Kubo and the Two Strings

Laika studios has shown themselves to be a strong animation company, but also very underrated as well. While their films have showcased how excellent their animation has gotten with each passing film, their strongest aspect from where I see it, is their storytelling. While I wasn’t the biggest fan of their previous work, “The Boxtrolls,” their other two films, “Coraline” and especially “ParaNorman” were downright brilliant, because their style aided to how it told the story the whole way through. And the same can be said for their newest film, “Kubo and the Two Strings.”

The film tells of a young boy named Kubo, who lives in a cave in the mountain with his mother, hiding away from dark forces lead by his grandfather. He goes into town regularly to tell stories of a great warrior, until he is found after staying out late to try and communicate with his father. Now Kubo has to set out on a journey to find his father’s legendary armor, along with the help of a guardian monkey and a samurai beetle.

First off, the animation is absolutely spectacular, easily the best that Laika has delivered thus far. The way a lot of the paper moves, the designs of the characters, as well as the scenery is crafted so damn well. One thing that I love about Laika is that they’re not afraid to show off. The teaser trailer for “The Boxtrolls” shows snipets of how they get their film made, and they do the same with this film in the end credits on one particular moment. With the minimal budget they’re given, they somehow manage to keep putting forth more and more effort into the animation. I was especially impressed with the action scenes that this film pulled off, and how when it got violent, it wasn’t afraid to back down from it.

As I was watching this, the film reminded me a lot of “Samurai Jack.” Not because it’s a samurai story, but because of the way it tells its story. It has a lot of calm moments, letting the atmosphere soak in, and let the visuals tell the story to you. The calm nature of this film even transcends with the voice acting, as you can feel them keeping their tone of voice very laid back and quiet, and I just found that very refreshing. It especially impressed me, since most of the cast is consisting of on-screen actors. Sure, a few have done voice over roles, but for the rest, this is their first time taking on a role in animation, and they all do a magnificent job. The one that truly took me by surprise was Matthew McConaughey as the Beetle. While he does have a few moments that have that “alright, alright, alright,” to him, the rest of it is very toned down and reserved, fitting the nature of his character.

I also have to applaud this film for deeper themes that its story goes into, giving a proper balance for both kids and adults to enjoy on equal terms, much like what “Zootopia” did earlier this year. And even in its slow moments, the film never got dull. I was always entertained watching Kubo, Beetle, and Monkey interact and work off of each other, even if it was them having a meal. That, and I have to admit, the ending of this film really had me teary-eyed with how beautiful it was. I don’t want to go into spoilers, so go see the movie and find out what I’m talking about.

Guys, “Kubo and the Two Strings” is a wonderful work of art, and is definitely going to be among my favorites of the year. How high you may ask? We’ll wait and see. But like I said, go out and see the film in theaters. Support Laika’s films, because I would love to see more animated film like these, where it has so much depth and weight to it, than what people give it credit for.

Rating: 10/10

Nerve

            As we live in the generation, where mobile phone games are extremely popular, tv shows and movies being streamed are at high rise, and people are doing crazy shit on the internet to gain fame, it makes it a very interesting time to be alive. With how fast evolves and how differently it impacts each generation, it’s insane to see how far things go. When it comes to movies that are made for a specific generation at the time of its release, some end up being a product of their times, and one film that definitely feels like that is “Nerve.”

            Based on the Jeanne Ryan novel of the same name, “Nerve” is about a upcoming high school graduate, named Vee, who hasn’t really done much in terms of an exciting life, compared to her friend Sydney, who is currently a player in the game of Nerve, which is kind of an extreme truth or dare competition, only without the truth option. When Vee decides to take a chance and play Nerve, she ends up being roped into some extreme circumstances that she can’t back out of, unless she wins.

            With what I was seeing from the trailers, I didn’t think it was going to be much. It especially didn’t help it was being directed by the directors of “Paranormal Activity 3 & 4.” However, with the screenplay being written by Jessica Sharzer, who has worked on “American Horror Story,” I decided to give this a fair shot. And I’m really glad I made that decision.

“Nerve” is not only a damn good time, it’s easily one of my favorite films of the year. The different kinds of dares that these characters go through are absolutely insane, ranging from stuff like kissing a stranger for a few seconds, to something absurd like drive up to 60 mph while blindfolded. It’s an exciting thrill ride that has so much tension throughout its runtime, but it also keeps an insanely fun attitude with it, which is what I feel is the film’s strongest aspect. It’s a fun film to watch, and definitely one of the best times I’ve ever had at a movie, especially compared to some of the big disappointments I’ve had this summer.

