Fantasy films seem to go through cycles in Hollywood.  Sometimes they are out, and then sometimes they become hot properties again.  After something of a resurgence in the 1980’s, the fantasy genre went into hibernation during the 90’s, until Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy brought it back in a big way.  Afterwards, it seemed like any Young Adult novel or any original fantasy concept became a profitable investment to make, until it didn’t.  Towards the end of the 2000’s, the fantasy genre seemed to fall by the wayside with Comic Book movies taking it’s place.  And now, it seems like the genre is only being kept afloat by the one studio that has seemingly cornered the market now; Disney.  What benefits Disney is the fact that they’ve built their brand around the fantasy genre, and they have a proven track record of getting it right.  Think of any iconic fairy tale, and more than likely Disney has made the definitive version of that story for the big screen.  But, when we think of the definitive versions of these stories, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or the Little Mermaid, it’s usually the animated version that we think about.  So now, it is interesting to see Disney taking their own animated classics and translating them into live action today and in turn becoming the only studio delivering grand scale fantasy films to the market right now.  It’s easy to see why they are doing it; they have an extensive catalog to draw from and each comes with it’s own built in audience.  But, one has to wonder if rehashing their old classics in a new guise is actually beneficial to the Disney brand or not, and whether or not this adds any substance to the fantasy genre as a whole.

So far, Disney’s live action adaptations of their animated films have been mixed.  One of them did hit it’s mark last year in Kenneth Branagh’s retelling of Cinderella, a movie that did a great job of drawing on the nostalgia of the original film while still maintaining an identity of it’s own that worked.  This year’s The Jungle Book did an okay job with it’s adaptation, delivering on the visuals but underwhelming in it’s plot.  And then you get the bad adaptations that missed the mark completely.  2014’s Maleficent disappointed because it took the edge out of one of Disney’s greatest villains as well as missed the point of the original fairy tale.  And then there was Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (2010), the movie that began this recent trend of adapting animated classics.  The concept sounded perfect on paper; legendary Gothic filmmaker Burton taking on Lewis Carroll’s classic absurdist fantasy with Johnny Depp bringing his special brand of hammy acting to the role of the Mad Hatter.  How could it go wrong?  Well, as both an adaptation and a movie, it went very wrong.  Tim Burton’s Alice was no where near as whimsical as it should’ve been, and instead was dour and surprisingly violent.  This Alice had none of the cartoonish zaniness of Beetlejuice (1988) or the visual splendor of The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993).   It’s Tim Burton at his most disinterested, merely delivering on what the studio wanted instead of coming up with something unique.  Still, the movie was a box office hit, grossing over a billion worldwide despite it’s shortcomings.  A sequel was naturally in the works thereafter, but perhaps rightly, Tim Burton decided to move on.  Now a follow-up is here six years after the release of the original, titled Alice Through the Looking Glass (taken from Lewis Carroll’s own sequel to his original novel), and it’s premiering in a decidedly different atmosphere than it’s predecessor.  Did Disney learn some of the lessons of the original or did they just double down and coast on formula instead of doing something different?

The movie takes place only a few years after the adventures in the last film.  For those who haven’t seen the original, it should be noted that the 2010 film was not a remake of the original story, but instead something of a pseudo-sequel, finding Alice returning to Wonderland in adulthood.  This sequel finds Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) in the position of sea merchant, running the same ship that her father once did.  She unfortunately returns home to find that her investment partner has suddenly died and that the deed to her ship is in the possession of his spoiled, entitled heir, who’s looking to fire her.  Alice now finds that her livelihood is in danger, but her dilemma is interrupted when she is visited by her old friend The Catepiller (Alan Rickman in his last film role), now a butterfly who can cross between worlds.  He shows Alice a way back to Underland (their home’s name, which Alice mistakes for Wonderland) through a mirror (or looking glass), where she is greeted by the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) as well as the White Rabbit (Michael Sheen) and the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry).  They tell Alice that the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) has lost his mind and that the only way to bring him back to himself is to find his family, who are believed to be dead.  Alice is tasked with altering the past to prevent the Mad Hatter from losing his loved ones, and to do so, she must steal a device called the Chronosphere from Time himself (Sasha Baron Cohen).  Through her time travels, she tries to save her friend, while at the same time learning about all the backstories of the residents of Underland, all the while being hunted down by Time, looking to get back what’s his.  She soon learns, all the problems facing her friends lead her once again to facing an old enemy; the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).

So, as you can see, very little of this actually bears any resemblance to the Alice in Wonderland story that we all know.  This is a movie that merely uses the setting and the characters for it’s own purpose.  Now, does this work out as a good thing or a bad thing for the movie?  Well, here’s the situation.  On the whole, this is a better movie than the 2010 original; but not by much.  Using an original plot as opposed to mishandling a familiar one does indeed benefit the film; it’s less pressure to stay faithful to the original source.  That being said, this movie still carries over the same problem of the original, in that this world never once fells right as a representation of Wonderland.  Lewis Carroll’s original 1865 children’s novel was a masterpiece of absurdist literature.  It appealed to readers because Carroll’s Wonderland was a place where all rules of law, manners, and even physics were turned upside down and everyone there was just a little bit “mad”, making Alice’s journey both whimsical while at the same time always perilous.  It’s beloved by anyone who lives outside social norms, embraces the unusual, and let’s their imagination go wild.  The animated form is a perfectly suited medium for Carroll’s vision, because it’s the best way to capture the mad-cap sense of it all, and that’s why Disney’s 1951 feature is as beloved as it is.  So, it makes it all the more baffling why Tim Burton’s film as well as this sequel tries so hard to bring order and sense to Wonderland.  This is a Wonderland that’s fanciful, but in a way that’s forced.  It’s as if the studio was playing it too safe with the material, and in turn, it kind of neuters the vision of Wonderland as a whole.  This sequel sadly falls into the same trap as it’s predecessor by making Wonderland feel like every other fantasy realm we’ve ever seen, and less like it’s own unique world.  If there was ever a time to show off that anything is possible in the realm of fantasy, this would be the film to do it in, and it’s sadly a road not taken by this series.

I believe that a great deal of the problem with this movie and the original is in the screenplay.  Screenwriter Linda Woolverton has had a long history of writing for the Disney company (contributing to the scripts of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King for instance), but recently she’s been tasked with adapting these animated classics into the live action medium and I feel that it’s a task that’s not well suited for her.  A big problem with her writing style is that it relies too heavily on explaining things.  She seems to devote too much time to trying to make sense of a story that doesn’t need to be complicated in the first place.  There’s a lot of “on the nose” dialogue in this film, like Alice’s constant usage of half-baked philosophical musings that have no meaning, such as ” Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”  The way Woolverton plots her movies also tends to lean too closely to fan fiction rather than actual real screenwriting.  Like most low grade fan fics, Alice seems too self-interested in letting uncharacteristic scenarios play out than actually building any weight behind them.  This has led to some bad story-telling ideas at Disney recently like turning Maleficent into a hero instead of a villain (another script written by Mrs. Woolverton), and here, it makes the mistake of turning Alice into a proactive, warrior-like crusader, instead of the wandering traveler that she is in the book.  It’s a weird thing that’s happened to the fantasy genre in the wake of Lord of the Rings, where it seems like each film needs to end with their hero taking sword in hand and fighting in an epic battle, as Alice did against the Jabberwocky in the previous film.  Thankfully, that doesn’t happen in this movie, but Alice’s Back to the Future style time travel adventure doesn’t quite fit well either.

The big difference between this and the 2010 Alice is mostly in the style of film-making.  Instead of Tim Burton directing, this time the reins are given over to James Bobin, who a couple years back delivered a charming new big screen adventure for the The Muppets in their new movie of the same name.  He also started off his career as the co-creator of the cult series Flight of the Concords, which shows that he has a knack for absurdist comedy.  So, allowing him to direct this Alice in Wonderland sequel makes sense.  Unfortunately, Bobin can’t quite overcome the faults of the screenplay.  His management of the story still feels disjointed and at times rushed, not allowing any cohesive character development or tone to take hold.  That being said, he does help improve some of the visual aesthetic for the film.  The Tim Burton Alice not only suffered story-wise, but it was also ugly to look at, with muted colors and garish CGI overkill; only the Oscar-winning costumes by Coleen Atwood stood out.  Thankfully, Bobin does make this sequel look brighter.  The colors pop a lot more and there are some genuinely interesting visual ideas throughout, like Time’s gothic style fortress or the Red Queen’s garish vegetable built  hide-out.  Sadly, most of these visuals are drowned out by the movie’s over-reliance on CGI imagery.  Not only that, but the pacing is so manic, that the movie never devotes enough time to allow these visuals to soak in.  The movie only excels when it’s allowed to embrace the weirdness of this world and that sadly is few and far between.  But, credit is due to James Bobin for at least trying to make this world interesting, as opposed to Tim Burton’s disinterested approach in the last one.

The cast is also a mixed bag.  Mia Wasikowska was decent enough as Alice in the original, and she remains mostly the same this time around too.  Alice has so far been a fairly bland hero in these movies, but that’s more the fault of how she’s written than how she’s played.  Mia at least tries to make the character sympathetic, even when the script calls for her to do some really stupid things.  The same cannot be said for Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter.  This is without a doubt the worst performance that the notoriously eccentric actor has ever created.  Sometimes his acting intuitions generate some interesting roles out of him, and his oddball role as Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies is rightly iconic for that reason.  But here, I don’t know what he was thinking.  His whispery voiced, kubuki make-up wearing Hatter is a complete misfire of a character.  He’s not charming nor endearing.  Anytime he’s onscreen, the movie suffers as a result.  I get the feeling that he was just saddled with this role only because it was the only way Tim Burton could get Disney on board and Depp was only helping a friend out, but could never fully grasp the character and this was him just coasting on instinct.  Sadly for him, he’s the character that the rest of the film hinges on, and the lack of appeal for the Hatter reflects badly on the film as a whole.  Fairing better are Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter in their roles as Time and the Red Queen.  These two seem to know what kind of movie they’re in and they are clearly having fun with their roles.  Cohen actually make Time a surprisingly effective new addition to this world; both funny and poignant when he needs to be, utilizing his talents as an actor perfectly.  Carter, the best performer from the original as well, continues to be strong here and gives the single funniest performance, surprising given who her costars are.  It really shows how much the right cast can elevate material they’re given, and I applaud Disney for not only holding on to what they already had, but also expanding it and giving them more to  do.

So, is it worth revisiting this Wonderland yet again.  Well, if you were a fan of the original (which I doubt very few are) I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.  The movie is a mild improvement over the original, but let’s not forget, the bar was low to begin with.  This sequel is still plagued by terrible writing, a way too artificial visual aesthetic, and an uneven cast of characters.  Not to mention, there’s no cohesion to the plot (the story-lines within Wonderland and outside of it have nothing to do with each other) and the time travel element is pointless and never taken to it’s full advantage.  That being said, this film does feel less lazy than it’s predecessor and it thankfully avoids some of the same genre pitfallls.  This movie thankfully doesn’t end in an epic battle like so many other fantasy epics, and instead goes for a somewhat near apocalyptic conclusion.  There’s also the performances of Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter that help to liven up the movie and keep this from being too humorless and dour.  Still, the fact that Disney devoted so much time and effort to create a Wonderland that feels anything but wonderful is not a good sign.  If you’re going to bring Lewis Carroll’s absurdist vision to life, don’t hold it back.  Disney is the studio best equipped to adapt this source material and they did an admirable job of just that in their animated classic.  Sadly, the translation has not panned out in the live action medium and it makes one wonder if Disney’s raiding of it’s animated canon for this treatment is really a good idea overall.  If you want to watch Alice in Wonderland, go with the original animated classic.  Alice Through the Looking Glass is not the worst thing ever, but it’s a far cry from wonderful too.

Rating: 5.5/10

The start of the Summer Season is quickly becoming the domain of Marvel Studios.  Just like how Will Smith once dominated the Fourth of July weekend during the late 90’s, or how Memorial Day weekend was once traditionally owned by the Star Wars franchise, Marvel’s track record of late has allowed them to become the most reliable team necessary for kicking off each summer in a big way.  Each of the Iron Man films have claimed this weekend, as well as most of the Spiderman movies, and of course, the Avengers who broke all sorts of records upon their opening release.  Now, Captain America is given the prime spot, with this the third entry in his successful standalone series.  It was also a release date that they had to contend for.  Warner Brothers and DC had already staked a claim on this weekend for their big new release, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, but Marvel, perhaps in one of the most blatant alpha dog moves we’ve ever seen play out in Hollywood history, claimed the spot as well and dared DC to challenge them for it.  Eventually, DC relented, probably sensing the increasing influence that Marvel now holds on the industry, and Batman v. Superman was bumped up two months into a mid Spring release.  Of course, having now seen both, it’s pretty clear why both DC and Marvel made the moves that they did.  The movies are surprisingly similar in both concept and theme, but what really ends up setting them apart is the execution.  The consensus now is that Batman v. Superman was in all respects not a good film.  Sure, there were good things in it, but the overall sum of it’s parts ended up being a convoluted mess.  Civil War on the other hand takes the same kind of story and delivers it much better.

Civil War benefits from the already solid foundation that has proceeded it in all the previous Marvel films leading up to now.  At this point, audiences understand that everything in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is connected and that we are basically here to watch what’s essentially a new episode in an ongoing series.  This is what was lacking in what DC did with Batman v. Superman.  DC is rushing itself into the prospects of having their iconic characters share screen-time together, without the foundation to support that venture.  The image of Batman and Superman together alone is pleasing, but without having time invested in understanding why they are together, the meeting has no weight.  DC, and more pointedly Zack Snyder, are just throwing things together without purpose.  Marvel has now made a dozen films leading up to Civil War, and it’s only the beginning of a build-up to something bigger.  Essentially, we are at the point now where we know who these characters are and what makes them tick, and the interactions between them are what drive the story.  This allows Marvel a little more leeway in presenting the stories they want to tell, because everything is driven by the personalities of their characters as opposed to being forced to fulfill certain obligations of the plot.  The Marvel films never feel forced, and that’s why audiences love them.  With Civil War, Marvel is given the opportunity to tackle one of the most intriguing story angles available to them, and that’s what happens when the heroes turn against each other.

