyle Reese, but he’s rescued from it by Sarah and “Pops”, who has also prepared for it.  With the events of the prior movies now negated, the three of them – Sarah, Kyle, and “Pops” – now has a new objective: to prevent “Judgment Day” from happening in this altered timeline, now set on 2017 instead of 1997, which Skynet would bring about through an app named “Genisys.”  Unfortunately for them, the T-5000 that attacked John Connor has infected him at the cellular level, transforming him into a T-3000 Terminator.  John is then also sent back in time by Skynet to protect its own development from being sabotaged by Kyle and Sarah.  (In my opinion, John Connor as the villain would have been a cool plot twist if marketing didn’t spoil it.)

Terminator Genisys is not that awful as I thought it was going to be.  I think it’s fourth in quality among Terminator films (Salvation is still the worst, and I actually enjoyed Rise of the Machines).  Maybe because I was already prepped of its mediocrity that I didn’t have any big expectations about it to be disappointed about.  Hence, knowing what I’m getting into allowed me to actually find chunks of enjoyability in it.   And it does show some brief flashes of how it could have been a fresh and smart movie.  However, they’re exactly just that – flashes.  Nothing more.  It lacks the well-thought and cohesive narrative to make them concrete.

Genisys has a lot of stupid things going in its plot (for starters, the Genisys app isn’t that kind of app everyone will be excited about in real life).  Several things don’t hold up well.  Even if one doesn’t take time to think about them, these are pretty noticeable.  The convoluted story leaves an uncomfortable amount of dumb plot holes and problematic plot questions left unanswered (which, to be fair, might be revealed in a sequel).  And even if logical sense can be achieved if one would put an effort to sort the narrative out – which I doubt – the chore isn’t worth it for such story that I found unrewarding.

Maybe if one is able to turn his brain off and be capable to let these plot problems go, there’s some degree of satisfaction to be found in the story.  Unfortunately, I was unable to do such thing.  The story’s problems bugged me.  A lot. 

Besides, the Terminator franchise shouldn’t actually just be a series of dumb action movies.  It shouldn’t merely settle with brainless, passable fun.  The first two movies are deep science fiction masterpieces.  Being just purely “dumb but fun” isn’t good enough.

Heck, Genisys isn’t even interesting as an action movie.  The thing about the Transformer films is that, though they are generally awful movies, they do have eye-popping action going for them.  Genisys doesn’t even have that.  The action sequences are uninspired and badly shot.  Those who still remember the thrill given by the action sequences of Judgment Day will find the action in Genisys boring.

I sincerely hoped Terminator Genisys would have turned out to be good.  A revitalized Terminatorfranchise is something that would have been nice to be excited about.  The whole “alternate timeline” thing actually has the potential to be awesome – it was a brilliant reboot concept.  But the concept is wasted by using it on a film consisting of a problematic, messy, and flat story; terrible dialogue; unlikable characters (with the exception of the Terminator, who has his badass reputation to thank for this goodwill); unexciting visuals; and casting Jai Courtney in a big role.

I don’t really hate Genisys.  Again, seeing it this late helped for I wasn’t expecting much from it anyway due to what others have already said about it.  So I was entertained at least.  Nevertheless, it’s a forgettable movie that I will not deliberately seek to re-watch.

Read More

'Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation' Feels Like a Perfect 007 Film

In my opinion, this fifth Mission: Impossible installment is the franchise’s best yet.  Seriously, this franchise ages as gracefully as its star, Tom Cruise (can you believe that he’s already in his 50’s!) – both only get better with age.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation sees the return of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his IMF colleagues Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), and Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames; the only character that appeared in all five films aside from Ethan Hunt) as they go against “The Syndicate”, a secret terrorist organization made up of rogue highly-trained international spooks presumed to be dead by their governments.  Teaming up with Ethan and his team is the enigmatic British agent Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), whose allegiance is wrapped in ambiguity.