Emma Roberts as Vee delivered a lot of energy in this role. She goes from a character that would normally be associated as the pretty girl next door, but with the right push and determination to prove otherwise, the boldness peaks out and shows no sign of retracting back. Dave Franco plays Ian, a former Nerve finalist with a personal agenda and fierce determination of his own. Throughout the film, you get the feeling like he’s constantly hiding something and you’re not sure if that secret is for the better or for the worse. Since a major focus of the film is Roberts and Franco competing together, you really grow to like them as a duo, much like the players of Nerve who send them dares do. Their chemistry, their energy, the quips they share, it’s all really enjoyable to sit through. While it does seem weird that they would be that close after one night, but considering the game gathers every bit of information about them (and I do mean, EVERYTHING), I can kind of let that go.

            Colson “Machine Gun Kelly” Baker plays Ty, a friend and Nerve rival of Ian’s. At first, you feel like the guy ends up being an antagonist, which he kind of is being involved with the game, but there is much more to his motivations, similar to Ian. Emily Meade as Sydney was very enjoyable to watch too. I like how she is our introduction to Nerve in this world, going from a simple conversation about it, to showing us a set example of what crazy shit to expect players to do. It’s also an interesting dynamic between her and Vee, when Vee becomes the hot shot and overshadows her, which does come to play in the film later on. Other cast members like Juliette Lewis as Vee’s mom, Miles Heizer, Kimiko Glenn, Samira Wiley, and Marc John Jefferies were very enjoyable to watch as well. We even get an appearance from Casey Neistat of "The Neistat Brothers," so that was pretty cool.

Another aspect I love about the film is its themes, where the watchers of Nerve that end up sending dares to people that are the real villains. Because of how far things go with this game and how dares are taken to too far extremes that satisfy them, it’s a unique reflection of our society today, especially in a generation where we tell people online to do something crazy or insane, and where millions of people are obsessed with games like “Pokemon GO.” Sure, it may have gotten a bit over-the-top during the climax, but considering it still kept the tension going throughout, it’s damn impressive.

Overall, I highly recommend “Nerve.” If you’re looking for a fun summer film to sit back and enjoy in the now, go and check it out. The cast is energetic, the direction is thrilling, the premise is very relatable, and an all-around fun time. Check this film out while you can, and enjoy the ride!

Rating: 10/10

Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

            While Marvel is reigning supreme with their live-action adaptations, DC has them beat in one format. That, of course, is in their animation department. For years now, DC has been keeping a relatively steady track record with their animated works, adapting stories that have never been fully adapted before. This year, they release one of their most highly anticipated and extremely ambitious works, “Batman: The Killing Joke.”

            Based on the Alan Moore comic, “Batman: The Killing Joke” shows us the Joker committing one the most physical and psychological crimes he’s ever done, all while presenting us his origin story of how he came to be. What made the project so anticipated, was that it was the first of the DC animated works to get an “R” rating. Considering the kind of material presented in it, that would make sense. But what added to the hype were three big names: Bruce Timm, Kevin Conroy, and Mark Hamill. Yes, the man who brought us the DC animated universe, and the two who played Batman and the Joker, reuniting for this big project. With all the hype the film was getting, it reached the point where Fathom Events decided to give this film a limited theatrical release.

            So, does the animated adaptation of “The Killing Joke” live up to all of the anticipation? Well…sadly, no. Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy the film, but there are some big problems that I do have with it.

            Some parts of the animation tended to drop in some places. At times it’s really good, but other times you’ll notices it be sub-par with the rest of the film. I understand that this was originally direct-to-video, but so was “Mask of the Phantasm” back in 1993, and it still looks absolutely gorgeous today. Or hell, look at “Under the Red Hood” or “The Dark Knight Returns,” both which are direct-to-video, but the quality in animation is significantly stronger. The film’s pacing was also a bit off, as the film’s first half composed of a new original story involving a crime boss interested in Batgirl, with the second half being “The Killing Joke” comic. The two halves feel like completely different movies and the transition between the two doesn’t really feel natural. I understand that they wanted to give Batgirl more character and give Batman a stronger motive to go after the Joker this time around, but I felt like the first half could have done in a much stronger way. Also for a film that received an R rating, especially an animated Batman film, I kind of wished they went a little bit further with it. If anything, the stuff we see here is no more risqué than anything in “Batman Returns” or “The Dark Knight.”