Captain America: Civil War takes place in the immediate aftermath of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015).  Captain (Chris Evans), Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johannsen), Falcon (Anthony Mackie) and War Machine (Don Cheadle) are called to the Pentagon by General “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt) after a failed mission in Nigeria causes significant collateral damage.  Ross tells the Avengers team that the United Nations has drafted a new law called the Sakovia Accords (named after the tiny nation that was destroyed by Ultron) which mandates that the Avengers must submit to oversight by the multinational body instead of functioning independently.   The plan receives a mixed reception from the heroes, with some being for the plan (including a guilt racked Stark) and others being against it (especially Captain, who distrusts government agencies after the fall of SHIELD in The Winter Soldier).  Things get more complicated when a terrorist attack disrupts the passing of the Accords bill, with the prime suspect being The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan).  The hunt is on for the suspect, but Captain (who was friends with the Winter Soldier back in the War years) believes he might have been framed, so he hopes to get to him first.  Unfortunately, another disguised vigilante is on the hunt too; T’challa (Chadwick Boseman), the king of the African nation of Wakanda, who takes on the guise of Black Panther.  Unbeknownst to everyone, the strings of this plot are being pulled by a vengeful mercenary named Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) who seeks to split the Avengers up and have them destroy one another.  Captain tries to search for answers and save his friend, but Iron Man develops a coalition of his own to stand in his way, which includes new allies Vision (Paul Bettany) and Spiderman (Tom Holland).  But, Captain receives assistance himself from Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and this all leads to an inevitable Battle Royale between all of our favorite heroes.

As you can tell, this is a pretty jam-packed film, but what makes it so pleasing is the fact that Marvel knows how to maintain a balance with all it’s story elements.  They’ve gone through two Avengers flicks already, so now it’s elementary for them to have a movie with a cast this big.  It’s any wonder why they didn’t just call this another Avengers film anyway, since all of them are here minus Thor and The Hulk, who will be appearing together in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok.  At the same time, I can see why the Civil War story-line was given over to the Captain America franchise.  This movie is a logical continuation of Captain’s own story arc, as the optimistic, patriotic superhero is having to re-adapt to a changing political world that no longer has clear-cut good vs. evil alliances.  The Captain America movies are the most politically charged ones in the Marvel Canon, and Civil War is no exception.  The movie touches on political themes like the necessities of regulation versus individual freedom, as well as more universal issues like the corrupting power of vengeance.  In this story, the heroes are confronted with the idea that they may be doing more harm to the world than good, and that things may better if they weren’t working together.  It’s a movie that is much more than just watching heroes fight; it’s got a philosophical underline to it that helps to make the stakes much more relevant to us.  That’s what Batman v. Superman lacked; the moral dilemma that drove these heroes apart.  Civil War is also much more focused on it’s purpose than it’s DC counterpart.  The characters aren’t just posturing for dominance.  In fact, they spend much of the movie trying to avoid fighting each other and they try to resolve their differences peacefully.  It’s only when things go horribly haywire that they finally come to blows.

And, without a doubt, that ultimate confrontation is the highlight of the film.  When Team Captain and Team Iron Man trade blows near the end of the second act, it becomes one of the absolute best things that Marvel has ever put on screen.  What I love so much about it is the fact that the scene plays upon all the strengths of the characters.  Everyone’s super powers give them advantages over some participants, while at the same time they create disadvantages against other participants.  Spiderman’s web-slinging for instance gives him an advantage over air based opponents like Falcon, but his lack of physical strength makes his fight against Captain more of a challenge.  The verbal barbs they throw at each other are also entertaining, especially between Black Widow and Hawkeye (“We’re still friends right?” “Depends on how hard you hit me.”).  And Ant-Man nearly steals the scene alone when he takes full advantage of his powers.  It’s a brilliantly executed scene that manages to take full advantage of the potential of the situation.  Every interaction is creative and well executed, and it will probably answer many comic book nerd questions about who would win in a one-on-one fight.  That being said, the movie wisely doesn’t let the scene get out of hand, and the focus remains squarely where it should be, and that’s on the opposing conflict between Captain and Iron Man.  The plot centers around these two, as it should, and the rest thankfully doesn’t feel like a distraction or filler.  I especially liked how they handled the smaller story arcs; such as Vision trying to learn his place in the world, Scarlet Witch doubt her own existence, and especially the coming of age arc that Black Panther goes through, which perfectly compliments the theme of vengeance in the movie.  Once again to compare, Batman v. Superman seemed more concerned with filling screen-time with a mish-mash of action scenes followed with fan service, and none of it melded together.  In Civil War, everything is given a causality and a consequence and that makes all the different elements feel more cohesive as a whole.

The reason Marvel is able to make these huge casts work so well is because they’ve allowed their library of films to build the necessary groundwork for these character’s motivations beforehand, which allows Civil War to feel like a more natural progression of these character arcs.  This has been greatly helped by the performers, who not only take their roles seriously, but also seem to embody every aspect of these characters on-screen and off.  Chris Evans continues to prove exactly why he is the perfect choice for Captain America, filling him with both wide-eyed innocence and the strength to never give up.  Robert Downey Jr. of course is the embodiment of Tony Stark, swagger and all, and though he’s a little subdued here, he’s still endlessly charming, especially in his brief scenes with young Spiderman.  Speaking of which, one of the best parts of this movie is the new re-imagined Spiderman.  After finally getting the character back from Sony, Marvel is able to relaunch the character their way and this may be the closest we’ve ever gotten to the having the character exactly as he’s portrayed in the comics.  Not that Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield were terrible (despite their lackluster movies), but Tom Holland’s Spidey is exactly what he should be and that’s an upstart kid trying to find his way in the world.  It’s great that Marvel is now finally able to explore that angle with the character and he’s a great addition here.  Chadwick Boseman’s Black Panther is also welcome, and his performance as the character makes you eager to see what more will be explored when he gets his own film next year.  The biggest surprise however is Daniel Bruhl as Zemo.  This is a very different take on the character than we’ve seen before (sorry comic fans, no purple sock mask this time) but it’s one that surprisingly fits this film very well.  He’s a normal person with no powers, and yet with undying vengeful fervor and a well laid out plan, he’s able to take down a team of super heroes without ever getting caught in the crossfires.  It’s a very different kind of villain for Marvel and it made sense to have him be behind all this.  Actor Daniel Bruhl’s understated performance also works really well here too.  Given how Captain’s rouges gallery has been pretty weak thus far on screen, it’s nice to see this film utilize one with complex motivations and a dangerous death wish mission that feels shockingly real.

But, despite all the movie’s strengths, I do have some minor nitpicks that prevent this from being an outright masterpiece.  For one thing, I felt that the visual style of the movie felt a little flat.  Not that the movie looks horrible; it’s just that it felt uninspired, like the filmmakers didn’t make any effort to let the visuals stand out.  There are some nice visual touches here and there, but the overall aesthetic feels very weak.  The first two Captain America films featured very drastically different aesthetics; The First Avenger (2011) was glossy and colorful, invoking Wartime films of the 1940’s, while The Winter Soldier (2014) was washed out and gritty, like spy thrillers of the 60’s and 70’s.  Civil War is not a huge artistic jump from The Winter Soldier, remaining effectively very similar visually, so maybe I’m being a little too critical expecting something different, but even still, it was a visual choice that I felt was wasted on this film.  The only other thing that I want to complain about is some of the pacing.  The film has definite highlights to be sure, but there are stretches where the constant globe-crossing done by the characters prevents the plot from gaining any traction.  For the most part, it’s not distracting, but the biggest pacing issue comes in the third act.  This is mainly due to having the best scene in the movie, the Civil War fight itself, not being the climax of the story.  That scene is so good that it overshadows everything that comes after, and that becomes a problem.  Not that what follows is necessarily bad; it’s just anti-climatic.  The movie unfortunately feels like it’s deflating for the remaining 25 minutes up until the credits, and that’s an unfortunate way to go out.  Even still, the movie still takes some nice dark turns in the last act, and has a decent fight scene, but it’s an ending that doesn’t sustain itself as well as it should’ve given the high bar that had been crossed before it.  But, none of this makes this a bad movie by any means, and it’s overall a very well executed movie.  It just has some unfortunate blown opportunities that can’t be ignored.

I would still highly recommend this movie to any Marvel fan out there who’s probably going to be watching this anyway.  All comic fans in general will like this to be honest.  Is it the best Marvel movie ever made?  It’s one of the better ones to be sure.  It hasn’t replaced Guardians of the Galaxy as my personal favorite, because that 2014 film is the one Marvel movie that I felt transcended it’s place in the genre as well as in the Marvel Canon and became a classic on it’s own.  Civil War is without a doubt the best we’ve seen from the Captain America franchise, and it actually works as a better Avengers sequel than Age of Ultron, though I’m still fond of that movie too.  As a piece of the MCU puzzle, it’s perfectly acceptable and the places it leaves our characters at by the end opens up many exciting opportunities going forward as Marvel gears up it’s Phase 3.  The one thing that is without question, however, is the fact that this is how DC should’ve made Batman v. Superman.  Unlike that film, Civil War actually gives motivations to it’s characters and a moral dilemma that is much more believable.  One wishes that Batman and Superman actually had something worth fighting for other than to gratify their egos, and that their fight wasn’t so forced on us by a studio mandate.  Marvel made Civil War a natural progression of their larger story-line, and it’s great to see that nothing story wise was wasted.  Though some of the visual and tonal shortcomings do rob the film of some of the power that it could have otherwise had, it’s still endlessly entertaining.  It also shows that Marvel still hasn’t lost it’s edge, and hopefully they continue to deliver strong in the remainder of their Phase 3, which includes the returns of Spiderman, Ant-Man, an origin story for Black Panther, as well as the introduction of Doctor Strange to the universe.  There may be no victors in this Civil War for the Avengers, but Marvel has clearly shown both DC and Hollywood who’s the winner, and let’s hope these winners continue to deserve their victory.

Rating: 8.5/10

We all love superheroes, and we for the most part love superhero movies.  At this point in cinematic history, nearly every comic book hero has made their way to the silver screen, and many of them have made it there alright.  But, there seems to be something in recent years that we’ve grown to enjoy more than the average superhero flick, and that is the Superhero team-up.  What could be better than one super hero in their own film than a movie full of multiple superheroes.  And not just any superheroes, but the world’s most popular.  This was effectively pulled off when Marvel Studios created The Avengers (2012), a big screen realization of a superhero team made up of their all-star gallery of icons.  Pulling together Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, the Hulk, and a slew of other popular comic characters, The Avengers was a superhero movie unlike any other seen before and it became a dream come true for fans across the world.  Naturally, this translated into record breaking box office for parent studio Disney, who continued to support further adventures of these superheroes with an entire in movie universe that connects everything together.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become an unprecedented success across the board and of course it has inspired many of Marvel and Disney’s rivals to follow in their footsteps with their own collection of characters.  I’ve written before about the building of cinematic universes, and how it seems to be the current trend in Hollywood to build movies around multi-narrative arcs as opposed to contained in stand alone features.  This certainly has worked well for Marvel, but is their long time competitor DC Comics capable of doing the same as well?

DC made the decision in the wake of The Avengers success to give their own impressive cast of superheroes an epic team-up.  Certainly DC is not working without precedent here; the Justice League of superheroes has existed for decades in the comics.  Sadly, we’ve just never seen the crossing of paths brought to the big screen until now.  Warner Brothers, which is partnered with DC, have long tried to get their superheroes together in the past; namely with their two biggest stars, Batman and Superman.  Ideas were floated around as far back as when Tim Burton was still involved with the Batman franchise, and during his brief flirtation with Superman before that project fell apart.  In the early 2000’s, George Miller of Mad Max fame was signed on to develop a Justice League feature, but that too fell apart as well.  Fans abroad and in Hollywood held out hope for an eventual realization of the potentially explosive confrontation between Batman and Superman.  With Christopher Nolan’s epic Dark Knight Trilogy reinvigorating DC’s brand on the big screen, there seemed to be more hope that some of their more neglected heroes would finally get their due.  Of course, a new direction for the Superman franchise was needed and that came in the form of Man of Steel (2013).  Man of Steel stands on it’s own as an origin film, but in the wake of The Avengers, this was also intended to be the starting off point for DC’s master plan to bring the Justice League to the big screen.  Unfortunately, while many fans embraced the plan, they were less than happy about the execution (I for one seem to be one of the few defenders of the film, which I saw as flawed but still noteworthy).  With their follow-up, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, DC hopes to jump earnestly into their grand plan and finally give us what we’ve always wanted and that’s Batman and Superman on screen together, face to face.  But, is it a plan that worked?

The story starts off focusing on Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), the alter ego of Batman, as he witnesses the destruction of Metropolis that made up the finale of Man of Steel.  As Superman (Henry Cavill) fights the villainous General Zod (Michael Shannon) and creates untold destruction in their wake, Bruce does what he can to help people on the ground.  As he witnesses the devastation around him, he develops a resentment towards Superman.  A couple years later, Bruce finds that he’s not alone in that resentment, as the world becomes torn between viewing Superman as a savior or a menace needing to be stopped.  One of those who shares the same belief is another billionaire with plans of his own named Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who has gained access to the wreckage of Zod’s space ship as well as an artifact found within, a large sample of Kryptonite.  Luthor, upon learning the destructive effects that the element has on Kryptonian cells, intends to use it as a weapon to subdue Superman and have him bow to authority.  But, Batman has plans for the Kryptonite as well and he steals it from LexCorp, along with secret data files that Luthor has collected regarding the existence of “Meta Humans” like Superman, also living among us.  Batman uses his cunning and ingenuity to build the weapons he needs to take on the seemingly indestructible Superman, but what both he and Superman fail to realize is that they are both being coaxed into destroying one another by Luthor, who’s got diabolical plans at work against both heroes.  And to make things even more complicated, a wild card comes late into the film in the form of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), who’s got her own issues to deal with between the other two.

As you can tell from my attempt at a plot summary, there’s a lot of story crammed into this movie, and that as a result turns into one of the movie’s main faults.  I wouldn’t say that Man of Steel had a solid grasp on the narrative either, but it at least was held together in the end by a definable threat and a clearly defined purpose in the character’s motivations.  The problem with the awkwardly titled Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is that it never seems to find it’s focus, and that sadly makes it a step backwards as a follow-up to Man of Steel.  This is a problem that I attribute to director Zack Snyder, who has proven time and again to be a filmmaker who favors style over substance.  If there is something to value in this movie (and there is) you have to dig through a lot of unnecessary nonsense to get to it.   Snyder clearly knows how to stage an action sequence and thickly lay on the loud explosions, but when you don’t understand the motivations of the characters or have a grasp on who’s doing what, all it does is turn the movie into a bunch of noisy mayhem.  There’s a sequence midway through the film that features Batman chasing down a truck filled with mercenaries in his Batmobile, and it is so heavily overblown with CGI trickery and overused pyro effects that I had no idea what was going on and as a result didn’t care.  In fact, all it made me think of was how much better the Batmobile sequence in Batman Begins (2005) was in comparison, which used actual, on-set vehicles as opposed to CGI ones.  This extends to pretty much every action sequence in the movie, which unfortunately makes the movie feel shallow as opposed to engaging.  There are a handful of good action moments here and there, but it only makes you wish the rest of the movie had been given the same kind of effort, instead of just assuming that special effects will be the answer to everything.

