‘Thor: Ragnarok;’ an energetic, hilarious crowd-pleaser

*I would have published this review first, as it’s undoubtedly the most popular of all the movies I reviewed for The Examiner.  However, I like order, and this was the second-to-last review.  Also, I noticed that I didn’t have grades in the reviews.  The Examiner doesn’t want them, so they were not in the original reviews.  I went back and added grades to them.”

 

As consistently successful as Marvel’s Cinematic Universe continues to be, the God of Thunder does not have a standalone film worthy of his name. That is, until “Thor: Ragnarok” arrived, and it packs some punches.

Directed by Taika Waititi and written by: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost, “Thor: Ragnarok” follows Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as they are overthrown by Hela, God of Death (Cate Blanchett). Imprisoned on a wasteland, Thor must fight in gladiatorial contests in order to secure his freedom, return to Asgard and save his people.

The general audience consensus I heard prior to watching this blockbuster boiled down to, “it’s a lot like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’” or “it was extremely funny.” After watching the movie, I can confidently confirm these comments. Of course, this does not sum up the entire movie: I have 350 more words to do that for you, faithful reader.

The change in tone, while very sudden and slightly out-of-character, is welcomed because the first two “Thor” films were some of the most forgettable in Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. They lacked personality, but Waititi (known for his independent productions like “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”) breathes new life into the franchise with style, wit and plenty of memorable jokes.

Since the film takes many of its cues from “Guardians of the Galaxy,” there are a few things you can predict such as: a soundtrack with classic songs, self-aware humor and a color palate that would make a Picasso painting blush. I actually prefer this movie over “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.”

The story is built on a firm foundation that bears more than one resemblance to the Russell Crowe film “Gladiator,” and supported by a collection of superhero movie clichés and predictable character arcs. As lazy as that sounds, I was able to ignore the narrative faults because the movie puts its focus on the character interactions, action sequences (which are absolutely incredible to watch) and worldbuilding. Seeing these new worlds, cultures and challenges face our stalwart hero is more investing than I thought it would be.

The cast thoroughly enjoys their time on screen and the script gives them plenty to work with.  The only issue I have is the familiarity of these character types. While Thor and Loki get some really good development as characters, some of the supporting cast falls into overused clichés. I’m not listing them for fear of spoilers, but if you see the movie, you can probably predict them yourself.

“Thor: Ragnarok” overcomes the narrative lows with its sense of adventure and steady sense of pacing. I wish the trailers didn’t spoil all of the shocking parts of the movie, but what can you do? The grand scale makes you feel like you’re watching a movie with gods in it. One can only wonder why it took them three tries to get it right. Either way, today’s film should not be missed, especially if you need a break from that mountain of textbooks.

Thor: Ragnarok gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B.

“The Emoji Movie” Review

Ha heh ha heh ha ha heh heh hoooooh!  Oh gosh, I haven’t had this much fun since that NyQuil-induced fever dream where I was a black Rambo who fought off mercenaries and space aliens whilst driving in the jeep from Lilo and Stitch!  I mean that.  Granted, it is likely I lost my sanity watching/researching this atrocity of a motion picture.  Be that as it may, I have successfully maintained a crazed smile for the last 3 days, and it may turn into something worse if I don’t get this review published.  Prepare yourselves for the most numbing trek through the most stereotypical movie of the decade.

The Emoji Movie is directed by Tony Leondis and written by: Tony Leondis, Eric Siegel, and Mike White.  Stars-T.J. Miller, James Corden, Anna Faris, Jake T. Austin, Maya Rudolph, and Sir Patrick Stewart.  Premise-Gene (the “meh” emoji) causes trouble when he makes the wrong emotion, so he sets out a journey through the phone to become his assigned trait.

Where to even start?  Why, at the production company logos of course!  Yes, Sony has given us even more proof that the downfall of children’s cinema is at hand.  The Emoji Movie (20 of my brain cells die every time I say that) panders so much, it would make Michael Bay, Stephenie Meyer, and every Illumination Entertainment executive blush.  The moral-which is a cliché at this point-is the, “you be you” message that went from earnest and fresh, to tired and annoying.  To make things even better, they use all of the following clichéd lines, “Just be yourself,” “I like you just the way you are,” and “You be who you want to be.”  It’s hilarious watching these adults try to relate to kids.  Almost as fun as watching a handful of funny people phone it in.  Rudolph is playing the same character as the dog in The Nut Job, Corden is agitating, Miller’s voice naturally sounds like he’s disinterested, Faris plays a freaky hybrid of Wyldstyle and a Tumblr feminist, there’s 1,000 useless celebrity cameos, and since Patrick Stewart is more respected than the Apollo 13 crew, there’s no point in making fun of his choice to voice the visual representation of Sony films.

