The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become such an overwhelming success that it has now made the Marvel brand one of the most powerful names in entertainment.  Marvel Comics had a rough history during the 80’s and 90’s; never seeming to get much traction with movie adaptations of their properties and watching their rival DC Comics effortlessly making millions off of blockbuster hits like Superman (1978) and Batman (1989).  Not only that, but when the rise of comic book movies in the 90’s did take hold, Marvel had to sell off the cinematic rights to their characters to many different studios, helping them to at least gain exposure but also loosing creative control over their characters on the big screen as well.  That all changed with the acquisition of Marvel by Disney and the subsequent formation of Marvel Studios.  Now, Marvel had a power base to take back their many different characters and make movies their own way.  The results have completely reversed Marvel’s fortunes and now they are the envy of Hollywood.  But, what is distinctly special about the success of Marvel’s cinematic universe is that not only does it highlight many of their marquee characters (Iron Man, Captain America,The Hulk) but it has also given the spotlight to characters that normally would’ve been ignored.  This was probably best illustrated by the release of Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), where Marvel took one of their more obscure titles made it into a hit film; some would say, like myself, that it was their crowning achievement, so far.  But, there are other characters that are also getting the spotlight today because of the ever expanding reach of the MCU, and that includes one unlikely Marvel all-star; Ant-Man.

Ant-Man has had one of the more interesting development cycles in recent years.  Planned long before the beginning of Marvel’s big launch of it’s universe, Ant-Man was a dream project for acclaimed British comedy writer/director Edgar Wright.  Wright has always been a huge fan and champion of the pint sized hero, and he spent years crafting the screenplay with his frequent collaborator and fellow filmmaker Joe Cornish.  But, for years, the project often took a back seat as Marvel had yet to consolidate it’s properties back into their own studio.  After the successful Phase 1 of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe completed with the release of the mega-hit The Avengers (2012), Phase 2 was put into action and with it, the announcement that Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man would become a reality.  Wright spent the next few years putting together the production of his long in-development script and that included finalizing the visual representation of Ant-Man’s powers as well as casting the right actors for the roles.  Everything looked like it would help lead to yet another successful launch of a somewhat obscure Marvel superhero, but around two years ago the unimaginable happened.  News spread that Edgar Wright was leaving the project altogether, and that another director was being hired on to complete the film.  Apparently, creative differences between Wright and Marvel was to blame, as the director refused to compromise his vision to fit within Marvel’s increasingly stringent playbook regarding it’s cinematic universe.  This eventually led to speculation that the movie was in trouble, and could end up being Marvel’s first failure as an independent film company.  But, now that the movie has finally made it to theaters, audiences can now decide for themselves, and thankfully, Ant-Man is not the realization of our worst fears, nor is it anything more than we expected.

Ant-Man’s screenplay and story is still credited to Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, but it was also given a quick rewrite by the film’s star Paul Rudd and his frequent collaborator Adam McKay.  While much of the film does feel disjointed because of the two different creative teams working on it, it more or less retains Wright and Cornish’s original story outline.  The plot involves a master thief named Scott Lang (Rudd) who takes a job where he is hired to break into a high tech vault owned by an eccentric billionaire.  Once he’s broken in, he finds no cash or riches, but instead an odd looking suit with a matching helmet.  Curious to learn why this suit was in the vault to begin with, Lang tries it on and soon learns that the suit has the power to shrink it’s wearer down to the size of an insect.  After Lang’s trial by fire with the outfit, he soon meets the previous owner, renowned scientist Hank Pym (Michael Douglas).  Pym apparently wanted Lang to find the suit because he needed someone young and bold like him to break into his old facilities and steal something with the same powers.  That something is a prototype suit called the Yellowjacket, which has been developed as a weapon of war by Pym’s former protege Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).  Lang agrees to help Pym and is trained by the old man and his daughter Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lily) in order to harness all the different capabilities that the suit has.  In time, he learns that the suit enables him not only to shrink, but also allows him to be ten times stronger because of the increased density of his atoms.  He also is given the ability to speak with ants through a special frequency in his helmet’s antennas and control the ants to do his bidding as a result.  With his powers refined, Lang and Pym put the plan into action and try to stop Cross from selling the Yellowjacket to the wrong people, or using the suit’s mighty powers for his own sinister reasons.

The best that I can say about this finished film of Ant-Man after all the behind the scenes mayhem that preceded it is that it doesn’t come off as a disaster.  It’s a very capably made action film with a lot of funny humorous moments and plenty of entertainment value.  As another entry in the growing Marvel universe, it’s also very serviceable.  There are plenty of references to other things going on in the larger Marvel world, including some very welcome cameos from established characters in the universe that helps to tie everything together.  The worst thing that I can say about Ant-Man however is that it’s nothing special either.  Marvel has unfortunately fallen victim to it’s own success in this regard, because at this point, after several groundbreaking and original films in their canon, having a film that is only par for the course is not good enough anymore.  Ant-Man is the first movie from Marvel in recent years that just feels ordinary.  I wasn’t blown away by anything in this movie; it just rehashes things from other super hero movies that I’ve already seen done a million times before: the reformed criminal trying to live a better life for the sake of his daughter, the mentor who’s trying to right the wrongs of his past, the corporate hot shot who’s clearly the bad guy, the training montage, etc.  It’s almost like you can just sense the checklist that the Marvel corporate heads had laid out for this movie and each one getting checked off with every scene.  In the end, that seems to be what led to Edgar Wrights departure from this project.  This Ant-Man is the most committee driven Marvel movie to date, and that’s not a good thing for a company that has continually been leading the way with regards to  originality in the film-making community these last couple years.