But the lack of focus isn’t the worst aspect of Batman v. Superman.  There is one thing that nearly makes this movie an outright disaster, and his name is Lex Luthor.  This is without a doubt the worst iteration of the iconic villain that we’ve ever seen put on film.  Everything about the character, from the casting of Jesse Eisenberg, to the way he’s performed and written, to even his appearance is absolutely wrong.  I had my doubts very early on with the casting of Eisenberg as Luthor and boy did they come to fruition here.  For some reason, Zack Snyder wanted to make Lex a quirkier villain that spouts one-liners and acts off-kilter.  I can imagine that what Warner Brothers and Zack Snyder had in mind was a anarchistic, rebellious young villain that you could market to an atypical superhero movie audience, much like how Heath Ledger’s Joker became an icon after the release of The Dark Knight (2008).  It’s a cynical ploy to make a highly quotable, meme generating character who you could slap onto a T-shirt and make hip to young, rebellious audiences, and it fails miserably.  I found Lex Luthor to be so obnoxious here, and any time this movie ever gains some depth and traction in it’s story, he ends up butting in and spoils the momentum.  Never have I seen such a mishandled villain in an superhero movie; except maybe The Mandarin in Iron Man 3 (2013) or The Rhino in The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014).  I don’t particularly blame Eisenberg though; we’ve seen him act well before in other movies, like The Social Network (2010).  In fact, I find it weird that he comes off more menacing as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg than he does as here as Lex.  Out of all the problems in this movie, the villain comes out as the biggest misfire.  Man of Steel at least benefited from a villain that was intimidating, thanks to Michael Shannon’s incredible work as Zod.  In this, it’s hard to take the plot seriously when the villain is so pathetically drawn.

But, aside from all the bad things about this movie, it’s not an outright disaster either.  There are still some praiseworthy elements that help to shine a light through all this mess.  Primary among them is the portrayal of Batman himself.  I’m about to say something that I never thought I’d ever say, but Ben Affleck saves this movie.  That’s right, I’m as amazed as you are.  A lot of naysayers decried the casting of Affleck in the role of Batman, especially after the critically acclaimed work done by Christian Bale in The Dark Knight trilogy.  But, thankfully, this is a much different Batman than what we’ve seen before, and Ben Affleck proves to be perfectly chosen for the role.  This is a grizzled, world-weary Batman who has protected Gotham City for over twenty years at the time of the movie’s setting.  He’s seen so much chaos around him and even the deaths of friends and allies, and it’s all taken it’s toll.  Ben brings that out very well in his performance, and as a result, he’s able to convey the motivations of the character much better than anyone else in the movie.  I also want to praise the work put into the Batman outfit too.  Taking a cue from the design from Frank Miller in his iconic The Dark Knight Returns comics, this is one of the best Batman suits ever created.  Couple that with the fact that at 6′ 3″, Ben Affleck is also the tallest actor to play the role of Batman and you’ve got probably the most physically imposing Caped Crusader we’ve ever seen.  But, even outside the suit, Affleck is still effective and surprisingly subtle in the role of Bruce Wayne.  He also has the benefit of working opposite Jeremy Irons as his trusty butler Alfred, who is likewise perfectly cast and the two have probably the best chemistry in the entire movie.  Despite all the movie’s shortcomings, I’m happy to say that it does do right by Batman, and considering that he’s been my favorite superhero since childhood, it kind of makes it worth it in the end just to see that legacy live proudly on.

The remaining cast is kind of a mixed bag.  While not quite as engaging as Affleck’s Batman, Henry Cavill still does okay as Superman.  He never does the red and blue a disservice, and occasionally shows moments of greatness as the character, but at the same time, this movie kind of gives him nothing to do either.  At least in Man of Steel we saw a little bit more of the humanity in the character, and the struggle with identity that defines much of what he does.  Sadly, this movie turns him into more of a symbolic character rather than an identifiable one.  Much of the film deals with the ramifications of what Superman represents in our world, being a God-like figure among men, and whether or not he can be trusted.  It’s an interesting concept to bring up for debate in the movie, but Superman never really gets a voice in that debate, and instead he turns into a pawn in the overall plot.  Some people didn’t like the drastic measure of killing that Superman was forced into in Man of Steel, but I thought it brought out a great moral dilemma in the character and it brought a genuine emotional performance out of Cavill too.  I just wish that translated over more here, because Superman is much less interesting this time.  Worse yet, I hated the way they portrayed Lois Lane here.  In Man of Steel, she was both smart and resourceful, as well as undaunted by her circumstance.  Sadly, she’s relegated to more of a damsel in distress role, which is a significant step backwards for the character.  On the other hand, despite minimal screen-time, Gal Gadot does stand out as Wonder Woman, who finally has made it to the big screen.  She could have easily been portrayed poorly (Snyder’s been know to do that with female heroes), but there’s a moment late in the final battle where Wonder Woman is thrown to the ground and before she picks her sword back up, she has a smile on her face.  That to me perfectly embodies Wonder Woman; a warrior who welcomes a challenge.  She’s a minor player, but one that makes the most of her time on screen.

So, is Batman v. Superman worthy of your time.  Well, if you hated Man of Steel, I don’t think this film will win you over either.  It solves some of the problems of it’s predecessor, but in the process it creates a whole bunch of new ones, and overall, I think it’s lack of focus and convoluted plot actually makes it a weaker film.  The over abundance of CGI is a problem and it robs any urgency in the action sequences.  Not to mention that it completely misfires with the villain at it’s center, who I cannot take seriously at all.  The movie is only at it’s best when it actually takes a breath and allows the characters to develop, which sadly happens very rarely.  This is exactly what you don’t want to do with a franchise movie that’s supposed to be the launching point for a grand, multi-narrative shared universe.  Marvel has done such a remarkable job not just making the big Avengers team ups work, but also in allowing each of the characters enough time to shine on their own stand alone flicks. Batman v. Superman is a pale imitator by comparison because it puts the value in the grand plan rather than the story.  It’s shameless studio mandated storytelling, and it rings hollow as a result.  Some of this could have been brilliant, and on occasion it is, but Zack Snyder doesn’t seem to grasp the balance that this kind of venture needs.  That being said, there were quite a few things that I did like in this movie, and they mostly all revolve around Ben Affleck’s extremely effective Batman.  This movie at least gives me confidence in the actors playing the roles, and I can’t wait to see them work in their own stand alone features (Wonder Woman comes first next summer, and hopefully it’s great).  I especially can’t wait for more of Affleck as the Bat.  But, if DC wants to compete with Marvel and make their superhero team-ups just as effective, they should probably have someone more capable at the helm than Zack Snyder, because with Dawn of Justice, he’s just steering this ship into more troubled waters.

Rating: 6.5/10

The animated movie market is an often perilous road for filmmakers.  On the one hand, it can generate amazing success if one of your films hits with an audience, but on the other hand, you must always be aware of changing tastes in the market.  The unfortunate thing for animation producers is the long gestation period it takes to make an animated film; it can sometimes take 4 or more years to go from development to final product.  And this is even more complicated when you are continually releasing a movie every single year.  For a lot of animation studios, it’s a tough act to pull off; being able to retain high returns with every release.  The unfortunate result is that we find more and more animation studios that are less willing to take risks with their movies; choosing to play it safe and reliable rather than pushing the envelope.  That’s why so many animated films today tend to be formulaic and not groundbreaking, because that enables them to have broader appeal to the average viewer.  Occasionally, you do get a studio like Pixar that does achieve long-standing success by continually challenging themselves with every movie; much like how they managed to do for much of the 2000’s.  But even their success pushed them to the limit and now they are starting to be bit by the formula bug (movies like Brave, Cars 2, and The Good Dinosaur all falling victim to it).  But, while we do see some giants of animation fall, we’ll also witness the rise of another to fill that gap in quality entertainment, and surprisingly enough it’s tried and true Disney Animation that seems to be the ones delivering right now.

Of course, Disney has had it’s share of pitfalls throughout it’s long history.  In fact, they have usually emerged as the trendsetters of both the right ways and the wrong ways to build an animated body of work.  Coming out of a dark, aimless period in the couple decades after Walt Disney’s death, the Disney Animation Studios enjoyed a massively successful Renaissance period that started with The Little Mermaid (1989) and went all the way through to The Lion King (1994).  At this point Disney believed that they worked out the formula on how to make hit movies year after year, but that proved not to be the case.  Pocahontas (1995), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and Hercules (1997) all failed to match The Lion King‘s success and Disney once again found themselves loosing their edge, and they couldn’t reverse course quickly due to the lengthy developments of their movies.  In this time, CGI animation became the rage, thanks to Pixar’s Toy Story (1995), and with the release of Chicken Little (2005), Disney was forced to follow suit in this new era, abandoning the hand drawn medium that their studio was built on.  But, as Pixar, Dreamworks, and all the other animation studios have gone back in forth terms of quality as of late, Disney has continued to refine their art with every film and are once again finding themselves at the top of the pack by doing what they’ve always striven to do and that’s to make quality entertainment for all audiences.  This manifested in a big way with Frozen (2013), Disney’s biggest animated hit ever, but the best thing about this new era of Disney animation is that they are once again taking chances with their films again, both in their content as well as in their art.  And the boldest expression of this so far may be seen in their new film, Zootopia.

Zootopia takes place in an alternate reality where human beings do not exist and that it has been all other species of animals that have evolved over time and built up civilizations.  In the titular city of Zootopia, animals live and work together in harmony with each other, functioning not unlike most other modern societies.  We meet Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) a spunky rabbit from the country trying to make a life in the big city as the first bunny police officer ever.  Unfortunately for her, she receives little confidence in her abilities from her superior, Chief Bogo (voiced by Idris Elba), who places her in parking meter management.  But, opportunity rises when an abduction case falls into her lap, and with the support of higher up officials in City Hall who want their inclusion program in the police force to work, she is given a chance to solve it by Chief Bogo, but only with the ultimatum that she completes it in 48 hours.  Judy diligently pursues any leads she can find and her only hope of solving the case rests with the trustworthiness of a con artist fox named Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman).  Forced together by their situation, Judy and Nick uncover a conspiracy in the city of Zootopia that is turning the normally civilized citizens into savage, feral beasts, and along the way they must learn to trust one another, despite the fact that they are natural enemies to begin with.  And so, they travel all across the four districts of Zootopia, encountering rodent mafias, a DMV run by sloths, and all other big city obstacles that fall in their way of uncovering the truth, including their own innate prejudices.

Zootopia, to say the least, is a very enjoyable animated film that’ll appeal to audiences of all ages.  There are visual gags galore and a touching story about friendship at it’s core.  But, what I actually took away the most about this movie was not the humor or the lush visuals; it was actually something that usually becomes a flaw in most other animated movies and that’s the socially aware message.  It’s not suggested clearly in any of the advertisements of this movie, but there is actually a very poignant statement made in this film about the nature of bigotry in modern society.  Animated movies  have tackled issues of racism, sexism, and class-ism before, but never quite as profound as it is in Zootopia, and it’s actually quite refreshing.  In the movie, both of our main characters have suffered discrimination in some way, sometimes in very cruel acts.  Judy deals with it by overcoming her limitations and proving her worth, while Nick embodies all the negative stereotypes that are associated with his kind and makes them work to his advantage.  It is only by working together that Judy and Nick manage to tackle discrimination head on, even facing the consequences that their own underlying prejudices that threaten their fragile alliance and eventual friendship.  It’s a profound message that I was surprised to find in such a supposedly silly cartoon.  Despite the best intentions of a society of animals to create a peaceful coexistence together, underlying bigotry still sets people apart and keeps good ones from ever being fully accepted in the society that they deserve to be a part of.  Sure, the cast is filled with animals, but this is an issue that is all too real in our human world, and I’m happy to see this movie tackle it head on.

Sadly, the strength of that message also leads me to my one complaint about the movie, and that’s it’s cop out finale.  I thought that the message of the film was so strong, being that bigotry is the worst enemy of a civilized society, that the movie could stand on it alone, having the characters’ biggest challenge be something larger than any of them could ever defeat.  In other words, this movie could have been a masterpiece if it had broken from the Animated movie formula and have society at large be the film’s antagonistic force instead of standard villain.  But, unfortunately, the movie does have a villain, and a fairly weak one at that.  I won’t spoil the eleventh hour reveal, but it kind of cheats the message of the movie by explaining away a societal woe through an over-arching conspiracy.  Someone in the movie turns prey against predators in a ploy to create an idealized society that favors one class over the other and in turn helps to elevate their own stature.  Given that this movie took over four years to make, I doubt that the filmmakers could have foreseen the rise of Donald Trump, but the revelation in this movie does have the benefit of mirroring current events.  Still, it felt like a cheap excuse to close up plot threads to give the characters a happy ending, whereas I think the movie would have benefited from a more bittersweet finale.  Yes, the main characters come together and solve their differences, but it would have made better sense that the larger issue of the injustice because of bigotry is left unresolved, because it would have made the lesson more profound.  Still, it’s welcoming that the message is here at all and delivered in such a well executed way.  In that sense, I can forgive the film for not sticking the landing in the end.  I just wish they hadn’t gone through that step, thereby minimizing their intentions.

