Whenever
people hear the term “family film,” what director usually comes to people’s
minds? To me, it’s Steven Spielberg. The man who revolutionized the term
“blockbuster,” and one of the many directors from the “New Hollywood”
generation. While most of his work nowadays has been stuff that attributes to
the academy crowd, there was a time in the late 70’s to early 90’s where his
name attached would be something magical. Films like “E.T,” “Close Encounters,”
“Hook,” and “Jurassic Park,” films that were full of so much imagination and
wonder that just about anyone of any age could be in awe of. As far as I can
recall, there hasn’t been too many attempts at rekindling that magic that
people associate him with. Today, we’ll be taking a look at his newest film that
might change that, in the form of “The BFG.”
Based
on the children’s book by Roald Dahl, the author of “Matilda” and “Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory,” the film tells the story of a little girl, named
Sophie, who is taken away to Giant Country, after spotting one in the middle of
the night. The Big Friendly Giant is the smallest of the pack, and doesn’t
carry the other traits that the giants are known for, such as stealing and
eating humans. That’s all I can talk about in terms of plot.
So,
did I like this film? Yeah, I thought it was good. Is it on the same level as
say “E.T.” or “Jurassic Park?” No, not really. But before we get into that,
let’s talk about what was good about the film.
For
starters, the production value on this film is absolutely wonderful. The way
you look at London (in what I’m assuming is the mid 1980’s), and the scenery of
Giant Country really brings Roald Dahl’s book to life in such a detailed
manner. Even with parts that look CGI, it still is impressive to look at, and
is some of the best in a while. Not to mention, those scenes involving the
dream catching or the mixtures, the motion capture imagery on the giants, it
almost looks real. It’s nice to know that CGI can still be used very damn well
if put in the right hands. This is easily one of the best looking films
Spielberg has done in years.
The
performances were also very delightful. Mark Rylance and Ruby Barnhill have
some incredibly good chemistry as the BFG and Sophie. The way they banter back
and forth, whether it’s about the BFG’s speech patterns, how each views their
worlds, and how they get along with one another as the film progresses is quite
enjoyable. Seeing these two work off of each other is easily the best part
about the movie.
Now,
what about the film did I not like? Well, when you watch the film, the BFG is
the only one of the giants that actually has character to him. The rest of the
giants are pretty much the same hulking buffoons, with the only stand-out being
Jemaine Clement as the leader. I also didn’t seem that amused with the fart
jokes that the film had, mostly involving the BFG’s drink. Granted, there were
only two scenes that had it, but it does tend to stop the movie in its place,
before we can actually move on. That, and my biggest problem with the film is
with the second half. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it…I just felt that it
lacked tension. It didn’t seem like that the obstacles that Sophie and the BFG
had to face, and any that passed off as conflict were dealt with easily. Sure, there was the moment of the BFG
exposing himself to the public, but it’s handled pretty quickly. Same with the
climax. There’s a moment of conflict, but it’s handled like it was nothing, and everything
goes as planned. Again, no tension.
I
know a lot of people will say that it was like that or similar to what they did
in the book, to which I have to say I wasn’t too into the book as a kid, but
let me reinstate my argument from the “Warcraft” movie: when you’re adapting
something into a movie, you have to find a proper balance that satisfies both
the viewers who know the source material and those who go in as a movie on its
own. Granted, “The BFG” is a better movie than “Warcraft,” but that’s beside
the point. I just felt like I needed a better balance.
Overall,
is “The BFG” worth seeing in theaters? Yeah, I’d say so. Despite the gripes
that I had with the film, I do think it is worth recommending. The look of the
film is very imaginative, there are some really funny bits, and the
performances by Mark Rylance and Ruby Barnhill alone are outstanding. I could
definitely see kids today enjoying the heck out of this film, possibly having
fond nostalgic memories about it in their older years, and that’s fine by me.
It may not have been as good as I was expecting it to be, but with what I got,
I was still satisfied. Give it a watch and see what you think.
In a
time when people thought that there could never be an animated film that could
dominate the box office as well as “The Lion King,” the team at Pixar managed
to prove those people wrong, with a little known film called “Finding Nemo.” Directed
and co-written by Andrew Stanton, one of Pixar’s key members, the film told the
story of a clownfish father, named Marlin, who travels across the sea in search
of his son, Nemo, who was taken away by a diver/dentist, all the while he’s
accompanied by a blue regal tang named Dory, who has short-term memory loss. At
the time of release, “Finding Nemo” became the biggest and most successful hit
that the team at Pixar ever had. It was raved by critics, earning four Oscar
nominations (including Best Original Screenplay and Best Original Score) and
one win for Best Animated Feature, and it earned over $800 million at the box
office, not counting its 3D re-release in 2012. As the Pixar film that I
remember watching the most as a kid, it’s easy to see why. The characters are
lovable, the animation is just as phenomenal as it was back in 2003, and the
story is very relatable to all kinds of audiences.
After
Pixar became an official part of Disney, the studio was tasked with making a
follow-up to the film, under the name “Finding Dory.” While it doesn’t sound
like a bad idea, I was worried that the film wouldn’t turn out as good as I
would hope for. And after attending the preview screening for this film, and
dealing with the most obnoxious group of children I’ve ever had to deal with in
a movie theater all at once, signifying that if your children AREN’T GOING TO
BE QUIET DURING A FRIGGIN MOVIE IN THE THEATER, THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE
HIRED A SITTER, AND NOT PISS OFF THE PEOPLE WHO…sorry, just had to get that off
my chest. But seriously people, if your children can’t behave themselves, don’t
take them to a movie. Anyways, let’s talk about “Finding Dory.” Did I like the
movie? Yes, I did. Is it as good as “Finding Nemo?” Sadly, it isn’t, and I’ll
get to that in a little bit.
One
year after the events of the first film, Dory accompanies Nemo’s class on a
field trip to the stingray migration, where it triggers her memory into
remembering her parents. Desperate to see them again, Dory, Marlin, and Nemo
travel to Morro Bay, California, in hopes of reuniting with her parents, who
she believes are within the Monterey Marine Life Institute.
Much
like the previous film, the animation is absolutely gorgeous. The glistening
look of the reef, the seaweed under the docks, and even within the fish tanks
are really enticing to look at. If there’s one thing that Pixar never
half-asses, it’s their animation. Everything in the film looks crystal perfect.