My sense overall is that I might have liked this movie better had Edgar Wright been allowed to see his vision through to the end.  If you’ve seen any of Wright’s other movies, like his Cornetto trilogy (which I reviewed in detail here) or even his oddball comic adaptation Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), you’ll know that he’s a director with a distinct visual style.  Applying that said style to the character of Ant-Man would have made this a truly unique experience unlike anything else seen from Marvel.  But, sadly Marvel’s master plan won out and Wright proved to be too original a visionary for what they had in mind.  Unfortunately, with Wright’s departure, the reigns of the production were given over to director Peyton Reed.  Reed is a capable director, but he also lacks a distinctive trademark style to his name.  If you look at his filmography (2008’s Yes Man, 2006’s The Break-Up, and 2000’s Bring it On), there’s no real definition to his work.  He’s just a director for hire rather than a visual artist.  Now, that’s perfectly fine for someone who’s worked in the rom-com field where all you need is someone with basic film-making talent, but in the Marvel cinematic universe, it’s just not enough.  Ant-Man contains no distinct look that helps to separate it from other super hero movies.  The cinematography is very flat and it makes this movie feel no more different than a TV pilot at times, especially in the quieter dialogue scenes.  Peyton Reed thankfully doesn’t spoil the experience with his directing, but he also doesn’t help it to soar either.  It’s just good enough, which sadly is no longer good enough for fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  What has been the driving force of Marvel’s success is that each movie can stand on it’s own free from the bonds of the MCU’s over-arching plot, especially when it comes to each franchise’s own style.  Captain America sets itself apart with it’s gritty realism while Thor sets itself apart by embracing it’s operatic fantasy elements.  And Guardians of the Galaxy is just a whole other animal altogether.  By comparison, the plainness of Ant-Man sadly just makes it feel smaller in comparison.

But, as I said before in this review, Ant-Man is also far from being a disaster.  What ultimately saves this movie in the end is the performances by the more than capable cast.  Paul Rudd in particular works out perfectly as the title character.  He’s charming and funny, but still manages to carry the weight of emotions that the character must also express in this story-line.  I like the fact that Rudd is trying to make the character of Scott Lang different from all the other heroes in the Marvel universe.  He’s a wise-cracker, but not obnoxious, and he brings out the darker aspects of the character without overdoing it.  He runs a fine middle ground between all the other personalities of the Marvel heroes we’ve seen to date; he’s not as irreverent and in-your-face as Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man, nor as stoic as Chris Hemsworth’s Thor.  The casting of Rudd was one of Edgar Wright’s biggest contributions to the finished movie, and I’m happy to say that he got the right man, and that he’s going to continue to play a key role in the continuing Marvel Universe.  The rest of the cast also contributes to the overall effectiveness of the movie.  Michael Douglas especially shines as Hank Pym, the original Ant-Man.  Pym is probably one of Marvel’s more notorious main characters, with a very troubled history, and Douglas does a perfect job of conveying that long history of the character through his tortured and heartfelt performance.  Much of the movie’s best moments belong to him, especially when he berates Scott Lang whenever he screws up.  Corey Stoll also should be commended for taking a villainous character who could have come off as flat and boring and make him genuinely terrifying with his unhinged performance.   Actor Michael Pena is also fun to watch here as one of Scott Lang’s safe-cracking associates, with his long-winded ramblings being one of the movie’s most hilarious highlights.  Really, there are no weak points at all in this varied cast.  Everyone came to work and there’s not a single false note among any of them, which helps to make this movie far more entertaining that it would have been otherwise.

Despite the lackluster visual aesthetic that the overall movie has, I will say that the action scenes in the film are indeed very well staged.  The movie does an especially good job of visualizing the experience of Ant-Man shrinking down to his small size.  The special effects in this movie are top notch, and the sense of scale given to these moments are well done.  The best moments belong to the clever visual ways that Ant-Man fights against his enemies, whether it’s jumping onto a gun as it fires and then growing back to normal size to lay the final knockout punch to the man who fired at him, or whether it’s exchanging blows inside a closed briefcase with a shrunken Yellowjacket.  The final confrontation between the hero and the villain is especially well done, with the two adversaries fighting on the rails of a toy train set.  The movie makes this setting look larger than life and grandiose from the shrunken point of view of it’s characters and brilliantly cuts back to the POV of a normal sized person, showing the hilariously small impact that these two are actually making in their fight.  There are certainly holdovers from Edgar Wright’s vision of the movie in these action scenes, and I’m happy to see the movie retain them.  It almost makes up for the blandness of every other scene surrounding them.  At the very least, it makes the Ant-Man powers easy to convey to a larger audience and gives him the awesome superhero moments that he deserves.

So, did Marvel do right by the character in the end with their shakeup in the director’s seat.  While I don’t believe that Peyton Reed failed the character in the end, I still feel that something was lost in the departure of Edgar Wright from the project.  His original style would have certainly made this movie stand out visually from all the rest of the Marvel movies, instead of just following the lead that all the other ones have set.  But, this movie could also have been a lot worse, and I’ll credit director Reed for seeing this project through to completion.  There’s no doubt that this movie will ride the coattails of the successful movies that have become before it, and it’s not undeserving of that success either.  I’m certainly happy that they cast the right guy as Ant-Man, and that the visual representation of his powers were well done overall.  I just hope that the eventual continuation of the Ant-Man franchise will also allow for more creative freedom in the subsequent sequels.  Maybe they can even convince Edgar Wright to return and do an Ant-Man sequel on his terms, now that the pressure of establishing a new character is out of the way.  Overall, this is a passable, but not quite revolutionary addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It certainly didn’t make me angry about the direction it took like Iron Man 3 (2013) did, but at the same time it did give me a transcendent experience like Guardians of the Galaxy either.  Marvel needs to realize that the bar has been set extremely high now, and that they need to make every movie from here out both unique and entertaining.  Retreading old ground and putting out the minimum requirement is only going to reduce the intended impact from here out.  So, in the case of Ant-Man’s first cinematic outing, it’s still a rousing and entertaining time at the movies for the most part, but compared to his Marvel brethren, Ant-Man’s still just a small fish in the big pond of Marvel’s own making.