Apart from the film’s message, there is also a lot to love about the visual presentation of Zootopia.  This is a beautifully realized world that is filled with so many clever details.  Just like The Lego Movie (2014) I will bet you that this will be an animated film that audiences will watch again and again just to catch all the peripheral little gags and details in every frame.  Movies that depict alternate worlds like Zootopia have been done before (Cars).  In fact, Disney has used the anthropomorphic animal society aesthetic twice before in their history (1973’s Robin Hood and 2005’s Chicken Little).  But few if any of those predecessors have had this kind of attention to detail devoted to them.  You can tell that the filmmakers devoted a great amount of effort to make this world both authentic and visually stimulating.  It’s so stimulating in fact that you often feel like the filmmakers are holding back as they share it with us.  The movie feels like it merely scratches the surface of this lush, fully realized world and I wouldn’t be surprised if a sequel allows us to explore more of it in the future, because I’m sure that there is plenty of Zootopia yet to be seen.  And that is a mark of a good movie, leaving us wanting more.  For what we do see, it does serve the story well and much of the entertainment value is in picking up the visual gags whenever they appear, like characters using iPhones with a carrot logo on it instead of an Apple, or the little animal versions of contemporary brands; like Mousey’s instead of Macy’s.  Another visual detail that I’m glad that the filmmakers took into account is the fact that all animals are to scale in this movie.  It’s not like other Disney films where we see a four foot tall mouse named Mickey walking around.  No, here Judy Hopps is a normal sized rabbit who sometimes has to deal with animals many, many times her size, including elephants.  It’s details like that which really helps Zootopia stand apart from it’s other like-minded predecessors.

One other bright spot is the well-rounded cast.  Judy and Nick make a great pair of protagonists and their voice actors bring them to life perfectly.  It seems only natural for a slick talking actor like Jason Bateman to play a sly fox con artist, and the role plays perfectly to his strengths.  The more revelatory performance though comes from Ginnifer Goodwin as Judy Hopps.  She commands the role wonderfully, making Judy one of the more compelling heroes seen in any recent Disney film.  Originally, the focus of the film was going to be on Nick Wilde, playing upon the idea of what happens when a fox steps into a society run by rabbits; which could have been an interesting tale in itself, but the filmmakers wisely put the focus more on Judy, because it helps the underlying message of the movie better.  It flips the expected result by having the prey persecute the predators for being different, and that’s more profoundly explained through the eyes of a happy-go-lucky little rabbit who doesn’t recognize her own bigotry at first, because she’s only viewed the world before as the underdog.  Goodwin plays both of those character aspects perfectly and it’s a performance that can illicit laughs from the audience in one moment and tears in the next.  The leads are also given great support from an impressive roster of voice actors including Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, Nate Torrence, Jenny Slate, Bonnie Hunt, Octavia Spencer, and even Tommy Chung (hilariously playing a naturalist hippie yak).  Pop star Shakira even pops up as a singer named Gazelle, who is exactly what you’d expect her to be.  I also have to give special props to veteran voice actor Maurice LaMarche for his hilarious Vito Corleone impression manifested in the body and voice of a shrew, making it one of the movie’s funniest gags.  For a movie to become a hit, it needs characters that you’re willing to follow, and Zootopia benefits from a very strong cast.

Overall, I would say that Disney is continuing their hot streak with Zootopia, which may very well be their most assured and resonant movie in recent memory.  I’ve been a Disney fan for most of my life and because of that, my quality standards are usually a bit more stringent than other people.  You’ve got to remember, I grew up during the Renaissance period, when it looked like Disney could do no wrong.  That period is still a high water mark for me, and despite the overwhelming success that Disney is enjoying right now, I still have some reservations about their so-called recent “masterpieces”.  I’m one of the few people out there who didn’t fall in love with Frozen for example; I thought it was just okay and nothing special.  At the same time, I feel like the ones that take a chance with their message and visual aesthetic are the Disney movies that I respond to more as an adult.  Wreck-it Ralph (2012) is in my opinion the most underrated Disney film in recent memory, and I felt that Big Hero 6 (2014) had a lot of great elements too, although like Zootopia it suffers from a lackluster villain.  But, taking into account all the elements that I judge a Disney film by, Zootopia gets more right than wrong, and it actually may be my favorite movie of theirs since they’ve switched over to computer animation.  Zootopia is a culmination of all the lessons that Disney has learned about how to make a good CGI animated movie and it represents them reaching the peak of their abilities at this moment.  At the same time, it also just stands on it’s own as a solid story with a compelling lesson at it’s center.  The fact that it addresses the issue of systemic bigotry in modern society makes it almost essential viewing, especially for younger audiences.  If this movie can inspire the youngest among us to not prejudge somebody because they are different, or place blame on them for the same reason, then it will have done something that few other movies have done and that’s to change the world.  And this is something that Zootopia should absolutely be praised for in the end.

Rating: 8.5/10

Today’s comic book movies are pretty much defined by the different approaches that their respective studios have taken with each property.  Marvel has found success by taking a more lighter and comical route with their super hero characters (especially with Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy) which fits well within the standards of the Disney Studio that owns them.  DC on the other hand has managed to bring their characters to the big screen, under the guidance of parent studio Warner Brothers, by taking a much more grittier and darker route, inspired by the direction of Christopher Nolan’s hugely successful Dark Knight Trilogy.  Despite some naysayers on both sides, the different formulas have worked pretty well for both Comic Book giants.  No one is ever going to be able to say that one is purely following the other’s formula, since they’ve both managed to carve out their own style in the cinematic realm.  But, that’s a luxury that has mostly benefited the ones that have a secure home within their own respective studios.  Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Marvel’s shaky early years in the movie industry, they had to make due by selling off the rights to their characters to many different production companies, making it impossible for them to control the creative decisions involved in the adaptations of their characters.  Thankfully, after the purchase of Marvel by Disney, the publisher has managed to gain back most of the screen rights to the characters, save for the few that still belong to one studio; Fox.  This has created an interesting little niche of Marvel Super Hero movies that are unconnected to the larger Cinematic Universe that Marvel has created; resulting in some good (X-Men: Days of Future Past) and bad (Fantastic Four) results.  And standing out even more than these is this special little oddity known as Deadpool.

Deadpool is a lot of different things that you normally wouldn’t find in a conventional Super Hero movie.  It’s irreverent, crude, amoral, full of meta humor and fourth wall breaks, and unapologetic about it. The alias of mercenary Wade Wilson, Deadpool is hyper-violent and merciless in the execution of his duties, but he conducts them with an often sophomoric and carefree sense of humor.  Not only that, but just as in the comics, Deadpool will constantly stop in the middle of the action to address the audience directly and crack a few jokes.  This makes him far and away the most irreverent Super Hero in the entire genre, and that has given him a special little niche of his own that belongs entirely to him.  Created by writer Fabian Nicieza and artist Rob Liefeld for Marvel in the early 90’s, Deadpool has long been used as a tool by the publisher to slyly mock the conventions and icons of the comic book world and get away with it.  Deadpool is the desperately needed cynical voice that helps to keep the other comic book series in check, and that’s what has made him an especially popular character among many readers.  His popularity naturally led to his appearance in other mediums, including a highlighted role in the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), where he was played by Ryan Reynolds.  That movie unfortunately made the huge mistake of revamping the character and removing all the quirky aspects of him to create a muted monstrosity by film’s end, who inexplicably had his mouth sown shut.  Needless to say die hard fans were not pleased.  But, one such fan turned out to be Reynolds himself, who spent a lot of effort in the following years to re-revamp the character and do Deadpool justice on the big screen, and this new film is the result of that.

The new Deadpool movie is your standard comic book origin story, but one that’s self aware of the formula, and it takes some rather novel liberties with this kind of story.  We meet Deadpool in the middle of a planned hit where he must take out a whole convoy of armed security in order to reach his target; a diabolical scientist named Ajax (Ed Skrein).  Over the course of this hit, we flash back to Deadpool’s past life before he took up his Super Hero (or more appropriately Anti-Hero) identity.  We see Wade Wilson meet the love of his life Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), who shares his taste for the wild side, but his happy courtship hits a hurdle when he learns that he’s got an incurable cancer throughout his entire body.  Desperate to find a cure, Wade takes up an offer given to him by a mysterious organization that promises to keep him alive.  Unfortunately, he finds himself in the clutches of Ajax, who is seeking to uncover the dormant mutant genes in Wade’s DNA and turn him into a super soldier under his control.  After numerous torture treatments, Wade’s body does mutate, making him indestructible, but also heavily scarred with burns across his entire body.  After surviving the destruction of Ajax’s lab during his escape attempt, Wade seeks revenge against the man who ruined his life, and to do that he creates a masked identity for himself called Deadpool.  Back in the present day, Deadpool puts his plan into action, and finds help from his bar-tending friend Weasel (T.J. Miller) and a couple of lesser known X-Men; Colossus (Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand).  But, when Ajax discovers the identity of Deadpool’s lost love Vanessa, that plan soon hits a snag.

So, is Deadpool worth seeing or not?  It really depends on what you’re looking for in the end.  If you just want a straight forward superhero or action movie, then you might be put off by the constant irreverent humor throughout.  But, if that is exactly what you’re looking for, then you won’t be disappointed.  I for one highly enjoyed this movie from beginning to end, albeit with a couple reservations.  The best way I can sum up my reaction to the film is that I thought it worked better as a comedy than as a super hero action movie.  Was the action bad?  No, but the movie clearly put more effort into the jokes than the actual staging of the action.  The action was just okay overall.  It’s comically over the top in many points, especially in the gruesome highway scene near the beginning and also one point where Deadpool decapitates one guy and then kicks the head into another guy’s head like a soccer ball, but most of the ridiculous bits seem too familiar.  Honestly, I was more impressed with the over the top silliness of the action scenes in last year’s Kingsmen: The Secret Service, and that might have been due to the creativity of it’s staging.  This movie has some creativity, but not nearly as much.  But, despite being on par as an action movie, the movies is definitely above average as a comedy.  A lot of credit goes to the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick for packing every minute with one irreverent gag after another.  The comedy does take shots at pop culture in general, but it’s often at it’s funniest when it turns self-defacing.  I especially love the many digs at the X-Men in this movie, especially the constant running gags directed at that franchise’s star Hugh Jackman.  Also, Reynolds poking fun at his disastrous turn as the Green Lantern are also hilarious.

And the comedy is a life saver for this film, because if it wasn’t there, I honestly might not have liked this movie.  I don’t know if there was a disconnect with some larger inside gag about the super hero formula, but some of the plot motivations and tonal shifts in the film tended to not make a lot of sense; at least for me.  At times the movie abruptly shifts gears and turns serious and tense, only to break that tension again with a gag.  I don’t know if those tonal shifts were intentional or not, making the humor feel more unexpected (which at times worked) but the seismic shifts tended to be a little distracting for me and prevented this from being a purely sublime experience.  Not only that, but I felt that the movie had this overall cheap look to it.  Maybe that was intentional, and it does fit the character of the tacky and self-deprecating main hero, but it’s a punchline that I never felt the movie fully developed.  Overall, the movie just looks washed out and basic, never really taking advantage of the flashiness that we usually see in superhero movies and poking fun at it.  But, at the same time, the movie does give the gags the full attention.  Honestly, you will never see a better love-making montage than the one in this movie.  Also, despite the low rent look of the movie, the film never fails to deliver on the fourth wall breaks, which has become the character’s trademark from the comic books.  When it comes to being self aware, this movie manages to make it work and it’s where the humor really shines through.  Some of those moments even look like they are straight out of the comic book, like when Deadpool makes exaggerated gestures with his hands.  You’ll know them when you see them in the movie.  Despite the flaws, the movie does land it’s hits more often than not.

But, the primary reason this movie works overall is because of it’s main actor.  Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is the sole reason why you should see this movie.  This was a passion project for the actor for many years and it shows.  He completely sinks into this character, relishing every moment.  This is probably the best marriage of comic book character with actor that we’ve seen since Robert Downey Jr. first stepped into the Iron Man suit, and it’s great to see Reynolds let loose as the character for once.  This movie makes a considerable effort to right the wrongs made by X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Reynolds makes that abundantly clear.  This version of the character is intended to be 100% faithful to the comic version and it’s the kind of care given to a character that you’ll only find from a performer who’s a genuine fan.  The best superhero castings have always found this to be true, and Ryan Reynolds proves that here.  But, what he also brings is his impeccable comedic timing as well, which is something that is integral to the character.  Deadpool is exactly the kind of character that embraces a sillier, irreverent side, which Reynolds wears like a glove.  He’s definitely reaching back into his Van Wilder days playing this character, and you can bet that he takes full advantage of the R-rated freedom that the studio has given him.  I especially like the points in the film when Reynolds plays around with some of Deadpool’s more childish reactions to what’s going on.  There’s a hilarious bit in the middle where Deadpool confronts Colossus and takes a few shots, leaving him with some broken limbs; a bit that reminded me a lot of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), and it’s great.

But, Reynolds isn’t the only worthwhile actor in the film.  Really, the entire cast is excellent here.  Morena Baccarin manages to make Vanessa more than just another damsel in distress by giving her an equally twisted sense of humor that compliments Deadpool’s perfectly.  T.J. Miller is also hilarious in his brief moments on screen; his deadpan delivery bouncing off of Reynolds’ more madcap performance very effectively.  I also liked the inclusion of Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (a name that Deadpool especially goes crazy over) into the film.  They serve no other real purpose in the movie other than to connect Deadpool with the X-Men franchise, but their inclusion is still welcome.  I especially like how Colossus is characterized as the straight-laced boy scout of the group (or as Deadpool calls him, the Teacher’s Pet) because of how it contrasts Deadpool against all the other comic book heroes.  Ed Skrein is also effective as Ajax, filling out the role that the movie jokingly refers to as the stereotypical “British villain.”  He’s a suitably intimidating force in the film, but not one that feels out of place in the movie.  One of the best running gags in the film actually centers around Ajax’s real name, which Deadpool playfully mocks the whole way through.  Also, apart from the performances, there are some great parodies thrown around that make fun of other superhero movie tropes, including Deadpool getting gleeful when one of the villains makes what he calls a “super hero landing.”  Also, the movie opens with a spectacular opening credits sequence that not only mocks ones from other Comic Book movies, but all movies in general, saying that the film stars “God’s Perfect Idiot” and was directed by “Some Overpaid Hack.”  All of this of course makes this one of the genre’s funniest entries and one of the best comedies in recent years.