I was
worried that this would have been a “Cars 2” effect, where the side character
takes the spotlight and it doesn’t work, but that’s not the case. Dory is a
likable character that does manage to handle the lead in a movie. I think part
of that comes from Ellen DeGeneres’ performance as Dory. Her voice work in this
film is so good, that you can only picture the character and not the actress,
something that not too many onscreen actors are capable of doing so well. You
really do feel yourself pushing to see Dory come out on top, and I was happy to
have that feeling throughout the run of the film. Albert Brooks also returns as
Marlin, the worrisome clownfish of a father that we know and love. Again, much
like DeGeneres, Brooks truly embodies this role and does it so damn well. I
love how within time, even as the two have grown to be such good friends, he’s
still cautious about circumstances that he tends to overthink. He does begin to
learn that Dory has left such an impact on him, and truly understands that
their friendship together is what made him become a little bit more daring.
Also, I have to give credit to Hayden Rolence, who took over the role of Nemo,
since the original voice, Alexander Gould, was too old to reprise it.
Rolence does a great job filling in the gap, that I completely forgot that it
was a different actor playing him. Kudos to whoever did the casting this time
around.
The
supporting cast was pretty damn good too. The two whales, Destiny and Baily,
are played by Kaitlin Olsen and Ty Burrell, and they’re pretty fun to watch.
They’ve got funny quirks, especially with the dialogue they share, and I love how
they do manage to come in handy when it feels necessary. Speaking of actors
from “Modern Family,” Ed O’Neil plays Hank the Octopus…or “septopus” as he’s
referred to. As a new travelling buddy, I really enjoy the chemistry that he
shares with Dory, being a more closed off person, compared to Dory, in a
similar sense to Marlin in the first film. We also get appearances from Idris
Elba and Dominic West as a bunch of seals, Bill Hader and Kate McKinnon as a
fish couple from Dory’s past, a cameo from Alexander Gould as a new character,
and of course, Sigourney Weaver as herself…yeah, that happens.
Now,
with all that said, let’s get into the things that weren’t so great. For one,
the motivational drive. Not that it was bad, but it just wasn’t as strong as
the first one was. Think about it; the first film’s pushing motive was a father
trying to look for his son, who was taken from him. This was a fish who was
treading through waters that he had never been through, for the sole purpose of
finding his only surviving child who was taken from him. That’s a strong motive
that just about everyone can relate to, and not just parents. The emotions that
“Finding Nemo” expressed were something that not too many films have, even for
Disney standards. “Finding Dory” does have a good drive and some very emotional
moments, especially the flashbacks of baby Dory and her parents, played by
Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy, but it pales in comparison. Also, the film’s
locations aren’t as wowing, when you go from the wide oceans to a fish rehab on
the Californian coast.
Despite
what I say, is “Finding Dory” a film worthy of Pixar’s caliber? Yes, absolutely. It still has some good humor to it, the animation is still of the
stunning Pixar quality, the characters are all likable, and its story does still have some moments that will give you a bit of the feels. Give it a watch and see
what you think. Maybe you might think different from what I say.
Blizzard
Entertainment’s “Warcraft” is regarded as the most recognizable MMORPG franchise
of all time. Throughout the years, the series has attracted all kinds of
demographics, gaining new players with each passing day. While I never really
played any of the games myself, and since many other MMOs have come about with
significant improvements over it, you can’t deny the kind of impact that
“W.O.W.” has had on the public.
With
how big and luscious the world of “Warcraft” was, you could imagine that
Hollywood wanted to make a big budget blockbuster series out of the games. And,
to be fair, it makes sense, especially with the kind of lore within the games,
as well as the popularity of “The Lord of the Rings” franchise being so well
known. In the mid-2000’s, Uwe Boll, the talentless hack known for making
terrible adaptations of video games and being a thin-skinned, whiney little
bitch, had approached Blizzard about helming the whole thing. Blizzard, like
any sane person would, told Boll (in a nice way) to go fuck himself, and
addressed that if a film was going to be made, it would be by their doing. The “Warcraft”
film had been in development hell for a good decade, and it wasn’t until 2014,
when they finally assembled the team, that principle photography finally begun.
The film was set to arrive last Christmas, but due to “Star Wars: The Force
Awakens,” the film was pushed to the following June.
So
with all of the hype that’s been building for this film over the past decade,
was it worth the wait? Well…no…in fact, this film was a fucking chore to sit
through, and after watching “Gods of Egypt” and “Zoolander 2,” that’s saying a
lot. And I know a lot of you are going to say that I’m being biased for not
playing the games, but let me explain something. Film adaptations of an
existing source material have to find a proper balance between satisfying the
people who know the source material and those who are going into it as a film.
I’m looking at this from the latter prospective, and from where I see it, this
film doesn’t work.
What’s
the story? Boy is THAT the million dollar question of the day! Why? Because the
film’s direction is so damn atrocious, I could hardly tell what was going on
throughout this entire mess. The film has no proper way of explaining what the
main goal is, and it assumes that everyone in its audience has played the games
already. Sure, fans might be able to catch on, but I’m guaranteeing the rest of
the people who go in wanting an epic fantasy film with orcs and knights are
going to be deeply confused. Hell, even when the film throws exposition dumps
in…well, almost every scene, I still felt confused on what the hell’s going on.
The pacing doesn’t help either. Within the first half-hour of this film, we
were jumping to at least fifteen different locations, giving us no time to soak
up any kind of atmosphere or get a sense of where we are in the story. With how
badly the film was flowing, I couldn’t tell which point of the film it was
supposed to be at. At least with “Gods of Egypt,” I could still tell if we were in
the second or third act! And by the time we DO know
what’s going on, it’s already too late to even give a shit about any of these
characters.
Speaking
of characters, even if the pacing wasn’t complete shit, the cast doesn’t help
improve that in the slightest. Almost everybody in this film feels like they’re
sleepwalking through these performances. Hell, I could barely remember ANY of
these characters’ names. The only characters I actually cared about were the
main orc and his wife. Toby Kebbell and Anna Galvin actually felt like they
were trying to make this work, and it actually made their story arc have some
kind of depth to it. I mean, the story of a couple going to war, while caring
for their child at the same time, is very touching and is easily the best part
of the movie, and the only thing that has any merit to it. However, it doesn’t
make up for the rest of the film, and after the two of them are killed off,
there’s nothing else to really give a shit about in this movie. The main
knight? Forgettable. The king, played by Dominic Cooper? Don’t care. The young
magician? Annoying. The half-human half orc hybrid? Doesn’t make a lick of
difference.