Some probably think this movie’s worse than Ghostbusters (2016) or Norm of the North, but I disagree.  Ghostbusters wanted to tick people off, The Emoji Movie wants to hit every single mark on the “by-the-numbers kids movie (Politically Correct Edition)” handbook.  Awkward protagonist?  Check.  Diverse-even though their personalities are stereotypes-cast?  Check.  “Don’t listen to the haters” moral?  Check.  Brightly-colored 3D animation that looks like candy?  Check.  Distracting sexual innuendos and pop culture references in a pitiful attempt to entertain parents?  Check-a-roony!  All that’s missing are some pointless pop songs in the soundtrack… spoke to soon.  They got Christina Aguilera to play a character called Akiko Glitter in a scene where our main emoji’s enter a Just Dance app and must dance their way out of certain doom.  Wow.

Likewise, Norm of the North is the stupidest animated movie of all time; but The Emoji Movie rips off Wreck-It-Ralph, Inside Out, and A Bug’s Life (without ANY of the emotional connection whatsoever).  Sony adds its trademarked product placement, this includes: Crackle, Facebook, YouTube, and at least 5 others, while subjecting the audience to every predictable joke in the book.  The logic of this movie is nonexistent, the characters are forgettable, and the film defenestrates any opportunity for actual entertainment that comes along.

When all this is said and done, The Emoji Movie will be hastily forgotten.  This movie is like Styrofoam; light, forgettable, lacking substance, takes up space, and will cause slight indigestion if consumed.  If you need more proof of this film’s objective failure, check out these facts.  It’s rated #6 on IMDb’s Bottom 100, the box office gross is $31 million ($19 million less that the budget), and take a look at the official Twitter page.  As of the time of this post, it has 13 likes.  Thirteen!  None of which were likes of Tweets posted by actual people (all companies).  No one likes this movie, no one has anything nice to say about it, and it makes me so happy because of that.  I’m not that worried or angry (I’ll leave that to the YouTube critics), the last 3 movies I saw in the theater were: The Hero, The Big Sick, and Dunkirk, everything’s gonna be fine.  The Emoji Movie gets Guy’s Guru Grade of an F, for Failure to Try.

“The Hero” & “The Big Sick” Review

Now comes that time of every year where I nearly give up hope in the film industry.  Then, out of the shadows of Sundance, came one of the most raw, emotionally compelling, and well-acted dramas of this decade.  Not too long after (one week to be precise), I was treated to one of the most original, funny, and perfectly-paced comedies of the same decade.  After posting the Despicable Me 3 review, I had to decide which of these two treasures to review first.  After way too much inner debate, it came to me, “Why not make a double-feature?”  This way, I can hit two birds with one stone and explain why these movies are a trillion times better than anything released since Logan (four months ago).

The Hero is directed by Brett Haley and written by Brett Haley and Marc Basch.  Stars-Sam Elliott, Nick Offerman, Laura Prepon, and Katherine Ross.  Premise-An aging movie star’s life changes when he meets a woman, confronts his broken family, and accepts his place in the universe.

The Big Sick is directed by Michael Showalter and written by Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani.  Stars-Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, and Ray Romano.  Premise-A Pakistani stand-up comic meets a Caucasian girl, who’s studying to become a therapist, and a relationship blooms.  However, the cultural barrier between their families proves to be a difficult hurdle to leap.

I’ve grown tired of reviewing movies that (while popular) are unimportant.  The stupid action romps (The Great Wall, The Fate of the Furious, etc.), the forgettable cash grabs (Alien: Covenant, Despicable Me 3, etc.) and all the above-average superhero flicks!  Apologies if I sound melodramatic, after watching these two movies, it’s much more obvious how generic this year has been.  By the end of this review, you’ll feel the same way.

Both of these films are dramedies, and while The Hero is more focused (and thus more effective) with the drama portion, The Big Sick soars with its upbeat, wildly varied humor.  Every single character gets plenty of time to shine, and once the second act shows up, the jokes are much more frequent and will induce belly laughs.  Oh, and Bo Burnham plays a wise-cracking friend. I rest my case.

The Hero isn’t bereft of a joke or two, but they are few and far between.  Instead, it plays to its strengths of relatable human issues like accepting fate/mortality, loss of popularity, broken hearts, and addictions.  Things get really serious with this movie, but unlike with Manchester by the Sea, the main character actually has a few bright moments in his bleak life, thus it doesn’t just come across as, “Feel sorry for him!  Feel sorry for him!”  Many critics have pointed out the clichés, but I think they’re overcome by the earnest writing and compelling performances.  Oh yeah, can we please take a moment to discuss the acting with these movies?

