Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable Violence Acceptable Vulgarity Acceptable Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable
It is incredibly difficult to review this movie in a vacuum. Not only is this movie a reboot of a beloved franchise but the publicity campaign for this movie got oddly political and polemic. But I shall try my best to judge this movie on its own merits and deficits. But comparisons between this movie and the original Ghostbusters are inevitable and necessary.
This Ghostbusters begins with a tour of an historical landmark. Right from the beginning, the jokes begin to fall flat as the tour guide makes remarks about "enslaving" elephants. When a ghost appears, the curator (Ed Begley Jr.) goes to see ghost expert Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig). Erin is embarrassed by her ghost-investigating past and is afraid that these paranormal dabblings will risk her attempt to get tenure. This leads to a confrontation with her old paranormal science partner Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) who is working with the quirky engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). When our heroes have an encounter with a ghost, they end up going in to business for themselves. Joining them is subway worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) and ditzy hunk/receptionist Kevin (Chris Hemsworth). Together they get in to the Ghostbusting game which leads them into confrontation with villain Rowan North (Neil Casey) and with the political powers of the city.
One of the things that struck me while watching this is was how much this movie reminded me of the original Iron Man. Both movies spend a great deal of time on the testing and development of novel technologies in flashy montages. What this said to me is that writer/director Paul Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold were not making a horror/comedy like the original. Instead they were making a superhero/comedy movie. This resulted in a common problem with the first installment of superhero films: they do not have completely self-contained story arcs but feel very much like only the first act of a larger stories. It was a bold choice that I think actually would make a solid distinction between itself and the original if the execution was better.
And now we have to make the necessary comparisons to the original.
It has to be noted that the nature of the humor is much different. This is the most suggestive element of the review because humor is so subjective from generation to generation and person to person. The original used classic comedy structures of set-up/punchline, hitting the joke on the third line, double takes, etc. The remake employs modern awkward humor, the type made popular in shows like The Office and Arrested Development. Instead of using punchy, tight jokes in the dialogue which hit the punchline and then hop off to the next joke, Feig preferred to drag out the jokes and keep circling back to the central humorous anecdote, hoping that the awkwardness would increase the absurd humor. This works incredibly well in the above mentioned TV shows. It does not work at all well in Ghostbusters.
The reboot was wise in not making their female characters simple analogs to their male counterparts from the original. But the problem here is the same problem that plagued the recent Kevin Hart/Dwayne Johnson comedy Central Intelligence: characters are replaced by caricatures. The characters lack any sense of three-dimensionally. This is ironic because this movie delves more into to the history of their relationships more than the original. But the performances are broad but shallow. None of the characters feel like real people. If you go back and look at the original, even the cerebral Egon feels like a fully fleshed out man with depth, history, and passion.
That isn't to say that the actresses lack talent. Wiig and McCarthy can be very funny as we saw in Bridesmaids. McKinnon seems to think that being odd is a substitute for being funny. That might be overly harsh because I get the feeling that she did a lot of improv with her character but Feig's humor instincts made some poor choices. The only one who made me really laugh was Jones. He performance was as broad as the others, but she give it such a passion and energy the leaps off of the screen. She gets at least 4 really big laughs (the biggest of the movie) when the Ghostbusters go on their first case.
The movie also makes a horrible misstep with their main villain. He is a creep with no real sense of menace. Feig has worked with Casey before and uses him to play the part of the perverse oddball. He does this well, but this leads to no actual humor. Andy Garcia as the mayor is incredibly funny in his short time on screen. Hemsworth's idiocy is beyond reason, but he manages to be charming enough to get you not to hate him.
The cameos are hit and miss. Often it is more distracting than anything. MINOR SPOILER THIS PARAGRAPH. But I cannot help find symbolism in the fact that these new Ghostbusters inadvertently kill off Peter Venkman. There are so many reasons why this scene does not play well, but it kills a good deal of good will fans of the original would give. END SPOILERS
The original even had some nice Catholic elements like the Cardinal with the mayor and Venkman standing up for a destroyed Church. And there was also that wonderfully unnerving dialogue about the Book of Revelation. But the new one never attempts to touch those depths. I can't think of anything terribly offensive, but there is a lot that is unexplored.
The movie ends with a line akin to "It's not terrible." This sums up my assessment of the film. You have a talented cast who is hamstrung by a poor script and a director with increasingly poorer comedic instincts. Humor is awkward and crude.
Instead of leaving feeling happy, you'll leave feeling slimed.
HACKSAW RIDGE TRAILER LINK Braveheart is one of the finest movies ever made and the idea that the writer and director of reunited to make another movie is exciting for me.
The first half of the trailer looks a bit too reminiscent of Captain America: The First Avenger. On top of that, it feels like it leans heavily on the preachy side.