This
brings us to the special effects in this film, which are terrible. Just about
everything in this film feels like bad CGI, and it’s really noticeable. Sure,
there one or two moments that look neat, but much of what else you see in this
film is so cartoonish looking, that whenever you actually see human characters
pop up, it gets distracting. The worst part about it, were the effects on Paula
Patton, where her character is half a live action human, and the other half a
CGI orc, but the result is completely awful. I mean, what the actual fuck?!
Instead of doing a simple make-up effect for this character, you decided to
lazily coat her in CGI, thus wasting more money?! I mean, come on, at least the
Marvel Cinematic Universe got this right with their characters!
And
this brings me to the worst part about this movie: IT. IS. BORING. Seriously,
this is one of the most boring and uninteresting blockbusters that I’ve ever
sat through. Sure, I may not have fallen asleep at it, like I did with
“Jurassic World,” but I really wish I did. Hell, not even the action scenes
were that investing, especially in a film that has one-on-one orc fisticuffs! How
do you make that dull?! I mean, say what you will about “Batman V Superman,” at
least that film had SOME entertainment in it!
Overall,
“Warcraft” is not only another bad video game movie, but it’s easily the worst
film that I’ve seen so far this year. Its characters are practically lifeless,
the story is puzzling to follow, and it’s simply dull to watch. If you’re a fan
of the games, you might find some things to enjoy more than I did. Aside from that,
I can’t recommend this movie to anybody else.
At a
time when touch screen devices, such as the iPhone, still had people in awe at
their freshest debut, mobile games were catching on as well. And we’re not just
talking about “Snake” or anything like that, we were talking games that were
bright, colorful, had animation, and all that kind of stuff. And the mobile
game that reigned as king was “Angry Birds.” The game had a simple premise: you
launch birds at pigs to retrieve your stolen eggs. Nothing special, but the
thing caught like wildfire, with over 12 million downloads of the game. With
the success, they made a sequel to the game, with more levels and new power-ups…and
then there was another one…and another one…and another one…yeah, this thing
evolved into a franchise. Soon, you were seeing t-shirts, posters, sneakers,
and even cartoons, but…did we really need this to be merchandised? I mean, it’s
a fun little game, but it’s not “Super Mario Bros.” or “Sonic the Hedgehog”
levels of fun.
Despite
what I think, Sony Entertainment decided to cash in on the games popularity,
which was running a bit thin with people, and make an animated feature film…really?
Who looked at this mobile game and said, “HOLY SHIT, THIS STORY NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT
TO THE BIG SCREEN RIGHT NOW,” like it was a last resort? Needless to say, this
was a film I was not looking forward to, thinking it was going to be some childish
cash cow. However, when I saw the first trailer they released, it got a few
good chuckles out of me, so I had a slight change of heart about it…that is,
until I saw further trailers, and became very skeptical again.
“The Angry
Birds Movie” is about a bird named Red, a bird with anger issues that the village
doesn’t approve of, so they tell him to deal with them in anger management classes.
While this goes on, an army of pigs arrive onto their island, who plot to trick
the village and steal their eggs. Red sees through their ploy, and thus, he’s
the one leads the birds to steal the eggs back. And don’t worry, I’m not
spoiling anything from the movie, because they show you the entire plot of this
movie in the trailers. This shows us that: 1) trailers spoil too much of films
now; and 2) you’re not missing much with this film.
After
viewing the film, did this film manage to prove me wrong about what I saw about
the trailers? Yeah it did…the film was actually worse than what I saw from the
trailers. This is an example a film that does not know when to shut up. There
is hardly a moment of atmosphere that is built, no moment of quiet, nothing like
that. It’s just constant noise, like if they don’t throw in a stupid joke in
every scene, then they’re going to lose the children’s attention. That’s not
only an insult to the kids watching this, but any kind of audiences that it
gathers, because it treats them like idiots.
As for the humor they
throw at you, it’s not even that funny. Hell, throughout the entire run of the
film, I think I only laughed about three times in the entire run of the film. I
will give credit, I did not expect a pedophile joke and an orgy joke to be in a
film like this…oh yeah, that happens. Aside from that, the rest of the humor
they throw at you is just awful and uncomfortable. For example, you know that
scene in the trailer where they swim in that pool and react to the eagle
pissing in it? Yeah, that goes on for a FULL…MINUTE. And not only have that,
but they even showed the urine trail…ugh. Also, did I mention this film Rick
Rolls us? ...That’s not a joke, they literally play “Never Gonna Give You UP”
in the film.
Then we
have my biggest problem with the film: almost all of the characters are
unlikable assholes to our main character. I mean, I could probably understand
it if he was acting like a dick to them, but while watching the film, his
actions are completely justified, because everyone else in his village is a
complete asshole to him, even when he was just a kid. They even address that he
purposely built his house on the beach outside of town, and yet, no one stopped
him. I would too, if I was stuck on an island with some of the most unlikable
douchebags you could ever imagine. Even at the end when they rebuild his house
in the village, I was like “Why would he want that, after all they’ve done to
him?” Hell, I’m surprised Red didn’t do an “I told you so dance,” when the
village was raided of eggs, because that would have totally been reasonable. Same
goes for the pigs in this film. For a group of thieves that want to suck up to
the birds to gain their trust, they really don’t put much effort in earning Red’s
trust. They even wreck his house, and don’t even try to half ass an apology to
try and cover it up. Again, completely justified actions.
So
aside from what I’ve said so far…does the film have any merit to it? Yeah, but
only two things. For one, the animation is fairly good. It’s nothing ground-breaking,
but it did look like something that belonged in theaters. It’s colorful, it’s
fast paced, and has some good detail to it. And the other good thing about it
was the voice acting. Jason Sudekis, Josh Gad, Danny McBride, Maya Rudolph,
Peter Dinklage, Keagan-Michael Key, Sean Penn, Kate McKinnon, and Bill Hader do
give good voice performances, so I wasn’t just picturing actors in a booth. But
after all I’ve said, it doesn’t really do much.
