Justice League is (wait for it)... just an average superhero movie

Going into Justice League, the new DC superhero mashup from Zack Snyder (and an uncredited directing effort by Joss Whedon), I had pretty low expectations.  After walking out, I can say that they were mostly met.  Like every other DC cinematic universe film (with the exception of the joyful Wonder Woman), it was marred with shoddy storytelling, not quite fleshed out characters, and tooooo much CGI.  It's a microcosm  of the entire DCCU, which has been trying to play catch up the larger, and more successful, Marvel Universe.  The fact that we're already at a team-up film after only 2 films (plus a prequel of sorts with WW) is all you need to know.  Whilst the Marvel Universe took its time to develop characters and stories before teaming all its heroes up, DC seems to think you won't care that they're essentially introducing three new characters during its first team-up effort.  Save for a couple brief cameos, we have never met or seen The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman.  That's not to say that they weren't entertaining characters, but how can we fully care about any of them if we're just meeting them minutes before a big boss battle.

The story of Justice League essentially boils down to this... Superman is dead, bad guys are coming, and it's up to Batman to get a team strong enough to stop the evil Steppenwolf (no, not that Steppenwolf!) before he can destroy the world.  Each character is given roughly 10 minutes of introduction before they're banding together.  I barely had enough time to register the lackluster plot before we're engulfed in another Zack Snyder slow-motion fisticuffs.

There are some good things about Justice League.  The Flash (played by Ezra Miller) steals the show as the film's comic relief.  It's clear that DC was intended to liven things up, and The Flash reaps the main benefits of this tonal shift.  Jason Momoa actually makes the worst superhero in history, Aquaman, palatable.  He plays him as equal parts lone wolf and rockstar, and it totally works.  Gal Gadot is great, as always, as Wonder Woman.  DC has a real star here in Gadot.  And I feel bad for Ben Afleck because he is actually pretty good as Bruce Wayne/Batman.  I would like to see his now scrapped Batman solo film.  Too bad that it looks like he's leaving the franchise as soon as he can.

The bad does, sadly, outweigh the good.  The main villain, Steppenwolf, is as bad as his CGI.  There is minimal backstory to him, and I could not care less about this character.  I feel like the villain of this film should have been Zod, Doomsday, or even a convoluted Lex Luthor plot.  It's too bad they already wasted them in previous films.  Cyborg's character is about as inhuman as his robotic body.  He's supposed to be the glue that binds all the characters together, but he's not given enough to work with here.  And (spoiler alert) Superman's CGI mustache removal is a major distraction throughout the film.

I'm giving Justice League 1.75 stars out of 4.  It's a big step back for DC after the commercial and critical success of Wonder Woman.  I don't think this is the end for the DCCU, but they're going to have to develop these characters way more before they even think about Justice League 2.

Thor: Ragnarok... a new comedy duo is born!

Abbott and Costello. Gleason and Carney. Pryor and Wilder. Murphy and Hall.  Aykroyd and Belushi... and now Thor and The Hulk???  You read that right.  In the annals of comedy duos, we have seen the birth of the next great duo.  Thor: Ragnarok is the funniest Marvel film ever and Thor and The Hulk should have their own series of films.

Thor is a major part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and yet, his solo films have always felt like also-rans... filler used to advance a larger Avengers storyline.  The first Thor film seemed to exist solely to introduce us to Loki and the Tesseract (which would be the main foils of the first Avengers movie).  The second Thor film (The Dark World) is widely regarded as the worst of the MCU films.  In that film, we barely get a coherent story, and the sole purpose of it was to introduce the MCU to another infinity stone.  That's not to say that they were bad films.  In fact, I quite enjoyed them both.  However, they are the first examples you can point to to the assembly line nature that the MCU has sometimes been labeled with.  It's also not to say that Thor, himself, was a bland character.  He often brings levity to the films that he's in (the diner scene in the original Thor, and the late night test of strength in Age of Ultron).  It's refreshing to see Chris Hemsworth given so much more to work with in this film... the first full-blown comedy in the MCU.