So, overall, I would definitely say that Deadpool is absolutely worth seeing, especially if you want to have a good laugh.  Just don’t go in expecting to see the greatest Comic Book movie ever made.  I would still say that movies like The Dark Knight (2008), The Avengers (2012), and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) still represent the high points of the genre, but you could make an argument for Deadpool as being the funniest Super Hero movie ever made.  It’s especially pleasing that Ryan Reynolds and crew managed to get the movie made the way that they wanted it; without any studio interference.  If only Fox had learned that lesson when they were making Fantastic Four last year.  Though I would like to see all of Marvel’s properties returned to it’s parent company eventually (Deadpool included), I think it was better at this time for Deadpool to be made outside of the more restrictive standards of the Disney company.  There’s no way that Disney would’ve allowed for an R-rated superhero film, especially one with the content that this one does, so it was probably for the better that Fox made this one instead.  My hope is that when Disney and Marvel eventually gain back their characters from Fox, that it’ll come with the proof of success depicting this character in all his filthy glory and that it will lead them to maintain that tone in the future.  Certainly, if there was a way to make Deadpool work on the big screen in his own movie, they certainly found it here.  My hope is that when they make a sequel that they improve the aesthetic look of it and work out some of the tonal issues.  For what it is, it does do a good job of bringing the character to life and it’s a well-needed piece of parody in a genre that can sometimes get a little full of itself.  And in between these two giant Comic Book companies, Marvel’s bad boy has earned an enviable place in a category all his own.

Rating: 8/10

Quentin Tarantino has built an enviable reputation over the years as a filmmaker to the point where every time he creates a new feature, it becomes a hotly anticipated event.  In recent years, he’s been on a particularly strong roll, with both Inglorious Bastards (2009) and Django Unchained (2012) becoming huge box office successes as well as picking up awards by years end.  What’s even more remarkable about Tarantino’s success at the same time is that he’s done all this without ever compromising his distinctive style.  I don’t know whether he’s managed to do it by just being lucky or by the sheer goodwill he’s earned in the industry, but Tarantino has manged to get away with more in his movies than most other filmmakers are able to.  And as long as his movies stay successful, then he’ll continue to keep pushing that envelope with every film.  Known for delving into multiple types of genres throughout his career, we’ve seen from Mr. Tarantino a wide variety of different stories, and yet, each one still feels connected thanks to his unique cinematic voice.  After Django Unchained, Tarantino made the unprecedented move of staying within the same genre with his next feature.  That film would become The Hateful Eight.  Though Django featured many elements that you normally would associate with the Western genre, it’s setting in the deep South helped to set it apart.  Hateful Eight on the other hand is set in the American Western frontier, so it is much closer to genre than what Tarantino has done before.  And truly, this is very much a love letter to the Westerns that Tarantino has idolized since youth.  The movie is clearly intended to invoke the memory of those old classic and Spaghetti westerns of the past.

But, this was a movie that at one point could’ve been shelved forever.  Late in 2013, Quentin Tarantino fell victim to breach in privacy when his first draft of The Hateful Eight was leaked online.  This was such a betrayal of trust for the director that he soon announced that he would not be making the film at all; canceling the project because he felt exposed by the breach and that he felt the film could never materialize out of that cloud of mistrust.  Thankfully for Tarantino, few actually saw the leaked script before it was removed, and after a few rewrites and a successful table read with Tarantino’s choice of actors in the roles, the project was back on board and bound once again for it’s 2015 release.  But, Tarantino wasn’t just interested in making any old movie this time around.  A long time champion of filming on celluloid as opposed to digital photography, Quentin wanted to use this opportunity to film with more than just the usual film stock.  For The Hateful Eight, he was interested in filming the movie using the Ultra Panavision 70 process, which hasn’t been in use since the late 1960’s.  Ultra Panavision is a 70 mm process developed back in the 50’s that became the widest format ever used in Hollywood.  While a normal widescreen film is shot in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, Ultra Panavision is able to produce an image at nearly 2.78:1 in width, making it a truly epic sized image.  Few films were produced in this wide process, such as Ben-Hur (1959), and this is the scale on which Tarantino wanted to tell this story.  Couple this with a revival of some other common features from old school Hollywood spectacles, like the Overture and Intermission, and you can see that Tarantino was intending this to be a loving throwback to a  classic film-making, all the while giving it that typical Tarantino flourish.  Was it an experiment that paid off in the end, or was it too indulgent for it’s own good?

The Hateful Eight of course is about exactly what the title describes.  In the remote wilderness of the Wyoming Rockies, eight strangers are forced into shelter to escape the bitter cold of an approaching blizzard, all with their own baggage and ill intent towards one another.  Among them are two renowned bounty hunters, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and John Ruth (Kurt Russell).  Ruth is on his way to the town of Red Rock, and cuffed to his arm is his still alive bounty, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh).  John Ruth prides himself on bringing in his prisoners alive so that they can be hung by an executioner properly, which has earned him the nickname “The Hangman.”  Daisy has continued to make his long road to town as miserable as possible and it’s also caused John Ruth to be suspicious of other characters around trying to steal his prize prisoner away from him, including the quick witted Warren.  While on the road, Ruth and Warren pick up another passenger, the future Red Rock sheriff Mannix (Walton Goggins) who doesn’t take long before antagonizing the others due to his sympathies with the Confederate cause in the only recently ended Civil War.  The four make it to their place of refuge called Minnie’s Haberdashery, where they find four others seeking shelter.  One is an English fellow named Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), another is soft spoken thug named Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), another is a groundskeeper simply known as Mexican Bob (Demian Bichir) and finally the last guest is a grizzled retired Confederate general named Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern).  The eight strangers make themselves comfortable before the night grows darker and colder and the tension grows higher as some of the group soon learn that the ones they share company with are not entirely being truthful about who they really are.

It doesn’t sound like too much happens based on that premise, but that’s only because I don’t want to spoil the surprises that happen throughout the film.  Unfortunately, the film’s narrative becomes the biggest issue that I have with the movie overall.  While Tarantino does play around with his usual flair for mischief and indulgence, here it can sometimes be a hindrance to the momentum of plot.  At over 3 hours in length, at least in the Roadshow version that I saw, the movie is a long one to sit through, with lengthy patches that deliberately take their time to get going.  I’m fine with long movies as long as they do keep the viewer engaged and on the edge of their seats.  In fact, Tarantino did do just that with his nearly 3 hour long Django Unchained, a movie that never lagged once despite it’s length.  Here, I felt that there were one too many moments early on that took too much screen time without ever having a reason to be so lengthy.  It’s a case where I think Tarantino’s proclivity for indulgence may have backfired this time.  And believe me, I still love it when Tarantino indulges himself with his movies; just as long as I can still stay engaged.  The pub scene from Inglorious Bastards in particular is a perfect example of indulgence done right from the director.  In this movie, there is a lengthy passage that takes place within a stagecoach as the characters talk about their past experiences.  This scene is nice, and features some of Tarantino’s trademark oddball dialogue, but I could feel my attention drift during these early scenes in a way that I never felt from a Tarantino movie before.  That unfortunately hurts the movie in the long run, but overall, it doesn’t make this a terrible film by any means.  There’s still plenty to like.  It just doesn’t have the same kind of control over the story that Tarantino has shown in the past.

And part of that may come from expectations that I may have had about where the story might go.  Overall, the entirety of The Hateful Eight is about subverting the expectations of the viewer.  Tarantino chose to film in an ultra-wide film process that’s commonly associated with grand scale epics, but he uses it here in a story that’s all about isolation and claustrophobic tension.  For most of the three hours of the movie, our characters occupy a small log cabin set; quite different than the grand vistas that you would expect from an Ultra Panavision feature.  But, Tarantino does make that work for him on a visual level, as opposed to the narrative one.  There are plenty of well composed shots that allows Tarantino to tell the story the way he wants and still have it feel as bombastic as his other features.  In many ways, his visual flourish does make up for some of the narrative faults, and it is fun watching the director both work within these constraints as well as play around with them.  But, what the movie lacks in the long run is the tension that usually invigorates the plots of most of Tarantino’s films.  As some of the characters begin dropping dead in the cabin and suspicions arise between them, the film stops being a typical Western and turns into more of an Agatha Christie who-done-it style mystery, which again is kind of interesting to watch seen through Tarantino’s style.  But, Quentin also has worked in this field before, with his first feature Reservoir Dogs (1992).  That film has a lot in common with Hateful Eight, including the confined singular setting and the rising suspicions between the characters.  But that movie ran at a nice compact and tense 100 minutes.  Hateful Eight takes too many detours that, while fun, kind of diminish the final result by the end.

Where the movie does triumph, however, is with the cast of characters.  I’ll say this about Tarantino; he has not lost the ability to write amazing characters in his films.  Every person in The Hateful Eight is as fascinating as any other character that Tarantino has created over the years, and like many of his features before, the highlights are always the ones where these characters interact.  Another trademark aspect of Tarantino’s films is his remarkable ability to cast his roles perfectly, and sometimes with unexpected choices.  The Hateful Eight features what you could probably call the Tarantino All-Stars, because each one has worked with the director before in the past, but mostly never on-screen together.  This includes Samuel L. Jackson (a staple of most Tarantino films), Kurt Russell (Stuntman Mike from Death Proof), Tim Roth (Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction), Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill) and Walton Goggins and Bruce Dern (both from Django Unchained).  All that’s missing is Christoph Waltz, who I’m sure would have participated had he not already committed to playing a Bond villain in Spectre.  Each of the all-stars here are uniformly excellent and manage to deliver solid performances all around.  New to the cast though is Jennifer Jason Leigh, who is probably the one who shines the most.  Leigh plays a truly despicable character in Daisy Domergue and her performance is an absolute knockout.  You can see the absolute evil in this character just in the way she smiles with her rotten grin, but Leigh does a lot more brilliant work to help you see the humanity behind the gruffness as well.  Considering the talent involved in the cast, it’s a treat to see her stand out as well as she does and she’s placed strongly among some of Tarantino’s many other famous villains like Victor Vega, Ordell Robbie, Bill, Hans Landa, and Calvin Candie.  So, once again it’s Tarantino’s ability to create standout characters that becomes the highlight of his movie, and we get eight amazing ones to witness here too.

I should also state how special the Roadshow presentation for The Hateful Eight is as well.  It may not be something that moviegoers are familiar with today, but the Roadshow was a common practice for epic spectacles back in the early years of cinema.  Epic films back then were treated as more than just an event back in the day; they were treated more like special engagements at the local cinemas across the country, much like how we treat the opera or a Broadway show as special.  Every guest to a Roadshow presentation was treated to more than just a movie.  The film would have a fully orchestrated Overture that preceded it, along with an Intermission halfway through to allow the audience to take a bathroom or snack break before the second half would begin.  Not only that, but in select theaters you would receive a printed out program detailing the film and it’s production as a special treat.  That same presentation is lovingly recreated in this presentation by Tarantino.  With The Hateful Eight Quentin Tarantino is hoping to revive this long out of use practice in the hope that it will catch on and make movies feel like Special Engagements again.  I was fortunate to be near a theater that played this Roadshow version, and it was neat to not only see a new film that felt like a loving throwback to old Hollywood, but one that makes good use out of the tools given to it.  For one thing, it is great seeing the long out of use Ultra Panavision process return.  It’s disorienting at first seeing the very wide image on a regular cinema screen, but as the movie rolls along, you can clearly see why Tarantino chose to film it this way.  I for one want to see 70 mm film make a comeback because few other formats are able to capture as much detail in an image as this does.  The cinematography by Robert Richardson is spectacular and he proves to be remarkably adept at using this process that’s been out of usage for nearly 50 years.  Also providing a nice throwback to classic cinema, Tarantino called upon legendary composer Ennio Morricone (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) to write the original score for this feature, and of course the grand maestro delivered a great score that feels both uniquely new and nostalgic at the same time.  If you do see this movie, try to watch this Roadshow version if it’s available in your area.  It’ll be worth it.

So, in the end, despite some problems with the pacing of the narrative, Quentin Tarantino delivers yet another solid effort.  Overall, I would say that this film is worth seeing more for the actual presentation itself rather than it’s story.  I for one admire Tarantino’s effort to keep classic Hollywood film-making techniques alive in this digital era that we live in now , while at the same time keeping true to his frequently indulgent cinematic tastes.  By not letting us forget that movies were once filmed this way, he helps us to remember just how special the tools of the trade can be.  I certainly never thought that I’d see a new film made in the Ultra Panavision 70 process in my lifetime, so I thank Tarantino for doing just that.  Hopefully, the movie will do well and that it will inspire other filmmakers to want to make their movies in 70 mm and other long out of use widescreen formats too.  At this point, only Tarantino and Christopher Nolan seem to be championing large format film-making in this digital age, albeit in different forms (Nolan being a fan of the IMAX process).  As long as they continue to make their movies a showcase for these processes, there may be hope that some day they might be in fashion once again.  Unfortunately, despite loving the presentation, I can’t quite say that The Hateful Eight is Tarantino at his best.  The sluggish first half did lose my attention at times, which past Tarantino films have not done before.  A tighter edit might have helped the film in the long run, but what is presented here is still worth seeing.  You’ll still get the trademark Tarantino experience, even if it feels a bit too indulgent.  Just go in knowing that this will be a long sit through, but one that will reward you by the end.  The great dialogue and characters are still there and the Roadshow presentation is worth every penny if you can manage to see it that way.  It’s big and bloated, but every bit what you would expect from Quentin Tarantino and it shows that the rebel director is not losing his touch one bit.

Rating: 8/10

You’ll find few other movies that have left an impact on cinema as much as the first Star Wars (1977).  It is a benchmark film; one that changed the ways we watch the movies, changed the way we make the movies, and also changed which kinds of stories could also be told on the big screen.  Up until Star Wars, science fiction and fantasy were dismissed in Hollywood as B-movie nonsense, but after director George Lucas’s grand vision took the world by storm, Hollywood started to take notice.  And since it’s release, you can see the imprint of Star Wars in just about everything in pop culture, as well as in the broader culture at large.  No other movie ever made has been as widely seen or has touched as many lives as this one.  And it’s amazing that it all came from a desire on George Lucas’ part to pay homage to the old sci-fi serials of the past.  What started as a bold exercise of for an ambitious young filmmaker making  what is essentially a fan film quickly turned into a new mythology for the 21st century; something that I’m sure even the forward thinking Lucas probably never imagined.  Of course, when one of your projects hits the world as hard as that one did, it becomes near impossible to follow it up.  Remarkably, Star Wars has maintained relevance for nearly 40 years now, and as recent developments have indicated, it will only get stronger from here.  Star Wars became more than just a standalone wonder, turning instead into a great modern saga; albeit far from a perfect one.  As the prequels have shown, even the mighty Star Wars wasn’t spared from a downfall.