Overall,
“The Angry Birds Movie” was pretty much what we expected it to be: a cash-grab
kids film with low-brow humor and unlikable characters. Despite what I say, it’s
most likely going to get a sequel, which I’m now dreading. It was a nice try to
make a story out of a mobile game, but trying and failing doesn’t get you that
many brownie points.
The
status of movies based on video games hasn’t had the best success. Since 1993,
after the debut of the first video game movie, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,”
most adaptations have been…well, bad. The only rare miracles that we’ve had
were “Mortal Kombat (1995)” and maybe a couple others that I may not know
about. However, with 2016 putting three video game movies (and a mobile phone
game movie) in theaters, there might be a chance of the video game movie curse
finally breaking. And we have our first film to take that test, “Ratchet &
Clank.”
Now
let me be clear, I’m not really an expert on the “Ratchet & Clank”
franchise, especially compared to some of my friends. To be fair, I have played
a couple of the games in the series, so I do have a general idea of the
characters, world, and the tone that they’re known for. When it was announced
that feature film was being made based on the franchise, I was hesitant, mostly
because it was being done by Rainmaker studios. What have they done? Well,
they’ve done shows like “Reboot,” “Transformers: Beast Wars,” but they’ve also
dabbled into film with “Escape from Planet Earth” back in 2013. If you’ve never
seen that film, it’s complete shit. But first, let’s dive into the story.
When
planets are being torn apart one by one by an evil organization known as the
Blarg, the Galactic Rangers are looking for new recruits to help them in their
fight against them. Ratchet, a Lombax mechanic, longs to join the fight and do
something exciting with this life. His chance comes to him, in the form of a
defect robot of the Blarg, who Ratchet calls Clank. Soon the two team up and
become part of the Rangers, as they embark on a fight to save the universe.
Was
this film good? Much to my delight, it was. For starters, the animation was
definitely an improvement over “Escape from Planet Earth,” capturing both the
look of the games and the atmosphere and tone that they’re known for. It’s very
cartoony, but it never tries to draw away from any moments that are action
packed and serious. I especially loved the action scenes that showcase the
variety of weaponry that the games are known for, ranging from the basics to complete
overkill. Plus, with the film maintaining the games’ sense of humor, I also
love how the film managed to work in a few references into other Playstation
franchises, including the boot-up sound of the Playstation 1. That got a real
big laugh out of me.
The
voice cast was actually pretty good too. I was really glad to see that the film
decided to bring on James Arnold Taylor, David Kaye, and Jim Ward, to come back
and reprise their roles as Ratchet, Clank, and Qwark, because you can’t really
picture anybody else as those characters. This is especially true for Ratchet
and Clank themselves, because Taylor and Kaye really embody these characters
inside and out. The friendship these two share, the cooperation they have on
missions and in general, it all flows really damn well with these two. And Jim
Ward’s work as Qwark is absolutely delightful to watch, being the kind of egotistical
superstar that we’ve seen before, but Ward makes it sound very fun to listen
to. As for the rest of the cast, I thought they did a good job. Despite being
an onscreen cast, with Sylvester Stallone as the Blarg’s strongest soldier,
Paul Giamatti as the chairman of the Blarg, John Goodman as Ratchet’s mentor,
and Rosario Dawson and Bella Thorne as other members of the Galactic Rangers,
they all manage to deliver great voice performances. I think most of that
effort comes from having the legendary Andrea Romano on board as the voice
director. Trust me, whenever you’ve got Andrea Romano working as the voice
director of anything animation, the effort is brought up by 30%.
My
only real big complaint with the film was with the villains. I mean, don’t get
me wrong, Paul Giamatti as Chairman Drek and Armin Shimerman as Dr. Nefarious
were good, but I felt like Nefarious was underplayed a little bit in the film.
I would have liked him to get a bit more screen time, especially compared to
Drek’s camera moments. Just needed a better balance between the two.
The
film was written and directed by Kevin Munroe, best known for his work on the
2007 “TMNT” animated movie and “Dylan Dog: Dead of Night.” He really knows his
stuff when it comes to bringing to life some adaptations, and that couldn’t be
any truer than with this film. The fun and atmosphere that the “Ratchet &
Clank” games (as far as I know) are realized perfectly, and I’m seriously looking
forward to what he’ll bring with his “Sly Cooper” movie.
Overall,
“Ratchet & Clank” was a great deal of fun, and that’s saying a lot for a
video game movie. It may not be perfect, but I still ended up coming out of the
film with a big smile on my face. It makes me sad that this film tanked and got
panned so badly, because it certainly didn’t deserve to. If you missed your
chance to see it in theaters, definitely give it a watch when it comes out on
blu-ray.
Two
years ago, I talked about the raunchy comedy known as “Neighbors.” The film was
about a fraternity moving in next door to a couple with a new-born baby, and
they don’t get along. Despite me not being the biggest Seth Rogen fan, I found
myself enjoying the hell out of that film. Sure, the jokes were pretty sophomoric
and the dialogue wasn’t comedy gold, but what made it enjoyable was how much it
embraced how stupid it was. It is a silly concept, but with how dedicated everybody
was in it, it made it one of the most fun comedies that I sat through. Not only
that, but Zac Efron was really funny too, and his comedic timing with Rogen was
pretty well balanced, especially when the two are either talking drunk about
Batman or when they fight each other with self-made dildos.
When
a sequel was announced, I was a bit nervous. For starters, sequels to comedies
are a big coin toss, as you’d never know if they’d turn out good like with “22
Jump Street,” or like absolute dog shit like “Vacation.” Despite this, I
decided to give the sequel a chance.
“Neighbors
2: Sorority Rising” features our local couple, Mac and Kelly Rander, expecting
a second child, and trying to sell their house. However, things go south for
them, when a sorority, led by a girl named Shelby, moves in next door,
compromising their move. Now the couple, along with Teddy, go to war with the
sorority, in the same kind of shenanigans that we had from the first movie.
Now,
was the film good? Yeah, I had a lot of fun watching this film. Does it surpass
the original? In some ways, I’d say it does. Even if the film has a similar
premise to the original, it does feel different from its predecessor, and not
just because it’s a sorority instead of a fraternity. It does feel like a
continuation from where the previous film took off from, and it has a few added
twists that actually make some scenarios even funnier.
I love how it builds up
with Teddy working with the sorority to deny the truth, but then things turn
south for him when he tries to act like the grown-up that he’s supposed to be.