            With what I’ve said, does the film have any redeeming qualities? Of course it does. When the film does focus more on “The Killing Joke,” the quality of the film does pick up immensely. One of the main aspects that made this story so iconic was it giving us the Joker’s backstory, something that heavily inspired Tim Burton’s film back in 1989. It made us sympathize with what kind of person the Joker was, and how the path he was led upon was all for the good of others he cared about. It’s a sad tale of a broken man turned mad after one bad day. That, and the imagery brought to life by animation is done really damn well. The shocking photos during the carnival ride, the deadly stare and laugh as the Joker is first created, it really captures these moments wonderfully.

            Also, the voice acting is really damn good. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill still have that magic they carried with them since 1992. The way these two carry these lines is music to my ears, not once feeling like one overshadows the other. In my mind, I feel like this was a proper transition into adulthood when it comes to Batman. Starting off as a child watching “Batman: The Animated Series,” then a teenager playing the “Arkham” video games, and then as an adult with an animated adaptation of “The Killing Joke,” especially with Conroy and Hamill as our hero and villain. Voice actors or not, these two ARE Batman and the Joker. I was especially glad to hear Tara Strong reprising her role as Batgirl from “The New Batman Adventures.” While there were some…*ahem*…“questionable” things to be said about her character in the first half in terms of her character, Tara’s performance as the character is still fantastic to listen to. As for the supporting cast, I thought they did really well too. I enjoyed Ray Wise as Commissioner Gordon, I thought Robin Atkin Downes was a good Detective Bullock, and the appearances by Kari Wahlgren, Nolan North, John DiMaggio, Fred Tatasciore, and others were good too.

            So overall, do I recommend “The Killing Joke” adaptation? Yeah, I'd say so. I don’t think this was the best film to receive a theatrical release, but if you decide to rent it or it pops up on Netflix, then I’d say give it a watch. The first half may not be that great, but the second half is totally worth it. I mean, it’s definitely better than “Batman V Superman.”

Rating: 7/10

Ghostbusters (2016)

            The 1980’s had some of the most memorable franchise to fill up pop culture. It gave birth to some of the most memorable characters, movies, tv shows, anything you can name. Some franchises have come and gone with the 80’s, but there have been others that have stood the test of time. And one of those major franchises is “Ghostbusters.”

            The original 1984 film about a group of scientists coming together to tackle New York’s evolving ghost problems still remains not only one of the best films of its time, but one of the greatest films of all time. It manages to combine elements of action, comedy, and horror, all into one neat little package, and a lot of it stems from how they got all of the right pieces to come together. Ivan Reitman as director, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis as writers and co-stars, and other talents such as Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, and Ernie Hudson put together in this one film, and it payed off excellently. There were comics, video games, toy sales, and to top it all off, an awesome seven season cartoon. All of that spawned from a film like this. Sure, it may not have the best effects or jokes back then, but with what it did have back then, it takes full advantage of it and runs with it so damn well. It’s still remembered thirty years later, and there’s a good chance it will still be remembered thirty years after.

            Now when it comes to making a follow-up, trying to recapture the same amount of appeal and charm a second time would be like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. And if you don’t believe me, just watch “Ghostbusters II.” This is a prime example of a film with “sequel-itis,” where it’s made completely based on the success of the first film, and it retreads a lot of the same plot points and themes as the first film, as a way of saying “Remember that from the first movie? Here it is again!” It’s been a running Hollywood money maker since the late 70’s, and “Ghostbusters” is guilty of being part of it as well. Sure, there are some moments that do stand out, but it’s more or less the same movie. Its fine for what it is, but doesn’t have as much appeal as the first film.

             Talks of a third film have been circulating for over twenty years, but a lot of obstacles have kept it from being what it needed to be. Drawbacks like Rick Moranis retiring from acting, Bill Murray not wanting to do a third film, scripts from Sony being dropped, and the biggest one being the passing of Harold Ramis back in 2014. It seemed like we would never see a third installment of the “Ghostbusters” film series.

            However, talks of a third installment came up again, but things were different. This time, it was announced that an all-female “Ghostbusters” was in works, and it would not be in relation to the original two films. These two things popping up didn’t settle in well with people, and by the time the trailers were released earlier this year, EVERYBODY went to fucking war with each other. I mean, the kinds of things that people were saying about the trailers alone has gotten so out of hand, from people making comments about it being feminist propaganda, to people calling the haters sexist and racist, countless videos of people complaining about the people who were complaining about the trailers, it’s become such a mess. And it was all for a movie that hadn’t even come out yet.