Rating: 7.5/10

The Fourth of July weekend has commonly been a strong one for summer movies.  Amid all the barbecuing and the fireworks, a good helping of American moviegoers also fit in a trip to the cineplex as well, and Hollywood usually reserves that time slot for some of their biggest attractions.  While the summer season usually sees successful releases for films of all kinds of genres, it’s usually the the action flick that rules the Fourth of July weekend.  Whether or not that’s a reflection of the holiday spirit or the kind of “rah-rah”, guns-blazing patriotism that comes along with the celebrations is uncertain, but it’s definitely the common pattern of the holiday weekend at the movies.  In the past, we’ve seen this time frame dominated by the likes of Transformers (2007), The Amazing Spiderman (2012), Men in Black (1997), and the appropriately titled Independence Day (1996).  And given that movie studios spread out their releases over a long weekend frame during the holiday, this is also a time of year where new movies are given a longer head start, making it to theaters on a Wednesday as opposed to the traditional Friday.  All this to show that the Fourth of July is a marquee date on the calendar for Hollywood.  This year, we are seeing a very strong summer season with movies like Avengers: Age of Ultron, Inside Out, and Jurassic World all holding very strong beyond their opening weekends.  Competition in this field is tough, which is why Paramount is hoping their big Fourth of July release can live up to the legacy that this weekend usually holds.  And what better way to celebrate the founding of America than an action flick sequel starring an Austrian born former state governor.

Terminator: Genisys is the fifth entry in the long running Terminator franchise.  Though the Terminator series started off strong in the 80’s with the now iconic original film, and was made even more legendary by it’s amazing sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1992), it has since struggled to find it’s direction with all the subsequent titles released thereafter.  Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) was a largely forgettable cash-in, and Terminator Salvation (2009) took a clever and interesting concept and ruined it with a poor execution.  Terminator: Genisys marks the latest attempt to revitalize the series and update it for the times we now live in.  The movie has one thing in it’s favor; it marks the return of franchise star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who’s slipping back into the familiar territory of action flicks now that his years in politics are over.  It certainly is one of the movie’s best selling points, because beyond that, this film is a hard sell.  Relying heavily on it’s brand name and the star power of the Governator, Terminator: Genisys unfortunately tries way too hard to squeeze out any last ounce of substance in this franchise.  The same can be said about the last couple Terminator movies as well, but it feels much more apparent this time around given the way that the story goes.  Here, instead of moving the plot forward in time, we are taken back to the beginning and are shown the world of Terminator thrown into disarray.  Terminator: Genisys is a very complicated movie, perhaps more so than any other in the franchise, and more than anything, it’s largely due to the direction they chose to take with this new entry.

The story begins in the now not too distant future of 2027 (back in the 1984 original, this would have been seen as a far off future date).  The world is a wasteland now ruled by a race of robots controlled by the omnipresent artificial intelligence system known as Skynet.  Only a small band of human resistance remains to take down the cybernetic overlords, and they are rallied together by their leader John Connor (Jason Clarke).  Upon entering a key Skynet facility, they uncover the robot army’s secret weapon, a time machine.  They learn that one of the robots, a Terminator, has already gone through the machine and was sent back to the past, setting up the events of the first movie.  John Connor makes plans to use Skynet’s own weapon against it, and send one of his own men into the past to stop the Terminator from killing his mom, Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) before he is born.  Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) volunteers for the job and is sent back to the past, only to find that things are not what John Connor said they would be.  Instead of saving a helpless and unaware Sarah, she ends up saving him with the help of her own guardian Terminator whom she affectionately refers to as Pops (Schwarzenegger).  Kyle soon learns that the timeline that he’s from has been altered and that Skynet has begun a whole new strategy to ensure it’s survival; a Trojan horse operating system known as Genisys.  In order to stop Genisys from going online, Sarah and Kyle travel into the future year of 2017 in order to prevent it’s launch, and they soon learn that Skynet has sent an unexpected guardian to the past as well to prevent them foiling it’s plan; John Connor, modified into a terminator.

This is a plot twist that could have been a shocker, had the studio not spoiled it in the trailers.  But, it’s only one of the many twists and turns that this movie takes throughout the course of it’s running time, and that’s largely the biggest problem with the movie.  This is a very plot heavy film, where many scenes are devoted to just explaining everything.  But, by doing this, the movie removes any suspense that’s needed to be built up.  It’s as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the audience’s ability to comprehend the finer details of the story, so it has everything spoon fed to us.  Pretty much the entirety of the movie’s plot is as follows: action scene followed by exposition followed by another action scene followed by even more exposition; explosions and talking, repeat until the end credits.  That’s about it.  There’s nothing remarkable about the story here; it’s just more of the same from beginning to end, which is a far cry from where the series started.  The 1984 original was a masterwork of suspense that didn’t need to detail everything about the universe that these characters exist in; in the end it was just a thrilling cat and mouse chase that was elevated by fantastic characterizations.  Terminator 2 went into a more action oriented mode of storytelling, but the action scenes were so big and creative, that it didn’t matter how complicated the plot was.  Terminator: Genisys is more or less just another routine action film, and one that relies heavily on your knowledge of the other movies in the series.  As a result, it lacks identity, which is something that has characterized all the Terminator movies made without it’s original creator, James Cameron.  The only defining thing about this movie is it’s attempts to update the technological reality of the Terminator world based on what we know today.  There’s a statement made in here about the over reliance with integrated media in our lives, but it gets lost pretty easily in this convoluted plot.  Basically Skynet has become an evil version of the Cloud system here.

