Pixar 20 Years of Film Making Celebration (1995 - 2010)

Today, Pixar is one of the animation studio giants, as they’ve delivered so many iconic films over the course of their run. We live in a world where their films are common place with the children of today, and they’re the perfect kind of films for anybody of all ages to enjoy. And what better way to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of Pixar’s iconic placement into film history than with looking over the feature films that I haven’t covered yet, to prepare for the release of “The Good Dinosaur.”

The first run of their works was “Toy Story,” a film that showcased the world where toys could secretly be alive while no one’s looking. Directed by John Lasseter, we focus on the toys of a kid named Andy, and the main boss they follow is Woody the cowboy. On Andy’s birthday, the toys are greeted by a new and much cooler toy, Buzz Lightyear, who soon starts to steal Woody’s spotlight as Andy’s favorite toy.

While Toy Story’s animation might not be as up to par as some of Pixar’s latter works, the characters and story still hold up extremely well, being the first computer animated feature film and one of those films that’s universally loved. For a first film, it did extremely well, and really put Pixar on the map for any future projects.

Rating: 10/10

Three years later, Pixar released their second film in theaters, “A Bug’s Life,” which centers on a colony of ants that are subjected to bringing annual food to the grasshoppers, led by Hopper. One of those ants, an inventor named Flick, is tired of them all being bossed around by the grasshoppers, and searches off to find a group of warriors to help protect them, only to mistake a group of circus performers for what he’s looking for. While “A Bug’s Life” may not be the best of Pixar’s work, I still think there’s much interest to find with it. The characters are really likable, there’s some pretty good humor in it, and the climax is just great to watch. Still worth looking back on, and still enjoyable.

Rating: 8/10

While Pixar was in development on some of their next projects, Disney had commissioned that they do a sequel to “Toy Story,” and it was said to be released direct to video. Luckily, after some persuading from the staff and the stars of the film, Disney gave the greenlight to put “Toy Story 2” in theaters. This time around, Woody is left at home while Andy is at Summer Camp. After trying to rescue his pal Wheezy from a garage sale, Woody’s then kidnapped by Al of Al’s Toy Barn, where he meets some new friends. There, he contemplates whether he should go home or face the fact that Andy will one day grow up and leave him. “Toy Story 2” was an incredibly ambitious film, tackling a serious issue that hadn’t come up in people’s minds at the time of the first film’s release. Hell, the film’s success lead it to being the third animated film to win for Best Picture at the Golden Globes after “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.”

Rating: 10/10

At the turn of the new millennium, Pete Docter brought to us the 2001 classic, “Monster Inc.” We enter the world of monsters, as we follow our main characters, James P. Sullivan and Mike Wazowski, the top of the line scaring duo at Monsters Incorporated, the factory that powers Monstertropolis. While they may scare to get power, the ironic twist is that monsters are afraid of humans, thinking they’re dangerous. However, things get troublesome, as Sully finds a human girl escapes into the factory, and now he and Mike have to keep the child protected until they can get her back home. This is part of what most people consider Pixar’s Fatherhood Trilogy, because it was at the time some of the key members of Pixar were having children. It’s made even clear when looking at the relationship between Sully and the girl, Boo. They grow a special bond between each other, being playful during their downtime, Sully being very caring of Boo’s safety, and how heartbreaking it can be when they have to say goodbye.

Rating: 9/10

The Pixar Fatherhood Trilogy continued on with the release of Andrew Stanton’s “Finding Nemo.” After losing his wife and most of his children, Marlon the clown fish tries to take care of his surviving son, Nemo. However, being the overprotective parent he is, he provokes Nemo into disobeying him, which in turn gets him kidnapped. Now Marlon and his new friend, Dory, a regal blue tang with short-term memory loss, must go and search for Nemo across the Pacific Ocean. “Finding Nemo” stands at the Pixar film that I watched the most, and with good reason. You really get invested in these characters and the obstacles that they have to endure, with a story that is very relatable to parents all around. I still have fond memories of seeing this film for the first time in theaters, watching it with my friends who would come by to watch it again and again, and all memories came flooding back when I saw the film at its 3D re-release, where I got the Nemo 3D glasses.

Rating: 10/10

Now how do I feel about “Finding Dory?” Well, I’m hesitant, but I’m hoping it turns out good. As good as the first? Probably not. But hey, who knows?

The following year, we were given the last film of the Pixar Fatherhood Trilogy from a film maker outside of Pixar. That man was Brad Bird, and that film was “The Incredibles.” In the golden age of superheroes, Mr. Incredible is top of the line. However, after a misunderstanding and failing to stop a villain, the citizens force the government to take action and force superheroes to retire. Because of how boring it is, Mr. Incredible is then hired to work for a company to fight against weaponry, which allows him to do his stuff just like the old days. The world that Brad Bird created was something really magical to look at, and one that you wanted to know more about. And with a sequel FINALLY being worked on for a 2019 release, hopefully the fifteen year wait will be worth it.