            Before I get into this “controversial” movie, let me start off with a warning: if any of you people have a problem with what I say about this movie, that doesn’t equate to your thoughts of extreme left or extreme right, then I suggest you choose one of these options:

A)    Leave and find some other douche bag that shares your opinion better

B)     Finish reading what I have to say with a grain of salt, then kindly move about your day like a normal human being.

Seriously people, it’s just a movie. Calm the fuck down and stop throwing a temper tantrum…anyways, let’s get on with the plot.

            In recent events of ghosts popping up in our world, Professor Erin Gilbert reunites with her old friend, Abby Yates, to look into the matter further, along with Abby’s new partner, Jillian Holtzmann, and native New Yorker, Patty Tolan. As further evidence of the paranormal pops up, along with suspicious pattern activity, it’s up to the four of them to figure out who is behind this plan, as the Ghostbusters.

            Now that we got the plot out of the way, let me discuss what I didn’t like about the movie. For starters, the easter eggs this film throws at us got really distracting. There are constant nods that reference the original films, which I get are nice treats to the fans, but modern moviegoers who’ve never seen the original won’t really get. And it’s not just with little lines here and there, but also cameos from some of the original actors, and all they do is just pause the movie. Sure a couple of them were fine, but they still take my focus off of the movie. There were also some characters that felt like the most obvious stereotypes you could think of: the hunky dumb male, the awkward creepy speaking chubby guy, the doubtful snooty professional, the “Jaws” mayor, the district attorney that wants everything kept under, and the screaming black lady. I mean, sure the original film had stereotypes too, but there was at least some subtlety to them.

            Also, my biggest problem with the film is that it isn’t scary. What made the original “Ghostbusters” so damn memorable was how it manages to blend horror and comedy so damn well. There are dozens of moments that still send chills down my spine, from the librarian scaring the group away to Dana’s Zuul voice. With this film, while there are a few jumps, it doesn’t really set a horror like tone. It’s always comedy and action, with a slight hint of horror.

            So, with all that I’ve addressed, what did I like about the film? Despite the stereotyping, I thought the cast did a good job with what they were given. While I thought Chris Hemmsworth’s character was dumber than he needed to be, he handled it really well and really made me laugh, much like his performance in the first “Thor” movie when he first comes to Earth. He has a good sense of timing and delivery, so hopefully we’ll see him do more comedy in the future. Other cast members like Cecily Strong, Andy Garcia, Matt Walsh, Michael K. Williams, Karan Soni, and even Bill Murray do a fine job with what they’re given. And as for the action scenes and effects, I thought they were fine too. Nothing special, but they do feel serviceable to the film, and when things got tense, I felt the tension as it happened. That’s one thing I have to give Paul Feig credit for, he knows how to do action comedies pretty damn well, especially after “The Heat” and “Spy.”

            As for the Ghostbusters, I thought the main four did a good job, since a “Ghostbusters” film needs strong leads for it to work. I thought Kristen Wiig did well as Erin Gilbert, being a character who has her past come back to haunt her (no pun intended), but then re-embracing that passion fully when her theories were true. She handles the no-nonsense role of the group with ease, making her the most sympathetic of the group, but still getting an even amount of laughs. Melissa McCarthy as Abby was very fun to watch, being the one most invested in the paranormal, much like Ray Stantz was in the original. I can definitely see the traits, as McCarthy herself is a huge “Ghostbusters” fan, and did have Dan Aykroyd play her dad in “Tammy.” Even if Leslie Jones’ character of Patty Tolan was stereotypical, she gives her performance a sense of life and in no way bored me. I know a lot of people complained about her not being a scientist in the film, but…you people do remember that Winston wasn’t a scientist either, right? Just saying.

            However, if there was one person who stole the show, it was Kate McKinnon as Jillian Holtzmann. Not a moment went by where she didn’t have me laughing my ass off at her shenanigans and quick little quirks. Her fascination with ghosts, her mad scientist nature, and her quips towards the others, everything about her just made me smile when she came onscreen. You take one look at her in this movie, and you can tell that she’s giving it her all and having fun with every second of it. Hell, I’d say the movie is worth checking out for her performance alone.