There’s also a significant lack of vision in this movie.  Visually, the movie is as basic and dull as an action movie can get.  There’s no mood established, no trick photography; really nothing at all that we haven’t seen before in about a hundred other action movies.  And, I hate to keep bringing up the other films in the franchise, but it’s a comparison that has to be made, because vision is one of the things that once defined the franchise back in the day.  Before James Cameron brought the sinking of the Titanic to cinematic life and took us to the far off world of Pandora, his name was undeniably linked to the Terminator series.  He redefined the sci-fi genre with 1984’s The Terminator with groundbreaking special effects and a unique take on the concept of time-travel; something that even astrophysics scholars have written papers on in response.  The sequel took all of Cameron’s concepts and made them even more epic, establishing this franchise as not only a masterful work of science fiction, but one of the most defining ones of all time.  Terminator 2 also broke new ground in the visual effects field, pioneering a lot of new technologies in CGI, which brought the amazing liquid metal T-1000 to life.  Since then, Terminator has stopped being the leader of the pack and has just gone through the paces instead, particularly in the visual department.  Genisys is directed by Alan Taylor (Thor: The Dark World), who takes a workmanlike approach to the movie that’s not bad, but not anything spectacular either.  He’s basically just standing on the shoulders of what’s been done before.  And what’s particularly troubling about the safe approach here is how unremarkable the visual effects are now.  Really, the original Cameron-directed classics hold up much better as showcases for CGI than this more modern film does, because Cameron knew how to uses his effects for maximum impact.  Here, it’s just an overload of CGI that altogether looks the same from scene to scene.

But, not everything in the movie is a disaster.  There is one saving grace in the film and that’s the presence of Arnold.  Let’s face it, these movies would not exist without Mr. Schwarzenegger’s star power and remarkably he’s still able to leave a much welcomed impression in this series. It’s not a remarkable performance per say, but Arnold does provide much needed levity in this movie with some hilariously delivered one-liners throughout.  And it shouldn’t be surprising how comfortable he feels in this role either.  It’s the part that made him a star, and he slips back into it here comfortably like an old pair of pants.  Honestly, if the whole movie had just followed his lead, it would have been much more enjoyable to watch, but sadly he’s the one bright spot in a muddled mess.  Even still, he’s a welcome element that helps improve the film significantly.  I was smiling every time he was on screen, partly because of the nostalgia factor but also because Schwarzenegger still has unmatched charisma as a action movie star.  If you take anything away from this movie, it will be any moment that he’s in.  There’s a nice running gag throughout the film with Arnold’s Terminator making attempts to blend in, which results in an awkward forced smile (best seen when he’s getting his mugshot taken).  There’s also another good moment when he and Kyle Reese get into a friendly competition as they try to outpace each other while loading their weapons.  It’s little things like this that help make Arnold’s presence here worthwhile and he easily becomes the beating heart of this movie as a whole.

Sadly the remainder of the cast is a lot less consistent.  Emilia Clarke is feisty enough as Sarah Connor, but her performance retains none of the resonance that she shows weekly in her role as Daenerys Targaryen on Game of Thrones.  Her Sarah Connor is much more of a passive force this time around in the story, sidelined to basically reacting to the events rather than taking matters into her own hands, which is what Linda Hamilton’s version of the character did so well before.  But I think that it’s less to do with how hard she performs and more so to do with the limitations put on her character in the script.  Clarke does the best with what she’s given and thankfully she does a passable job embodying the now iconic heroine.  (Interesting side note, Emilia Clarke now shares the role with one of her Thrones co-stars, Lena Headey, who played Sarah on TV in the Sarah Connor Chronicles series).  The weakest cast members, however, unfortunately would be the two Australian stars, Jason Clarke and Jai Courtney.  Courtney especially has been plagued by lackluster roles in action movies over the course of his career, although he is better served here than in the terrible A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).  His Kyle Reese is serviceable, but pales in comparison to Michael Biehn’s standout performance in the original.  Also, there is zero chemistry between the two leads here, which is something that defined the first Terminator so memorably.  Jason Clarke also gets the enviable role of John Connor, and does very little with it.  It’s a sadly passionless performance that displays none of the charisma that John is supposed to represent.  It makes you long for the likes of Christian Bale, who himself had a hard time with the role.  Hell, I would even prefer the ranting Christian Bale from the set of Terminator Salvation.  The movie also brings in quality actors like J.K. Simmons and Doctor Who’s Matt Smith and wastes their abilities on underdeveloped roles.  In the end, the movie makes a talented cast work hard for not much of a result, which is another disappointing aspect of this film.

So, how bad is this movie overall?  I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s the worst action movie that I’ve ever seen.  Hell, it isn’t even the worst action movie of this year, or this summer.  It’s just kind of a “Meh” movie from beginning to end; unremarkable in every way possible.  Well, to be fair, any moment with Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth seeing, but there’s not much else of note to say about it.  The action scenes are bland, the CGI is horrendously overused and generic, and the characters are just pale imitations of what they once were in better movies.  As a standalone action flick, I guess it could serve it’s purpose, but unfortunately for Terminator: Genisys, it’s carrying the legacy of a once dominant franchise.  And instead of expanding on the universe, this movie instead chooses to just cover old ground and tell us a story that we already know, adding nothing to the mythos.  The vision that James Cameron created with his original movies is something worth exploring further, especially with all the new advances in technology that we’ve made in the years since; yet that’s not what we’re getting in the franchise today.  But, even still, this movie isn’t so bad that it casts a dark shadow on the series as a whole.  In the end, the first two Terminators still retain their classic status, and this new version is more or less on par with the last couple movies from the series.  Having  Arnold back certainly helps.  Overall, it’s just a sub-par entry into a franchise that has seen better days and should probably be put to rest soon, or at least re-freshened with new ideas.  As a diversion for this year’s Fourth of July weekend, I would recommend sticking with the fireworks, because you will find none with this Terminator.