Growing up, I’ve developed a deep fondness for the 007 films – yes, even the silly ones – that I’m restricted by sentimentality to have Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation as my most favorite spy movie ever.  However, the greatest compliment I can give this movie is it’s what I imagine an ideal 007 movie should be.  Really.  The plot, the opening sequence, the tech, the villain, the tone, the world-hopping, etc. – Rogue Nation has the vibes of a 007 movie.  Heck, Ilsa Faust seemed like the greatest Bond girl ever (more on her later).  The only thing missing is the womanizing, but that’s a facet of Bond that I don’t care too much for anyway.  If Rogue Nation is a 007 movie, it could even have been my most favorite one ever.

Rogue Nation has flawlessly melded the exciting elements of a “spy movie as an action film” and the intriguing elements of “spy movie as an espionage drama” to create a perfect spy movie experience.  It’s equally action-packed and cerebral; its dose of humor isn’t out of place, works very well, and doesn’t cheapen the tension.  The plot may seem as unlikely as that of a 007 movie, but it’s not too far-fetched to be dismissed as something stupidly unrealistic.  The narrative is enthralling from start to finish; I found no dull moment.  And I find (MILD SPOILERS) the way Ethan Hunt won against the main antagonist extremely, fist-pumping-ly satisfying.

The stunts and action sequences are insanely stunning.  Intense hand-to-hand combats, shootouts, parkour, car chases, etc. – this movie has them all.  The notable scene from the trailers in which Ethan Hunt is hanging outside a flying plane was truly just the tip of the iceberg.

All of the main cast members – Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames, Alec Baldwin, and Sean Harris – deliver great performances.  They really put a lot of personality into their characters – making all these characters fascinating.

But the most fascinating character in this movie is definitely Ilsa Faust.  Among this year’s movie female characters, she’s only next to Mad Max’s Imperator Furiosa in greatness.  There are plenty of badass female spy characters (greatest of which is, of course, Black Widow) out there already, but Faust is definitely among the top of them.  I love the fact that she’s not an ultra-competent fighter who overwhelms opponents with ease.  She kicks butts, but she also gets hit.  This vulnerability adds additional depth to the character (and also reminds me of Buffy Summers, my most favorite female character in fiction) as much as her struggles as a spook assigned with an impossible mission.  The Mission: Impossible franchise tend to replace female characters with each new movie, but I hope I’ll see more of Faust in future installments.

Spin-off, anyone?

Prior to Rogue Nation, I’ve already been enjoying the Mission: Impossible movies very much.  But it’s only with Rogue Nation that I could really say that I’ve finally become an invested fan of this franchise.  If I will redo my list for top 10 fictional spooks, Ethan Hunt will definitely be in it now.

I’m now excitedly looking forward to the next one (I admit that I was a bit indifferent for new installments before).  As long as Tom Cruise can remain dedicated to this franchise and succeeding directors will be consistent in keeping everything fresh and thrilling, I would love to see this go to Mission: Impossible 10 (and, again, I hope we’ll  get to see more of Ilsa Faust).                                                        

Read More

Bruce Timm’s ‘Justice League: Gods and Monsters’ Is a Terrific Reinvention of the Justice League

Justice League: Gods and Monsters is the third of the three DC direct-to-video animated features scheduled for 2015.  On the other hand, the number of Marvel direct-to-video animated features released this year is… zip!  Seriously, I grow more disappointed with each DC animated movie being released without any Marvel response.  I understand that Marvel is already making serious money in the big screen that they can consider the direct-to-video market close to irrelevant, and they don’t need to compete with DC here.  But as a fan, I really, really wish Marvel would imitate DC in annually producing three or more animated movies a year.   Maybe they can continue exploring the worlds of their epic short-live animated TV series Spectacular Spider-Man and Avengers: Earth Mightiest Heroes through a couple of animated features.  Heck, Marvel can even create a shared universe for their animated movies.