But the second half of the trailer gave me chills. It looks like it is striking a curious balance between the horror of violence and the heroism of soldiers. The hero is a pacifist but that is not an indictment of the soldiers with whom he stands.
I particularly like the distinctive religious visuals and themes throughout.
15 words or less film review Darkest animated Batman. Engaging but disjointed and lengthy prologue make the movie good, but uneven. 3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars
I've already made my effusive love for Batman v. Superman on this blog. So it should be no surprise that I have been fanboying out to this little taste of the upcoming Justice League movie that was released at Comic Con.
Here are a few thoughts:
-Fun. I think the film makers are trying to work against the dark and angsty tone of the the last two DCU movies. There was a lot of humor put up front for our first look at this movie.
-Focus on Batfleck. Even the biggest critics of Batman v. Superman agreed that Ben Affleck's Batman was a highlight of the film. So it is no surprise that he figures most prominently in this trailer. They seem to be playing up more of his charm than his Batman persona, making him the Tony Stark of the DCU.
-Flash looks good. One of my biggest reservations was the casting of Ezra Miller as Barry Allen aka The Flash. But the footage of him interacting with Batman was a delight to watch. I'm not sure how much I like him in the costume, but this trailer went a long way in assuaging my doubts.
-Aquaman rocks. I am a huge fan of the Peter David era Aquaman that seems to be a huge influence on this film. Jason Momoa looks to be a significant presence in this film.
-Superman? The conspicuous absence of Superman tells me the Man of Steel will be missing from at least the first act of the movie and he might actually be the Maguffin ala Han Solo in Return of the Jedi.
-Who is missing? The original poster that was released for Mamoa's Aquaman last year said "Unite the Seven." While this could be a reference to the Seven Seas, I always took it to mean the seven members of the League. But including Superman, there are only six. I wonder if we are going to get a surprise member like Green Lantern or Shazam, or if they are going to keep it at six.
-Story? This trailer gives no sense of the overall story. I'll be waiting for any details as they come out.
In recognition of this weekend's premiere of the latest Star Trek movie, this Sunday Best article is a ranking of that film and the previous 12 from worst to best.
I also had a chance to finally see Star Trek Insurrection, so this list should be comprehensive, unlike the ranking from 3 years ago.
13. Star Trek The Motion Picture
From the director of The Sound of Music comes a science fiction movie that is so preposterously boring and pretentious that it could be the second cousin of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The aesthetic is the most dated of any of the Star Trek films
12. Star Trek Nemesis
The more I think of this film, the less I enjoy it. I accept that there is a lot in Star Trek that makes little sense (e.g. why do they send the Captain down on away missions?), but this pushed all bounds of logic. Why would you clone Picard? Why? And the cheat at the end leaves things so empty.
11. Star Trek Insurrection
Moreso than any Star Trek, this feels like a script from the series that they threw a bunch of money at to make it look like a feature film. Not terrible, but inconsequential. Plus, I never want to see another space face-lift.
10. Star Trek Generations
I wanted to like this movie so much. And the parts with Kirk are awesome, but it always leaves me a little flat.
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
William Shatner's vanity project fails on nearly every level, except when he focuses his scenes on the complex friendship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Moreso than any of the films, do you see the archetypal space that each character inhabits. But the bad parts are so bad. I go back and forth on this one.
8. Star Trek Into Darkness
Originally I ranked this one much higher. But the more time has gone on, my affection for it lessens. There is something about the central mystery that feels cheap. And the allusions to Wrath of Kahn become more grating with time. Still, it is not a bad film but the wasted potential is a bit of a drag.
7. Star Trek: First Contact
This was one of the most action-packed in the series. It was taught and tense. Probably the best of the Next Generation movies.
6. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
This used to be my favorite, but the time travel story now feels dated. It proves CS Lewis' principle that there is nothing so quickly out of date than what is in fashion. It's environmental message also feels a bit too preachy. But once you get past that, it is one of the funniest and enjoyable of the Star Trek movies.
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
This might be the darkest of all the Trek films. It takes the characters to places that are not always comfortable. Watching the Enterprise fall or seeing Kirk fall out of his captain's chair with grief always get me. This one has actually gotten better with time.
4. Star Trek Beyond
I will get a full review for this up soon. But this was a great deal of fun and it was one of the most visually imaginative of the series. And it finally moved the New Star Trek universe films into a true ensemble instead of it only being a Kirk/Spock series.
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
You would think that the last film with the entire original cast would be one of the worst. Instead, it is one of the best. It is a mystery. It is a thriller. It is epic space opera. It hearkens back to the past movie and breaks new territory. No Star Trek fan should miss this.
2. Star Trek (2009)
I've probably watched this one more than any of the others. JJ Abrams made a sleek, exciting, and epic film full of fun and adventure.