It really does show his character evolving with every step of the way. Seth
Rogen and Rose Byrne also share some good laughs as well, trying to keep things
civil as parents, but obviously being just as naïve and immature as the college
students they go up against. I especially love the scene where Efron and Rogen
are making hard boiled eggs, and just hearing the dialogue these two share
makes me laugh still.
However, the scene
stealer is Chloe Grace Moretz as Shelby, the leader of the sorority. I absolutely
loved her character in this movie, being a girl who wants to party, but not in
a disgraceful way that fraternities see as. The scenes with her and the rest of
the sorority had me laughing my ass off, because of how outlandish these girls were.
Whether it’d be sabotaging a tailgate to be the only pot sellers, having some
members dress up as Minions, or doing their chaotic pranks to get back at Mac
and Kelly, all had me laughing hysterically.
Now while I did find much
enjoyment from the film, there were a few problems that I did find. For one,
some of the humor is a bit of a stretch, and at times did make me groan at how
predictable it got. Like there’s a scene where the sorority tricks the couple
into having a fight, and Mac tries to look for Kelly, only to end up in Sydney,
Australia. It just felt a bit sitcom-ish for my tastes. Also, it felt like Mac
and Kelly didn’t have as strong of a story arc. I mean, when you compare it to
Teddy’s dealing with his best friend kicking him out, and Shelby trying to be
someone different from her high school life, Mac and Kelly’s arc kind of pales
in comparison. Not that it was bad, but it wasn’t as strong.
Overall, I still had a
lot of fun with “Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising.” Much like the previous film, it’s
outlandish and ridiculous in so many ways, but it still did what it needed to
do: It needed to be a fun comedy, and that’s what I got. If you liked the first
one, definitely give this film a watch.
Ever since the dawn of the 1970’s,
Susan Sarandon grew in popularity among the Hollywood scene, and is now
regarded as one of the most recognizable actresses for over forty years. Hell,
after “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” she’s appeared in at least one film every
one to two years since then, dabbling in films like “Lorenzo’s Oil,” “Speed
Racer,” “Dead Man Walking,” and “Thelma & Louise,” one of my all-time
favorite movies. Today, we’ll be taking a look at one of her newest dramatic
roles, “The Meddler.”
“The Meddler” tells the story of Marnie
Minervini, an aging widow who moves to L.A. to try and reconnect with her
daughter, Lori, in hopes of filling up the void in her life. While Lori isn’t
too keen with her mom latching onto her, Marnie finds herself helping out
a lot of other people who are in need of her assistance. This includes
orchestrating a lesbian wedding, taking an Apple store employee go to law
school, and giving a retired police officer the confidence he needs to talk
with her daughter.
Do any of you remember a film called
“Hello, My Name is Doris?” It came out earlier this year, with a similar theme
of elderly woman trying to cope with a loss and finding herself involved with
other people’s lives. The difference is that film felt like a lackluster
version of “American Beauty,” and it felt very uncomfortable to watch Sally
Field in a role this out of place. This isn’t the case with “The Meddler.” It
isn’t a film where we follow a woman, who hoards her mother’s old stuff, and
stalks her young hunky co-worker to the point of ruining his relationship with
his girlfriend. It’s just a small slice of life about a woman trying to find a
new purpose in life after her husband’s passing. Nothing more, nothing less.
Susan Sarandon does a marvelous job
as Marnie. Despite the harsh bumps in her life, she still remains optimistic
and is willing to throw a helping hand in, even if she barely knows the person.
She always has that welcoming presence to her that makes her so humble to anyone
who crosses paths with her. Rose Byrne also gives a good performance, playing
Marnie’s daughter, Lori. Despite feeling frustrated that her mother is a little
too involved in her life, she still feels a deep appreciation for her, and you
buy into the chemistry that these two have, as any mother-daughter relationship
would go. I also gotta give props to J.K. Simmons as Zipper, the retired police
officer and love interest for Marnie. While we all love to associate Simmons
for his rough and harsh performances in “Whiplash” and “Spiderman,” this film
helps showcase the more welcoming side that we don’t see as often. And much
like with Byrne, the chemistry shared with Sarandon is deeply touching, as they
both share a common bond of dealing with a daughter that’s frustrated with
them, but still knows that they care for them. Similarities tend to attract, I suppose.
Other cast members like Cecily Strong, Casey Wilson, Jason Ritter, Lucy Punch,
Jerrod Carmichael, and Michael McKean, all do great in their part to keep the
story going nicely.
The film was written and directed by
Lorene Scafaria, and I really applaud her work on this. While it doesn’t really
have an outrageous scenario as her last film, “Seeking a Friend for the End of
the World,” it didn’t really need it. It’s a touching love letter to any mother
who’s willing to put herself out for the sake of others, as well as take a few
chances in life while they still got time left.
Overall, “The Meddler” is a charming
little film that I’m glad I got the chance to see. With all the high-level
action blockbusters or grotesque vulgar comedies that fill the movie theaters
every now and then, it’s nice to get a film that’s charming and down to Earth.
And for what it gives, I was more than satisfied. If you get a chance to see
it, I highly recommend it.
The
“X-Men” film franchise has had some really big ups and downs during its run
over the years. It had some strong promise in the beginning, but as it went on,
it just seemed to be stuck in a slump where it just got worse and worse. With
how badly things were turning out for the franchise, along with Marvel Studios
building its empire up with each passing movie, it felt like 20th
Century Fox had either of two choices: sell the rights off to Marvel, or press
the reboot button and fix things up. They, of course, chose the latter, and in
2011 gave us “X-Men: First Class.”
When I
first saw “X-Men: First Class” in theaters, I found it very enjoyable,
especially when compared to the previous few entries. However, much like
“Captain America: The First Avenger” which came out the same year, “First
Class” is one of those films that I was liking more as I thought about it. I
loved the action scenes, I enjoyed the scenarios it presented, and the cast was
fantastic. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as the younger Charles Xavier
and Erik Lensherr were really damn good in their performances, and I’d say even
matched Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellan when they took on the roles. Originally,
this film was planned to be “X-Men Origins: Magneto,” which makes sense, since
most of the story does focus on Magneto’s character, but I guess they didn’t
want to remind people of “Origins: Wolverine.”