Sorry, I got off topic.  Just needed to express that.  Anyway, back to Justice League: Gods and Monsters…

The movie is basically an “Elseworld” tale.  It is set in an alternate universe in which Amanda Waller is President of the United States; Lex Luthor is a super-scientist confined to a high-tech, levitating “wheel chair” (that will remind you of Prof. X); Superman is named Hernan Guerra, the son of General Zod instead of Jor-el, and was found and raised by a Mexican immigrant couple instead of the Kents; Batman is a vampire scientist named Kirk Langstrom (in the regular DC universe, Langstrom is the Batman villain Man-Bat); Wonder Woman is named Bekka, a New God outcast and the widow of Orion; and unique takes on some familiar DC scientists.  This universe’s version of the DC Trinity – Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman – forms this universe’s the Justice League.  They work closely with the US government, and do “fight evil and save the world” stuff, but their methods closely resembles that of The Elite (Read Action Comics’ “What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?” storyline or watch the DCAOU movie Superman vs. the Elite) rather than that of traditional Justice League.  They are violent, ruthless, and have no qualms on going for the overkill.  They even muse about taking over the world someday in order to better protect it.  Hence, it’s no surprise that a good part of the public and media fears and hates them.

A mystery engulfs most of the central plot of the movie.  Shapeshifting killer robots are assassinating several important scientists and making it appear that these were done by the Justice League.  Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have to figure out what is the connection between the targeted scientists, why they are being framed for the murders, and who is the real mastermind behind them; as well as reflect if there’s a need to change their methods.

Coming into this movie, I admit that I was prepared to hate it.  The trailers for it never appealed to me, and I was never sold on the premise.  I thought that the legendary Bruce Timm – creator of the awesome and beloved DC “Timmverse” – was making a mistake for making this kind of film.  But, watching it finally, I found it surprisingly terrific.  In fact, among all of DC’s animated movies this year – this and JL: Throne of Atlantis and Batman vs. Robin – this is what I like the most.  Its utter Elsworld-ness abundantly adds intrigued and charm, not only to its world-building, but to its overall storytelling.  The plot isn’t flawless, but it’s nearly so, and it’s generally well-told and well-written.  Its Justice League roster, though small in size, has great dynamic.  The voice acting is compelling.  And I love the fact that the very appealing “Timmverse”-style of animation was used.

I’m happy that I was proven wrong for doubting Bruce Timm.  Justice League: Gods and Monsters proves to be another engaging and entertaining DC animated movie.  I love its world, characters, and premise, and I want to see more of them.  So I’m happy that a ten-episode season 2 of Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles is set for 2016 (the first season, consisting of three very short episodes, was released earlier this year in Machinima’s Youtube channel to promote the movie).  But I want more than that.  I’m hoping for movie sequels or a web TV series.  Frankly, I prefer seeing more of Bruce Timm’s Gods and Monsters universe being explored in future projects (this or a series of Injustice: Gods Among Usanimated films) than having the continuation of the New 52-style Justice League series of films.

Read More

'Scooby Doo! And KISS: Rock and Roll Mystery' Feels Like an Episode of 'The New Scooby Doo Movies'

Scooby Doo is an icon, and beloved through generations.  A consistent stream of modern cartoons as well as re-runs of old ones ensure that.  But the surprise to me is that producers apparently find KISS still relevant or appealing enough to warrant a crossover with Scooby Doo.  Seriously, is KISS really the kind of thing you want to introduce to a younger audience?

Anyway, in the direct-to-video animated movie Scooby Doo! and KISS: Rock and Roll Mystery, the Scooby Gang goes to visit a KISS theme park on which the hard rock band is set to have a Halloween concert.  At arrival, they learn that the theme park is under attack by the mysterious Crimson Witch, and this put the concert at risk of being cancelled.  The Scooby Gang has to team up with KISS in order to get to the bottom of the mystery and save the day.

KISS members Starchild, Demon, Spaceman, and Catman are basically real-life cartoon characters anyway, so the transition to cartoons isn’t that big of a leap.  However, they are depicted to have superpowers in this movie.  It’s not really that absurd of a concept to someone who is familiar with the supernatural representation of KISS in the comics, and just treats this incarnation of the band as based on the comics’ version rather than the real-life band.