I can already see a SAG nomination for The Big Sick, which makes sense considering that everyone has ample screentime (especially Nanjiani and Romano), but there is one particular veteran who steals the show today.  The Mustache himself, Samuel Pack Elliott.  I’ve thought long and hard about how to properly overstate how honest, emotional, and convincing his performance is, but the best thing I can come up with is this…mildly sassy statement, “If Sam Elliott doesn’t get an Oscar Nomination for Best Leading Actor I will pitch a fit which will be heard around the world and the ears of the innocent shall bleed at its wrath as every single Academy member will suffer a marathon of Adam Sandler productions, Clockwork Orange style.”  It’s some dang powerful stuff.  The Hero is worth watching purely to see Elliot finally receive a leading role in film that showcases his best.

The last things to talk about are the stories, and there are definitely some clichés with both films.  However, if the casts weren’t enough to remedy that, the narrative of The Big Sick takes many twists and turns.  It’s almost like watching a documentary because of how detailed the main character’s life is.  Not one part of it is left to the wayside; his family, friends, job, personal aspirations, uncertain beliefs, heartache, and personality are all fully developed.  The tone never gets too sad or too sentimental, the writers knew exactly when a joke was necessary (and the joke was always funny).  The Hero is a genuine, straight, story of a man’s life and it works well; well enough to bring you to tears if you’re not made of stone.  I urge you, and you, and you, and you to watch at least one of these movies very soon.  You will not regret it.

I hope this post was to your liking as I greatly enjoyed the writing process.  This isn’t something I usually say, but please support these films by watching them or bugging your friends to see them since these are the types of real films that audiences deserve.  As for me, I’m going to buy some Lone Star Barbecue Sauce and expand the cultural diversity of my friend group.  The Hero earns Guy’s Guru Grade of a B+ and The Big Sick earns Guy’s Guru Grade of an A-.

“Despicable Me 3” Review

What did I say?  The box office success of Minions-combined with a bunch of apathetic reviews-have now provided subpar animation companies with the perfect excuse to make pandering garbage.  While everyone was saying, “Minions isn’t the best movie ever, but it’s harmless,” they were making this absolute mess of a film.  I will not pull any punches in this review, so if you are a die-hard fan of this franchise, leave now or learn to accept the fact that different opinions exist.  Let the roast commence.

Despicable Me 3 is directed by: Kyle Balda, Pierre Coffin, and Eric Guillon.  It’s written by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio.  Stars-Steve Carrell, Kristen Wiig, Trey Parker, and Pierre Coffin.  Premise-After meeting his long-lost twin brother, Gru must decide between reverting back to his evil ways, or focusing his energy towards his family; all while a new villain is devising something sinister.

Where to even begin?  There’s nothing redeemable about this flick.  Everything is just different shades of toilet scum brown.  Quite possibly the ugliest of these aspects is the story, which I can only describe as: the most pathetic excuse for a screenplay that’s so devoid of substance and humor it might as well have been written by Tim Herlihy.

If you couldn’t tell this pandering nonsense wasn’t trying, just take a look at the characters… or empty spaces.  Steve Carell (whose voice acting practically made the character in the first film) shouts every one of his lines, and the brother of Gru is basically Gunter from Sing.  The villain is even worse!  This franchise has seen some truly forgettable villains, but I was optimistic to see the new guy.  After all, they casted Trey Parker, a voice acting/comedic genius, to voice him.  Well, someone was collecting a paycheck.  This guy is quite possibly, the most generic villain in an animated film of the last decade.  First, his backstory (mind you, this info is in the trailers and the first 5 minutes of the film, so there are no spoilers).  His name is Balthazar Bratt; an 80s TV star who was rejected by Hollywood after outgrowing his starring role.  That is all there is to his personality.  We don’t know if he has a family, what he did after he lost fame, or how he has all those fancy gadgets you saw in the trailers.  Secondly, Bratt’s dialogue.   It consists of painful, annoying, outdated, unfunny 80s references and slang.  The last time someone was ignorant enough to intentionally write a character like this was in Mars Needs Moms, the biggest animated box office failure of all time.  This also gives the filmmakers a reason to force in some pop songs because, “Generic 3D Animated Kids Film.”  The rest of the cast is just forgettable, but Bratt takes the cake in terms of blandness.