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
I don't think I truly appreciated this film until years of watching. It's story structure is perfect. It's villain is one of the best I've seen onscreen. It's themes are rich and multi-layered. It reminds us that science fiction takes us to strange new worlds only to use them as a mirror to examine the unexplored depths of the human heart. It has the most moving moment in the entire series that always stops me in my tracks. It has the best performances of the entire cast. People often mock Shatner's shouting of "Kahhhnnnn!" or Montalban's scenery chewing performance. But that is only because in any other setting done by any other actors, it would not have worked. But here it is pure movie magic.
In recognition of this weekend's premiere of the latest Star Trek movie, this Sunday Best article is a ranking of that film and the previous 12 from worst to best.
I also had a chance to finally see Star Trek Insurrection, so this list should be comprehensive, unlike the ranking from 3 years ago.
13. Star Trek The Motion Picture
From the director of The Sound of Music comes a science fiction movie that is so preposterously boring and pretentious that it could be the second cousin of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The aesthetic is the most dated of any of the Star Trek films
12. Star Trek Nemesis
The more I think of this film, the less I enjoy it. I accept that there is a lot in Star Trek that makes little sense (e.g. why do they send the Captain down on away missions?), but this pushed all bounds of logic. Why would you clone Picard? Why? And the cheat at the end leaves things so empty.
11. Star Trek Insurrection
Moreso than any Star Trek, this feels like a script from the series that they threw a bunch of money at to make it look like a feature film. Not terrible, but inconsequential. Plus, I never want to see another space face-lift.
10. Star Trek Generations
I wanted to like this movie so much. And the parts with Kirk are awesome, but it always leaves me a little flat.
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
William Shatner's vanity project fails on nearly every level, except when he focuses his scenes on the complex friendship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Moreso than any of the films, do you see the archetypal space that each character inhabits. But the bad parts are so bad. I go back and forth on this one.
8. Star Trek Into Darkness
Originally I ranked this one much higher. But the more time has gone on, my affection for it lessens. There is something about the central mystery that feels cheap. And the allusions to Wrath of Kahn become more grating with time. Still, it is not a bad film but the wasted potential is a bit of a drag.
7. Star Trek: First Contact
This was one of the most action-packed in the series. It was taught and tense. Probably the best of the Next Generation movies.
6. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
This used to be my favorite, but the time travel story now feels dated. It proves CS Lewis' principle that there is nothing so quickly out of date than what is in fashion. It's environmental message also feels a bit too preachy. But once you get past that, it is one of the funniest and enjoyable of the Star Trek movies.
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
This might be the darkest of all the Trek films. It takes the characters to places that are not always comfortable. Watching the Enterprise fall or seeing Kirk fall out of his captain's chair with grief always get me. This one has actually gotten better with time.
4. Star Trek Beyond
I will get a full review for this up soon. But this was a great deal of fun and it was one of the most visually imaginative of the series. And it finally moved the New Star Trek universe films into a true ensemble instead of it only being a Kirk/Spock series.
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
You would think that the last film with the entire original cast would be one of the worst. Instead, it is one of the best. It is a mystery. It is a thriller. It is epic space opera. It hearkens back to the past movie and breaks new territory. No Star Trek fan should miss this.
2. Star Trek (2009)
I've probably watched this one more than any of the others. JJ Abrams made a sleek, exciting, and epic film full of fun and adventure.
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
I don't think I truly appreciated this film until years of watching. It's story structure is perfect. It's villain is one of the best I've seen onscreen. It's themes are rich and multi-layered. It reminds us that science fiction takes us to strange new worlds only to use them as a mirror to examine the unexplored depths of the human heart. It has the most moving moment in the entire series that always stops me in my tracks. It has the best performances of the entire cast. People often mock Shatner's shouting of "Kahhhnnnn!" or Montalban's scenery chewing performance. But that is only because in any other setting done by any other actors, it would not have worked. But here it is pure movie magic.
15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon) Much more fun than Into Darkness. Lacks greatness, but highly entertaining. Bones steals the show. 4 out of 5 stars
Here is the first significant look at the very first ever Wonder Woman movie.
Initial thoughts:
-It feels a bit like Downton Abbey. This is not surprising since this movie takes place during an overlapping time of the show. The fashions and sets feel very much the same. And this is not a negative. I like feeling transported into a place rarely visited in comics.
-The shots of Wonder Woman charging the trenches is fantastic. I love the contrast of the gloomy surroundings and her vibrant and colorful appearance.
-The action looks exciting and powerful. Some actresses are not as believable in the action role (e.g. Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor). But Gal Godot is convincing as the warrior goddess. It almost feels like some of Zack Snyder's 300 style influenced this film.
-This trailer leans heavily on its feminist overtones. We have Diana say that no man can tell her what to do and she equates being a secretary with slavery. In and of itself this doesn't concern me. But if the movie then turns all men, including Steve Trevor, into either domineering jerks or spineless doormats, then the movie will suffer.