Ragnarok picks up two years after the events of Ultron.  Loki is still up to mischief, and The Hulk has shown up on a mysterious planet where The Master (played hilariously by Jeff Goldblum... doing a great Jeff Goldblum impersonation) has staged gladiatorial style fights for leisure.  Thor ends up on this planet after being banished from Asgard by his long-lost sister Hela, the Goddess of Death (played by the agelss wonder Cate Blanchett).  You see, she was Thor's father's first child, and wants her throne back.  The fact that she's a complete psychopath and has been banished by her father and wiped from Asgardian history comes as a complete surprise to Thor and Loki.

This movie is all smiles from start to finish.

This film works because it strips Thor down (and, gasp, cuts his hair).  He loses his hammer and has to build himself back up from lowly gladiator to god (or Lord, as he's hilariously referred to, in this film) of thunder.  This film really picks up during the Thor/Hulk brouhaha.  From that point on, they are a comedy duo for the ages, delivering zingers that would make a Judd Apatow production jealous.  Thor realizes that he needs The Hulk to help in his quest for revenge.

There's a lot to like in this film.  The comedy is gold.  The acting (especially the supporting cast) is superb.  And the special effects are top notch.  That's not to say that it's a perfect film.  The storyline feels a little disjointed in places.  It's basically a mash-up of two comic book runs (Ragnarok and Planet Hulk).  There are parts in the film, where the comedy feels out of place or forced.  However, I'm not knocking it too much.  It's a genuinely delightful film.  Kudos to director Taika Waititi for pumping life into Marvel's stalest character.  Definitely go see Thor: Ragnarok. 3 out of 4 stars.

Stay through the credits for the standard MCU advancing scenes.

Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful film... but it's not for everyone.

 The original Blade Runner is on the sci-fi films Mt. Rushmore.  It's bold, beautiful, and timeless.  However, it wasn't widely praised when it was originally released.  It was only after many years (and director's cuts) that Ridley Scott's original film was labeled a masterpiece.  It served as a cautionary tale about studio meddling, and was widely viewed as a flop.  I bring this up because its much anticipated sequel, Blade Runner 2049, is having its own trouble getting out the gates.  The film is already being labeled a "bomb" at the box office, which is a tad premature to say.  Despite the overwhelmingly positive reviews, 2049 didn't quite knock it out of the park during its first weekend at the box office.  It's sad to say that we live in a culture where a first weekend means everything to a film's financial success.  I hope that this new film can find its legs through word of mouth and repeated viewings, but I'm not too optimistic about that.

Blade Runner 2049 is a wonderful film.  It's beautiful, bold, and ambitious like the original classic.  It's set 35 years after the events of the first film.  The Tyrell corporation has gone bankrupt.   In its place is the Wallace Corporation (run in full method acting glory by the great Jared Leto).  The world has seen ecological devastation, and replicants (human androids) have only been brought back out of necessity.  The original batch of replicants (Nexus 8 models) are being hunted and "retired" by a new crop of Blade Runners.  You see, those original models can think for themselves, whereas the new crop are totally and completely loyal to their human masters.  We follow the story through the eyes of Ryan Gosling's "K," a newer model replicant (this isn't a spoiler... it's revealed in the first 5 minutes of the movie), who is tasked with retiring the Nexus 8s.  He soon finds out that there is more than meets the eye to the official company line, when he meets an older model (played in a brief but memorable manner by Dave Bautista).  It seems that a body is buried in his front yard that opens up a world of endless (and forbidden) possibilities for replicants.

What follows is a classic Hollywood film noir style story that happens to be set in the future.  It's Chinatown with flying cars.  It takes its time to build a case and doesn't take shortcuts in getting to the conclusion.  Some could argue that its too long and plodding... however, I felt that it was such a beautiful journey that I didn't mind sticking around for its almost 3 hour run time.  The great cinematographer Roger Deakins has crafted a film in which every frame is a piece of art.  So, although, the film tends to lag in parts (especially during the robot sex scene), it was still one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.  I didn't mind the (very deliberate) pace of this film.  Like I said, it felt like Chinatown (one of my favorite movies) set in the future.  If you go in expecting Star Wars, you'll sadly be disappointed.

I can see why this film is not for everyone.  In fact, multiple people left the theater during its screening.  It's a blockbuster that has very little resemblance to today's modern shoot-em-ups.  It's deliberate almost to a fault.  It tries to be a little too philosophical at times.  But ultimately, I feel like this film delivers everything that I wanted from it.  Director Denis Villenueve further cements his status as one of the great modern film directors.