Three
years later, one year after “The Wolverine” hit theaters, the original director
of the first two “X-Men” films, Bryan Singer, came back to set everything right
with “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Not only did this fix all of the problems
that I used to have with “First Class,” but all of the problems that I had with
any of the other “X-Men” films prior. How? By simply wiping all of the previous
films out of canon with a brand new timeline. And unlike “Terminator Genisys,”
this film actually does it WELL! So for anyone who wants to get into this
franchise late in the game, all you could do is just watch “First Class” and go
right into “Days of Future Past,” and you’d be completely fine with it all.
Due to the
success of “Days of Future Past,” Bryan Singer decided to stay on board with
the series a little more, and give us what was teased in the previous film,
“X-Men: Apocalypse.” Now the main question is, did I like this movie? Yes, I
had a blast watching it. Do I think it’s as good as “First Class” or “Days of
Future Past?” Sadly, no. Why? Well, let’s dive in.
Ten years
after the events in “Days of Future Past,” Charles Xavier continues teaching
the young mutants attending his school, Magneto has gone into hiding in Poland,
and Mystique is out on her own once again. When a new enemy from the times of
the Pharaohs, En Sabah Nur aka Apocalypse, is resurrected, it’s up to the X-Men
to unite together and take on this powerful threat.
Ironically, this movie has a
line saying “At least we can all agree, the third one is the worst,” which I
get is a jab at “X-Men 3,” but it’s also true about this film, since it is
technically the third film in the reboot. And that’s where I do have some problems with the
film. The writing and direction, while good, aren’t nearly as strong as the
previous two films were. There are times that a certain part of the story won’t
be focused on for a while, and then after about twenty or thirty minutes, will
cut back to where that one left off. It tends to get a little unfocused in the
beginning, which does drag the pacing down quite a bit. However, once everyone gets to the sides they need to be on, the pace eventually picks up.
Another problem I have with
the film are the drastic tonal shifts. Whenever this movie wanted to add in
some humor into the story, while it was funny, the way it was worked it felt
really awkward and came out of nowhere. A prime example is when Charles uses Cerebro
to find Moira from “First Class,” and makes a flirty remark, right after an
earthquake. It doesn’t really have much effect, and a majority of those kinds
of moments do take up the film a bit. The only one that actually did get a
laugh out of me was when Apocalypse confronts Magneto in the warehouse factory
he works at, and Magneto responds with “Who the fuck are you?” Despite this
ruining a very dramatic moment, I did have a good laugh at that line.
I also didn’t really see much
value in half of the Horsemen. Sure, Magneto and Storm are good, and I’ll go
further into detail with them, but Angel and Psylocke were just underwhelming.
Angel, this time played by Ben Hardy, was just an angsty, drunk, douchebag that
doesn’t really have much character to him, other than he has a grudge against
Nightcrawler. That’s it. But at least that’s more character than I can say for
Psylocke, who has absolutely no character at all. Seriously, Psylocke does
almost NOTHING in this movie, and Olivia Munn looks so bored to be there. You
could have had a completely different “X-Men” character in the role, and it
wouldn’t have made a difference. Hell, you could have made Jubilee in the
position of one of the Horsemen, and I’d be totally fine with it. At least that
way she’d serve more of a purpose being in the movie…seriously, why was Jubilee
even in this movie?
Another big problem that
people seem to address was Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. Was she bad? No, she’s
been consistently good with her performances in these past few films. The problem
they discussed is that she doesn’t retain some of the values from “Days of
Future Past” in terms of the character. Instead of embracing the blue skinned
redhead look, she’s mostly looking like Jennifer Lawrence after a day of
shooting “Joy.” I heard that it might have been because she has an allergic reaction to the make-up
she was using, but if that’s the case, couldn’t you have used a substitute?
However, the scene that felt
the most unnecessary was the subplot where Colonel Stryker shows up. Don’t get
me wrong, I thought the scenes were very good, especially to the reveal of
Wolverine as Weapon X, but that whole subplot could have easily been cut out of
the entire film, and it wouldn’t have been any different. Sure, it was
cool to see Wolverine bring out the most carnage we’ve seen him give, and I
thought the scene with Jean calming him down was very touching, but it wasn’t really
necessary. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it hinted in “Days of
Future Past” that MYSTIQUE saved Wolverine, while disguised as Stryker? If so,
then why did he end up with Stryker afterwards? I don’t get it.
Now despite what I’ve said bad
about the film, there are some major redeeming qualities. For starters, James
McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto are still incredible
in their performances. The two’s chemistry, even when they’re not interacting in
the same scene together is still fascinating to watch. I especially got
attached to Magneto’s side of the story, trying to escape the life he’s known
for and live happily with his new family, only to let fate take it all away
from him. That scene in the forest, with how good the acting was and the
direction it went, it makes my heart drop every time I think about it.
Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse did
a pretty good job, taking a villain that we thought wasn’t intimidating, and
making him a very harsh threat to deal with. Sure, he may be another villain
like Ultron, where he wants to extinguish humanity in order to cleanse the
Earth, but he still handles the role with dignity. The scenes that he shares
with Charles are especially menacing, as we witness his extraordinary powers
both physically AND mentally. If they had anyone else in this role, it would
not be nearly as good as it was here. Also gotta give props to Alexandra Shipp,
who nails her performance as Storm. While Halle Berry certainly tried, Shipp
put the most effort into her work as Storm, complete with her accent and all.
That, and she does showcase herself as a very powerful fighter, more so than
any of the other two Horsemen.
As for the cast that plays the
younger X-Men, I thought they were all pretty damn good. Tye Sheridan, Sophie
Turner, and Kodi Smit-McPhee, as Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Nightcrawler did
fantastic jobs as these characters. With them made into teenagers in the 1980’s,
there was a lot more fun to be had with these characters that we never did get
before in any of the previous movies. With the chemistry that they shared on
screen, it kind of reminded me of “X-Men: Evolution,” which was the X-Men
cartoon that I grew up on. Seeing these characters made younger, but still
taking on the same tasks that the X-Men are known for, it all made me feel like
a kid watching that show and see it come to life on the big screen. Much like
the previous two film, this film felt like I was watching an “X-Men” movie.
The action scenes were also
pretty damn impressive, easily the best ones in the entire “X-Men” franchise.
The climax, especially, felt satisfying to sit through, because of how much was
truly at stake and how bigger things were getting with each passing minute.