The overall conflict is poorly done as well.  There are around 5 different plots the movie juggles, but they all conclude in rushed ways.  The most egregious of these being the main plot that sets the movie in motion.  I can’t tell you what it is exactly, but let me put it this way.  The third act of this movie is so rushed; they do not properly wrap up the main conflict.  There is no scene where we see the problem resolved, just one line of dialogue saying that everything is right as rain (I always loved that “tell don’t show” screenwriting technique!).  There’s also a subplot where the minions are on their own little adventure; it accomplishes nothing besides showcasing how pitiful the slapstick is.  If you’ll recall, Despicable Me had some pretty funny moments of physical violence.  This is because the characters moved somewhat realistically, and when they were hit with a hammer, crushed by the Moon, or blown up, they reacted accordingly.  It is APPALLING how ineffective the comedy in Despicable Me 3 is.  Throughout the entire runtime, this was my expression.  My final piece of evidence for the lack of effort is the Minion dialogue.  When watching the first film, it was interesting to see what words they would come up with.  Heck, there is a WIKI page for their language (“Minionese”).  To quote Channel Federator, “Minionese is a mix of: French, English, Italian, and Spanish with a hint of Korean and Russian tossed in.”  However, most of what the Minions say in this movie is either English or Spanish.  It’s almost like the writers gave up on their own fictional language.

I’m getting tired of this.  I wouldn’t care as much if Illumination’s first Oscar-nominated film wasn’t Despicable Me 2, and if they didn’t release the surprisingly entertaining Sing last year.  On one hand, I know they’re better than this, but on the other, Minions grossed over $1 billion, so why do they have to try anymore?  Don’t look at me like I haven’t been patient.  I like the first two Despicable Me movies (despite their many flaws), and I gave Minions a chance to prove itself.  Audiences, I urge you, skip this garbage (wait until DVD if you really want to see it) and watch a Pixar film instead.  Not only will you actually enjoy the experience, your kids won’t be dumber after watching it!  Despicable Me 3 gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a D+.

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” Review

You know what?  I’ve been too hard on Sony.  Sure their films may be the worst excuses for cinematic entertainment this side of Happy Madison, but they built themselves up as an electronic manufacturer.  Heck, of the three different Blu-Ray players I’ve used, the fastest, least temperamental, and most reliable one was from Sony.  However, I’d be lying if I denied my enjoyment of watching them run around like chickens with their heads chopped off after a terrific three-punch combo of getting hacked in 2014, striking a deal with Marvel in 2015 (one that cancelled many Spider-Man projects), and releasing one of the biggest box office bombs in 2016 (Ghostbusters) while I listened to the La La Land soundtrack with Sony earbuds.  Bliss.  Anyways, today we are seeing the highly anticipated result of that Marvel deal, and I can happily report that this movie is decent.  Not an A, not great, not even that memorable, just decent.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is directed by Jon Watts and written by: Johnathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Jon Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna, and Erik Sommers.  Stars-Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jacob Batalon, Robert Downey Jr., Jon Favreau, and Zendaya.  After the events of Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker must responsibly balance his superhero life (in which a new threat has appeared) with his personal school life (where his relationships are crumbling).

Now that you’re properly making this face (and thus I have your attention), we can talk about another movie with a 90%+ Rotten Tomatoes rating that I don’t agree with.  Bottom line, Spider-Man: Homecoming is far better than its two predecessors, but in the end, I was left slightly disappointed.  I didn’t have any monstrous expectations for this movie (save for wanting it to be better than the Andrew Garfield flicks), but there were defiantly some distracting flaws.  Before I get into that, I need to give credit where credit is sorely due.

This movie passes the Politically Correct test (the one that made Ray a perfect, aka boring, character in The Force Awakens) by having a multiethnic cast.  And unlike in Beauty and the Beast (2017) where black people were casted as regular townsfolk (when in reality, a slavery system was well-established in France in the early 1700s), it works because present-day New York is wildly diversified.  Not only that, the cast is top-notch!  Tom Holland is thoroughly enjoying every single second of screentime he gets, and the supporting cast shines as well.  The best comedy in the film comes from the interplay between the characters; which is great because the rest of the humor is pretty stupid, as are some of the character decisions.  Seriously, you could make a compilation of characters saying that they should be discreet, and then immediately getting found out.  I can only tolerate a bunch of “supposedly” intelligent, secretive superheroes/agents discussing top secret information in an occupied high school bathroom, for so long

To make things worse, two of our main characters have crippling errors.  The first is Spider-Man himself, and his problem is that he’s invincible!  In the original Sam Raimi film (which is better than this movie for the record), whenever Spider-Man took a blow, you could tell it hurt.  During the final battle, he was almost beaten to death!  In this movie (in which Peter is still learning his powers), he gets knocked around, but the impact is nonexistent.  It’s almost like they used a CGI puppet whose outfit never takes damage, or looks even the slightest bit dirty.  It makes for some suspense-lacking action sequences.  The second poor character would be Michael Keaton’s Vulture.  While Keaton is great as always, his character is just another “common man” cliché, and he’s not interesting enough to make up for it.