            Overall, where do I stand with the new “Ghostbusters?” While I do understand why people wouldn’t like it, it in no way deserves THAT level of hatred. But I do agree that it isn’t as good as hoped. If you’re curious about it, I’d say wait to rent it. If it doesn’t appeal, then (here’s a crazy thought) don’t watch it. For me, I have somewhat the same feelings with this film as I did with “Batman V Superman”: I thought it was okay. And if you don’t agree, tough shit.

Rating: 6/10

Pet Story...or The Secret Life of Pets

            With the success that Disney and Pixar have had over the past few decades, rival companies have spawned their own animation companies to try and take in the big bucks as well. Since 1998, Dreamworks has been their strongest foe, especially since they were the ones to win the first Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Blue Sky, while did an excellent job with “The Peanuts Movie,” are still treading behind, relying too heavily on the “Ice Age” franchise in order to stay relevant.

This leads us to Illumination Entertainment, the CG animation studio owned by Universal, which gave us the “Despicable Me” franchise, allowing the studio to get a good spot in the animated film market. Some have turned out good, but they’ve also turned out a couple duds too. Last year, they gave us “Minions,” a prequel spin-off that, while not a terrible film, suffered from a flawed story, paper thin characters, and jokes that overstayed their welcome, especially with the marketing fatigue it gave me. Despite this, the film was a huge success, grossing over $1 billion at the box office, and Illumination followed these steps once again, with “The Secret Life of Pets.”

The film centers on a dog named Max, who absolutely loves his relationship with his owner, Katie. When Katie brings home a big dog, named Duke, this upsets Max, leading to him and Duke to a rivalry that leads to the two of them losing their collars, and going on a crazy adventure through New York, all while getting chased by animal control and rejected pets who live in the sewers.

Let me start off by saying the animation is really damn good. It’s got nice popping colors, it’s fast paced, the scenery is gorgeous, and with it being a film about pets, each of the characters designs and little quirks do differ from one another. What really set Illumination on the map was how well they do their animation and how a lot of what you see is pretty sharp. The visual gags are especially well detailed, giving off of the feel of a Warner Bros cartoon from the Golden Age. That, and the soundtrack composed by Alexandre Desplant is excellent. Every scene has a nice tune to mix well with the mood, allowing the tone to really settle in.

Some of the side characters were enjoyable to watch. Each of them have their own little quirks, some moments to shine, and they do manage to get a decent laugh out of me. My favorite side character was Tiberius, a hawk that the Pomeranian dog, Gidget, befriends in the film. From his ominous introduction scene, he managed to get the most laughs out of me, especially with his running gag about trying to eat other critters, but restraining himself in the background, mostly by Gidget’s offer of friendship. That, and the way Albert Brooks delivered his lines added to the fun of this character, giving him a sinister but playful tone. The more I think about it, it makes me wish he played Kaa in “The Jungle Book (2016)” instead.

I also thought the voice acting was pretty good, as all of the cast members do a fairly good job, delivering these lines like it was actually from the characters, instead of thinking it was from an actor in a booth. Jenny Slate as Gidget, Albert Brooks as Tiberius, Bobby Moynihan as Mel the pug, Dana Carvey as Pops, the paralyzed old hound, Lake Bell as Chloe the fat cat, Hannibal Buress as Buddy, the wiener dog, Steve Coogan as a sphynx cat, and even veteran voice actress, Tara Strong, as Sweet Pea the parakeet, all did a good job with these characters. Hell, we even get cameos from Laraine Newman and John Kassir as two different owners, so that was pretty cool.

Despite this, the rest of the film doesn’t sit very well. While the side characters do have their moments, they’re very few and far between, and the rest of the time with them isn’t that interesting. It’s kind of like throwing darts: sometimes you’ll get closer to the center, but other times you won’t even hit the board at all. That, and there were some moments of quick convenience that come out of nowhere, especially in the third act, where suddenly Gidget comes to the rescue, while the other side characters idly stand by. This brought up the question, was the really a purpose to having these characters tag along with Gidget? Hell, Tiberious and Pops are the only ones that truly served a purpose to helping her out in the entire film.