But, what the hatred towards Lucas’ prequel trilogy also proved is just how much this universe means to people, and that you can’t just lean on the fans sense of nostalgia alone.  For many years, the Star Wars franchise was leaning too heavily on the past at a time when it needed to grow.  And with the acquisition of George Lucas’ company Lucasfilm into the ever growing Disney empire, it was finally became that time.  Many feared that Disney’s purchase of the Star Wars brand was just going to be a cynical venture for the media giant to cash in on what was already there.  But thankfully, Disney didn’t intend on being custodians of the past.  They were ready to set Star Wars free.  Within days of the merger, Disney announced that they were planning on building a bold cinematic universe around Star Wars, much in the same vein of the hugely successful one that they’ve built within the Marvel brand.  And to start this off, they were going to continue the main story, picking up after the end of the original trilogy in Return of the Jedi (1983).  For the first time in over 30 years, we are now seeing the story advance and Star Wars finally looking into the future, rather than the past.  And best of all, it’s with the input of those who were there at the beginning (sans Lucas).  Screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote the brilliant Empire Strikes Back script) was brought on board to draft this continuing adventure and cast members Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford all returned to bring life back to their iconic characters.  To top it all off, directorial duties were given over to J.J. Abrams, who also successfully relaunched that other iconic sci-fi series, Star Trek (2009) only recently.  It appeared that all the pieces were in place to make something special, and now we finally have the results of their work.  Is it everything we were hoping it would be, and a great launching off point for this new era in the Star Wars legacy?  Having finally seen it now after all that waiting, I can safely say that the Force is strong with this one.

So, what’s it about?  Without spoiling too much for those who haven’t seen it (if there’s any of you left), this film picks up many years after the events of Return of the Jedi.  The empire has fallen, but a zealous branch determined to squash the rebellion by any means has risen from it’s ashes.  They call themselves the First Order, and they’re on the hunt for the leaders of the rebellion, led by the maniacal General Hux (Domnhall Gleeson) and the mysterious Sith Lord Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), all in service to their Supreme Leader Snoke (voiced by Andy Serkis).  The First Order’s main target is the master Jedi Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who has gone into hiding after a personal tragedy forced him to retreat.  On a desert planet called Jakku, an ace Rebellion star fighter pilot named Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) manages to secure a map to Luke’s location, but is captured by Kylo Ren and his Stormtrooper army.  Before his capture, Poe entrusts the map to his droid co-pilot BB-8, who narrowly escapes.  In the barren wasteland of Jakku, BB-8 soon runs into a nomadic scavenger named Rey (Daisy Ridley) who vows to keep it safe.  Also on Jakku is a Stormtrooper named Finn (John Boyega) a name short for his Trooper designation of FN-2817 who went AWOL after he began to doubt the ethics of his mission.  He runs into Rey, and recognizes the BB-8 droid and it’s significance.  Pretending to be a rebellion spy, Finn convinces Rey that they need to leave the planet and join the Rebellion itself, led now by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher).  They manage to escape capture from the First Order but are intercepted by a smuggler ship, piloted by none other than Han Solo (Harrison Ford).  And, with the help of Han and his trusted friend Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), Finn and Rey begin their adventure across the galaxies.

Attempting to bring Star Wars back to it’s basics was no small task for J.J. Abrams and crew.  But, at the same time the movie has the benefit of following in the footsteps of the prequel trilogy, which already set the bar low.  All that The Force Awakens had to do was be good enough and fans would be satisfied.  Thankfully, this movie is more than just good enough; it’s actually fantastic, though not entirely perfect.  Any other franchise and this would be considered a masterpiece, but of course this is Star Wars we’re talking about.  I do believe that for what this movie is, it is the best we could have hoped for.  It is light years better than the prequels (that’s a given) and it brings the Star Wars series up to date perfectly.  It is undoubtedly the best film in the franchise since The Empire Strikes Back, though it doesn’t quite reach that lofty, sublime level.  There were points in the story where I felt that the momentum lagged and there were holes in the plot that left a lot of questions hanging afterwards.  Though not as problematic as the story problems within the prequels, these issues still cause the movie to feel uneven at times.  Plus, The Force Awakens does have the added challenge of trying to carry the weight of everything that has come before it.  It’s a daunting challenge considering that we’re seeing the story continue for the first time in 30 years, and the movie does on occasion buckle under the weight of that pressure.  Buckle, but not break.  This movie does thankfully hold itself together overall, and many of the structural and story issues do end up being forgivable in the long run.  It’s not a series best (running a distance behind the original and Empire Strikes Back) but it absolutely tries harder to reach those heights than anything else we’ve seen from the Star Wars universe in recent years.

What ultimately makes this movie work as well as it does are the characters, both old and new.   First of all, I would like to say that it is so refreshing to see characters worth caring about again in the series.  After watching the bland characterizations in the prequel trilogy, namely the dull as rocks main couple of Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala, these new, interesting characters are a god send.  I especially liked the fact that the entire first act of the movie focuses entirely on the new cast, allowing the audience to grow comfortable with their story before the old guard comes along.  I loved that they don’t start off the movie as especially crucial either.  When we first meet Finn and Rey, they are outsiders, un-connected to anything that has happened before.  Finn is a lowly Stormtrooper who has never seen combat before and Rey has lived in isolation fending for herself her entire life.  Only Poe and Kylo Ren have an already established history, and thankfully the movie devotes enough time to these new characters to make them feel both essential to this world and also distinctive on their own.  At the same time, the legendary characters are also well used here.  Han Solo is given the most amount of screen time of the classic characters, along with Chewie, and their banter is one of the film’s many delights.  It’s also great to see humor in a Star Wars movie that isn’t forced, and comes naturally out of the characters’ circumstances and personalities.  I also loved the sweet moments between Han and Leia in the film, which both helps to enrich their characters and also give the movie an added sense of nostalgia.  It’s moments like those that show exactly why it was so crucial bringing Lawrence Kasdan on board to help write the script, because he knows these characters’ minds better than anyone else, other than Lucas of course.  The characters are by far the movie’s biggest strength, which has always been the case with the series during it’s best times.

And with great characterizations like these, you need performers who can pull them off perfectly, and again the casting for the movie becomes another strength.  Special credit should be given to John Boyega and Daisy Ridley who play Finn and Rey respectively because so much of the movie rests on their shoulders.  I love their ability to bring out the personalities of the characters without making them too archetypal.  Rey is fiercely independent, but still willing to open her heart when the moment is right.  And Finn is a lost boy trying to find a better way in the universe, and his journey helps to lead him towards acting in service of a good cause.  Oscar Isaac also adds great support as Poe Dameron, making him a charismatic hero worth rooting for.  And of course, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher fall back into their iconic roles like no time has passed and their chemistry is just as strong as ever.  As for Mark Hamill’s return as Luke Skywalker, well you just have to watch the movie to see what he does here.  But, I think the best performance in the movie belongs to Adam Driver as Kylo Ren.  He makes for one of the more interesting villains we’ve ever seen in this series, and that’s saying a lot.  Whether behind his imposing mask or without it, Driver delivers a performance of remarkable subtlety that really builds a lot of fascination around the character.  There are secrets revealed about him that will shock many people in the audience, but Driver handles them perfectly and makes the character one of the best in the series by the end.  I should also mention the astounding puppeteer work done on BB-8.  It’s amazing how much personality they get out of this little robot, and he stands strongly among his peers C-3PO and R2-D2, both of whom also appear briefly in the movie.  With great characterizations and endearing performances, these two elements make this a great experience overall.

Also worth praise is the work of the director J.J. Abrams.  To say that he had a lot of pressure on his back is an understatement.  Still, it’s not like J.J. hasn’t been here before.  Abrams managed to resurrect the beloved Star Trek franchise as well, mainly by borrowing a few ideas that worked so well for Star Wars in the past.  So, it seemed like a natural step for him to cross over into this universe instead.  Overall, he handled the pressure very well and managed to make something that honored the legacy of the original, but still works well enough to take the franchise into another phase.  And it has to be said, nobody does fan service better than J.J. Abrams; at least when it’s done right.  There are several references to the past in this movie, and while some ideas aren’t quite as ingenious as they should be (seriously, you think the Empire would have learned it’s lesson before they built an even bigger Death Star) there are still a lot of elements in this movie that will make fans very happy.  I especially love the way things are introduced here that are instantly recognizable to serious fans, like the great reveal of the Millennium Falcon.  Abrams also proves his skill at staging action set pieces once again, with many of the battle scenes proving to be invigorating as well as distinctively Star Wars.  In addition, Abrams insistence on doing these action scenes in real locations with real elements as opposed to CGI green screen manipulation is a welcome return to what made Star Wars so memorable in the first place.  Overall, Abrams made a movie that feels throughout like a genuine Star Wars film.  You can honestly watch this movie in succession after viewing Return of the Jedi, and it wouldn’t feel out of place.  It’s proof that the series is back to where it belongs and it will hopefully continue to build in the years ahead.  The John Williams score helps to reinforce that as well, giving the movie that extra bit of nostalgic oomph.  In the end, you’ll be grateful that J.J. Abrams crossed galaxies to make this happen.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens may not have delivered the greatest story ever told in this series to date, but it still managed to right the course of this beloved franchise for the better, and that’s it’s greatest triumph.  Finally, we now have a Star Wars film for the 21st Century that we can honestly say is worthy of the title.  What’s especially great about it is the fact that we are no longer looking at what Star Wars was in the past, but what it can be in the years ahead.  Disney plans on not just continuing the main saga of Luke Skywalker and all his comrades alone; they want to expand the universe and tell all sorts of stories in this world too.  Already, they have standalone features that they call “Star Wars Stories” in the works that will tell the adventures of other characters that exist in this universe but are only slightly connected to the main story, starting off with next year’s Rogue One, which tells the tale of the rebel spies who stole the original plans of the Death Star, before the events of the original film.  After seeing the results of The Force Awakens, I can’t wait to see all the expanded universe adventures that are coming our way.  Finally, we are seeing the world of Star Wars unleashed and no longer tied down by the weight of it’s own legacy.  Truth be told, it is sad that for this to happen, control of the franchise needed to be taken away from it’s original creator, George Lucas, but at the same time he himself has stated that he enjoyed the new film too, even if it deviated from his original intention.  A lot of praise will be justly given out to J.J. Abrams and the stellar cast for pulling this off, and I’m sure that whatever I say in this review won’t matter in the end.  Most of you are going to see it anyway, because it’s Star Wars reborn and brought back to the light side.  I’ll leave by just saying that despite some minor story flaws, this will be one of the best movie experiences that you’ll have this year at the movies and it only makes me anxious to see what comes up in the next episode.  May the Force be strong with Star Wars for many years to come.

Rating: 8.5/10

A Thanksgiving release has long been a tradition for animation; at least it has been as long as I’ve known.  Dating back to the mid-November release of The Little Mermaid in 1989, animation studios (most often Disney) have staked a claim on the weekend and have usually dominated it year after year.  This also became a tradition for Disney’s prized computer animation partner Pixar, who has also benefitted from a holiday release schedule dating all the way back to the Thanksgiving opening of their first feature, Toy Story.  Needless to say, this is a prime weekend for family audiences that enjoy good animation, and both Disney and Pixar have consistently delivered at this time of year.  Most of the Pixar films have followed the same release patterns over time; either opening on this weekend, or coming in the middle of the summer.  And so far, positioning themselves in a prime release pattern has provided them with near consistent success.  Sure, some Pixar films have done better than others, but we’ve gotten to a point where any time the studio releases a film, it becomes an event, and those dates carry that weight with them.  This year however, Pixar has taken the unprecedented action of releasing two films on both of their claimed time slots. While it doesn’t put the films in direct contention with one another for box office, this closer than usual release does put them in contention for people’s attention, and as a result both movies are going to be more highly scrutinized than they normally would.  This summer, we got one of Pixar’s all time best with Inside Out (which I reviewed here), and that success unfortunately raises the stakes higher for it’s follow-up, The Good Dinosaur.

The Good Dinosaur comes to theaters after a long and tumultuous development.  The movie suffered many story problems early on and it eventually led to the removal of it’s original writer/director Bob Peterson (Up), a Pixar veteran, from the project.  A move like this usually means that a film is in deep trouble, but it’s not a first for a studio like Pixar, which holds it’s movies up to a very high standard.  Pixar has long held the belief that a movie is not worth making unless the story is sound and sturdy.  Throughout their history, they have long put their story development through the highest scrutiny in order to keep the quality of their brand strong.  This has worked for them in the past; a shake-up in the directors chair for Ratatouille (2007) saw the removal of original director Jan Pinkava in favor of a complete overhaul done by Brad Bird, who then went on to win an Oscar for his work.  Even Toy Story went through an overhaul in it’s development, which reworked the character dynamic between it’s principal characters, Woody and Buzz Lightyear.  Needless to say, Pixar has shown that it can be done.  However, they’ve also shown that some projects are too troubled to be saved and their high standard can’t always ressurect a project that’s doomed from the beginning.  Case in point, Brave (2012), which saw an overhaul and removal of it’s original director Brenda Chapman, but it resulted in a film that felt unoriginal and stale.  Because of the less than successful results of Brave, those same worries are again present with a similarly troubled production like The Good Dinosaur, which also has to deal with the extra pressure of following up the near perfect Inside Out.  Thankfully, The Good Dinosaur shows very little of the scars of it’s troubled production, but at the same time, it also shows that it’s hard to follow-up perfection, even when you’re Pixar.

The Good Dinosaur takes place in a “what if” scenario that presents an alternate reality where the dinosaurs were not wiped out by an asteroid hitting the earth and have instead lived on and evolved to the present day.  This is the setting of the film, which tells the story of Arlo (voiced by Raymond Ochoa) the third born child of a pair of Apatosauruses simply named Poppa (Jeffrey Wright) and Momma (Frances McDormand).  As he gets older, Arlo tries to overcome his crippling fear of everything in life, made especially difficult by his overachieving siblings, Buck and Libby.  Poppa tries his best to instill confidence in Arlo, which includes teaching him how to trap critters.  One day, a critter finds it’s way into the family’s crops, which turns out to be a human child named Spot (Jack Bright).  Poppa leads Arlo after Spot in order to help him get over his fear, but when they venture too far from home, they get caught in a storm and Arlo loses Poppa in a flash flood.  Alone, Arlo must find his way home, but to do so, he must rely on the instincts of the little critter Spot, whom Arlo believes is responsible for getting his father killed.  Though they start off on their journey begrudgingly out of necessity, they quickly develop a shared kinship as they bond over their shared tragic pasts.  Over time, Arlo helps to civilize the wild Spot and show him the importance of family, while Spot helps to embolden the timid Arlo, and together they take a harrowing trip that has them battling a pack of bloodthirsty Pterodactyls and rustling cattle with a family of T-Rexes.  And soon, one time enemies become the closest of friends.