In regards to the fight scenes, remember how inventive Raimi’s camerawork was in the original trilogy?  Well, shaky-cam and bland action set pieces are now a part of the Spider-Man canon.  These action scenes are very standard fare, which sucks because watching Spider-Man swinging around the skyscrapers of New York City should always look awe-inspiring.

Though I thrashed the living heck out of this movie, it is still an entertaining, funny, promising start to the newest interpretation of this character.  While writing this review, I realized that I held this movie up to Captain America: Civil War (as that was Spidey’s last appearance).  I love Civil War because it had complex characters, drama, and pure entertainment working together in perfect harmony.  Homecoming only has the latter, but it puts every ounce of effort into it.  After all, Spider-Man has always been very popular with younger audiences.  Hence why there was a greater focus on humor in the movie, it’s in an awkward high school setting, and there’s a lot of dialogue devoted to Tom Holland geeking out about his powers (take a shot every time he says “awesome”).  Taking this into account, Spider-Man: Homecoming is an enjoyable, if not safe, entry into the franchise and it gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B.

“Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie” Review

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry!  While I could annoy you with excuses reasons as to why it took me over 2 weeks to publish a review (like realizing that the seats at my new AMC get booked really fast), that would be weak and unprofessional.  Instead, I’ll talk about my firsthand exposure to the horror of… pre-movie commercials!  I drastically overestimated how long it would take me to get to this matinee, so I had about 40 minutes of filler to sit though before the movie actually started.  Now, I’m not talking about the trailers for movies that will play in a theater, I’m talking about those ads that air when you’re taking a pee-break from PBS.  Lo and behold, I’m stuck in a scratchy chair, without the use of my phone because I ran out of data, and the commercials are unbearably generic.  All except for the one where I got to see Mark Wahlberg talk to Gumball Waterson.  That was fun.  Once the nightmares concluded, I could finally be treated to one of the most potentially-abhorrent adaptations of all time.  Let’s begin.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie is directed by David Soren and written by Nicholas Stoller and David Soren.  Stars: Thomas Middleditch, Kevin Hart, Ed Helms, and Jordan Peele.  Premise-The lives of two joke-making schoolkids are forever changed when they hypnotize their mean principal into becoming Captain Underpants (a superhero the boys created for their comics).

Remember when Blue Sky Studios released The Peanuts Movie 2 years ago?  It was an adaptation of a classic source material meant for children, animated in energetic 3D, everyone thought it would suck, and by a miracle from heaven, it was actually good.  Well, DreamWorks seems to have taken a few notes from the most forgettable animation company of modern time and the result is a thoroughly passable venture.  I love Dav Pilkey’s Captain Underpants novels.  Clever humor, satirical storytelling, and a thorough understanding of the spirit of childhood.  When I first heard the mere idea of a film adaptation, I could not fathom how they could stretch the stories into 90 minutes.  Then again, The Peanuts Movie did it right, let’s see how Captain Underpants accomplished this.

The first thing I must praise is the voice-acting.  While Middleditch sounds way too old to voice a 9 year old (Harold), Kevin Hart actually changed his voice for this role (unlike in Secret Life of Pets).  Also, Jordan Peele is excellent (he voices a white kid, and I couldn’t tell it was him), and Ed Helms’s energy as the hero is impossible to resist.  What’s better is that the animation brings each of these characters to life.  You guys know I’m not that big a fan of 3D, but its best uses are with adaptions like Wreck-It Ralph, The Peanuts Movie, The Angry Birds Movie.  The character designs are perfect, and the fast-paced writing allows for some entertaining slapstick and visual gags.

When it comes to the story… eh, it’s hard to talk about.  In regards to my question about how they could get 90 minutes out of a book with less than 150 pages, the writers attempted to combine the first, second, and fourth novels.  I say attempted, because the narrative is very disjointed.  If you never read the books, it’ll be less distracting, but certain scenes felt out of leftfield.  There are also a few terribly-sung musical numbers (I get the point, but Middleditch can’t sing), and there are a few clichés that grate on you.  Despite this, the writing is actually more intelligent than you’d expect.  This movie has an unholy amount of self-awareness.  There are just as many jokes for adults as there are for the kids.  And by “adult jokes” I don’t mean gross sex puns, or obnoxious stereotypes (the ones that made The Angry Birds Movie so unfunny), I mean self-referential humor that pokes fun at clichés of the genre.  Obviously, this wasn’t done as well as say, The Lego Batman Movie, but it is no less appreciated here.  Above all, the show knows it’s for kids.  There are a few fourth wall jokes here and there when the characters talk directly to the kids in the audience.  Wouldn’t you know it; the children in the theater loved it.