KISS’ songs are understandably featured in this movie.  But it’s not that inappropriate as it seems to be.  If you know KISS, you would know that despite their outlandish and hardcore appearances and theatrics, their music per se is really not that heavy nor has that dark vibes.  Their music is tamer than what their image implies.  And though I’m not a fan of KISS’ music, I don’t hate it either.  So I tolerated its presence in the movie.

The movie is as dumb, ridiculous, and weird as you would expect.  But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  As what it’s trying to be – a good form of kids’ entertainment – it hits its mark.  The voice work is good and the animation has appeal.  There is kids-level fun in it.

Scooby Doo used to have a show called The New Scooby Doo Movieswherein real-life celebrities or popular animated characters would guest star.  And I was reminded of it while watching this.  If Scooby Doo! and KISS: Rock and Roll Mystery had been an episode of that show, it would have been a pretty solid one.  Of course, if it was up to me, I would prefer seeing the Scooby Gang team up with Batman & Robin, Josie & the Pussycats, or the Addams Family (my most favorite The New Scooby Doo Movies guest stars) again instead of KISS.         

Read More

'The Death Of "Superman Lives": What Happened?' Makes Me Wish 'Superman Lives' Was Made

Back in the mid to late 90’s, a Superman movie starring Nicolas Cage and directed by Tim Burton was undergoing development.  “Superman Lives” is what would have been the title.  It was scheduled for a 1998 release date – and then 1999 – but Warner Bros. decided to pull the plug while ongoing production.  Forward years later into the Internet Age, Superman Lives somewhat gained an “urban legend” status, and the general perception about it is that it would have been a godawful film.  The major points raised were that Tim Burton’s knack for weirdness would have bastardized the Superman mythos, and that Nicolas Cage was a giant miscast, that he would have been like the “George Clooney as Batman” version of Superman, only worse.  It also didn’t help that the Nicolas Cage photo that was being circulated was this…

   

…which was taken during the earliest of the development process.  Hence, Superman Lives is enveloped with notoriety in the collective Internet consciousness.

But it was also enveloped in intrigue.  There was genuine curiosity for the story behind it and how it could have turned out.  Through the years, details have surfaced in the Internet that provided us glimpses of what might have been, but there has never really been a comprehensive, easily accessible source of the backstory of Superman Lives.

Until now.  And that is Jon Schnepp’s The Death of “Superman Lives”: What Happened?.

In this documentary, Schnepp was able to interview several key people behind Superman Lives – producer Jon Peters; director Tim Burton; scriptwriters Kevin Smith, Wesley Strick, and Dan Gilroy; and other contributors to its production – which, accompanied by concept arts and archival footage, gave us a fascinating picture on how the movie would have looked like during its different stages of production.  And from what I got from it, Superman Lives would have been awesomely convoluted and different.

The story was going to be a loose adaptation of the epic 1992 comic book storyline “The Death of Superman.”  And it was going to have a couple of insane elements.  Here are some of them:

• Lex Luthor, Brainiac, and Doomsday were all going to be in it. 
• Lex Luthor and Brainiac would combine into one entity. 
• Kevin Smith’s early draft – which he himself admitted was fan fiction-y in quality – had Batman giving a stirring speech during Superman’s interment. 
• Kal-El would have had a Kryptonian A.I. companion growing up, which would serve as his “teddy bear”, confidant, and mentor at different stages of his life, which would then serve as Kal-El’s armor while he is healing. 
• Jon Peters insisted that a giant spider should be in it, and Smith complied by writing the “Thanagarian Snare Beast” into the script. 
• Peters apparently also made a horribly stupid suggestion of not having Superman fly in the movie (though this was probably overruled later).