Rating: 10/10

On the same day that my brothers and I got the DS Lite and “New Super Mario Bros,” we went and saw the next film in Pixar’s line-up, “Cars.” I remember first seeing this film for the first time and thinking, “Yeah, this film is great!” but as I’ve gotten older, I do understand that the film isn’t as perfect as I remember. It is a rip-off of “Doc Hollywood” starring Michael J. Fox, it could have been done just as well if it had humans in it, and there are some moments that got tiring. But even with all of that, I still enjoy the film, and at times I will come back to it and remember my fond 10-year-old memories of it.

Rating: 7/10

After Jan Pinkava left the project in 2005, Brad Bird stepped in to finish what he started, and gave us the 2007 film, “Ratatouille.” The film told of a small rodent named Remy, who has a keen nose and exquisite passion for food. After being separated from his family, he finds himself in Paris and teams up with Alfredo Linguini, a bus boy, to become a fantastic chef, just like Remy’s idol, Auguste Gusteau. One of the best films to come out of 2007, “Ratatouille” was a film that I had so much enjoyment watching that it really brings out the chef in all of us. The irony of a talented chef being a filthy little creature is just hilarious, and the jokes that they dish out are handled with perfection...see what I did there?

Rating: 10/10

A year later, Andrew Stanton delivered his next feature film, “WALL-E,” the love story between two robots during a time in the future when humans have found a way to evacuate Earth, leaving the planet in garbage. This is one of those major exceptions of a film with an environmental message that doesn’t heavily focus on its message. We remember the film for the chemistry between WALL-E and EVE, their moments being together, and seeing their relationship blossom fully by the end. I really love the first half of the film, where there isn’t any real spoken dialogue, and you just have the animation to tell you the story as it goes on. As someone who is impressed by visual storytelling, this one really takes the cake and eats it too. I will admit, the weakest part of the film is the second half, mostly because I wanted it to be more of the first half, being a visual masterpiece…but oh well, it’s still really damn good.

Rating: 8/10

As the end of the decade was drawing near, we got a film that not only made an impact with audiences, but really took the world off guard. Pete Docter’s “Up” told the story of Carl Fredrickson, a grouchy old man who ties thousands of balloons to his house to fly to South America, to fulfil his late wife’s wish. Everybody remembers the first 10 minutes of “Up,” and it really does bring a tear to many people’s eyes, marking it as one of the saddest moments in Disney history. I mean, talk about a way to start off a film. As for the rest of it, it’s really amazing to sit through, and not once does it feel wasted. The animation, the characters, the colors, the voice acting, all of this film is just glorious. Not only was this film a milestone for Pixar, it was a milestone for animation, being the second animated film in history to be nominated for Best Picture, after “Beauty and the Beast.”

Rating: 10/10

Fun Fact: When I attended a press conference for “Inside Out,” I asked Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen, and Jonas Rivera, which actor they had the fondest memories working with, and a name that came up was Christopher Plummer. They said that when they called to talk to him about his character, he dismissed them saying “Don’t tell me that, tell me about Fredrickson,” and they even said that during his sessions he was using old radio tricks that he learned from Orson Welles. That’s awesome!

In 2010, another milestone was met once again, when Pixar released the first animated film to gross a billion dollars at the box office, and so far their highest grossing film yet, “Toy Story 3.” Several years later, Andy is grown up and ready to go to college, so he has to do something about the toys he hasn’t touched in years. Mistaken that they were being thrown away, the toys go and donate themselves to Sunny-Side Daycare, and its toy mayor, Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear. However, things aren’t so sunny for the gang, and now they have to find their way out and get back home. “Toy Story 3” was definitely one of my favorite films of 2010, and was something that perfectly capped off the franchise. It ended up alongside “Back to the Future” and “The Evil Dead” as one of those film trilogies where I love all three films equally.

Ratings: 10/10

Aside from the shorts and the specials they’ve aired on TV, I feel like there’s no need to continue the film series any longer. How do I feel about “Toy Story 4?” Well, again…I’m hesitant. It could turn out to be good, but I felt like with how strong an impact the third film had, I feel like there’s no need make another installment. The shorts and specials have done fine on their own, so why not just keep doing those? Oh well.

So there you have it, 20 years after the first “Toy Story,” and look were Pixar is now. What are my thoughts on the other Pixar films? Well, I may have already reviewed them, but since thoughts do change within time, here are my current thoughts of the rest:

Cars 2: Okay 6/10

Brave: Loved it 10/10

Monsters University: Liked it at first, got a little mixed later, but now I really like it again. 8/10

Inside Out: Absolutely adore it! 10/10

Yeah, from the looks of it, Pixar doesn’t seem like they’ll be going anywhere anytime soon. They’ve reached far and wide, making millions of dollars and winning awards galore. How will “The Good Dinosaur” fair? Guess we’ll have to find out next weekend.

Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you guys next time!

The Peanuts Movie

            Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts” is one of the most beloved comic strips in American history. Ever since its debut in the early 1950’s, daily newspaper readers have fallen in love with Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and the rest of the gang. With how iconic they’ve become, they of course made the transition into animation specials, TV shows, Broadway shows, and of course movies. There were four “Peanuts” movies that were released from 1969 to 1980, all of which were directed by Bill Melendez, Schulz’s main animator and the voice of Snoopy and Woodstock.

            The first “Peanuts” film, “A Boy Named Charlie Brown,” featured our titular character and his team lose the Little League baseball game. Hoping to find something that he could win, he enters the school’s spelling bee which persuades him to enter the Nationals league in New York. For the first film given to the comic strip, it is what you’d expect. The characters are how we remember them, it has some good songs, and the voice acting is not too bad. Nothing great, but it’s worth a viewing.

            The second film, “Snoopy, Come Home,” was mainly about Snoopy traveling cross country with Woodstock to go and visit a young girl, while the rest of the gang starts to worry about what may have happened to Charlie Brown’s companion. This is one of the more memorable of the films, mostly because it’s not just the saddest of the movies, but the saddest “Peanuts” thing you’ll ever see. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but trust me when I say that you’ll be feeling very emotional watching it.

            The third film, “Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown,” features the Peanuts gang at summer camp, as they compete in the great river raft race against a rival gang of cheating bullies. This is the film that has the most adventurous feel to it, and was actually the first of the films I saw when it debuted on Cartoon Network. Now that I’m older, I find it to be one of my lesser favorites of the franchise, mostly because I was kind of bored with it. I mean, the stuff with Snoopy and Woodstock fighting with the cat, Brutus, was funny, but everything else felt very dis-interesting. This is one that I genuinely skip.

            The fourth film, “Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (And Don’t Come Back),” features Charlie Brown, Linus, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, Snoopy, and Woodstock, take part in a foreign exchange student program, and travel to France. Charlie Brown and Linus, in particular, were chosen to stay at the Chateau du Mal Voisin (The House of the Bad Neighbor) by a girl named Violette Honfleur, whose uncle is not very fond of children. “Bon Voyage” stands as my favorite of the original films, and is one of the most unique productions of the franchise, mostly because it has the rare occurrence of the adults in the “Peanuts” world both talking and being seen. It feels weird, but at the same time can be accepted, since Schulz and Melendez did work on the project together, so the decision feels valid. I also love the mysterious atmosphere the film gives revolving around Violette and the Chateau, which does get you invested in the story-line.

            With the draw of the new millennium and the passing of Charles Schulz in 2000, there hasn’t been much new “Peanuts” material. Bill Melendez did do a few more specials until his passing in 2008, but nothing else in terms of feature films. It wasn’t until 2012, when Schulz’s son, Craig, and grandson, Bryan, had negotiated with 20^th Century Fox and Blue Sky Studios to do a brand new CG animated film, which would be released to celebrate the 65^th anniversary of the franchise. This kind of bothered me, because when it comes to Blue Sky, they haven’t had the best track record with films. They’ve had a couple good flicks here and there, but nothing too spectacular. Plus, I was worried that they were going to make this film nothing but a modernized cash grab, and only throw in key moments and lines for the sake of fan service. But after seeing the trailers, I figured it might actually be a worthy film.

            So what did I think of “The Peanuts Movie?” The best word that could describe it: FAITHFUL. It simply gets everything right, from the animation, to the characters, the way they act, everything about this film is done 100% like the original cartoon, with a few little touches.

            The film chronicles the life of Charlie Brown, as he tries to impress the little red haired girl that’s moved to town, hoping that it would also help him feel like he’s worth something. In a subplot, Snoopy works on a story with his newly found typewriter about his battles with the Red Baron, taking some inspiration from Charlie Brown’s story-line.

            First off, the animation is absolutely gorgeous. It captures the look of the comic strip and Schulz and Melendez’s style in the best way you could with 3D technology. Even with the scenes of Snoopy and the Red Baron, it never tries to one-up itself and be bigger than it needs to be. Steve Martino, the director of “Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who,” really did his research on how to make sure this stayed true to form, keeping it to the timeless setting that the comic was best known for, complete with rotary phones, the kite eating tree, the football, anything the comic is known for.

            Another major thing this film was faithful about was the voice acting. No matter what the circumstance, all the “Peanuts” material had its cast be entirely composed of newcomers. The kids aren’t played by any big name actors to get people in the seats, they’re children played by children. In fact, the only known celebrity in the film is Kristen Chenoweth, who plays a part in Snoopy’s fantasy as a love interest, Fifi. Luckily, Chenoweth was able to emulate the same speech patterns and noises that Bill Melendez did for Snoopy, so the same could be done when playing her character. Kudos to her for putting in that much effort.