Alright, another one bites the dust.  I hope you enjoyed this review, because I recommend it to anyone with kids or fond memories of the novels.  Heck, I wrote a book report on this series a few years back, and I can comfortably say that I enjoyed watching an animated, middle-aged man parade around in his underpants for 90 minutes.  More reviews coming soon!  Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” Review

I wonder how long it’ll be until Marvel finally kills off some of its main characters.  Only at that point will their cinematic universe truly open to new stories.  I say this because the formulas for the modern superhero movie are slowly making each installment more predictable.  In the meantime, we have a film that screams “capitalization.”  Either that or it’s just a sequel that pales in comparison to its predecessor.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is written/directed by James Gunn.  Stars-Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Kurt Russell, Michael Rooker, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper.  Premise-During one of their adventures (and getting into trouble at the same time), the Guardians learn more about their leader’s (Star-Lord) childhood.

The biggest problem with Guardians 2 is the writing.  No offense to Gunn (whose ideas started the trend of superhero movies having retro soundtracks), but this script needed another brain working on it.  Perhaps you see it differently, but this film felt really awkward to me.  Some of the jokes felt rushed or were not delivered well; especially whenever they try to use profanity (the PG-13 rating neuters some of these jokes).  It’s difficult to phrase, but the movie doesn’t have the flow of the original.  One thing that attributes to that is the terrible cutting.  I don’t know if it was written or edited this way, but there are many scenes that cut away at inopportune times.  For example, Star-Lord is about to learn something critical about his past, but the scene randomly cuts to the subplot involving Yondu.  I wouldn’t mind as much if this was a one-time thing, however, this occurs at least 3 times.  It kinda ruins the moment.  Still, the movie isn’t without its charm.

The cast may actually be better this time around.  That’s because they have much more development.  I don’t know why critics are saying the characters aren’t fleshed out; there are more character-focused scenes than actiony, space ones.  The first movie was similar to a television pilot in terms of character.  We got their backstories, personalities, and some interplay between them.  This movie bumps it up a notch.  The drama is outstandingly affective, and it kept the movie from getting boring.  Bautista, Rooker, and Cooper, especially get to shine with their material.  Which is great considering the action sequences and CGI are way too cartoony this time around (but the sets are fantastic).

Well, that was short.  Sorry if you were expecting 20 paragraphs of in-depth criticism, but that’s really all I have to say.  In essence, it’s not as good as the first one.  Heck, the soundtrack isn’t one-fifth as memorable as the first.  The best comparison I can come up with is the difference between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back movies.  The first was much more fun and action-packed, while the second was darker and focused on the characters.  That said, most people prefer Empire Strikes Back, so I’ll let you decide if time Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is worth your time.  But for me, it gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B.

Disney Remakes: Their Effect on the Industry

“Really?  Another online millennial complaining about remakes?  Let me guess: he hates the Ghostbusters remake, lives in his parents’ basement, and thinks his opinion is the only correct one.”  Hey!  I’m moving into a dorm in August…  Anyway, let’s talk about something that has been punching my frontal lobe for over 2 years.  I kept my patience during Maleficent, I tolerated a remake that added just as many problems as it fixed (Cinderella 2015), I gave Jon Favreau the proper praise for his Jungle Book, and I’ve completely forgotten Pete’s Dragon (2016).  However, what I, and most others judging by the reactions, did not know was that Disney had been planning a massive “remake” franchise.  This very concept infuriates my creative core, and this post is essentially going to be an informal essay on why I believe so.  If anyone wants to challenge my undeniably logical arguments, then make your way to the comments, where I eagerly await to enter “YouTube comment debater” mode!  In all seriousness, I’d really appreciate your feedback with these projects; it’s one of the best ways to learn.  Rant time!

As we all know, Walt Disney was (among many things) a brilliant businessman.  While fighting his way through war, financial insecurity, securing the rights to stories he wanted to tell, and starting his business, Disney was diligently creating one of the world’s most diversified, universal, influential, powerful, profitable, and successful companies in the history of man.  However, the company had to start somewhere.  Before you think this post is a biography of Walt Disney, fear not.  This is only context for how we got to present day Disney, because the film portion of Disney Studios was based off of adapting previously published stories.  Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937), Cinderella (1950), Sleeping Beauty (1959), and many others were all books with similar settings.  All Disney did was adapt them into animated films for child audiences, but oh, did he do it well.  It took very little time for the business to launch, fast-forward about a century or so, and we are at present day.