You don't even need to have seen the first one to enjoy this one.  It can stand on its own two feet.

I'm giving Blade Runner 2049 3 out of 4 stars.  It has its flaws, but ultimately, it's a rewarding film that warrants repeat viewings.  I think I'll get more out of it during each viewing.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a jolly good time, bruv.

 I'm a firm believer that the first Kingsman (The Secret Service) film is one of, if not THE most underrated mainstream action film of the last decade.  It's so underrated that when I was coming up with my top 10 of that year, I totally forgot it.  Not because it wasn't a great film (it was), but because it sort of just slipped through the cracks for me.  I look back at that film, and it felt like such a breath of fresh air.  In a time when the spy genre had taken a turn to the serious (Daniel Craig's run as Bond and the Bourne films), The Secret Service, went the complete opposite direction.  It felt like both an homage and a spoof of the spy genre without ever feeling cheesy or out of place.  I think it deserves its place near any list of action movies, and I'm sad to have omitted it from my list.

For those of you who are uninitiated with the Kingsman films, I'll give you a brief refresher.  Set in modern day England, the Kingsman are a modern day Knights Of The Round Table.  They are an independent agency tasked with saving the world on a regular basis.  Taron Egerton plays "Eggsy," the latest recruit to the Kingsman, and he is mentored by Colin Firth's Galahad.  In the first film, they were charged with saving the world from the evil mastermind (portrayed against his tough guy image by the wonderful Samuel L. Jackson).  Needless to say... the Kingsman prevailed.  I don't think that was ever in doubt.  BUT, the journey to the end was over the top fun and had at least two all-time great action sequences (the fight through a church in Kentucky & the final battle inside Jackson's evil layer).

The Golden Circle picks up one year after the events of The Secret Service, and wastes no time getting the audience right into the action.  After an entertaining opening salvo, we learn that another villain (this time played with absolute devilish delight by the always incredible Julianne Moore) is looking to take over the world.  She's developed a secret drug that will kill every millions if the United States government doesn't pay a ransom.  I should also mention that most of the Kingsman gets taken out by this group, leaving only Eggsy and Merlin to save the world.  They are drawn to Kentucky and their American counterparts, The Statesman (led by Jeff Bridges and an underused Channing Tatum), for help.  This group is as over the top "Merica" as you can imagine.  They were denim from head to toe, and drink whisky as martinis.  I got an absolute kick out of this.  Soon enough we realize that they have saved Firth's character from death (it's not a spoiler... he was all over the trailers), but with a twist.  He has amnesia.  The Kingsman and The Statesman must work quickly to try to find Poppy (Moore) and her hideout (which you have to see to believe).  Only she has the antidote for this deadly drug.

As we know from the James Bond movies (especially the Roger Moore series of films), sequels tend to go bigger.  But are they necessarily better?  I'd argue not necessarily.  There's something to behold about simplicity and a good story winning out over.  I wouldn't necessarily say that The Secret Service was simple, but it presented a much more coherent storyline.  The Golden Circle, while a hell of a lot of fun, tended to go bigger and more absurd, over character development.  It's a small complaint, but one that makes me rank this one slightly below the first one.  There was a scene on the ski slopes that screamed out "James Bond homage" at the top of its lungs.  I didn't mind it, but I'm trying to look at this movie from all angles and see the flaws.

Overall, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a hell of a good time.  Is it better than the first one?  No... but that really doesn't matter.  It's a great escapist mainstream action movie that I would highly recommend.  The action sequences are fun, however none really can compete with the two aforementioned scenes from the first film.

I'm giving The Golden Circle 2.75 stars out of 4.  I had a blast.  It allowed me to escape from the crap going on in the world for a couple hours... and really, that's all I could ask for.  There's a really fun cameo that I won't ruin, but look out for Poppy's entertainment that she's kidnapped and brought to her lair.