            If I did have any complaints, there’d only be slight the slight nitpick. While I love how the film does put focus on Charlie Brown, since this is his story, I would have like a few more moments with the rest of the characters. We do get a lot of great moments with them, as well as a few nods to classic “Peanuts” moments like “Christmas Time Is Here” and so forth, but I was actually wishing for some of those moments to last a little longer. I feel like instead of “The Peanuts Movie,” it probably would have fit better being called “The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Movie,” especially since Charles Schulz himself admitted to saying he didn’t like the comic being called “Peanuts.” But like I said, that’s just me trying to find fault in something that does everything right. I really do hope this film becomes a success, because Hollywood should take note on how to do adaptations right.

            Overall, “The Peanuts Movie” is everything you wanted. Everything that they did in this film was spot on, and there’s not a damn thing wrong with it. If you haven’t seen this movie, go watch it in theaters, and relive a time from your youth when Charlie Brown was something to always look forward to.

Rating: 10/10

Jem and the Holograms (2015)

            This is a generation built on nostalgia. Sequels to popular franchises are being made to the public, TV shows are being revamped for a new audience, and a lot of cartoons are being adapted onto the big screen. Whether they turn out good or bad is up for debate. With the success of the “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe” films, Hasbro found it fitting to adapt one of their girl targeted products, such as “Jem.”

            Now, let me be perfectly clear: I didn’t grow up on “Jem.” For one, I was born in 1996, and by that time, my older siblings had left “Jem” to be a memory of the past. It wasn’t until the days of the Internet, that I discovered the show as one of those relics of the 80’s.

            When trailers for the film adaptation popped up, the internet exploded with hatred from fans. Hardly anybody who was commenting on this film had anything good to say about how the film looked, with it hardly resembling anything that the cartoon was. I do agree with them that it looked nothing like from what little I had seen of the cartoon, but I was kind of hoping the film could be fine on its own as a stand-alone thing…boy howdy, was I wrong.

            If you have seen any rock band movie, you can expect almost all the clichés they have to be in this film. The band getting picks up, the record dealer changing their image, the lead singer forced to go solo, the band breaking up, etc. All of those clichés are in this film, and they are so obvious and predictable that it’s insulting.

Not only that, but the pacing and cinematography are truly awful, feeling less like a movie and more like a lazy documentary that was shot over the course of a week. There’s not a single shot in this movie where the camera can just stay still for more than one second, or allow the film to take a moment to breathe and let the atmosphere settle in. Though I shouldn’t be too shocked at the film feeling like a documentary, since this is directed by Jon M. Chu, the director of both the Justin Beiber theatrical documentaries, “Never Say Never” and “Believe.”

I’d also like to point out this film’s cheapness, both in its look and how it feels. For a film based on a popular cartoon, you’d think they’d try to make it feel larger than life and have a lot of effort put into it, but it doesn’t. It looks and feels like it’s the pilot to a “Jem” live action series that somehow got a theatrical release, much like with the new “Fantastic Four.” But what makes this film worse than “Fantastic Four” is that this film resorts to comprising a majority of its runtime to using footage from YouTube videos, all of which have NOTHING to do with the movie at all. There was originally a contest set by the director, saying that anyone who posts a video online talking about “Jem” and what they love about it, will possibly star in the film. Of course, nobody got chosen to star in the film, but instead a handful of them got cameos in the film, which are the videos they posted. There was even a video that showed the “Jem” cartoon playing in the background, IN THIS “Jem” MOVIE! Also, there are videos that they use from Dwayne Johnson’s Instagram that talked about Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood,” Chris Pratt’s interview for “The Lego Movie” where he jokes about dating “Jem,” and even “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” when he interviewed Alicia Keys and they were talking about the cartoon.

This film was produced by Jason Blum, who I am now dubbing this generation’s Roger Corman. Think about it: he’s made a lot of low budget films, most of them horror, and he doesn’t have to worry about the film bombing, because there’d be another success right afterwards to make up for it. And for a $5 million film to bomb so hard, that it didn’t even make half of its budget back, that’s got to tell something. Also, I’d like to point out that it was kind of funny for this film to give out a sequel beg at the mid-credits…a sequel that will never, EVER happen. It really is sad, because the cast in this film does try their best to make this film work, but for how stock and boring the script is, all their efforts feel wasted.

If there had to be one positive thing I could give this movie, just one thing…it would be the soundtrack. I’m not kidding, for how lousy the film is, the songs are actually pretty decent and the actors singing them do a fine job. They’re not the best songs ever, but they’re nowhere near terrible. But even then, that’s not enough to say that the film is good.

With how poorly this film did, Universal took the film completely out of theaters after only two weeks, making it the worst grossing film of 2015. It really is sad that it had to come to that, but there wasn’t much else to do. But guys…it’s actually worth checking out. I’m serious. It’s a marvel to see a film try so little that you can’t help but be fascinated by what the film makers were thinking. This is like “The Room” of rock band movies, it’s that kind of bad. So if you’re interested in seeing possibly the worst adaptation of a cartoon you will ever witness, give it a watch. But trust me, you’ll need friends to help you suffer through it.