Rating: 5.5/10

There’s few other movie companies with a track record like Pixar Studios.  Groundbreaking and consistently successful at the box office, Pixar has developed into a brand both admired and envied.  Parent company Disney certainly knew what they were doing when they acquired the studio back in 2005, but their partnership goes back long before even that.  Starting with the phenomenon that was Toy Story (1995), Pixar and Disney have continued their win streak for 20 years strong, winning multiple awards and continually breaking box office records in the animated category.  But, even with the hot streak that Pixar has had, it’s by no means a given that everything they touch turns to gold; although for a period in the mid aughts, it certainly looked like that was the case.  In recent years, Pixar has been showing some signs of weakness, at least in the quality of their storytelling (they have still dominated at the box office).  This was clearly evident with the lackluster Cars 2 (2011), the only film made by the studio that was panned by critics and the first instance where it looked like the studio was just lazy.  Hope was high with the follow-up Brave (2012), but sadly that film also disappointed; it was beautiful to look at but hollow and disingenuous as a story.  I enjoyed the film that followed, Monsters University (2013), but a lot of other fans did not as they’ve grown weary of too many sequels dominating the animated landscape.  And to compound the problem for Pixar, they’ve seen a lot more competition from other studios who have upped their game in recent years and are challenging them for dominance in the market; whether it’s rival Dreamworks (How to Train Your Dragon), upstart Illumination (Despicable Me) or Disney’s own in house animation department (Frozen).

So, with a lagging output from their own lineup of films and more competition from other studios, there’s more pressure on Pixar now than ever before to deliver something special.  I think part of what has been Pixar’s problem in recent years is that they’ve become a victim of their own success.  People’s expectations for the studio have become almost unfairly high, and their ability to exceed those expectations is becoming nearly impossible to meet.  But, at the same time, they’ve opened themselves up to disappointment from audiences by relying too heavily on familiarity in their stories.  They’ve always delivered stunningly beautiful animation, but what’s made Pixar different from everyone else has been their emphasis on story and characters.  The best of their movies also feel complete as stories too, making the experiences worthwhile.  But, if your movies lack cohesion and effort, then they feel incomplete or uninteresting.  Pixar seemed to be falling into this trap by delivering things that felt like retreads rather than original ideas.  Cars 2 and Monsters University told us nothing new about the worlds they depict, and Brave was just another fairy tale and nothing more.  It seems from this recent trend that Pixar was just following the market instead of driving it, which is very uncharacteristic for such a groundbreaking company.  Something new and fresh needed to shake things up to get the studio back on track and thankfully acclaimed Pixar director Pete Doctor (Monsters Inc., Up) has just the movie that they needed right now.  That movie is the remarkably original and endlessly intriguing Inside Out.

Inside Out is really unlike anything we’ve seen from Pixar or any animation studio before.  Part of the allure of this movie is the concept behind it, where the human mind is visualized as a fully realized world with different communities working together to form a person’s personality, and all of our key emotions are personified as individual characters.  But, for Pixar, it’s not just about the concept alone; it’s how they use it.  The story rolls out on two levels; one, it tells the story of a pre-teen girl named Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) as her family moves to the city of San Francisco, uprooting her into an unknown and challenging new life, and two it follows the lives of the different emotions inside her mind, who govern all the choices and memories that she makes in her life.  Chief among the emotions is Joy (Amy Poehler), and her team is made up of Disgust (Mindy Kaling), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black), and the troublesome Sadness (Phyllis Smith).  Joy tries her best to keep Riley happy and positive throughout her life, but Sadness wants to help out more, which messes up much of Joy’s plans.  After the two come into conflict over one of Riley’s core memories (which is presented in the form of a glowing sphere), both Sadness and Joy are thrown out of the control room and into the far reaches of Riley’s subconscious mind, leaving only Disgust, Anger and Fear left to steer the ship.  With what seems like an endless expanse between them and home, both Joy and Sadness must overcome their differences in order to return themselves and Riley’s core memories back where they belong.  And the road back is about as complex and treacherous as you would expect the human mind to be.

It’s a pretty heady concept for a movie aimed at kids, but of course this is Pixar we’re talking about; the studio that caters to the child in all of us.  So, how does Inside Out fare against the rest of Pixar’s stable of films?  Pretty well actually.  In fact, I would easily put this in the Top 5 films that they have made.  This is another home run by the studio and is exactly the kind of movie that they needed to get them back on track.  From the very opening shot, showing Joy emerging out of the void to illicit the first squeal of laughter out of a newborn Riley, to the final hilarious montage during the credits, Inside Out is an absolute delight.  It does exactly what the greatest films from Pixar have always done which is take a great concept and make it work with a compelling story and incredible characters.  But, even more remarkable than that is how well they execute the underlying premise of the movie.  Visualizing the human mind as it’s own world is easy enough to comprehend on paper, but to actually make it work on film is another thing.  Making it comprehensible to younger kids is especially challenging, but the movie does a remarkable job of laying out exactly how this world works without ever spoon feeding needless exposition to it’s audience.  In fact, the wonder of this movie is seeing all the clever different ways it visualizes the inner workings of the mind; like having a train of thought appear as an actual train, or dreams being produced inside a movie studio (a literal dream factory as it were).  But, even with all the amazing visuals, Pixar still manages to find the heart at the center of this story and that’s what helps to make Inside Out as special as it is.