The Good Dinosaur overall is a very easy film to like, maybe even love.  While I did enjoy my time watching it, I can’t say that it moved me as much some of Pixar’s best films.  There are some flaws that do affect it.  But, surprisingly, the story itself is not one of them.  Yes, the thing that actually gave the Pixar story team the most amount of headaches throughout production is actually this movie’s greatest strength.  I think this is largely the result of an assured directing job from first-timer Pete Sohn.  Sohn came onto this project late in the process and I think that he deserves a great amount of credit for righting the ship.  First of all, this is a tough premise to make workable from the beginning, putting the idea across of this alternate reality.  Thankfully the movie makes it work by not dwelling too heavily in presenting it.  The movie starts with a prologue that shows the fateful asteroid heading on it’s way to Earth.  Instead of striking the planet like it’s supposed to, we see the giant rock skim the top, leaving all the dinosaurs unharmed.  It’s simple, but effective, which allows the rest of the film to flow more smoothly, without having to reinforce it’s premise over and over again.  Secondly, I love the way they put a twist on the whole “boy and his dog” scenario, by making the “dog” in this case the “boy.”  Arlo and Spot’s relationship easily carries this film in a big way and it’s a heartwarming friendship.  Pete Sohn also deftly handles the tonal changes of the movie, making the comical moments work hand-in-hand with the heavier oNed.  There’s a surprising amount of tear-jerking scenes here, whether it’s Poppa’s death early on, or the bonding moments with Arlo and Spot.  If you’re not moved by a scene towards the end that leaves the friendship at a crossroads, then you my friend are made of stone.  Naturally, this is the kind of thing Pixar excels at, so it’s not surprising that they nail the emotional stuff here too.

It’s good to see that Pixar’s high standard of story did work out in the end for this feature.  Unfortunately, while well told, is not particularly groundbreaking either.  This is where the inevitable comparison with it’s predecessor begins to hurt it.  Inside Out was such a standout for the company, both in concept and in execution.  What Pixar has done so well over time is reinforce the belief that they are capable of making things you’ve never seen before over and over again, and Inside Out was proof of that.  It’s the kind of movie that reminds you that it could only come from a place like Pixar.  The Good Dinosaur on the other hand feels like it could have come from someplace other than Pixar.  Now if that were true, it would be considered a masterpiece from that company, but the fact that Pixar made this one makes it feel a little out of place in it’s catalogue of hits.  We’ve seen stories like this before from Disney and from Don Bluth, with films like The Lion King (1994), Bambi (1942), and An American Tail (1986) all showing their characters learning life lessons in the wild after suffering a tragedy.  An even more apt comparison would be Don Bluth’s A Land Before Time (1988), which is very similar in story and tone to this movie.  The Good Dinosaur is not covering new ground here, which in turn makes it less successful as a movie than Inside Out.  That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it just could’ve been more.  My other problem with the movie is the inconsistent animation style.  The fill overall is beautiful to look at, but there was a glaring issues with the character designs here.  I felt that the overly cartoonish look of the characters clashed too heavily with the photo-realistic imagery of the environments.  Though the characters are still animated with wonderful personality, the clashed way too much with the backgrounds, and it did take me out of the film occasionally.  I wish this had been an instance where Pixar showed some restraint and made their characters feel more like they belonged as a part of this world.

But, that being said, I do want to praise the work that the animators did on the environments themselves.  There is so much detail put into even the tiniest of elements, whether it be the terrain that the characters tread across or the plants that grow around them.  Even the raindrops feel authentic.  The filmmakers took inspiration for the setting from many points in the American West, including picturesque places like the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon to the prairie lands of Nebraska, to even the jagged peaks of the Rocky Mountains.  Every environment is lovingly recreated here, and having grown up myself in the Pacific Northwest, I can tell you that much of the setting here feels absolutely authentic.  You can almost smell the pine trees as if they were right there in front of you.  And although the characters do clash with this environmental design in a distracting way, I still have to applaud the animators for giving the characters a lot of personality.  Spot, in particular, is the character that feels most in place here.  I’m sure that audiences are going to love this character the most, mainly because of his unpredictable and wild personality.  But at the same time, Spot’s animation shows a lot of signs of subtlety, which comes out perfectly in some of the film’s more dramatic moments.  Arlo’s cartoonish design may feel out of place at first, but he grows on you too, and his innocence is perfectly conveyed in the animation.  You also see the progression of the character as he becomes emboldened over time.  One of the movie’s best plot strengths is getting across the compelling arcs of Arlo and Spot’s stories, and it’s made all the more poignant with character animation that perfectly presents their growing personalities.

The film is not just limited to them alone, however.  There is a whole cast of characters help to flesh out this world as well.  While watching this movie, I was often reminded of one of Pixar’s most beloved features, Finding Nemo (2003), and in a good way.  In that film, we were presented with another journey taken for the characters that took them to many new places and helped to introduce them to a diverse group of new faces.  That sort of progression through different experiences instead of telling a traditional good vs. evil narrative is present here too and it works just as well as it did for Nemo.  Just like that movie had it’s heroes meet a band of reformed sharks, survive a school of jellyfish, and cross the ocean on the backs of sea turtles, this one has Arlo and Spot meeting many interesting friends and foes along the way.  I particularly enjoyed the encounter they have with a family of cattle rustling Tyranosauruses named Butch (Sam Elliott), Ramsey (Anna Paquin) and Nash (A. J. Buckley).  These characters were entertaining enough to support a movie of their own, and their brief presence in the film is very welcome.  I especially liked Sam Elliott’s gruff voice coming out of the ferocious looking Butch.  There’s menace in his performance, but also a lot of heart, and the character actually does serve a purpose in the movie by teaching Arlo that fear is not something to be ashamed of, but something to help motivate him.  The voice cast is universally excellent, especially the two young stars behind Arlo and Spot, and like Finding Nemo before it, the movie is made all the better by a colorful and diverse cast.

So, overall, The Good Dinosaur may not reach a level of greatness when stacked up against it’s more groundbreaking brethren, but still, it’s a very enjoyable and pleasing film that will win over audiences.  I’m sure that most people won’t know or care about the hard road that this movie had to take towards it’s release (it was actually supposed to come out last year, but had to be delayed to fix it’s problems, with Big Hero 6 taking it’s previously announced spot).  But, because I’ve been aware of the troubles that this movie faced, I would definitely call this film a minor triumph.  It doesn’t fall into the same pitfalls as Brave which is very welcome.  But, unfortunatly, because of the delay, it had to share a release year with an instant classic, and sadly that comparison reflects onto it negatively.  Had The Good Dinosaur been released any other year, say having to follow-up a lesser Pixar movie like it was origninally going to, then this might have been viewed a bit more favorably.  Unfortunately, I can’t overlook some of the flaws that this movie has, which did affect my experience watching it.  That being said, it is still a beautifully animated and touching film for the most part.  When your family has finished carving up that turkey and downing that plate of stuffing and mashed potatoes, this will be an ideal holiday film to watch for everyone.  Overall, it’s high mid-range as a Pixar movie, not quite reaching the upper-tier.  But, it does show that it’s worth the extra effort to get the story right, which will hopefully continue to be the standard of practice for the legendary animation studio.

Rating: 7.5/10

There are few if any characters that have had as much of an impact in cinematic history as 007 himself, James Bond.  From the very moment that Sean Connery ordered his first vodka martini as the secret agent in Dr. No (1962), the entire world knew they had found a new cinematic icon.  A large part of it had to do with the charisma of Connery, of course, but as we’ve seen over the years, Ian Fleming’s Bond can live far beyond just one single actor.  George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnon have all donned Bond’s neatly tailored threads over the years, sometimes in spectacular fashion and at other times in some rather mediocre ways.  For a long running series like James Bond’s, it’s sometimes difficult to keep up the high quality from film to film, which has kept the Bond franchise consistently inconsistent.  Each new actor does bring in fresh blood, but rarely do all of their movies become all time classics.  Going over every Bond film, you can pick out at least one from each star that’s a classic, and for some of the more prolific like Connery and Moore, they may have two or more classics among them.  George Lazenby lucked out with having his one and only outing as the character being the great and underrated On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969).  Basically, what I’ve seen from  the Bond franchise is a very roller coaster like flow to it’s level of quality and that the longer an actor commits to the role, the more they leave themselves open to having a shakier record as the super spy.

Which leads me to where the series is at now, as we reach the latter part and possible end of the Daniel Craig era.  Daniel Craig’s turn as Bond has been one of the most praised across the board, and it’s easy to see why.  The Bond franchise had declined heavily towards the end of Pierce Brosnan’s reign.  Brosnan started off strong with the classic Goldeneye (1995), but his three follow-ups got progressively worse, ending with the laughable Die Another Day (2002), the movie where Bond surfs on a tsunami and drives an invisible car.  When it came time to choose a new actor for the role, parent company EON Productions wanted someone who could bring the series back to it’s roots, and the perfect man for the job ended up being Daniel Craig.  Though not a household name at the time, Craig has since left his mark on the character, making Bond tougher and grittier, while at the same time not betraying the suave roots of Fleming’s original.  Craig became the Bond of the 21st century and modernized him in a way that greatly appealed to audiences.  Since being cast, Craig has appeared in four films total (contracted for five) and he holds the distinction of having one of the best batting averages of all the Bond actors.  Of his movies, you can definitely consider two of them all time classics, his debut Casino Royale (2006) and the record breaking Skyfall (2012).  Quantum of Solace (2008), while not bad by any means, does fall short of the other two, showing that even Craig is not immune to a dip in quality during his time.  And after Skyfall, which could arguably be the best Bond movie ever made, it’s put a lot of pressure on what follows it after.  So, this week, we finally see how Daniel Craig’s James Bond fares in his fourth outing; the hotly anticipated Spectre (2015).

The interesting thing about Daniel Craig’s Bond movies is that unlike all the others, they share the same story arc, each one connected to the other.  Spectre picks up right where Skyfall left off, with James following a lead left to him by his recently deceased former boss M (Judi Dench), which leads him to take on rogue missions much to the chagrin of the new M in charge (Ralph Fiennes).  With the assistance of hi-tech quartermaster Q (Ben Whishaw) and reliable desk operative Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond is able to go undercover and infiltrate a shadow organization that he believes is responsible for terrorist attacks all over the world, called simply SPECTRE.  Once he makes it inside, he soon learns that one man is in charge of the whole operation going by the name Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), and that he is more aware of Bond’s presence than he realized.  After escaping in a chase through the streets of Rome, pursued by Oberhauser’s henchman Hinx (Dave Bautista), Bond seeks out an old enemy, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), who can give him more information about SPECTRE, which the old man does with the promise from James that he will protect White’s daughter Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux).  All the while this is happening, M, Q, and Moneypenny are having to deal with the shutdown of the 00 program in favor of a computer driven surveillance system developed by a tech wizard code-named C (Andrew Scott), leaving Bond all on his own.

Spectre does something unique in the Bond franchise in that it ties up all the loose threads of each previous film, even the more standalone Skyfall.  As a result, this movie has an interesting sense of closure for Daniel Craig’s version of the character, which would be fitting if this is indeed his final outing.  But, the question is, does this movie live up to what has come before and become a third classic for the actor; or does it disappoint and only prove that it’s time for a change.  Well, truth be told, when it comes to making all time great Bond movies, it seems you only live twice.  But, that’s not a sign that this movie is bad.  Spectre really is everything a Bond movie should be.  It’s got great action set pieces, including a spectacular opening in Mexico City that I would consider one of the best in the series, and a great fight sequence between Craig and Bautista on a train.  It’s also got the series’ trademark sense of humor that helps to keep the movie from ever becoming too heavy and self-important.  Really, any other time this would be considered an all time great in the series, and as a standalone film, it’s easy to recommend to everyone.  The unfortunate thing for it is that it’s coming right off the the heels of Skyfall, which is not only a franchise best, but arguably one of the best spy thrillers ever made.  Because Skyfall is so close in my memory, it only made me think of what this film was missing, which might be a little unfair of me, but I would be lying at the same time if I said that I didn’t have a nagging couple issues with this movie either.

I’d say that my biggest fault with the film is that it suffers from a very underwhelming third act.  Much of the film’s best scenes play out early on and the movie leads up to a very satisfying confrontation with Bond and the villain, including some revelations that will please die hard fans of the franchise as well as the Fleming novels.  Unfortunately, the film goes on for another twenty minutes or so after it should’ve ended, with a pointless game of cat and mouse through the streets of London, adding nothing more to the movie other than another action sequence.  Skyfall on the other hand built up to it’s climax in a perfect way, giving it the weight and tension that it needed.  That’s what’s missing here.  Spectre also suffers from periodic lulls in pacing.  While the movie does come alive whenever there is an action sequence, it would slow down thereafter and lose my interest in some of the more dialogue heavy sequences.  Not that the’re bad scenes, but I would at times start to loose attention to what was going on.  And at 2 1/2 hours, Spectre is the longest Bond movie to date, which makes these down moments all the more problematic.  But at the same time, the movie doesn’t fully suffer for it.  There is still a great deal to enjoy about this movie.  It may be flawed, but at the same time, you can say that about 80% of all the Bond films.  Only a select handful have ever achieved masterpiece status.  I would put Spectre on the high end of the “almost masterpieces”, which would include movies like Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), Octopussy (1983), Live and Let Die (1973), and From Russia With Love (1963).

What I did love, however, was James Bond himself in this film.  Daniel Craig once again proves why he is one of the greatest actors to ever play the role.  Only Connery could be considered better, given that he originated the character, and even that might be up for debate at some point.  Craig has never been letdown in this series, even with the story faults here in Spectre and more so in Quantum of Solace.  He’s believably tough whenever he gets into a fight, but also dashing enough to be charmingly suave.  He also nails the sense of humor of the character perfectly as well.  There’s a hilarious moment when Bond is staying in a seedy hotel in Morocco and he’s awoken to a mouse crawling across the floor in front of him.  In a great bit of subtle humor, Bond quietly pulls out his gun, points it at the mouse, and jokingly starts to interrogate it.  It’s one of the best character moments in the movie and it helped to make up for some of the movie’s other shortcomings.  In addition, Christoph Waltz is ideal casting as the villain, and it makes perfect sense that he was cast once we learn more about him towards the end.  I only wish that the movie had utilized more screen time for Waltz, because he doesn’t become a factor in the story until very late.  But, once he’s present, he doesn’t waste anytime leaving an impact, which is exactly why you get an actor of his quality on board for something like this.  I also liked the fact that Team Bond is more involved in this story.  Q and Moneypenny are not wasted on the sidelines and are given much more to do in this movie than in most of the previous Bond films, which is refreshing.  Even the new M helps out more, getting in a few well deserved fight scenes of his own.  Spectre is definitely bolstered by it’s capable cast, and I’m happy to see that no role was wasted overall.