Rating: 1/10

The Walk

            Phillippe Petit is an iconic figure in our American history. Originating from France, Petit made a name for himself in the 1970’s, when he pulled off the stunt of walking on a wire at the top of the World Trade Center, before it was officially complete. Because of this, he made the towers feel all the more special, which garnered him the title of “the man who walked between the towers.

            When announced that biopic was going to be made about his accomplishment, it sounded really interesting to see what they’d do with it. Even if there was already an Oscar winning documentary, I felt like the potential for a feature film could still work if handled correctly. Thus, Robert Zemeckis took it upon himself to make the film happen, in one of the year’s most spellbinding visual events, “The Walk.”

            “The Walk” chronicles the life of Petit, as we are shown his passion for performing on the wire from his youthful days. As he grows up and becomes a street performer, he furthers his passion by being taught by the head of the circus that he grew up watching. When he wants to further his limits, Petit gathers up a team to tackle the most amazing challenge he can give himself: walking between the newly built twin towers of America.

            Let me start off by saying Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a really damn good performance as Petit, showing us a variety of emotions that he goes through while trying to boost his ego and make himself feel like royalty. He’s arrogant, he’s obsessive, he’s self-indulgent, and prideful, but you still find him likable, because of his determination. Some people were a little off by his accent, but when you actually hear what Petit sounds like in real life, it does make more sense in the movie. It didn’t bother me, and this is one of Gordon-Levitt’s fines performances, especially when he’s doing his own stunts, thanks to Petit training him before shooting. All I can say is, if this doesn’t get him an Oscar nomination, I don’t know what will...Maybe “Snowden?”

            Ben Kingsley plays Papa Rudy, the acrobat that teaches Petit along the way. Throughout the film, Kingsley portrays Rudy as a father figure to Petit, as he can see the passion he has for wanting to be a great wire walker, but of course tries to make Petit see past his own pride which he can’t seem to let go. I love the contrast between these two, as you do feel the struggle between them as master and apprentice. I have a feeling this film might possibly get Kingsley an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, if he’s lucky.

            Charlotte Le Bon plays Annie Allix, one of Petit’s crew members and fellow performer. What I like about her and Gordon-Levitt’s scenes is that they’re always seem to find a way to stay supportive of their goals, even after they fight about whether or not they should pull through with their disadvantages. The chemistry between the two is really good, and I’m hoping that Le Bon gets recognition and recommended for more work in the future. Hell, if she gets a nomination too, I wouldn’t mind. I also want to applaud the other cast members, such as Clement Sibony, James Badge Dale, Ben Schwartz, Benedict Samuel, Cesar Domboy, and Steve Valentine, who play the rest of Petit’s crew.

            Now let’s talk about the main selling point of the film, the visual effects and the 3D. I like how the film doesn’t start us off at the wire, instead showing us the progress and build up to it, which is really good. But when it gets to the wire, boy is it nail-biting. As someone who isn’t too fond of heights, you can imagine that I was just gripping my chair and shaking constantly with very passing step. I saw this at the Cinemark XD Theater with my mom, and both of us were just speechless at every moment. The 3D helped it make it all the more impactful, making it the best 3D experience I’ve had since “Gravity,” which I also really liked. And much like that film, I’m hoping this film gets the award for Best Visual Effects.

            Overall, “The Walk” was just a thrilling experience to sit through this year. If you missed your chance to see this on the big screen, I feel sorry for you. But if there’s still a theater that’s playing it right now and in 3D, go out and see it before it leaves. If not, then get it on Blu-Ray, find a friend with the biggest TV you can find, and enjoy everything you can. At the very least, the acting, directing, and story are still interesting enough to warrant a viewing.

Rating: 10/10

The Martian

            Back in 2012, I had put the film “Prometheus” on my list of the worst film of 2012. And if you remember, I didn’t necessarily review the film and went on more of an immature rant instead. But my opinion of the film hasn’t changed. The acting was still average or less, it wasn’t really anything different from what we had seen before, and the writing was full of plot holes the size of moon craters.

            I tried asking myself why I wasn’t enjoying the film at all, and that’s when I realized something…I don’t really like Ridley Scott movies. Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but I don’t think Ridley Scott’s a good director, and is one of the most overrated directors working today. And it’s not just “Prometheus,” that I hate. I also hate “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down,” “Blade Runner,” “Hannibal,” “Kingdom of Heaven,” and a lot of his other work. Now, that’s not to say I hate EVERY film he’s done; I do like “Alien,” “American Gangster,” and “Thelma and Louise,” but that’s about it. Personally, I was more of a fan of his brother, Tony (May he rest in peace).

            So as you could imagine, I wasn’t as excited as everyone else was about his newest film, “The Martian,” even with how strong a cast it had. Also, I hadn’t read the book, and only know that it’s a critically acclaimed work of literature. But despite my disinterest in Ridley Scott, I decided to give him another chance and see if he could actually make worth my time.