Like the best of Pixar’s output, story is paramount to it’s success.  At the heart of it, this story is about polar opposites working together and finding the value in one another.  Although Joy isn’t malicious in nature, she certainly isn’t perfect either, and much of the film’s conflict comes from her unwillingness to let Sadness be a crucial part of the team.  As the story goes along, we see an understanding build between the two, and Joy learns that you need sadness in life in order to appreciate the joy, something in which she had failed to see before.  Essentially, it’s about looking beyond differences just as much as it is about fighting your emotions and finding that right balance.  It also makes us look at complex ideas in a straight forward and entertaining way, which is what Pixar is best at.  Much like how Wall-E (2008) gave us a look at environmentalism, or how The Incredibles (2004) made us look at objectivism, Inside Out makes statements about human psychology and avoids ever trying to lecture to it’s audience.  Pixar has always let the stories carry themselves and statements about the larger world, whether pointed or not, have always seemed like a by product rather than the main focus of their movies.  It’s something that really sets them apart from other, less subtle filmmakers.  And best of all is that it doesn’t distract from the plot either.  Inside Out sticks firmly to it’s goal and that’s to entertain, whether it’s with huge laughs or with tear-inducing heartbreak.

Apart from the story, the other thing that audiences will absolutely love about this movie is the characters.  Each character is instantly recognizable and the look perfectly matches the emotion that they represent.  Disgust of course is green, with a perpetual sneering look of anguish on her face.  Purple hued Fear always looks hunched over like he’s about to roll up into a ball for protection.  Red hot Anger is a tiny ball of rage and literally is only seconds from firing up all the time.  And then we get the key characters of Joy and Sadness, perfectly off setting each other in bright yellow and deep blue.  Each character is distinctive and their personalities are all perfectly realized in their appearance.  The designs are also matched with perfectly cast voices as well.  Saturday Night Live alum Amy Poehler is the natural choice for Joy, as are Mindy Kaling (The Mindy Project) for Disgust and Bill Hader (SNL) for Fear.  Even more perfect is comedian Lewis Black as Anger, considering that his comedy act is famously built around his hilarious over-the-top rage, and there are some laugh out loud bits in the movie that exploit that perfectly.  The Office’s Phyllis Smith’s performance as Sadness however may be the strongest, as she makes the character both hilarious and heartbreaking at the same time, creating a very well rounded character.  Plus, her comedic timing and line delivery are some of the best parts of the movie.  But, the great character work isn’t just limited to the Emotions.  The human characters are also well done, especially the crucial character of Riley.  She may very well be the best animated human character that Pixar has done to date.  The subtlety of her animation is really astounding, and it makes those bizarre looking human models of Andy and Sid from Toy Story seem very primitive by comparison.  Indeed, these are characters that will absolutely earn their place among the likes of Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Dory, and all of Pixar’s other greatest characters.

Now, is Inside Out a perfect movie?  Not quite, but pretty close.  The one flaw I would say that the movie has is the pacing and familiarity of the plot.  Pixar seems to love stories about characters getting lost in an unfamiliar world and finding their true selves on the way home.  We’ve seen it in Toy Story (1995), Finding Nemo (2003), Wall-E (2008) and Up (2009), and the same kind of story plays out again here in Inside Out.  It’s an unfortunate retread of familiar ground, which has been Pixar’s weakness in recent years.  But the creativity put into the journey helps to make this a bit more acceptable this time around.  I for one didn’t mind seeing Pixar reuse this same type of plot, just as long as it did something fresh with it and added in a few surprises, which it does.  But, even still, there are times when you feel like the concept itself could have been explored differently; that way the end result would’ve felt a little more unexpected.  That would be the film’s only other fault; a very rushed and anti-climatic conclusion, though still with some heartfelt emotion present.  Overall, even with faults in some of the plot, the movie’s high points still dominate the overall experience.  As the story goes along, I forgave most of the faults just because the creativity was strong enough to make those things not matter as much.  At some points, I was also just surprised by some of the risks the movie takes.  Though the movie is light-hearted in tone, it’s also not afraid to go a little dark at some points, even to the point of tragedy.  I’m not going to spoil what happens for you, but there was a moment in this movie that actually brought the audience I saw this with to tears; even openly crying in some cases.  Think on the same level of Bambi’s Mom dying or the opening montage of Up, and that’s what this moment managed to accomplish.  Though sad, it thankfully doesn’t spoil the mood of the movie and actually it does help to enhance it.  After all, this is a story about Joy and Sadness working together, so naturally the movie’s plot should reflect that.  But, even still, be prepared to weep in between the many laughs throughout the film.

In many different ways, this is exactly the kind of movie that Pixar needed to reassert itself as the leader in the animation community, as well as in the film industry in general.  It’s got all the elements of a great Pixar movie, but it doesn’t rest on it’s laurels either.  It takes risks, but without alienating it’s audience.  I am relieved to see this powerhouse studio gain it’s mojo back with this one, and I’m sure that audiences will feel the same way.  It may be hard right now to see exactly how this one will line up against some of Pixar’s other classics, but I can certianly say for myself that it’s among their best efforts.  Wall-E is still my favorite overall, and some of the Toy Story‘s still resonate a little stronger, but Inside Out puts to shame most of the other recent output from the studio.  I only wish that the same care with the story and these characters could’ve been used in something as promising as Brave, which sorely lacks everything that this movie has.  Also, unlike other Pixar movies, which work best as self contained stories, I actually believe Inside Out would be well served with a sequel.  The movie feels like it’s only scratched the surface with this concept, and I would love to see the continuing adventures of these characters.  Who knows; maybe if the movie does well enough at the box office, that could certainly happen.  More than anything, this is almost certainly going to be one of the year’s best films, if not one of the most entertaining. As is almost always the case with Pixar, this will be a movie with timeless appeal that will indeed be enjoyed by audiences young and old for generations to come.  And that’s something that Pixar can absolutely be joyful about.