But though the documentary effectively details how much Superman Lives would have departed from the Superman mythology and how bizarre it would have been, Schnepp also made sure that the documentary would also draw attention on some of the cool things that the movie had, as well as raised some points on how it wouldn’t necessarily suck.  There are also parts that kind of criticize fans who tend to collectively rage and prematurely judge a movie whenever they get hold of a piece of information with little or no context at all attached to it.

Personally, I was apathetic or impartial whether Superman Lives should have been made or not.  But after watching this documentary – as the title of this article have already stated – I now do wish that Superman Lives was made back in the 90’s.  Of course, I wouldn’t want to have such movie made at the present time.  But back in 1999?  That would have been great.  It’s going to be a weird and different take on Superman, but I felt in my bones that it would have its moments of entertainment regardless of how the quality turned out to be.  At worst, it could have been the Superman version of Batman and Robin.  And being at this point of time, I wouldn’t mind its awfulness because it would have already been a thing of the past.  We could have made fun of it and go enjoy hating it as we do with Batman and Robin.

On the other hand, it could have been epic.  Tim Burton’s take on the Batman mythos was weird, but it worked really well.  Fans hated the casting of Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but he turned out to be awesome, and is now considered by many (including yours truly) as the greatest live-action portrayal of Batman so far.

And just like Keaton, Cage might have turned out to be unexpectedly awesome, too.  Yes, in present time, he is considered by many as someone that has fallen from grace after starring in too many godawful films (guy needs the money).  But remember that back in the 90’s, Cage was a hot property.  He had won an Oscar in 1995.  And he starred in several beloved 90’s action films like Con Air, The Rock, and Face Off.  Personally, I’m a fan of Nicolas Cage as an actor.  He has genuine talent and could project a lot of acting depth when doing good movies.  And on bad movies, he hams it up so incredibly well (e.g. Vampire’s Kiss, The Wicker Man remake) that his presence would ensure an entertaining time nonetheless.  So whether he would have made a terrific or terrible Superman, it’s almost a guarantee that he would have done an entertaining job.

In the end, we can only really speculate on how Superman Lives would have been.  Thankfully, we now have The Death of “Superman Lives”: What Happened?.  Not only did it give us more fuel for our speculations, but watching it is also the closest thing we’ll have on experiencing Superman Lives – and this documentary is quite an enjoyable experience.  

Read More

A Cool Plot Twist Can't Save 'Insurgent' from Being as Mediocre as Expected

Insurgent (its full, more boring name is The Divergent Series: Insurgent) is the sequel to last year’s Divergent, a movie about a dystopian society set in post-apocalyptic Chicago wherein people are divided into five factions depending on their inherent traits and personalities.  To be honest, I’m already tired of movie adaptations of YA novels that are mere attempts to replicate the success of Twilight (being the worst kind) or The Hunger Games (being the best kind), and I actually intended to skip watching this movie.  But I recently found myself having nothing better to do or watch, and since I saw the first Divergent movie, the nerd completist in me felt obligated to watch this second installment.

The first Divergent movie had a few entertaining moments, and there was something interesting about its premise.  However, it’s such a forgettable and unexciting story overall that I have literally forgotten what the story of Divergentwas.  I have flashes of memories of some scenes and a basic grasp of the general plot, but I seriously can’t remember large chunks of what happened in the first movie.  Heck, I even forgot the faces of the characters out of Shailene Woodley, Maggie Q, and Kate Winslet.  That’s why I was surprised to see Miles Teller in this movie – “Oh, he was that d-bag guy?”  There’s no way I would re-watch it for the sake of prepping for Insurgent.  It’s definitely going to be a tedious chore, if ever.  Hence, it took me a while to catch the plot transition of Divergent to Insurgent.

As to be expected, Insurgent is full of boring clichés and dumb conveniences that I found it so hard to get invested in the movie.  It basically has the same tone and personality – or lack thereof – as the previous movie.  There are moments when it felt it was going into something interesting but failed to follow it up.  “Hey, that looks cool.  I wonder where thi – Oh wait.  It’s over?  That’s it?”