Mickey Mouse is kicking butts and taking names.  After procuring Marvel and Lucasfilm, they’ve had an almost monopoly-like control over the box office.  If you add the box office gross of The Jungle Book (2016), Captain America: Civil War, Finding Dory, and Zootopia, you get over 4.1 BILLION dollars!  Do you know how much money that is?  Disney certainly does, because they have greenlit over 5 completely unnecessary live-action remakes of their classic films.  Take note that only 1 out of those 4 movies was not based off a familiar product (Zootopia).  This brings me to my first argument (no, it’s not because these movies “ruined my childhood”); these remakes have no point.

To properly explain what makes a great remake, let’s talk about the greatest film remake of all time, John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982).  I read John W. Campbell Jr.’s Who Goes There? (the short story the movie is based on), I watched The Thing from Another World (1951), and I watched Carpenter’s 1982 remake, if there is anyone who understands this story, it’s me.  What I find fascinating is that Carpenter’s version is more faithful to the short story than the first film.  The Thing from Another World is passable, but it has many problems.  So, what does horror master Mr. Carpenter (hot off of Halloween and Escape from New York) do?  Take what made the original work, update the production design, add more character development, and pull no punches.  If you haven’t seen The Thing, please get yourself a copy and watch it because it’s one of the top ten best horror movies of all time.  This is because the material was updated for a newer audience, and the idea behind the remake wasn’t, “Hey, let’s capitalize on something we know made money before!”  The Thing (and others like Scarface, True Grit, and both Magnificent Seven films) proved that remakes can be even better than the original.  So why then is a company known for its creativity and creating warm childhood memories deciding to rehash those memories under the guise of calling them “reimaginings?”  The short answer is that guy in the title picture.  The long answer is more complicated.

In my minor experience, Hollywood likes to play it safe.  The pattern is so universal, audiences expect to see crap in January, blockbusters in the summer months, and Oscar-bait come September.  I somewhat understand this (school’s out in summer, take advantage of more people having more time), but at some point, it becomes a very dangerous tradition.  I’m sick of companies refusing new ideas in place of making money, especially if they have too much already (just think of the last production logo you saw on the big screen).  I want to show you this tweet by CinemaSins.  This is what ticks me off the most.  How many Pulp Fiction/La La Land/Inception scripts were rejected in place of giving us a remake that really has no purpose?  What about the next Steven Spielberg who was left in the waiting room?  Sheesh, The Blair Witch Project was made with sixty-thousand dollars, Star Wars cost $11 million, Hell or High Water required $12 million, and the list goes on.  At this point, “Hollywood is out of ideas” is a freaking punchline due to how many retreads we get.  However, there is hope, in the form of the person reading this post right now.

Check out this screenshot from Rotten Tomatoes (taken a month ago).

The audience has a lot of control over what is made for them.  This is a no-brainer, you pay money for a certain thing, and more of that thing is made for you (supply and demand).  These companies are merely giving the people what they want.  In the case of positive feedback vs financial revenue, the greenbacks always win.  Because of this, the response is not the problem, that 98% is.  I’m not saying it’s your fault that these sterile remakes are popular (there are so many variables at play), but it is your responsibility to be a “smart shopper” as it were.  One of the main reasons I review movies is to help people decide if something is worth their valuable time and hard-earned money.  Some movies are torture for me to sit through (Vacation 2015), some are delights (Kung Fu Panda 3), and some are just bland and generic (most modern remakes), but the knowledge in knowing that someone is listening keeps me going.  As someone who writes proactively and wants to make movies, it pains me to see the same thing over and over.  What I’m talking about today may not be as horrid as Freddy Got Fingered or Norm of the North, but while those were original products that faded away because of their awfulness, these remakes are setting a trend that smaller, greedier executives will follow, and… it’s a dang shame.

In conclusion, I hope that you now have an understanding as to why I despise this business practice.  Throughout writing this, this thought never left my head, “Perhaps I’m just stating a clichéd criticism.  Maybe all of this will not change anyone’s mind.”  However, I don’t care.  It feels good to finally get my thoughts out there in a formal fashion.  Even if I have no impact, movies could be much, much worse.  At the end of the day, the audience decides what to spend money on.  I leave you with this, what film will you support?  A prettily-disguised cash grab, or a work of ambition that doesn’t fit into “the norm?”

“Going in Style” (2017) Review

What do you get when you cross Tower Heist, that guy from Scrubs, and three Best Supporting Actor Oscar winners?  The answer is: something that should be amazing, but sucks in execution.