Rating: 9/10

The future is always unpredictable and most attempts to imagine it in a film usually come up short of matching reality.  Take for instance the dystopian future of Blade Runner (1982) which imagined an overgrown, trash-filled Los Angeles in the far distant year of 2019.  Four years out and Los Angeles, while still big and rough in parts, is not exactly a hell hole yet; and replicant beings like the ones in the movie are nowhere near a reality today.  Why even the optimistic future of Back to the Future Part II (1988) is way off, since it takes place in our current year of 2015 and we still don’t have flying cars.  Even still, pondering and imagining the future is something that has always appealed to filmmakers and it doesn’t stop many of them from making their best guesses.  Filmmaker Walt Disney took an even better approach to imagining the future in his many projects, by not looking towards the things that will be but rather the things that could be in the future.  As an avid futurist, Disney consulted with some of the greatest scientific and literary minds of the 20th century, such as Ray Bradbury and Werner von Braun, and used his expertise and clout as a filmmaker to help spread their ideas and inventions to the world in order for them to take hold in the public consciousness.  His Disneyland television program in particular showcased programs in what he called the Tomorrowland segments that educated the world about science and invention, while at the same remaining entertaining.  This would also eventually manifest itself into the Tomorrowland area found in Disney parks around the world.  The overall effect has both kept optimism about the future alive while also creating a sustaining fanciful concept of what we ourselves can make the future into.

This is an idea that has undoubtedly inspired other filmmakers who have carried on and contributed to the long Disney legacy.  One of those people is Brad Bird, a one-time animator at the Disney company who has since become an acclaimed writer/director in both animation and live action.  Already, he has ammassed an impressive filmography with The Iron Giant (1999), The Incredibles (2004), Ratatouille (2007), and his successful leap to live action with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011).  After this successful stretch, Bird could have taken on any project he wanted, and thankfully he set out to deliver something new and original in the live action medium; something that’s been severely lacking in Hollywood in recent years.  He returned to Disney with the idea born out of nostalgia for some of those old Tomorrowland episodes and his source of inspiration stemmed from something found deep in the Disney archives.  That artifact has been dubbed the “1952” Box.  Now, this is purely from the press released about the movie, which could have been fed from Disney’s marketing team, so whether or not this “1952” Box is real or not is uncertain.  But, even if it is, it’s still an interesting discovery, as many of it’s contents present many fantastical dreams about the future, consistent with Walt’s concept of Tomorrowland.  Some speculate that the box’s contents related to the projects that Walt Disney was working on for the 1964 New York World’s Fair, but Brad Bird saw a bit more of a story being told within that box.  And that idea has now panned out into the new film Tomorrowland, which is quite a curiosity not just as a Disney film, but as a work of science fiction in general.

The story follows a young, scientifically minded teenager named Casey Newton (Britt Robertson) who is troubled by the loss of the space program in her hometown of Cape Canaveral, Florida.  Her father (Tim McGraw), a former NASA engineer, tells her that this is the new reality of their lives and that it’s time to let it go, but she refuses give up on her dreams.  After getting caught sneaking into the launching pad facility at Cape Canaveral, she is released from jail only to find that she has a new pin in her possession.  When she touches it, it transports her into another realm; one that only she can see.  This new realm turns out to be the titular Tomorrowland, which is a place where all of mankind’s greatest minds can coexist and have their dreams become a reality.  Unfortunately for Casey, the open door closes on her just as quickly as it opened.  In order to find out what Tomorrowland is and where she can find it, she goes in search of others who know about her pin.  While on her way, she runs across some menacing characters who are hunting her down. They turn out to be robot soldiers, or Audio-Animatronics as they are referred to in the film.  She’s saved from the robots by a mysterious young girl named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) who helps to steer her towards another like-minded soul who has information on the whereabouts of Tomorrowland.  Soon, Casey finds Frank Walker (George Clooney) a former boy genius who has been to Tomorrowland and can help her get there.  The only problem is, he’s been kicked out Tomorrowland before and is now unwelcome.  But, with some motivation, the two make it and soon find that Tomorrowland is not what they hoped it was anymore and is under the rule of the pessimistic Governor Nix (Hugh Laurie).

There is a lot of interesting things that are going on in the movie and it has a message that is very much in line with the optimism of the future that the idea of Tomorrowland represents.  Essentially, what Brad Bird wants to say with this movie is that the future is what we make of it, and he wants to steer us towards looking for ways to make the world a better place with both creativity and curiosity.  One of the things that Bird laments in the film is how people are obsessing about the end of the world and the horrible things that are happening in the environment and political world without ever considering what they can do to change it.  In particular, he highlights the fact that Hollywood’s view of the future has moved away from scientific ingenuity and invention and has instead presented a pessimistic apocalyptic view where either the world’s been destroyed by war, alien invasion or by zombie epidemics.  The byproduct of this, Bird argues, is that fewer people are engaging in scientific curiosity anymore from the media, and that has led to a loss in scientific mindfulness and an increase in uneducated hysteria. This is certainly a very important message to get across, and one that I wish the movie had adhered to better.  Unfortunately, Tomorrowland doesn’t fulfill the promise that it set out to create.  There are great ideas here, but they are sadly undone by the very same conventions that it’s trying to criticize.  It’s a very schizophrenic movie at times, because from scene to scene, it can’t decide whether it wants to be an inspirational movie, or an action movie.  And that whiplash of tone often undermines the potential that it could have had.