            “The Martian” tells of Mark Watney, an astronaut who is marooned at the NASA Mars camp, after the crew evacuates during a storm. Presumed dead, Mark now has to figure out a way to get in contact with NASA so they can send help, all the while trying to survive on Mars atmosphere with what limited supplies he has. Or in his words, “science the shit out of this.”

            Now, did I like the movie? To be perfectly honest…I did. I actually found the film very investing, enthusiastic, and enjoyable on just about every level. Most of that stems from Matt Damon as Mark Watney. Since almost all his scenes comprise of him with nobody else to work off of, it really gives him the toughest job that Tom Hanks had when working on “Cast Away,” and that’s carry a film on his own, which Damon does. Mark Watney is a very likable character, with a witty sense of humor, welcoming charm, and always feels confident. Even so, he does have vulnerability, but he’s determined to survive with all the smarts he has and with whatever resources he’s got. This is one of Damon’s finest performances, and if he gets an Oscar nod, it’s well deserving.

            The supporting cast is top notch too, such as Jeff Daniels as the director of NASA, Ted Sanders. Throughout the film, we see the complicated dilemma that goes through Sanders head of what would be the best solution to getting Watney back, but one that would be fast and safe, and I really enjoy how Daniels brings that essence to the character. Same goes for Chiwatel Ejiofor, who plays Vincent Kapoor, who gets in contact with Watney. The best scenes that Ejiofor are involved in are the ones where he feels conflicted about what to tell Mark during their conversations. It really does set the tone down and really allow both the characters an audience sync in with the mood. If best supporting is offered, I’d say Ejiofor is the man right for the nomination. And of course we have Jessica Chastain, who plays the commander of the team, Melissa Lewis. She’s determined, she’s confident, she tries to look for the right answers in any situation, and it feels like a character that fits Chastain nicely. It was said that while studying for the role, Chastain had met up with the astronauts and scientist of the Jet Propulsion Lab and the L.B.J. Space Center to get well informed, and said her performance was inspired by that of the astronaut, Tracy Dyson. A prime example of a fine actor doing her research for the role. Other cast members such as Kristen Wiig, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Donald Glover, Mackenzie Davis, and others, are all great in what they give us.

            The script was written by Drew Goddard, best known for his work on a lot of Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams shows, as well as “The Cabin in the Woods.” I feel like Goddard really does know how to handle his work and make it enjoyable for audiences as long as it’s put in the proper hands. Luckily, Ridley Scott knew what to do with it. Instead of it feeling out of place with its logic and feeling extremely preachy, he lets the film be more relax and down to Earth, and only uses the intense feelings for when it’s necessary to the story, much like what he did with “Thelma and Louise” and “American Gangster.”

            Overall, I’d say “The Martian” is a film worth your time, and that’s saying a lot for somebody who isn’t a Ridley Scott fan. The acting is great, the directing is excellent, and the writing is really damn good. I guarantee this will be among the Oscar talks for this season, and if does, that’s fine by me.

Rating: 10/10

Pan

            J.M. Barrie’s “Peter & Wendy” is a very iconic story with an iconic character. The tale of the boy who never grew up is remembered by generations of all kinds, in adaptations such as the 1953 Disney animated film, the 2003 live-action movie, the 1954 Broadway musical, the Spielberg film starring Robin Williams entitled “Hook,” and even the bio-pic, “Finding Neverland,” starring Johnny Depp.

            And much like any other iconic story, Hollywood will try to find ways to bank on it in some form or another. In this case, an origin story with Joe Wright, the director of “Hanna,” at the helm, and in the villain role is Hugh Jackman. Should be a fun time, right? No…no, it’s not.

            “Pan” is not only bad, it’s a complete fucking mess of a movie that doesn’t know what it wants to be. At one point, it’s “Oliver,” then it’s “Matilda,” then it becomes “Mad Max,” and then suddenly “Moulin Rouge.” There are so many stock archetypes and plot points thrown together into this film, you’ll be questioning whether or not any of the film makers had any idea of what they were doing. The over-arching plot is the clichéd messiah story: a child of prophecy comes into an ancient land, where he is destined to save everybody. If you’ve seen “Harry Potter,” “The Matrix,” “Avatar,” or any of the “Star Wars” movies, you have already seen this movie. And I know I’m somebody who doesn’t mind clichés as long as they are handled right, but this movie doesn’t, and that’s not a good thing.

            The acting is not only bad, it’s bizarre on several levels. Hugh Jackman plays Captain Blackbeard, the current leader of the pirates who kidnaps children, forces them into labor to dig up Pyxium and sing Nirvana and the Ramones…that last part, I didn’t make up. First off, what was up with Jackman’s performance? He’s portraying Blackbeard as if he was auditioning for Dr. Frank N. Furter from “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” if he was a dictator. Second, why is he having his slaves sing Nirvana and the Ramones? At the beginning of this film, we’re in the middle of WWII in London, so what how would he even know what those songs were? And three…Pyxium? What, was “unobtanim” not available for you?