I picked up the Ultimate Edition of Batman v. Superman from my local Best Buy the day that it came out and I have already watched it multiple times. The affection I have for this movie runs very deep.
And I know that there are still many detractors out there with whom I respectfully disagree. But in many ways, this was the comic book movie that I have been waiting to see for my entire life.
So I had a few random thoughts that I would like to share with you. This will not be a re-review of the movie, but some thoughts that came to me while I watched it again.
Be warned SPOILERS BELOW. Do not read any further if you have not yet seen the film.
1. Becoming
I think the thing that most people misunderstood about this movie was this: Batman and Superman are not the heroes we know and love yet. This can be very confusing especially since Superman had his origin movie in Man of Steel and we witnessed the unconnected but influential Dark Knight Trilogy by Christopher Nolan. But in this movie Batman kills. Superman is filled with angst. These are things that we usually do not find in these icons. But when the film begins they are not yet icons. They are in the processes of becoming the heroes we know. This goes against what we've seen in most superhero team ups. The Avengers is a great film and there is some level of character development. But the main heroes are already who they are by the time they get together. But Batman and Superman are not who they should be when the movie begins. It will be the influence of each other that will teach Superman to be resolute in his convictions and Batman to see hope in a hopeless world.
I give Zack Snyder a lot of credit for taking this journey, because it is much riskier. I remember watching the first season of Arrow and being disgusted that they had Oliver Queen kill people. This was antithetical to the character. But it wasn't until about the middle of the second season that I understood that they were showing how Oliver moves from darkness to the light. And that is what they are doing with Batman and Superman.
2. Understanding Luthor.
The biggest holdback for me was the portrayal of Lex Luthor. In the comics, Lex is strong, domineering alpha-male. He is a shark in an Armani suit. He exudes power with the lightest gesture or touch.
But Eisenberg's Lex is a rage-spewing science geek. It was difficult to understand and accept it. But once I did, it felt like a wonderful critique of the modern man. Clark and Bruce are archetypes of traditional masculinity, both physically and in personality. Those who don't live up to those standards will either idolize or demonize them for it. Lex has chosen to demonize.
They are everything he is not. He is the perfect embodiment of the "anti-bully" bully. These are the people that experience some kind of abuse from someone stronger and so they feel justified in releasing their venom on anyone they think belongs in that group. You see it in high school when the nerds hate the popular jocks and the perfect cheerleaders for no other reason than they are not like them. You see it online when the Twitter Inquisition tears down someone who breaks with popular ideology. These are the people who hate the idea of anyone being happier or better than they are and so must tear them down.
I saw this especially in the scene where Lex taunts Superman with the polaroids of his mother. There is a triumphant exhilaration at bringing a god to his knees that you can see in his pipsqueak face. There is a hatred of Superman's heroism, his manliness, and his power because Lex, like so many men today, lacks these qualities.
It's interesting because this is almost the reason Batman hates him as well. He tells Superman that he isn't brave: "Men are brave." In Superman he sees someone who hasn't really acted and risked anything. From Batman's perspective, he is a man with unearned power. Batman had to train and work and sacrifice to become who he is. Superman is someone born into his abilities and because he didn't earn his power, he doesn't respect it an therefore cannot be trusted with it.
But Lex will embrace any abomination for his ends. And once I embraced this movie's version of Lex Luthor, I appreciated it on another level. He literally plays God by creating new life in his warped image. He is Dr. Frankenstein, the new Prometheus.
3. The Role of God
Perhaps I am reading way too much into this small moment, but the scene of the man praying before his death gets me every time. He doesn't pray to God to rescue him. He doesn't ask God where He is? The man even addresses God by the title, "Creator of Heaven and Earth," a very creedal title. And his one prayer is for mercy on his soul. This means a lot to me because as someone who is steeped in the pop culture, particularly that of superheroes, this display of Christian spirituality is so very rare. Yes, there are some references here and there spread throughout comic book movies, but this felt very real to me. I could see myself praying these words in moments of calamity.
But I like that Snyder uses Superman more as an analogy for religion rather than the direct comparison, which would have way too much baggage. That isn't to say that he avoids the existential implications of this. He does not go so far as he did in Watchmen when the arrival of Dr. Manhattan causes someone to say "God is real and he's an American." But he does show a world that is in upheaval at the revelation of Superman. Notice how movies like Thor don't deal with the real world implications of a "god" living among the humans and what that would mean for some in our society.
But mainly, what I found so striking was the religious imagery was so strong in pointing out good and evil. Lex's wild atheism is clearly evil. And Superman's sacrificial love is purely good. I love the Pieta shot towards the end. Not only does this occur after laying down his life, but you can see crosses in the background. He becomes even more of a Christ figure than in Man of Steel. His death not only saves everyone from the unkillable Doomsday, it redeems Batman and brings Wonder Woman to the fight.