IT is a genuinely thrilling movie... but I still miss Tim Curry

As a child, I was terrified by three films.  The first was The Exorcist, which is still one of the scariest movies ever made.  The second was the head-trippy Jacob's Ladder, a movie that I could barely sit through when I was younger.  The third, and perhaps most frightening to me, was the ABC miniseries event based on Stephen King's IT.  IT scared the hell out of me for a myriad of reasons, but most centrally, was the iconic performance of Pennywise The Clown by Tim Curry.  He forever instilled a fear of clowns in most children my age and beyond.  Looking back at the original IT, the film doesn't quite hold up in terms of quality and the performances are slightly (OK, not so slightly) campy.  However, the genuine chills still exist and I have to admit to being a little skeptical of this big screen remake.  However, after seeing the film tonight, I can say that my fears were mostly unnecessary.  IT is a top notch big budget thriller that improves upon the original in almost every way.

This version of IT focuses on the town of Derry, Maine during the summer of 1989 (different from the 1950s setting of the book and original movie).  A group of outcast children (known as the Loser's Club) discovers that children have gone missing at an alarming rate.  The Loser's realize that they have all been experiencing similar experiences involving a maniacal clown known as Pennywise (played by Bill Skarsgard), who terrorizes them by invoking the children's deepest, darkest fears against them.  The Loser's figure out that the town of Derry seems to go through a cycle of terror every 27 years, and Pennywise is always at the center of it.  He preys on children, while the adults of the town gloss over it (similar to Freddie Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street films).  It's soon up to the Loser's Club to try and rid Derry of the demon clown before it's too late.

I think this film does a great job of portraying adolescence (granted a really messed up one), and the troubles with growing up.  The group of children are the stars of this film.  They are equal parts hilarious and vulnerable.  They band together because of their similar home settings (all experience some form of physical or mental abuse by older members of their family or society).  The break out stars of this film is Finn Wolfhard (of Stranger Things fame) and Sophia Lillis.  Finn's character is the comedic center of this film and delivers his lines with perfect timing and impulse.  Lillis' character is the lone girl in the Loser's Club, and she has perhaps, the most emotionally troubling background of all the children.  The Loser's Club draw you in to the film in a relate able way and keep you interested throughout its slightly bloated run time.

On the other hand is Pennywise the Clown.  Skarsgard had a tough task in this film.  He had to take on such an iconic role while making it his own, and I think that he did an admirable job of it.  However, I think that Curry still owns this character and the follow-up will have to do a better job of making this Pennywise stand on his own.  He didn't get much of a chance to deliver lines of dialogue the way Curry did, and I was a little disappointed in that.

Make no mistake, this film is pure popcorn movie fun.  It delivers genuine thrills while keeping the story and characters grounded.  Yes, the villains are over the top at times, and it does tend to go the CGI route a little too much (though I was OK with that).  IT is a perfect escapist film and one I would highly recommend.

I much appreciated this film focusing on one-half of King's story.  However, I'm a little worried that the box office success of IT will make the producers drag the story out into as many films as possible.

If you're a fan of horror, go check it out.  3 out of 4 stars.

Dunkirk is Christopher Nolan's crowning achievement

There are few in Hollywood who can craft a visual marvel quite like Christopher Nolan.  He has re-defined the superhero movie with his Batman trilogy, and has also created the best mainstream action movie of the 2000's in Interstellar.  I look forward to his films more than any other director in Hollywood, except perhaps Quentin Tarantino.  His films aren't just run of the mill action fests... they're must-see events.  Needless to say, I was looking forward to this film more than any other this year (with the exception of the next Star Wars entry).  I can happily report that Dunkirk is an absolute masterpiece and it stands as the high water mark in Nolan's distinguished career.  There isn't a single wasted frame in the entire film.

The story of Dunkirk is one that I, sadly, was not really aware of.  The stakes are extremely high.  It takes place in 1940, well before America enters the foray of World War II.  The Brits and their allies are backed up to Dunkirk beach in France and are literally surrounded by the Germans on all sides.  No less than the fate of the free world is at stake.  These soldiers are literal sitting ducks, hoping to not be picked off by the mighty German war machine before they can be rescued across a short 26 mile stretch of ocean.  Large ships are mowed down by German U-Boats, so it's up to a fleet of civilian ships to head stright into a warzone and rescue their brethren.  Nolan throws you right into the action.  He wisely discards any and all back story and throws his audience right into the battle.  Like the opening to Saving Private Ryan (a personal favorite of mine), Dunkirk excels at bringing its audience to within a stones throw of the brutality of war.  It's an adrenaline rush from start to finish, and I found myself clenching my chair throughout its entirety.  The battle is told through three perspectives:  The land, air, and sea.  It's brilliantly edited out of sequence, leaving the audience to experience different levels of trauma throughout it.