You might have noticed that I’ve put a lot of focus on the side characters, and that’s because the main storyline with Max and Duke is the worst part about the movie. For starters, the plot is about one character loving his relationship with his guardian, and then another character comes into their lives, the two don’t get along, get lost, and have to find their way back home. If this sounds familiar, it should, because it’s a rip-off of “Toy Story,” only with pets. Sure, there have been other stories like this that have done the whole “two characters get lost and learn to get along while on this journey” trope before, but “Toy Story” is the example I’m going to go with. The biggest difference I got out of this was that while Woody and Buzz started off being jerks to one another, it wasn’t malicious or anything like that, and they established that a good amount of time had passed for this jealousy to develop. That, and the two still managed to be likable throughout the course of the film. The only time things went overboard is when Buzz got knocked out the window, but even then it was done by accident. With Max and Duke, not only was their rivalry immediate and completely full of enmity, but neither of them were likable to watch. Whenever these two showed back up on screen, I didn’t care what happened to either of them, even if they had scenes of getting along, like in their sausage party (yeah, that happens), or trying to get sympathy out of the other, like with Duke’s backstory. I’ll give credit to Louis C.K. and Eric Stonestreet for trying to make them watchable to their best advantage, but with the way the script portrays them, as far as I’m concerned, they both deserve to be put down.

As for the villainous rabbit, Snowball…look, I have nothing against Kevin Hart, okay? I’m sure he’s a nice guy in real life, and from some of the stand-up I’ve seen him do, he can be really funny. But man, this character was just boring to sit through. All he does is act crazy and scream, that’s it. There’s nothing that really stands out as an actual joke, aside from that running gag where he shouts out to his comrade who passed away, and it pans over to the friend’s picture. While he is more watchable than Max and Duke, I still did not give a shit about him.

Overall, I don’t recommend this movie. In fact, I’m going to go as far as to say this is Illumination’s worst film. Despite the occasional funny moments with the side characters, great animation and score, the rest of the film just brings it down to the point where it falls flat on its ass and doesn’t bother to get up. It’s not the worst animated film I’ve seen this year *coughAngryBirdscough*, but that’s not really saying much. If you liked it, more power to you; as for me, it’s very lackluster.

Rating: 3/10

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

            When it comes to Disney Channel stars of the previous decade, Zac Efron has been one that has made the right career move. After gaining a pretty lackluster reputation with “High School Musical,” he’s been able to turn himself around with better projects, particularly in comedy. Earlier this year, he’s had two films released, “Dirty Grandpa” and “Neighbors 2,” both of which were raunchy and stupid, but they were just so enjoyable. Whatever Efron’s character was, whether it was an uptight guy getting married, or a former frat boy transitioning into reality, he’s able to take them and have them be so much fun to watch. It shows that he’s found his forefront, and that point is made further, with “Mike & Dave Need Wedding Dates.”

            In this film, Adam Devine and Zac Efron play Mike and Dave Stangle, two brothers who are in the liquor selling business, and are notorious for ruining family gatherings. When the time comes for their little sister, Jeanie’s wedding in Hawaii, they’re told to bring dates to the occasion, and so they go public with it. This results in them bringing two misfit girls: Tatiana and Alice. And from there on out, it becomes chaos.

Much like with “Dirty Grandpa” and the “Neighbors” movies, I had such a good time at “Mike & Dave Need Wedding Dates.” I’ve seen the film twice now, and both times I was laughing my ass off at what was happening on screen. Coincidentally, the script for this film was written by two of the writers of “Neighbors,” Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, so that might explain why both those films and this one have such similar tones. Honestly, I’d say this was funnier to sit through.

Adam DeVine and Zac Efron really sell it as the titular characters. Their constant energy and dialogue at almost every point of the film had me laughing, especially when the two are onscreen together. You really buy the two as brothers, especially when they work hard for the happiness of their little sister, yet are still very cocky doing it. They’re bad for each other, but they need each other. Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick as Tatiana and Alice were also hilarious in their performances, playing a duo of girls that value their friendship over anything else that happens in their lives. They also serve as somewhat parallels to Mike and Dave. Two really good buddies, one having deeper meaning and the other trying to lead the other for the duo's sake, that usually screw things up together, but the bond they have with each other is too strong to break. It may sound repetitive, but how it’s executed manages to flow nicely.