The reason this is so refreshing is that I usually have my defenses up when God is brought up in the pop culture. Usually he referenced in order to sucker punch the faith. But here, the view that is on the side of traditional religious sentiment is on the side of goodness.
4. Visual Beauty
I have Zack Snyder ranked as the 19th greatest director of all time. I may have to move him up a few notches. His flayer for kinetic, dynamic visual storytelling has been known for a long time. But I was struck by how well he was able to tell the story and get the emotions with the visuals. This was the first time I noticed the visual symmetry of the first shot of the film with the last. And movie is filled with great visual parallelism between Bruce, Clark, and Lex.
I read some complaints about the retelling of the origin story of Batman. But this scene was actually incredibly short and important: it set the emotional reality for Bruce Wayne. His world is literally turned upside down and he falls into a pit from which the only escape is the bat. And I have never seen the death of Martha and Thomas Wayne done with such tragically poetic cinematography.
I found I could not take my eyes off of this movie. Everything in it was fascinating to watch.
5. My Favorite Alfred
Jeremy Irons' Alfred Pennyworth gets very little screen time. But he is now my favorite movie Alfred. Michael Caine was fantastic as the paternal stalwart companion. But Irons' Alfred is filled with sarcastic bite that constantly pulls at Bruce to get out of his death spiral but you never question that Alfred will follow him into the jaws of death.
6. Not Very Ultimate
I bought the Ultimate Edition of the movie. The Lord of the Rings has spoiled me for extended versions of films. In that trilogy, the extended cuts add so much more character, story, and excitement to the story. But most extended cuts only give you a little more texture to the characters and fill in small story gaps.
The Ultimate Edition of Batman v. Superman is the latter.
The restored scenes were interesting enough, but it did not make the movie remarkably better or different.
I also wish there were better bonus features that took you deeper in to the filmmaking process. And the documentary about Wonder Woman's history is kinda awful. I understand them ignoring some of the less than savory aspects of life of Wonder Woman's creator, but the documentary was almost hagiographic. And they kept shoehorning Wonder Woman into the role of feminist and social justice icon. This wouldn't be bad except it seemed to be her ONLY role in the pop culture. The people they interviewed were strangely chosen and served more to pull me away from the character than draw me towards her. I like that in the end, Geoff Johns says that you want to move away from only this narrow point of view and show how she is universally archetypal. But the documentary does nothing to bolster Johns' point.
7. Primal Emotions
This movie is about primal things. I think if we an understand that it will unlock a lot of the character keys. Notice the shot of Bruce holding the orphan child as he looks at Superman. Bruce became an orphan and was powerless to save his parents. But when he holds that child, orphaned like him, you can see him project that rage onto Superman. The murder of his parents created the primal rage and fear and understanding that makes his hatred of Superman make so much emotional sense.
Lex is the child of abuse. He will always be the boy who was hurt by his father, the original bully. That pain broke him and he projected his rage onto Superman too.
Clark's love is also primal. Lex knows that the first love of his life is his mother. Superman is reduced to a helpless child when his mother is in danger because of that primal love.
And this is where the key turning point rings hollow for many people but not for me. Many believed the use of the name "Martha" was a cheesy cop out. I disagree. Remember, Bruce became Batman because of his failure to save Martha and Thomas. The mention of saving Martha would obviously give him pause. But when he learns that Martha is the name of Clark's mother, he is able to make an emotional connection he had not even considered. Remember, he said that Superman wasn't brave because "Men are brave." That means that he does not see Superman as a man. He is an alien threat like the invaders from Independence Day. But the moment he realizes that in his last moments, all Superman wants to do is save his mother Martha, Batman cannot help but see him as a man. And not just a man: he is a son trying to save his mommy.
That is the primal connection between Batman and Superman and that works perfectly for me.
8. Action Fatigue.
As much as I love this film, it is very much like many of the blockbusters in the last few years that fill the third act with long, epic action sequences. And as good as they are, there is a pacing issue at work. Movies can only keep going full throttle for so long before even the most intense action sequences become a bit fatiguing. You should always leave them wanting more, but it is difficult to do that when you stay on stage so long. This is not a specific criticism of this movie, but of a general problem that this film exemplifies.
9. Great Dialogue
I love the dialogue of this movie. I found it witty, philosophical, evocative, and provocative. The characters raise questions that your mind chews on like "Must there be a Superman?" The conversation between Clark and Bruce when they first meet has such wonderfully delicious subtext and Bruce begins to peel back the facade the angrier he gets. I love it when he calls Clark "son" in such an emasculating tone.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. What are yours? Please share in the comments section.