At 106 minutes, Dunkirk is Nolan's shortest film.  However, you feel every single one of those 106 minutes.  Hans Zimmer delivers a brilliant score that only adds to the drama (I'll never hear a stopwatch the same way again).  It's largely a dialogue free film, however that's not a knock against it.  I'd argue that the score is more important than any piece of dialogue in the film.  It builds and builds as the tension mounts until you find yourself exhaling at the end of the film, having held your breath through most of it.

That's not to say that there aren't great performances in it.  Newcomer, Fionn Whitehead is how the audience experiences most of the film.  He is the representation of the 400,000 soldiers trapped on the beach.  His dread is their dread.  Tom Hardy plays an air force fighter pilot in charge of the aerial rescue.  Oscar winner Mark Rylance delivers a deeply personal performance as one of the civilian boat rescuers.  Kenneth Branagh and Harry Styles fill out the cast with superb performances.

This film deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.  Sadly, I did not get a chance to see it on an IMAX screen, which left me a little disappointed.  Nolan is the master of practical effects, and he filled his beaches with thousands of extras and as many real ships and planes as he could get his hands on.  I'm greatly anticipating the making of features on the Blu-Ray disc.

Dunkirk is the best movie I've seen this year.  It's a story about bravery, honor, and sacrifice.  4 out of 4 stars.  It delivers on every level and proves that Nolan is a master of suspense and emotion (a knock on him prior to this film).  Go see it!

War For The Planet Of The Apes is a fitting conclusion to the rebooted Apes trilogy

When people ask, "why are they constantly rebooting or remaking every piece of cinematic treasure?" you can point them to the recent reboot of the Planet Of The Apes as an example of getting it right.  There is so much dross and garbage trotted out before audiences every year, that it's easy to disregard anything with an "R" word before it as trash.  However, on the off chance that Hollywood actually gets it right (see the most recent Spider-Man reboot as another example), these stories can be worthy successor to their much beloved originals.

War For The Planet Of The Apes is the third (and reportedly final) entry to the Apes family of films.  The previous two (2011's Rise and 2014's Dawn) have been heralded both for their storytelling and their landmark special effects.  War is no different in this regard.  Once again, the team manages to deliver top notch motion capture work alongside real locations and human actors.  Andy Serkis again reprises his role as the simian leader, Caesar.  In this film, the war that was teased at the end of Dawn is in full swing.  The human resistance is in its final throes, and is attempting to find (and kill) Caesar and the rest of his ape compatriots.  The humans are led by the exceptional Woody Harrelson (in full Marlon Brando Apocalypse Now mode).  They believe the only way to victory is through complete annihilation of the apes.  Caesar is a much more conflicted leader.  He still seeks peace, while doing what it takes to protect his kind.  Unlike Harrelson's character, Caesar wears his emotion on his face.  He is a conflicted leader, who is haunted by his past actions and his love for humanity.

This is what I most enjoyed about War.  For a war film, there were many tender moments throughout it.  Large chunks of this film are silent as the apes mostly communicate through sign language.  The audience is along for the ride as Caesar and his friends try to end the war for good and bring peace to the world.  Since there is limited talking, a lot of the emotion is done through facial expressions and grunts.  I can't say enough about how good of a job Andy Serkis does.  I don't think he'll get an Oscar nomination for his work in these films, but his ability to act via motion capture is unparalleled.  His personality is felt throughout this film (and its predecessors), and he has done all he can do to bring validity to motion capture filmmaking.

While War does have some tremendous action set pieces, it does tend to drag in parts.  The third act felt a little long, and the Moses imagery was laid on a tad thick for my tastes.  I can't rate this one higher than Dawn (in my opinion, the high water mark to the series).  However, in an already strong year for mainstream blockbuster film making, War For The Planet Of The Apes delivers a highly satisfying and very entertaining conclusion to this trilogy.

Kudos to director, Matt Reeves, and his team.  3 out of 4 stars.