I also found it so hard to root for the main character, Tris.  She’s pretty bland.  When she cuts her hair at the beginning of the movie without any sensible explanation given aside from “I wanted something different”, I knew that I won’t ever like this character.  Moreover, though a fine actress, Shailene Woodley has no appeal.  Everyone is saying that she is the next Jennifer Lawrence, but I’ve always find nothing of that whenever I see her on screen.

I probably would have liked it more if the story focused on Maggie Q (I’m obviously a fan) or on Miles Teller.  Teller’s character, like the rest of them, never made an impact in me the first movie (again, I even forget Teller was in it).  To be fair, I had only taken notice of Miles Teller for the first time in Whiplash, so he’s a more familiar actor to me now than when I watched Divergent.  Still, I kind of like his character, Peter Hayes; he definitely has the best characterization and character development among the lot, and Miles Teller played Hayes’ d-bag, self-centered persona to winning perfection.  Too bad Miles Teller and Maggie Q are just third-tier characters in this movie.  

Also worth mentioning: Though the characters they portrayed are one-dimensional, Naomi Watts and Kate Winslet, delivered good performances.  But that is to be expected from an Oscar nominee and an Oscar winner.

The climax and big twist in the end are actually pretty cool.  But I was worn out at that point, and had long given up on the movie.  Wading through an hour and a half of bad material to get to 15 minutes or so of good stuff isn’t worth it.

Insurgent is a mediocre, barely watchable movie at best.  The only good thing I can say about it is that, due to its emphatic ending, I will no longer have the difficulty of connecting the story of this move to next year’s installment, Allegiant Part 1 – ugh, another gratuitous two-parter franchise finale – that is, of course, if I’m ever led to watch it.

Read More

'Ant-Man' Gives the Marvel Cinematic Universe a Tiny Hero with Giant Contributions

Stepping down from the epic scale of its previous two offerings – Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers: Age of Ultron – Marvel’s newest movie is Ant-Man, the studio’s first solo superhero origin movie since 2011’s Captain America: The First Avenger.  However, Ant-Man’s heist element, sense of fun, captivating cast performances, and dynamic storytelling elevates it from being merely a typical superhero origin movie.  And as far as being a superhero origin movie is concerned, Ant-Man is Marvel’s best since Iron Man.

Ant-Man introduces us to Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a former engineer and burglar, who has just been recently released from prison.  He is recruited by Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), the original Ant-Man, to succeed him as well as aid him in stopping his former protégé, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), from his desire to perfect and use the same shrinking technology of Ant-Man for his own evil purposes.  As Pym and his daughter Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) train him in becoming a proper Ant-Man, Scott embraces the opportunity for redemption and rises up to the challenge of being a hero.

I enjoyed Ant-Man a lot.  It has a lot of clever ideas, and carries them out rather well.  It has an ample amount of funny moments.  The execution and shots of its actions scenes are beautiful.  Its connections to the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s major components work really, really well; they turn out to be sensible instead of just being needless servicing.  The adorability, heart, and depth that it attempts to generate resonate with sincerity and appeal.  And the excitement I got from its mid-credits scene was the greatest I’ve ever had from a Marvel mid-/post-credits scene since Tony Stark showed up in The Incredible Hulk.

I love the cast of this movie.  Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, and Evangeline Lilly are phenomenal.  It’s apparent from Rudd’s performance that he is living in the moment and loves every second of being a superhero in the MCU.  He is so into his character.  The charisma and likability of Paul Rudd as Scott Lang are comparable to that of Robert Downey, Jr.’s first outing as Tony Stark in Iron Man.  (I really like his portrayal as Scott Lang/Ant-Man that I now think the character should move up in my list for size-manipulators in fiction.)

Michael Douglas played the heck out of Hank Pym; every scene he’s in has been thoroughly compelling.  And Ant-Manis the movie that made an Evangeline Lilly fan out of me.  Can’t wait to see her as (SPOILERS?) the MCU’s version of the Wasp.  Moreover, the trio of Michael Peña, David Dastmalchian , and Tip “T.I.” Harris – playing the members of Lang’s heist team – who I initially thought out of place and unnecessary to the movie, have surprisingly enjoyable presence (especially Peña).