I have noted that I have a fairly high tolerance for raunchiness in my movies, maybe beyond what is healthy. Or rather I can look past a lot of the raunchy parts if there is greater excellence in the rest of the movie. I'm a huge fan of Ted, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Wedding Crashers. I am forgiving of the immorality presented if the movie presents you with a way out of it, as I think the above movies do. But for movies that revel in their immoral excesses without any redemptive qualities like Ted 2, The Pineapple Express, or Animal House: I loathe these films. These movies embrace a cynical hedonism that is joyless and corrosive.
Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates is somewhere in between.
The story centers around two "fratboyesque" brothers: The dumb Mike (Adam Devine) and his less dumb but hotter little brother Dave (Zac Efron). These two consistently go over the top in the party ways at family functions and horrible things occur. But when their baby sister Jeanie (Sugar Lyn Beard) is getting married in Hawaii, their parents (Stephen Root and Stephanie Faracy) force them to bring wedding dates to keep them out of trouble. The two go to Craigslist asking for women interested in an all-expenses paid trip to Hawaii, so the post goes viral, catching the attention of our two female leads. Alice (Anna Kendrick) and Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) are a couple of skanky, drunk, pothead screwups. Alice was recently jilted at the altar and Tatiana has been helping her forget. The two put on a respectable facade and trick the boys into taking them to Hawaii. Wackiness ensues.
One of the things that keeps this movie from descending into awfulness is the cast. Stars Efron and Kendrick are both charming in their imbecility to the point where it almost comes off like child-like innocence. I say "almost" because their scenes are often peppered with drug and sex jokes (as is the rest of the movie). But they both have some wonderfully funny moments individually and together. Plaza also brings her A-game with a wonderfully wry performance. But Devine is the one who really takes most of the spotlight. If this movie catches on with people, Devine could become a star. He does go too over-the-top at times, but he does it with the enthusiasm of a young Chris Farley. Everything is extreme with him. He says lines like "Turtle Power" with such dramatic conviction that I burst out laughing.
The movie is also fun to look at. Director Jake Szymanski takes full advantage of all of his locations, whether it is the big city or the lush Hawaiian landscape. Every place you see is a place that you would love to visit. This actually is a very subtle thing that too few comedy directors understand, but it draws you into the world and thus closer to the characters. As a result I was invested in what the journey of these four idiots and this led to some genuine belly laughs.
And while the jokes are pretty funny, it feels all a bit derivative. Throughout the first half of the movie, my mind kept wandering to Wedding Crashers. I could clearly see the homages being made. But then the characters actually mention the movie Wedding Crashers. This was a mistake because if you are basing your film heavily off of a superior film, it is not a good idea to directly draw the audiences attention to it.
On a side note, this movie does a great job using race well. Jeannie's fiancee Eric (Sam Richardson) is black. But I was struck by how much race was a non-factor to anything in the story. Sam is just a man who loves his fiancee. And his family and Jeannie's family mingle merge person to person. This was quite refreshing. That isn't to say that race never comes up. There are some jokes in that direction, but it never feels like a bigger deal than it is.
This now brings us to the immorality presented in the film.
The sexual ethics are awful. Perhaps it was because I never watched Sex and the City, but graphic comedic sex talk from women has never grabbed me. I'm not saying it can't be funny, but it feels too much like they are trying to hard to sound like piggish men. On top of this there is full frontal nudity and lots of sexuality on screen.
This movie also presents an example of what I call the "Gay Pass." This is when a gay person does something in a movie or TV show that is not villainous for them but would be villainous for a straight person. The bi-sexual Terry (Alice Wetterlund) bribes Tatiana to perform a sex act on her for Rihanna tickets. If Terry had been a man, the only way the viewer would look at him from that point on would be as a villain. But in this movie, she is viewed at the least indifferent on this. (For more examples of the Gay Pass, see shows like Glee).
I am also one who finds the casual drug culture particularly repugnant. I see first-hand how soul-sucking it is to young people. Marijuana and ecstasy are used commonly and for comedic effect in this film, but all that did was get me to like the characters less and less.
The movie tries to pull the characters out of this spiral a little bit. There is some realization about the destructiveness of casual sexual encounters (it almost disrupts the marriage) and that drugs can lead to decisions that hurt others. But it only feels like a part-way epiphany. The characters feel bad that something bad happened, but they don't really get that their behavior, particularly the sex and the drugs, is the genesis of these tragedies.
The movie had the opportunity to pull itself out of the muck in the third act, but it only got one toe out. And what should have been a more likable movie is too obscured by the filth in which it wallowed.
The amazing DC Universe Rebirth has become a jumping off point for hitting the reset button on a number of comics. But unlike most big event reboots, DC is rolling these out at a more gradual rate.
The plan seems to be to publish a standalone issue of series under the "Rebirth" banner. After that, most but not all of the books will begin again with issue number one.