Overall, while “X-Men:
Apocalypse” could have been better, I still thought the rest of the film was
deeply satisfying. And I know I might get a lot of hate for saying this, but I definitely
liked this better than “Captain America: Civil War.” Sure, that film may have
the stronger script, but when I look at both films as a whole, “X-Men:
Apocalypse” had the stronger direction, action scenes that feel more in place
with the film, a climax that felt satisfying, and, of course, a much better
villain (Zemo sucks).
In 1984,
Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman released the mirage comic, “Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.” It told the story of four baby turtles who fell into the sewers and
were exposed to a canister of toxic ooze. Along with their master, Splinter,
the turtles grew in size and were taught by their sensei the art of ninjutsu,
and take a stance protecting the city of New York from the Shredder and the
Foot Clan. It sounds ridiculous, but the comic was meant to be a parody on
comic book characters and storylines to begin with. But much to everyone’s
surprise, the comic caught like wildfire. With the success catching on, Laird
and Eastman eventually signed the rights over to allow it to become a toy
franchise, cartoons, and eventually, motion pictures.
The
original “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” movie was released in 1990, during the
height of the Ninja Turtles popularity, courtesy of the cartoon series that was
airing at the time. While it does borrow elements of the cartoon, with the
different color headbands, the pizza, and the personalities, the movie focused
more on the darker elements from the comic, and for the most part it works.
Surprisingly enough, almost everything about this film was done independently,
as the people who worked on it couldn’t find a studio to help fund it, until
New Line Cinema came in to help distribute the film in theaters. To this day,
it still remains the best film based on the “Ninja Turtles.”
In 1991,
the public was given “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze.”
After the parents complaints about the last film having too much cursing and
violence, the tone was drastically different from the last film. The turtles
don’t use their weapons as much, the dialogue got a bit corny, and of course,
there’s the infamous dance scene with Vanilla Ice. It’s not that good of a
movie, but I still find enjoyment in its goofy nature.
The third
film, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Turtles in Time,” was released in
1993, and was a complete and utter farce of itself. The dialogue was worse, the
costumes looked awful, the story was idiotic, and it was the least
action packed out of all of them. The less said about it, the better.
Many years
after the original cartoon ended and a new animated series produced by 4Kids
Entertainment brought the heroes in a half shell back into mainstream
popularity, we saw the release of a new CGI animated film in 2007, simply
titled “TMNT.” Written and directed by
Kevin Munroe, the new film told a new kind of story, involving the turtles going
up against the Foot Clan (led by Shredder’s daughter, Karai), an army of
monsters from thousands of years ago, and their immortal leader. While it never
really caught on like it should have, the film has gained a massive cult following
and stands as my second favorite “Ninja Turtles” film. But because the film
wasn’t as big of a success as it should have been, any plans of a sequel were
canned.
Once
again, as the 4Kids series wrapped up, the rights to the “Ninja Turtles” were
sold to Nickelodeon, in hopes of starting up another new series, as well as a
brand new film franchise…there was just one big problem: Platinum Dunes. Yes,
the new film series was going to be in the hands of Platinum Dunes, the company
run by Michael Bay, that’s best known for working on the “Transformers” film
franchise and remakes of classic horror films that have been…we’ll say, “less
than stellar.” The production of this series has led to some questionable
halts, such as the decision to make the Turtles aliens instead of mutants,
production of the film being shut down at one point, an early draft of the
script getting leaked online, the release date getting pushed back constantly, and
of course, the casting controversies.
I stated in my “Top 15 Worst
Films of 2014” that I purposefully didn’t go see the movie when it came out in
theaters. Not just because I was upset about what I just said, but because I
was going through a period of depression, to where I didn’t want to go
and make myself upset even more by seeing a film that I had low hopes for. I
eventually got around to seeing the film online for free, about a year later,
and…it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a
terrible movie, easily the worst “Ninja Turtles” movie I’ve seen thus far, and
if I did see this when it came out, it would have been on my list of worst
films without hesitation. I’m saying there were some elements that I actually
did find alright. For starters, I thought Megan Fox as April O’Neil was fine.
She definitely tries to make this performance likable, being the eager
journalist who wants to be taken seriously by her management, and they did give
her more to do in this story, so I can give her credit for that. Even the actors playing the Turtles were good too. They got their personalities
down and definitely do act like how they’re supposed to. I also thought it was
a clever idea to make the Turtles April’s pets when she was a kid, furthering
their bond with one another…that’s about all I can say that I liked about the
film. Everything else, was pretty much how I’d expect it to be. First off, the
Turtles are way too big; they look like the little kid version of Eric Bana’s
Hulk. Seriously, how do they even move around with all that
mass? I can understand Raph, but the rest of them makes it look weird. The
action scenes are also very sloppy to look at, and half of the time you can’t
even tell what’s going on, unless you’re at a distance. Will Arnett as Vernon
Fenwick was annoying as hell and shouldn’t have been focused on as much. Splinter
and Shredder’s backstory was completely prison-raped, by making Splinter also
April’s pet and learning his teachings from a book about ninjutsu, so there’s
no Hamato Yoshi or any real rivalry between the two. Originally, William
Fichtner was casted as Shredder, but because of the backlash to this,
they added scenes of some random evil looking Asian guy in the movie with him.
Even if it wasn’t racially accurate, Fichtner’s character being the Shredder
would have at least made sense and given us some kind of rivalry. But the
biggest offender to me, was that the film is a complete rip-off of “The
Amazing Spiderman” movies. BOTH OF THEM! Here’s what I mean: protagonist’s
father worked for villain’s facility and was killed, main villain’s plan is to
release a toxin over the city from a skyscraper, a final battle takes place
where the tower falls down toward the city, and the villain wants to use the
blood of our hero(es) for his own reasons! No denying it, it’s “The Amazing
Spiderman,” only done completely half-assed and without any heart or respect.
Despite all the criticisms
that people have made, the film was still successful at the box office,
grossing almost half a billion dollars. Because of this, a sequel was put into
production. As you could imagine, I wasn’t looking forward to it, because I
figured it was going to be much of the same kind of bullshit as the first film.
Hell, when they were going from the director of “Battle Los Angeles,” Jonathan
Liebeman, to Dave Green, the director of “Earth to Echo,” my expectations were
lowered significantly. But after a couple of trailers and seeing a glimpse of
what the film was going to showcase, I decided to give the film a chance and be
open-mined about it. So what did I think of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out
of the Shadows?” Well, let’s look at the story.