Ant-Man does have its share of bumps.  But considering the fact that it has to deal with the problem of having initial director Edgar Wright leaving mid-production (due to creative differences with Marvel), this movie not turning to be worse is a fine achievement.  Replacement director Peyton Reed did a fantastic job in molding the project into the delightful finished product it has become.

It’s intriguing to wonder how the movie could have turned out in the hands of Wright.  But it’s not as if this movie is devoid of Edgar Wright.  His fingerprints are still apparent in this movie.

Ant-Man is definitely one of this year’s best.  I think, at this point, it’s sitting within the top 4.  Not only that, but Ant-Man could probably be within my top 6 most favorite Marvel Studios films of all time.  That’s how great I think this movie is.

Read More

'Ted 2' Reminds Me That I'm Not Really a Fan of Seth McFarlane's Humor

Though I occasionally watched Family Guy and find Stewie Griffen an interesting character, I’ve never been a fan of the show nor of Seth McFarlane.  Yes, some of McFarlane’s jokes were funny.  But in every five jokes delivered, only one made me burst out laughing, one induces just a chuckle, two I find distasteful, and one was quite unfunny.  However, I enjoyed the first Ted movie.  I considered it as the most hilarious movie of 2012.  There’s something about Seth McFarlane’s brand of humor embodied in an adorable stuffed teddy bear that worked very, very well.  So Ted 2 is one of the 2015 movies I was looking forward to.  I was curious if McFarlane can pull it off again.

In Ted 2, John Bennet (Mark Wahlberg) has been divorced for six months from Lori, whom he had married at the end of the first movie.  On the other hand, Ted (Seth McFarlane) marries his girlfriend Tami-Lyn (Jessica Barth) and they decide to have a baby.  However, a serious complication arises when the couple attempts to adopt and it is revealed that it won’t be possible since, in the eyes of the law, Ted is not a person but mere property.  Pissed, Ted and John seek the help of rookie lawyer Samantha Leslie Jackson (Amanda Seyfried) to establish Ted’s personhood on court.

I find the first Ted movie much funnier.  Ted 2’s comedy completely relied on being stupid, offensive, and disgusting.  To be fair, that was to be expected.  Still, the first Ted movie really has more clever comedic content, better comedic timing, and better comedic delivery overall.  Ted 2 just decided to go with the infamous McFarlane brand of humor without trying to be creative about it.

That said, there were still parts that made me laugh robustly.  The jokes that worked really worked well.  My most favorite scene was when John and Ted went to watch an improv comedy show and yelled out awesomely inappropriate suggestions.  That was a comedic masterwork.  However, most of the time it’s all stoner and crude humor, or jokes that I didn’t get, like that part with Liam Neeson and a Trix cereal.

Yep, Liam Neeson.  Sorry, if that’s a spoiler.  But this movie has a surprising number of cameos.  Liam Neeson is just one of them.  Seriously, there was a lot.  I guess many Hollywood people like Seth McFarlane that he got them to appear in this movie.

Another surprising detail in this movie was the decision to add musical numbers in this movie.  They felt okay at first, but as these songs progressed, they felt out of place in the end.

As for the story – well, I never really expect that this movie to be smart.  Still, the whole “Ted fighting for personhood” aspect actually gave the movie a chance to have some depth.  Unfortunately, the story failed to tap into this.  The resolution of the conflict was anti-climactic, the narrative was lazy, and the plot lacked common sense.

Ted 2’s only upgrade from the first movie is Amanda Seyfried, who is hands down better than Mila Kunis.  Aside from that, Ted 2 fails to top or even match its predecessor.  This simply shows that the first Ted movie is just a manifestation of McFarlane’s 1:4 odds of succeeding in comedy.

Read More