I think this primarily is a problem with the script more than anything else.  Brad Bird worked on this screenplay with Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, who is one of the more problematic writers working in Hollywood today.  Part of Lindelof’s problem is that he’s got the skills of a great writer, but with none of the restraint.  Sometimes he’ll have many great ideas (too many in some cases) but he can’t always coalesce them into a compelling and ultimately fulfilling narrative.  The most infuriating aspect of his writing is the way he keeps things vague and only teases his audience with the possibility that something extraordinary will happen, but ultimately never does.  Anyone who saw the last season of Lost knows what I’m talking about, and sadly Tomorrowland is built around the same template as all of Lindelof’s other scripts.  We are teased with all the wonders that we might see in the world of Tomorrowland, and the movie takes it’s time getting there, but once we finally arrive at Tomorrowland for real in the story, it’s a letdown because it doesn’t match what we dreamed it would be.  Maybe that’s part of the point, but it flies in the face of what Brad Bird wants us to feel with this movie.  What’s more, whenever the movie seems to find it’s footing, we are suddenly distracted by unnecessary cliches that derail the momentum in jarring ways.  This movie has a lot of explosions and gun-play for a film that’s also criticizing the overuse of them in modern flicks.  The villain, Governor Nix, also has a scene where he’s monologuing his whole sinister plan.  Didn’t Brad Bird destroy that cliche effectively in The Incredibles?

It seems to me that Lindelof is only at his best when he’s reigned in, by either a studio or by J.J. Abrams (and even he began to lose control near the end of Star Trek Into Darkness).  Unfortunately, Brad Bird doesn’t have that kind of control and he was probably too involved in the world building of this movie in order to address the flaws in the screenplay.  But, even with all the problems inherent, it doesn’t turn the entire thing into a disaster.  There are still a healthy amount of good things to like in this movie.  The best thing that Brad Bird has learned from his years in animation is to tell a story with visuals, and that goes a long way to help smooth over some of the movie’s more troublesome shortcomings.  The brief glimpses we get of Tomorrowland in all it’s glory are pretty spectacular.  Bird even showcases the entire place in a beautiful 5 minute long tracking shot, and you already know how much I like those.  He also manages to convey character traits without having to spell things out, either with costume ideas or clever clues from the character’s surroundings.  And while there are tonal inconsistencies throughout the movie, the individual scenes are still well paced and entertaining.  I especially liked the prologue which shows young Frank (Thomas Robinson) attending the 1964 World’s Fair in New York.  Not only does Brad Bird beautifully recreate this real historical event in great detail, including a surprise found in the “It’s a Small World” ride, but it also perfectly sets up the wonder that is Tomorrowland.  If only what followed had the same kind of wonder to it.

What does save most of the movie, however, is the cast itself.  While the roles aren’t specifically crafted for anyone in particular, it does seem perfect to have the key role of Frank Walker played by a star like George Clooney.  He perfectly captures the caricature of a once bright mind that’s been clouded by pessimism and he brings a lot of charm and depth to the character.  While, it’s not his film per se (it’s more about the character of Casey overall), Clooney still adds weight and prestige to this movie that might have otherwise have been too lightweight for it’s own good.  Britt Robertson, though a little too old to be playing a teenager, still carries the film well enough as Casey, and helps to make her likable, even despite the cliched “savior” role that she’s forced to play in this plot.  The best performance and character in the movie, however, belongs to Raffey Cassidy’s Athena.  Those mystical child characters you find in fanciful movies like this are sometimes hard to pull off and usually come off as insufferable.  Athena, however, is by far the best thing about this movie, and Ms. Cassidy brings a surprising amount of charm out of this difficult character.  I don’t want to give away too much, but there’s a lot of surprises revealed about Athena and she consistently improves the film in every scene she is in.  Given all the problems with the story, having a character like her present is a godsend, and one wishes that her story had been better explored.  The one weak point in the cast sadly would be Hugh Laurie as the villain.  Laurie is a reliably talented actor, and his performance here isn’t at all bad.  It’s just that Governor Nix is too much of a stock villain to be taken seriously.  In fact, he’s not even overtly evil enough to make us care about what he does in the film’s disappointing climax.  He’s just misguided, but with no real context to his character, so there’s no reason for us to fear him or understand him.   Still, it’s more the script’s problem, and not the actor’s, and he tries his best with what he has to work with.

I have to say, as both a Disney fan and as someone who wants to see movies that can inspire great minds to achieve great things again, I was saddened by how disappointing this movie was.  Believe me, I really wanted to love this movie; and I tried.  Tomorrowland could have taken us into a brave new world of science fantasy, and sadly it never gets even close to reaching it’s potential.  Maybe I expected too much, like seeing something that could end up being Stanley Kubrick meets Lewis Carroll, but Tomorrowland is far from Wonderland.  The movie sadly ends up falling into the same cliches that the filmmakers are also lamenting in their film, which makes the whole thing a tad bit hypocritical.  Part of the problem is with the uneven script, but the general problem with the movie is that it doesn’t seem to fully commit to anything either.  Tomorrowland as a place is only teased at, and the ideas (as good as they may be) are half-cooked and never fully explained.  Walt Disney used his Tomorrowland program to both educate as well as entertain.  Tomorrowland can entertain, but the education falls flat, which is a shame because it’s a lesson that needs to be taught.  But, as disappointed as I was, I can’t dismiss it either.  It’s still a beautifully crafted movie with some very strong performances by it’s cast.  Also, even though this may be Brad Bird’s least effective movie to date, there’s still a lot of creativity to behold.  Look for some of the clever Easter eggs throughout, like the hidden A113 that always appears somewhere in Bird’s movies, and also the the hidden Space Mountain that appears in the wide shots of Tomorrowland.  Though the movie is flawed, it’s also harmless too, and could be a fine source of entertainment for family audiences.  It especially works as a source of nostalgia for Disney fans, given it’s exploration into the company’s history with the scientific advances and explorations of the last 50 years.  I just wish that a more compelling story could have materialized out of all that dreaming.

Rating: 6.5/10