Going in Style (2017) is directed by Zach Braff and written by Theodore Melfi.  Stars-Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Alan Arkin, Matt Dillion, Christopher Lloyd, Joey King, and Ann-Margaret.  Premise-After losing their pensions because of “generic Evil Corporation #9001,” three retirees decide to rob a bank to get their money back.

Apparently this movie is a remake of the 1979 Martin Brest film of the same name.  Whatever.  Either way, this movie is underwhelming.  Allow me to weep for the crappy few weeks we’ve had in film.  At this point, all I can hope for is entertainment without the stupidity or half-heartedness (this is why I chose Going in Style to review).  The actors know they aren’t winning any Oscars for this movie, but at the very least they could provide some decent humor.  Alright, alright.  Let’s get down to business.

If you are 90% of humanity, then you are only interested because of the ensemble cast (as if they alone can save this crap script).  To their credit, Freeman, Caine, and Arkin work really well off each other.  No one in this movie delivers laugh-out-loud jokes, but these guys are at least funny.  That cannot be said for the supporting cast, who are either one-note clichés, pitiful cameos, or annoying stereotypes (poor Christopher Lloyd).

Despite being 90 minutes long, Going in Style is as slow as a 70 year old man taking a piss.  If you giggled (or groaned, it doesn’t matter) at that rather offensive joke, then you will have gained the maximum amount of laughs Going in Style will give you.  If you watch the movie on DVD, take a shot every time a joke boils down to “ha ha, old people!”  By the halfway point, you’ll be more drunk than Melfi was when he wrote the screenplay.  Not to hate on the guy, but the fact that the writer of Hidden Figures (a movie about breaking stereotypes and preaching against prejudice) followed it up with a comedy built on stereotypes and a fair amount of racist jokes is hilarious.

I’d be nicer to the movie if it had an original bone in its body.  Aside from being an unnecessary remake, the plot is stolen from Tower Heist and Hell or High Water: the former is funnier, and the latter is more realistic.  Going in Style tries to be a hybrid of sympathetic drama and causal comedy.  Sadly, the drama is manufactured and the humor is lazy.  The climax acts all smart and emotional, but it’s actually very stupid and clichéd.  That sums up the movie perfectly, stupid and clichéd.

Despite all that I have said, there is an audience for this movie.  I know this because the 50+ year old people in my auditorium were having a great time (albeit extremely loud and obnoxiously).  If you can make it past the clichés and poor pacing (provided you are not a millennial), then you might enjoy yourself.  And hey, my experience wasn’t all bad; I discovered that my theater has some dang good sweet tea.  Going in Style gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a C-.

My Thoughts On: “Get Out”

Well, this one’s been a long time coming.  I don’t think anyone lost sleep over my lack of a review, so let’s skip the apology and get right down to it.

The marketing for this movie was bloody brilliant!  I could never tell if it was pure horror, satirical comedy, or both.  They interest you without spoiling anything, and it sets the tone perfectly.  Honestly, the trailers are some of the best in modern cinema, and the film itself doesn’t disappoint, even if there are a few issues.

What I don’t like boils down to two minor problems, but have a great impact on the movie as a whole.  First, the pacing.  Get Out is not a traditional horror film; it is a slow-building, suspenseful mystery with excellent attention to character.  However, there are a few scenes that drag on, and the runtime should have been cut down a bit.  Secondly, the commentary.  I’m getting tired of seeing “thought-provoking” in Rotten Tomatoes’ Critics Consensus sections.  It’s an easy way to say, “this movie talked about racial issues” no context necessary.  In reality, the “commentary” in this movie is pretty obvious (some of the dialogue spells out what the message is).  Get Out is at its best when it is subverting clichés and being unpredictable.

Despite my overly analytical mind’s efforts to predict what would happen next, I was never right.  The only predictable thing about this movie is that you know something is wrong, but the incredible storytelling keeps you guessing in dreadful anticipation.  The humor is just as competent.  Unlike in Keanu (also written by Jordan Peele), the jokes vary in setup and punchline.  You’ll be cringing in one scene, laughing in the next (the supporting cast is stellar!), and then you’ll be shocked by what the first two scenes built up to.  Trust me, this is one satisfying movie!

This is hard to say, but Get Out is better than The Visit, one of my favorite movies of 2015.  Both films are horror/comedies about someone going to see family in a very suspicious setting.  Not only is the script very spontaneous, but the humor is much better as well.  Basically, this movie deserves 90% of the overwhelmingly positive response it has received.  Allow me to add to that response by giving it Guy’s Guru Grade of an A-.