The BFG (2016)

            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.

Rating: 7/10

Finding Dory

            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.

Rating: 8/10

Warcraft (2016)

            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.

Rating: 1/10

The Angry Birds Movie

            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.

Rating: 1/10

Ratchet & Clank (2016)

            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.

Rating: 9/10

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

            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.

Rating: 8/10

The Meddler

            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.

Rating: 10/10