The movie also benefits from well constructed set pieces and edge of your seat action scenes.  From what I’ve read, this is the most expensive Bond movie made to date, and you can see every penny put to use on screen.  The eye-opening Mexico City prologue is indeed one of the standouts and you can tell that director Sam Mendes wanted to set the movie’s bombastic tone in a big way.   The scale is perfectly conveyed immediately, especially given the nearly five minute tracking shot they used to open the movie.  I’d say that the only thing that’s missing is the beautiful, painterly styled cinematography from Roger Deakins that we saw in Skyfall.  Here the cinematography was done instead by Interstellar (2014) photographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who goes for a grittier, more realistic style.  But, that helps to give this movie it’s own unique visual imprint to set it apart, so it’s not a negative by any means.  I also like the fact that this movie doesn’t overdo it with the visual effects.  That’s what plagued many of the later Brosnon Bonds, which overused CGI to the point where Die Another Day felt like a cartoon at times.  Here, the CGI supports the action rather than overwhelms it, which is what all the Craig Bonds have done exceptionally well.  Though they have the capabilities now to have James Bond do anything possible on the big screen, it’s a good sign that the filmmakers are restraining themselves to keep their super spy earthbound.  And this movie does an overall great job of retaining the tried and true feel of a Bond movie.  The famous title sequences are brilliant works of pop art in their own right and this one adds yet another stunning entry, although the title song by Sam Smith does unfortunately sound like a karaoke version of a Bond theme, and doesn’t quite reach the heights of Adele’s Oscar-winning ballad from Skyfall.

Overall, it’s hard to be truly fair to a movie like Spectre.  On it’s own, it is a very acceptable and downright enjoyable action thriller.  Unfortunately, the movie must also carry the weight of the franchise that it represents, made even more complicated by the fact that it’s following in the footsteps of a masterpiece.  But, at the same time, I do have to point out the flaws that are inherent, which do affect the overall quality of the movie.  It was a smart move on EON Production’s part to retain the creative team from Skyfall, which included director Mendes and screenwriter John Logan.  Unfortunately, success is a hard thing to repeat, so I do have to give them credit for doing as well as they did.  If only they had stuck the landing in the third act.  From what I’ve heard, this was one of the more troublesome productions for the series, leading star Daniel Craig to want to call it quits afterwards.  He still has one more film on his contract, but it remains to be seen if they decide to part ways and move on despite this.  The ending of this movie opens the door for both possibilities; it brings closure to Bond’s arc throughout all the Daniel Craig films, but at the same time, it also leaves room for further adventures.  Only time will tell which avenue they choose.  Regardless, as the end credits state, Bond will return and the franchise will continue to go on.  If this is the end for Daniel Craig as 007, then it’s a fine farewell.  He’s had one of the best runs ever as the character and though Casino Royale and Skyfall rank as solid 9’s, Spectre comes in as a respectable 8, with Quantum of Solace falling down to a 7.  It’s an almost classic that will certainly be worth watching no matter what.  And that’s all you need in the end from Bond, James Bond.

Rating: 8/10

The Halloween season always has room reserved for a horror entry or two.  And usually the best kinds of horror films are given the spotlight at this time.  When you’re a bad horror movie, you usually get shipped off to the beginning of January, where all the worst films go to be forgotten.  But, when you’re a high-quality horror film, a late October release is all the more timely.  Horror fans prefer to be shocked out of their wits and have their tolerances for gore challenged, because it’s a part of the entertainment.  It’s much more of a communal audience experience watching a horror film in a theater than any other type of genre, because the entertainment comes from our shared reactions.  Now, typically, horror films are low rent productions that make due with their limitations and will oftentimes be tongue-in-cheek experiences, depending on the execution.  But, there are also movies that fall into the category of prestige horror films, where the budgets and production values are increased significantly and the end result can be seen as artful in the film community, without betraying the rules of the genre.  A prestige horror film can sometimes come from a magnificently executed and high value production of a story with horror elements, like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and The Exorcist (1973) or from a highly artistic rendering of the genre tropes through an acclaimed director’s vision, like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980).  This Halloween season offers us a new horror film of this second type from one of Hollywood’s most unique visionaries.

Mexican born filmmaker Guillermo del Toro has been something of renaissance man in Hollywood in terms of trying different genres, but always with his own unique vision.  He has taken on Science Fiction (2013’s Pacific Rim), Superheros (2004’s Hellboy and it’s 2008 sequel), as well as Fantasy and War Drama (2006’s Pan’s Labyrinth).  But, perhaps his favorite genre to tackle above all the others is horror, and in particular, ghost stories.  This was evident in his earlier films like Cronos (1993) and The Devil’s Backbone (2001), both of which centered around themes of death and the supernatural.  In fact, all of del Toro’s movies have a little bit of the macabre to them, including something as rollicking as Pacific Rim.  It’s very clear from watching any of his films that the man loves horror and his work often reflects that same love.  At the same time, he’s also a filmmaker who knows when to have a little fun while working within the confines of a genre and his movies are often purposefully over the top, which gives them an extra level of entertainment.  While he isn’t consistently sticking with a particular genre, his movies still almost always have a sense of character to them, which has made him a highly regarded director.  This year, he returns to his roots and has crafted another ghost based horror film called Crimson Peak.  It’s another stylish production from the visually driven filmmaker, but here for the first time, he is working within a Victorian Gothic setting.  It’s a style that’s well suited for a prestigious horror movie, but through the eyes of Guillermo del Toro, it becomes something even more incredible.

The story, which was co-written by Guillermo del Toro himself, follows the supernatural journey of Edith Cushing (played by Mia Wasikowska), an aspiring writer and only child of a New York based mining tycoon (Jim Beaver).  Since she was a little girl, she has been haunted by the ghost of her departed mother who periodically returns to tell her daughter to “beware of Crimson Peak.”  As an adult, she crosses paths with an English playboy named Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) who seeks financial assistance with a mining venture that he wants to exploit on his home estate.  Edith is charmed by the stranger, but her father disapproves of the man and Edith’s childhood friend Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) has his suspicions of him as well.  Edith nevertheless pursues a courtship with Thomas and agrees to marry him after she tragically loses her father in a sudden “accident.”  After the wedding, Thomas and Edith return to England where they begin married life in a decrepit old mansion called Allerdale Hall, which sits atop Thomas’ mine and is slowly sinking into the red clay beneath it.  The couple try to make due with the inconveniences of the house, but Edith feels unease under the watchful eye of Thomas’ overbearing sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain), who becomes more menacing the longer Edith is there.  Not only that, but Edith is visited by ghosts who haunt the house, each appearing more grotesque than the last.  Though frightened by them at first, Edith soon discovers that the ghosts are trying to deliver her a message, one which becomes more clear once she learns that the red clay that Thomas is digging up has given the hilltop she lives on another nickname by the local village folk who live near it; Crimson Peak.

Overall, it’s a very straight forward ghost story, which serves del Toro’s film well.  Like most of his other movies, it’s not about the intricacy of the plot, but the way it’s presented.  Guillermo del Toro works within the genre confines of horror, sometimes even embracing it’s cliches, all with the purpose of giving it his own spin.  Del Toro very much likes to make his movies work as examples of the genre, and not as parodies of it.  I can honestly see Crimson Peak standing confidently alongside the classic Hammer horror movies of the 60’s and 70’s, which themselves were purposely over-the-top.  Guillermo also milks the Victorian aesthetic and tone very well here, making the atmosphere of the film feel even more genuine.  While not particularly original, I did enjoy what this movie was trying to be and I felt that it overall worked as a genre flick.  Is it the scariest movie ever made?  No, but the atmosphere that del Toro builds up is enough to satisfy die hard horror fans.  There are some especially creepy moments in the movie, particularly it goes silent for some moments.  For the most part, I felt that the movie was at it’s strongest when it just let the atmosphere of the scene speak for itself, with the moody lighting and the eerily tuned sound design taking over.  The story is not particularly deep; you already know where the plot is going long before it gets there.  But at the same time, I believe that’s del Toro’s intention.  He purposely takes story shortcuts in order to spend more time exploiting the tension and horror of each particular scene; something he also did effectively well with sci-fi in Pacific Rim. Some may find the long drawn out scenes of dark, shadowy halls tedious, but I felt that Guillermo’s style really shone in those moments.  It’s especially refreshing to see a movie get it’s best moments not from a jump scare, but from the eerie build up to the frights.  The scenes where the ghost Edith’s mother slowly reveals herself across a shadowy corridor still give me chills and has me looking over my shoulder.

But, while the ghosts are frightening in design, and the atmosphere is superb, there were some unfortunate cinematic elements that sadly took me out of the film at times.  In particular, I had a problem with the obvious use of CGI in the movie.  Now, Guillermo del Toro isn’t a novice when it comes to using CGI.  In fact, he used it to great effect in Pacific Rim.  But, he’s also been a known to use some really cool looking practical effects as well.  In particular, the amazing make-up used in Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy, where he brought to life some amazing creatures that become all the more terrifying because of their seemingly organic presence on screen.  What helped those movies out was a balance between the different kinds of effects needed.  In Crimson Peak, the CGI seemed to be favored a bit too heavily and it robs the movie of some of it’s effectiveness as a result.  There are CGI elements that do work, like a ghostly, pale shadow appearing out of the dust in an attic over a wheelchair, but there are others that look too artificial to be taken seriously.  I felt that the appearances of the many ghosts at Crimson Peak weren’t quite as horrifying as Guillermo had intended them to be, and that’s because the CGI used to create them looks a bit too cartoonish.  While their designs are unique (some of which del Toro illustrated himself), their animation left something to be desired and I could never fully feel scared as I was watching these ghosts chasing poor Edith through the house.  Had Guillermo del Toro used a more subtle approach with the ghosts in the movie, like old fashioned green screen and make-up effects, I might have bought the effect much better, but instead the movie suffers from unrealistic ghosts in a movie that’s dependent on them being scary.

But, the inconsistency of the film’s effects are balanced out by some incredibly effective, and sometimes scary performances from the cast.  Mia Wasikowska may have the most difficult time carrying much of this film and trying to convince us that she is seeing spirits all around her, but she does an effective job of giving Edith the depth of character needed to pull it off.  Edith, if handled poorly by another actress, could’ve turned into another boring ghost story protagonist, relegated to just reacting to the horrors around her instead of taking action.  But Mia manages to avoid portraying Edith as one note and part of the character’s charm is her curious nature, which comes out perfectly in her intelligent performance.  Tom Hiddleston also manages to perfectly embody the character of a playboy scoundrel without sinking too far into stereotype, and his character actually gets one of the more interesting arcs in the story.  But, if this movie belongs to anyone in particular, it’s Jessica Chastain as the sinister Lucille.  Chastain is relishing her role here, chewing up all kinds of scenery and managing to become even more chilling than the ghosts that haunt the mansion.  I just love the way that she goes over-the-top, but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to the story.  She’s unhinged, but grounded.  There’s an especially creepy bit with a spoon midway through the movie that is so perfectly creepy.  It’s the kind of performance that really sticks with you and it’s a testament to Jessica Chastain’s talent as an actress that she could make the insanity of this character feel so believable.  She’s by far the best thing about this movie and is probably the thing most worth watching overall, even with all the eye candy on display.

Of course, given that this is a Guillermo del Toro movie, there has to be something said about the production design.  For one thing, del Toro proves to be surprisingly adept with the Victorian period details, making the setting feel for the most part authentic to it’s time.  Likewise, del Toro also puts lavish excess into the movie when needed, particularly when it comes to the mansion itself.  The decrepit haunted house that serves as the setting of this movie feels very much like a Guillermo del Toro creation, with it’s twisted and foreboding nature.  Even simple design choices, like a patch of snow in the foyer originating from a hole in the ceiling, as well as the spiked archways in the halls, carry the del Toro signature.  Guillermo is probably only rivaled by Tim Burton for being identified by a particular aesthetic with his movies, which favors medieval Gothic inspiration along with a little Grand Guignol grotesquery thrown in.  In this movie, the designs used on the mansion help it to stand out and it almost makes the house a character in it’s own right.  I particularly like the way that the battered state of the home belies a little bit of what the mansion was like in it’s glory days, which makes it feel even more eerie once you take in the details.  There’s also a neat visual idea of the house sinking into the red clay that lies below it’s foundation.  This almost gives the audience the visual impression that the house bleeds, given the bright red hue of the clay once it liquefies and seeps through the floors and walls.  It’s a grotesque reinforcement of the mansion’s sinister nature, though it can come off to some as a little heavy handed to some.  I found it to be an interesting visual idea that stays true to the style of it’s visionary director.

Crimson Peak works as both a throwback to traditional ghost stories and as an unconventional horror movie.  Sure, it’s predictable and simplistic in many ways, but that’s part of the charm of it.  I just wouldn’t go into this movie expecting to be scared out of your mind.  This movie is much more of a triumph of production design, with some of the most beautiful imagery that you’ll see on the big screen this year.  The gore and horrifying scares are only in here to give this film it’s character as a horror flick.  And while not every idea or design hits it’s mark, like the less then effective CGI, the movie will still have enough for everyone to enjoy.  It has some effectively creepy atmosphere, some really standout performances, and also a surprisingly macabre sense of humor, which is another trademark of Guillermo del Toro’s style.  Compared to the director’s other films, I would say that this is a very solid exercise in genre film-making and not a particularly game-changing triumph.  It certainly doesn’t resonate as emotionally as Pan’s Labyrinth, but at the same time I don’t think Guillermo was trying to reach that far anyway.  This is his love letter to the ghost stories and horror films that he grew up with and he wanted to bring his own visual style into this kind of tale to see if he could do it justice, and in that regard, I believe he hit his mark.  So, I highly recommend Crimson Peak as a viewing experience, especially if you’re looking for something effectively spooky this Halloween season.  If anything, it’s just refreshing to see a horror movie that doesn’t have to rely on sudden jumps to scare it’s audience and instead relies on the dread of what may lurk around the corner in the shadows.

Rating: 8.5/10