A year after the events of the
first film, April informs the Turtles that the Foot Clan and a scientist called
Baxter Stockman are planning to break the Shredder out of custody. The Turtles
take the call to stop them, but Shredder ends up getting away, and has a new
plan to take over the world, with a new partnership and his own mutant
henchmen.
Let’s start off with the
things that DIDN’T work. For starters, there are some massive inconsistencies
between films, such as the Foot Clan, for some reason, going from Black Ops to
actual ninjas. Sure, that’s fine that they corrected that, but they don’t
explain in the movie why that happened. Not even a line of exposition is given,
or anything like that. Shedder’s new actor, Brian Tee, doesn’t really share any
resemblance to the previous face of Shredder. In the previous film, the actor
who portrayed Shredder had burnt scars over his face and was bald, whereas in
this film, he’s got a few blade scars and hair. Was there something that
happened in between that we missed? Same thing with Karai. What was the purpose
of switching Minae Noji with Brittany Ishibashi? Hell, why even bother having
Karai in these movies to begin with? She barely does anything in these two
movies, she could have easily been written out of both of them and you’d have
the same damn movies. And that’s the sad part, because Karai is such a great character,
yet she’s reduced to being this stock henchwoman. If they had established that
during Karai’s taking over of the Foot Clan, she gathered new recruits, and
trained them to be ninjas, it would have been an easy problem to fix…but we
don’t get that.
Then we have the new villains
of the film, starting with Baxter Stockman. Now Tyler Perry’s performance, I’ll
get to later, but I have to ask…why didn’t the Foot Clan use Eric Sachs from
the last film? He had a stronger connection with them, he was involved in the
events of the last film, and he was an established villain. They don’t even
address what happened to him, or why the Foot chose Baxter Stockman instead. I
don’t get it.
Now let's talk about Krang. I know a lot of people
had an issue with Krang being revealed too soon in the trailers, but how the
film reveals him is an even bigger problem. Krang is only in two scenes in the
entire film, and his introduction scene, from the minute he started talking,
felt rushed. Instead of having his appearance being built up and kept in
mystery up until the climax, he shows up like we just had it not too long
ago. No build up, no atmosphere, no shock, it’s just “BOOM! Look, it’s Krang!
Ooh!” This is the first time that Krang is brought to film, and this is how
it’s treated. And trust me when I say the scene is the WORST exposition dump that
I have EVER seen in a movie. It’s just…ugh, I don’t even want to talk about it.
That, and you know the robot that Krang had in the cartoon that was also teased
in the trailers? Yeah, in the movie, it looks nothing like that. It just looks
like some generic metallic robot armor that could have been from ANY movie. Are
there any other scenes from the trailers that were cut from the actual movie
you’d like to share with us, Michael Bay?
Stephen Amell as Casey Jones,
I had a few problems with. While he did okay, showing the vigilante views of
Casey in some regard, as well as crack a few one lines, the way he acts is far from the Casey that we’ve known from other adaptations. Look at
Elias Koteas in the first and third movies. When I see that guy on screen, I
see Casey Jones, the hockey stick wielding vigilante that will feed lumber
to any lawbreakers that cross his path. When I look at Stephen Amell in the
film, I don’t see Casey Jones. All I think is “Oh hey, it’s B-Grade Chris O’Donnell's Robin.”
Also, a lot of the film’s
story is loosely based on the first season of the original cartoon, especially
with a plotline involving mutagen that can turn humans into mutants and vice
versa. Why does this bother me so much? Because, if they had the "Splinter is Hamato Yoshi" origin from the cartoon, that could have added to the Turtles
conflict of being accepted by society in the film! But we’ve already gave that
bullshit origin from the first film, so we can’t go that route, and I’m just
screaming in my head “Why?!!”
*deep breath*…okay…so with all
that I’ve said so far, were there things I liked about the film? Yes, there
was. Much like the last film, I did think Megan Fox did fine as April O’Neil,
showing us the journalist that would do anything to get the full story on
something, especially stuff that can be helpful to the Turtles. While I still
would have preferred someone else to play a young April, like perhaps Mae
Whitman (the current voice of April in the cartoon), I give credit to Fox for
trying.
As for the Turtles, the actors
portraying our four brothers were actually a lot better this time around. Not
only are their sizes toned down a bit, as well as their color palette, but I
did buy their bond as brothers, more so than the previous film. The dialogue
that they share did have me invested in them, from their one-liners to their
conversations about living in the sewers were very enjoyable. I loved how they
went through that storyline of possibly becoming human and being accepted among
society conflicts with who they are. Also, very proud of Pete Ploszek finally
getting to do both the motion capture AND voice of Leo; no Johnny Knoxville to dub him this time.
Also, Will Arnett was actually
more tolerable this time around. With him being asked to take credit for the
Turtles’ actions, he takes on this Hercule Satan-esque persona that I found to
be quite funny. That, and he does serve a significant amount of work in the
film, helping the gang out in many different scenarios. Thank you for that,
movie.
Going back to Baxter Stockman,
Tyler Perry’s performance was pretty enjoyable. He seemed like he was having a
lot of fun as this character. You can definitely see the glee in his eyes, like
he was just soaking every moment he was on screen. And he wasn’t the only one.
I am of course talking about the main thing that the trailers were pushing for:
Bebop and Rocksteady. Gary Anthony Williams and Stephen “Sheamus” Farrelly were
clearly having a blast with these roles, and I couldn’t help but have fun with
it too. Sure, they were more over-the-top than they should have been, but with
the kind of tone the film was giving us, I couldn’t help but have fun with
these two whenever they showed up. Hell, the two of them, along with Baxter
Stockman, felt more like villains than any of the other main baddies did.
I also got a big kick out of
some of the action scenes, which this time around are much better than the ones
in the last film. I felt the excitement that I was meant to have in the film,
from the freeway chase, to the battle on the river, and the climax on the
Technodrome were all fast paced and entertaining to watch.
So with all that I’ve said,
both good and bad, where do I stand on this film? Part of me really wants to
hate it for all the inconsistencies and missed opportunities, another part me
wants to enjoy it for its popcorn blockbuster sense of fun, and I’m
struggling to find a proper balance on what to conclude on. I’ve looked at many
people’s different takes on the film, and some stick to one of either side. So
I’ll say…it’s a mixed bag. A very, VERY, mixed bag. I’d say think about it, and
whatever conclusion you come to is completely fine with me.