From a sales perspective, Rebirth has been a huge hit for DC, bot commercially and with the fans. Anecdotally, my comic book dealer tells me that they can't keep the rebirth books in stock and have had to order 2nd and 3rd printings, which is a good sign.
Below are my initial takes on the Rebirth titles so far. There shall be more coming, so this will only be part 1.
Aquaman Rebirth
Abnett does a decent job of getting us to speed with the king of Atlantis and building off the foundation Geoff Johns built in 2011. He already brought in the big gun: Black Manta. I am curious to see how this develops.
Batman Rebirth
The single issue was an interesting slice of life as Batman pulls away from being the loner and embraces more the mentor role. However, the subsequent series has been much more fascinating, by introducing super-powered heroes into Gotham in a way that feels fresh.
Flash Rebirth
This one is the most direct follow-up to the events of DC Universe Rebirth. The art is a little funky for me, but the story was decent. I like the idea of a more expansive world of speedsters.
Green Arrow Rebirth
This has been one of the most popular with fans, but it just didn't grab me. The art is too disjointed for me and I actually am one of the few people that doesn't enjoy Oliver Queen's heavy preachiness, which is something book is embracing. I was hoping that the writers would continue on with Felicity Smoak, but they are reverting to Dinah Lance as the love interest, which is fine. I just wish it was done with more heart and less angst.
Green Lanterns Rebirth
This is a fun cosmic buddy-cop book with the rookie Green Lantern Jessica Cruz and the rookie-but-acts-like-he's-a-veteran Simon Baz. Their personalities are different enough to give this book some sparks and intrigue
Superman Rebirth
Peter J. Tomasi is one of the most underrated writers in comics. And his take on the Superman family is exciting and heart-felt. Superman really is the paterfamilias of superheroes so it feels only right that we see him in that fatherly role. At the same time we get to experience the childlike sense of wonder at these powers through his son Jonathan.
Titans Rebirth
There still seems to be a lot of baggage from the last few years of New 52 Titans that this issue attempted to clean up, but it was so much fun to see the core group from the original New Teen Titans back together again.
Wonder Woman Rebirth
This series might have the most potential of all of them. I am so intrigued by the idea of every other issue returning to tell the story of Wonder Woman Year One. And that has been a real treat. I haven't enjoyed a Wonder Woman book this much since Gail Simone was writing.
Batgirl and the Birds of Prey Rebirth
While the art could be improved, the writing is incredibly sharp and very reminiscent of James Robinson's work on Starman. Getting into Barbra Gordon's head and revisiting her time as Oracle is great. However I have to say I was disturbed that the issue has one of our heroes murder a priest in a confessional. I'm sure more will come out about that, but visual imagery is disturbing to say the least.
Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern Corps Rebirth
This has been my favorite single issue of the Rebirth books. Rob Venditti had a tough act to follow when he took of Hal Jordan's story after Geoff Johns left, but he has been doing admirably. But with Ethan Van Sciver's art, this story was just a complete pleasure to read through as Venditti set the board with his cast of characters and reminded us why of all the Green Lanterns, Hal Jordan is preeminent.
Hellblazer Rebirth
I have never been a huge fan of John Constantine. The plot here is serviceable, but it definitely feels like a wasted opportunity. If it had been sharper I might have been inclined to continue on with it.
Justice League Rebirth
I was not a fan of Hitch's recent JLA run and so I am less enthusiastic about this relaunch. There is nothing terribly bad about it and the art is very good. But I feel like we are replacing deep character stories for big action spectacle.
Nightwing Rebirth
There were a lot of loose ends to tie up from the recent Grayson series, but I think this issue did it fairly well. But the best part is watching Dick interact with Damien and Bruce and really feeling those familial relationships.
Detective Comics
This has also been one of the most enjoyable books so far in that it brings members of the Bat-Family together: Batwoman, Tim Drake, Spoiler, Cassandra Cain, and Clayface. Watching them begin to work as a team has been a lot of fun.
Action Comics
This book is attempting to fix the mess that occurred in the Superman books under DC You. The first few issues have been enjoyable, but it feels like they need to get the story moving sooner rather than later.
New Superman
This is the title I think I liked the least. I understand the concept of taking an unlikeable person and slowly developing their character. But the hero of this book is so revolting I have no interest in going any further.
Sexuality/Nudity No Objection Violence No Objection Vulgarity No Objection Anti-Catholic Philosophy No Objection
There are some movies that are so profoundly genre-changing that the whole world takes note and will be remembered decades from now.
The Secret Life of Pets is not one of them.
At its heart (and I'm sorry that this is not an original analysis), the movie is a bland version of the first Toy Story movie where the toys are transposed to animals.