            Garrett Hedlund, who played Jeff Bridges’ son in “Tron: Legacy,” plays James Hook…and man, does he give the worst performance in the entire movie. He enunciates his words so damn much and in such an over-the-top accent that I couldn’t find it believable in any kind of regard. He acts as if Al Pacino was playing The Mask impersonating Indiana Jones, while sounding like a British guy doing a horrible American accent…can’t picture it? Well, now you know how I felt listening to it. Then we have Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, a casting choice that lead to an uproar of hatred towards Hollywood white-washing an iconic character. And yeah, it bothered me when I saw that she was the only white actress among the crowd of Native American extras, and finding out that Lupita Nyong’o was considered for the role pissed me off more. However, Mara’s casting wasn’t the worst part about this, but rather the way the character was written. Her only purpose in this film is to be exposition dump over things we could have easily figured out on our own, or stuff that’s being shown to us. This is a movie; show, don’t tell. In the end, you could have had anyone else play Tiger Lily and the character would still be awful. At least Mara tried her best to make this work, but trying and failing doesn’t get you much brownie points. There’s also this weird and unnecessary romance subplot between Hook and Tiger Lily, which feels so forced that it feels like they were just trying to pad out the movie out to 111 minutes.

            Now what about Peter Pan himself, played by Levi Miller? He’s boring. Seriously, throughout most of this fantasy adventure film, Peter just feels like a minor character in his own story. He has a couple moments like when he flips off one of the workers, but nothing else that makes him interesting or endearing enough for me to care about this kid. Same can be said for his friendship with Hook, which is filled to the brim with references to the story we know, and it gets really obnoxious. We know that they won’t become friends forever, we know Hook will lose his hand to the crocodile, why do we need these references all over the damn place?!

            The worst part about this film is the pacing, which is unbalanced as hell. For some reason, it feels as though the film makers have no idea how to let a scene flow naturally and instead rushes things to the next point on. One minute we’re told Peter has three days to learn how to properly fly (which is totally ripped off from “Hook”), and then after one night scene we see the pirates attack the Natives. Then we have a moment of Peter crying about Tiger Lily lying to him about his mother, and the next scene is them immediately in a boat with Peter not crying anymore.

            Did I mention that Amanda Seyfried and Cara Delevingne were in this movie? Yeah, Seyfried plays Peter’s mother, Mary, for the beginning scene where she leaves him on the doorstep of the orphanage…and that’s it. That’s the only scene in which Amanda Seyfried is in this movie, a role that could have been played by anybody else. As for Cara Delevingne, she plays the mermaids-oh wait, I mean her face is computer generated onto the mermaids, making her appearance in the film look fucking terrifying. And guess what? The scene with her serves no purpose.

            The action scenes and effects are average at best, but that doesn’t give the film a pass in any regard for that. Polish a turd all you want, it’s still a turd. It really disappoints me that Joe Wright, the director of “Hanna,” “Pride & Prejudice,” and “Atonement” could deliver such a pile of shit like this. Then again, seeing the name Greg Berlanti, the producer of “The Green Lantern,” attached to this should have been a warning. I think it’s best for Berlanti to stick to producing TV shows, because his film work does not have the same quality.

            Overall, “Pan” was just a complete mess. This year’s very definition of “clusterfuck.” So many confusing decisions, horrid pacing, horrible acting, and everything else in this film is just messy. It doesn’t surprise me that this film is bombing as badly as it is, and I highly doubt it’ll make its money back, unless someone’s really desperate for it when it comes out on DVD. Just stay home at watch any other adaptation of Peter Pan, because anything would be better than this crap.

Rating: 1/10

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse

            Guilty pleasure films are common amongst the world. Everybody has at least one film that they’ve seen that they think is stupid and illogical, but still enjoy sitting through it from start to finish. Films like “Independence Day,” “Porky’s,” “Commando,” “The Wicker Man,” the “Judge Dredd” movies, and even films from this year like “Pixels” and “San Andreas” are examples of guilty pleasures that I enjoy. However, that doesn’t always mean those types of films succeed at their job. Case and point: “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse.” And yes, I know the title sounds like something made from Cards Against Humanity, but the only difference is that this is handled poorly.

            The film tells of three of the Boy Scouts of America: Augie, a dedicated fat kid scout; Ben, an awkward nerdy protagonist scout; and Carter, an obnoxiously unfunny douchebag scout. On the night that Augie is going to receive his Condor Badge, Ben and Carter are invited to a senior party by Carter’s sister and her boyfriend. Unfortunately, things take a wrong turn when the zombies attack. And from there on, it’s one unfunny scenario after another in this 90 minute long waste of time.