Not only that, but the supporting cast manages to work in some big laughs too. There’s a subplot involving Mike’s rival and cousin, played by Alice Wetterlund, where they try to one up each other at the wedding, to prove who has the more successful run. Basically it’s a “my dick’s bigger” kind of rivalry. Hell, even the bride and groom, Jeanie and Eric, manage to give out some really funny moments. With the kind of shit that they go through and how they work around it, from dealing with assumed affairs to getting smacked in the face at 80mph, it makes it all worth it when each of them has their meltdown. Also, if any of you thought Jeanie’s voice sounded familiar, it’s because she’s Stephanie “Sugar Lyn” Beard, the actress who played Mini Moon in the Dic Dub of “Sailor Moon”…that, and the baby carrots in “Sausage Party.” Other cast members like Stephen Root and Stephanie Faracy as the parents, Mary Holland as the overworked and unreliable Maid of Honor, and a cameo by Jake Johnson as Tatiana and Alice’s boss, were all really enjoyable.

            I have to admit, the times where the film tries to be dramatic, but also work in humor at the same time, tend to fall a little bit flat. The scenes in particular are when you think everything’s not going to happen, but then everyone has a realization that they screwed up, so they try to get everything back on track last minute. They weren’t bad, but they do tend to make the film slow down a little bit. Luckily, the film’s only an hour and a half long, so it’s not unbearable to sit through, but you get my point.

            Overall, is “Mike & Dave Need Wedding Dates” worth recommending? You’re damn right it is. Yes, it’s stupid, but it’s a fun kind of stupid. I had fun watching it twice now, and I’m looking forward to watching a third time when it comes out this weekend.

Rating: 9/10

Independence Day: Resurgence

            Twenty years ago, the summer blockbuster “Independence Day” hit theaters. Directed by Roland Emmerich, the film told of an alien race declaring war with humanity, and it’s up to the military forces and scientists of Area 51 to combat this threat. While nothing special, the film managed to be a massive hit at the box office, and at the time was the second highest grossing film of all time. It may not have been the smartest sci-fi blockbuster to come out, but what makes the film so memorable and loved by fans is the charisma and sense of fun that it has. Ever since then, there are people who will pop the film in and enjoy it for the popcorn film that it is.

            Talks of a sequel have been brewing around for so long, mostly because the film makers were trying so desperately to get Will Smith on board. However, with him asking for expensive payments, they decided to go ahead with the project without him. It’s sad, because this was among the three films that made him a blockbuster juggernaut to begin with, so you’d think he’d be up for a reunion. Oh well.

            And so, after twenty years, we now have the long awaited sequel to the mega-blockbuster hit. Was it worth the wait? I certainly think so. It may not be as good as the first film, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I had a good time with it.

            Twenty years after the invasion, humanity has been able to use the alien technology to advance their defenses, as well as unite them closer together. However, when they discover a distress call on one of the ships that was left, it’s revealed that more of them are coming, and a major key to winning is with another life form that comes to warn them. It does sound a little more farfetched than the last film, but considering the twenty year span in this world, it didn’t bother me that much.

            It’s really nice to see most of the cast from the first film make a return. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner, and others are still as good as they were in the first film. You can definitely see in their performances that they’re having fun with this, and that it’s a joy to finally be working on something that was teased at them for so long. And I thought how they were able to work off of the new cast members was done nicely. While it does make me sad that Will Smith couldn’t return, I thought Jessie Usher as his son was decent enough. The way his relationship with Liam Hemsworth’s character was investing, as Hemsworth is more reckless than he is, yet ended up with the girl from their flight squadron. It’s an interesting conflict between the two, but it does work, especially since their storyline is what we focus on during the war.

            I also loved the relationship with Bill Pullman and his daughter, who is a pilot and Hemsworth’s fiancé, as you have a daughter wanting to make sure her dad’s in good health, yet Pullman’s the one wanting her to see a future for Earth more. My only complaint with it, was with the casting of the daughter. Don’t get me wrong, Maika Monroe is excellent, but I would have loved to have seen the daughter from the first movie reprise her role, who by the way was played by Mae Whitman. Yeah, Katara was Pullman’s daughter in the first movie. Kind of surprised I didn’t realize that sooner.

            As for the action scenes and effects, I had so much fun watching them. Sure, they might have the same kind of tension as they did with the first film, trying to go for the whole “bigger, badder, and better” attempt, but I still thought what I got was satisfying. I still got pumped for what was going on, especially during the climactic battle with the alien mother queen and her last swarm.

            Overall, while not as good as the first, I still think “Independence Day: Resurgence” is a film worth recommending. It’s got great action, likable characters, high tension, and an overall sense of fun. It’s a fun blockbuster that I’m proud to say that I loved. I mean, it’s still miles better than that god-awful “Warcraft” movie.

Rating: 8/10