The movie centers around Max (Louis CK), a runt of a dog who is taken in by single city girl Katie (Ellie Kemper). The first few minutes of the movie do a fun and engaging job of getting you into the mindset of Max and his absolute affection for Katie. This resonates so truly for any dog lover when you see how excited Max becomes at the mere idea of Katie's approach. The movie also does an excellent job of setting up the other types of pets and pet owners as the curtain is pulled back and we look into the hidden world of our pets. But problems occur for Max when Katie takes in another dog Duke (Eric Stonestreet), a lumbering behemoth that immediately horns in on Max's territory. This rivalry leads to them being lost in the world and having to find their way back home.
The animation and style is pleasing enough, but there is very little to distinguish it from most other computer animated fair. Though I do have to say, they have made New York City look like something out of epic science fiction in its immensity while never being to hyperbolic. The jokes are pleasant, but not gut-busting. The characters are not terrible, but they are never too terribly likable. The plot is nice, but in no way original. If this was a movie that was designed by a committee so that it was made to be blandly inoffensive, then they mostly succeeded.
As a parent taking a child to a movie, you could do worse. There are only two things I you should know upfront before taking your kids. The first is a scene where an innocent dog Gidget (Jenny Slate), is tricked by a hawk (Albert Brooks) into taking off his hood. The hawk immediately tries to eat Gidget but fails because of his constraints. After failing, the hawk says he's sorry and talks Gidget into removing those constraints. If I was a parent and trying to teach my kids about "stranger danger" I would find this point in the movie counter-productive.
The second involves a character named Snowball (Kevin Hart), who leads a group of militant animals bent on the killing of humans. His words are charged and violent, though meant to be ironically funny coming from his cute and fuzzy body. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but with the inflamed rhetoric and violence in the summer of 2016, the scenes where Snowball was rallying his mob to action felt incredibly uncomfortable to watch.
But the biggest failing lies with the two main heroes: Max and Duke. As soon as they are introduced to each other, they become fairly awful. When either gains any kind of advantage, he immediately exploits it over the other, making it incredibly difficult to like either dog enough to care if they get home to Katie. And yes, just like Woody and Buzz they learn more about each other and start to bond, it feels so artificial and forced that you can't help but wish you were watching something made by PIXAR instead.
This movie feels like such a wasted opportunity. As you watch you get tiny glimpses into how fascinating this world could be to explore. But those are like windows that you casually look in as you drive by this paint-by-numbers plot.
There is nothing great about The Secret Life of Pets. But if you are looking for something simple and relatively safe for the family, it's not that bad. But you would probably be better off just popping in your old copy of Toy Story.
I have never completely understood those who criticize the Catholic faith by pointing to all of the evil in the world. While the problem of pain is a key struggle that many of us have, Jesus never said that this world is free of evil.
In fact, Jesus entered this world filled with sin and darkness and took that evil upon Himself by dying on the cross. He is very aware of the evil in the world. All of us are all too aware of it as well, whether it is by seeing all the hatred and violence in the world or experiencing the worst that life has to offer firsthand.
And when this evil comes our way, we cry out for a deliverer: someone to raise us up out of the darkness.
And that is what we pray that Our Father will do.
There are two types of evil I would reference here: material and moral.
I had the privildige of spending time with my brother whom I haven't seen in many years, and his sons. Also there was my sister and her children. It is a very interesting thing to be a sibling. It is an experience that so many of us have and yet I've found that there are not nearly as many great films that explore what it is like to be a sibling. Or at least it seems that it is a relationship that is not nearly as explored as is the romantic relationship of the relationship between parents and children.
So below are movies where being a brother is essential to the story. And here we are talking being an actual sibling by blood or adoption and not in the spiritual sense.
5. Thor
While this is a big comic book spectacle, it is also the story of how two brothers can grow up so differently but both jousting for the approval of the parent.
4. Frozen
One of the reasons I think this movie became a phenomenon is because of how well it captured some essential aspects of the sister-sister relationship. It is so fascinating to see how Elsa and Anna are so different and yet so much the same.
3. American History X
This one has a much darker tone than the other films, but it does an excellent job of how sometimes an older sibling, whether they want to or not, become the role model of the younger. And it is a great exploration of that responsibility, especially when the older sibling realizes how they have to fix their mistakes.
2. Rain Man
A fantastic movie about caring for a special needs sibling, this Academy Award winner for Best Picture remains a classic. The reason for this is that no matter how many cynical layers the younger brother has developed, his brotherly love slowly, believably, imperfectly but significantly changes his life forever.
1. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
I grew up in a house with one brother and two sisters and this magical adventure is also a great exploration of that family dynamic. And sometimes you hope to be brave like Peter or thoughtful like Susan or faithful like Lucy. But too often I find myself petty like Edmund. And yet through all of this, the bond that the four Penvensie children have is part of the deepest magic of Narnia.
15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon) "Not terrible" = best review I can give. (Although Leslie Jones was really funny) 2 out of 5 stars