            Not only is this one of the worst films I’ve seen this year, this is one of the worst horror comedies I’ve seen in a long time, which is one of the biggest problems I have with it. It’s trying to be a comedy, but not once did I laugh or chuckle at this film’s attempts at humor. It’s just a bunch of dumb sophomoric humor with dick and sex jokes thrown at you, and all of them have such poor delivery and no payoff. There’s a scene where it lingers on a zombie cop’s exposed chest and it cuts back to the douchebag scout staring lustfully at it…this goes on for a minute straight. And in another scene, the nerdy hero scout is hanging from the window by grabbing an old zombie’s dick, which rips off and he throws into another zombie’s mouth. Whoever wrote this film, really needs to work on their comedic thinking process if they think this shit is funny. Also for a film titled “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” there isn’t much of a GUIDE to speak of throughout the entire film.

            The characters in this film are annoying and intolerable. When the biggest star you have in the film is David Koechner, your film is likely to be bad. Don’t get me wrong, I like David Koechner, but when the only material he has are running jokes about his toupee, an obsession for Dolly Parton, and how he doesn’t die, it doesn’t work. Seriously David, pick better scripts. Then we have Ben, Carter, and Augie, our heroes of the film. To the credit of their actors: Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller, and Joey Morgan, they do try their best to make this work, but their characters are written so damn poorly that it’s hard to find them likable, or at the very least buy them as friends. Carter, especially, is an unlikable piece of shit. He’s not funny, he’s not endearing, and his actions just make him come off as a bully towards the other characters with no redeeming qualities. As for Ben, he’s just the typical boring loser hero we’ve seen so many damn times. His character is essentially Michael Cera’s character from “Superbad,” which just makes me wish that Cera was in this role, if the film was made back ten years ago, so that way I could have something of an impression left on me. With Ben and Carter sharing the screen more than other characters, they work off of each other so badly, that it makes me wonder, why the hell are these two still alive in a horrible situation like this? Augie, while he's the only tolerable scout of the film, has just about every stock fat joke happen with him. Seriously, name any fat joke that’s used in any clichéd comedy, because they use them a lot in the film. It’s so damn repetitive and predictable, it just makes me wish Joey Morgan was put into another film so he could avoid these jokes. Hell, as I look back on these three, it all feels like one of those bad movie fan fictions with the characters from “Superbad” in a zombie story…wow, this actually makes sense now.

            Halston Sage, who appeared in “Paper Towns” and “Goosebumps” earlier this year, plays Carter’s sister and Ben’s love interest. Guess where that goes? They end up together. Sage is a great young actress, and I feel bad that she has been type-casted as the love interest for the nerdy character three times in a row. She deserves better than shit like this! Same goes for Patrick Schwarzenegger, Arnold’s son, who plays the jerky boyfriend, making this the third time he’s played an asshole jock, with the other two being from “The Benchwarmers” and “Grown Ups 2.” They have nothing interesting going for their characters and could have easily been written out of the film. They served no purpose. Same goes for Cloris Leachman as the old lady next door, who owns cats that get turned into zombies. There’s no purpose to her character being in the film, or even it being Cloris Leachman in the role. What, could they not afford Betty White to be a part of this film? Sarah Dumont as the badass hot chick in the film (I know she has a name, but who the fuck cares?) doesn’t have much to show for in this film. She’s hot and helps the trio out, but doesn’t really have an interesting character, aside from one scene where she helps give Ben relationship advice. However, it makes you wonder why Ben didn’t choose her instead of Halston Sage, since he and the badass hot chick share more screen time together and have actual chemistry...it's bad chemistry, but at least it IS chemistry.

            The zombies are exactly what you’d expect from any other zombie film. The make-up with them is fine, but when they use CGI for their deaths it got bad. My major problem with them is there is no consistency with how they act. There will be times they’ll act like they would as zombies, but then they’ll shift from running to walking or still have enough intelligence left to do stripper moves and sing Brittany Spears. That’s not funny, that’s just a stupid clip that even people who share stupid clips off YouTube would say is too much. In fact, the whole entire film feels like a collage of bad gifs from Tumblr put to a feature film.

            The film was directed and co-written by Christopher Landon, the man behind “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones.” After watching this film, I’m proven that this man sucks as a director, found footage or not. But now after knowing he directed “The Marked Ones,” it now makes the connection between this film and “Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension” all the more clear. They both were release in limited theaters, “The Ghost Dimension” had a preview for this film TWICE, and they both shared Christopher Landon’s directing and writing.

            Overall, “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse” is a major frontrunner for the worst film of the year. The writing is awful, the direction is terrible, the jokes are not funny, and the characters are so poorly written that you’ll be wishing for Eli Roth's characters from any of his films! Skip this crap and just go watch “Shaun of the Dead” or “Zombieland,” those are actually worth your time…but after this film, I’m starting to get sick of zombie films. Way to run this genre into the ground, Hollywood.

Rating: 1/10