LEGACY REVIEW- Rocky (1976)

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers, Burgess Meredith

In a new aspect of my blog, I will be writing a few "Legacy Reviews" per year. These will consist of films released either ten, twenty, thirty, forty (etc.) years ago. As this past Monday was the fortieth anniversary of Rocky starring Sylvester Stallone, I've decided to kick this series off with a classic. It's pretty much a coming-of-age movie at this point. Seriously, if you haven't seen Rocky, what are you doing with your life? And if you don't like it, you might need to watch it again.

Rocky is essentially a perfect film. Anyone who has read my blog knows that in my earlier days, I may have prematurely rewarded a "perfect" rating a few times. It takes a long time to think over a film, and sometimes you do not notice a film's faults the first time. Rocky is one of my favorite movies. This being said, I have not seen it so many times that it blurs me to faults. The faults simply are not there. This is because it's so simple. The cast and crew are not trying to produce a great, awe-inspiring classic film. This is why it's so surprising that Rocky became just that. Rocky Balboa is an American hero, who achieves a version of the American Dream. In the beginning of the film, he lives hard, but he's faltering. His career is going nowhere. I've seen so many movies with this introduction, and in walks a character who's depressed and longs for better life. Rocky is always positive, and just dreams of a simple life with the clerk at the pet store. And isn't that the American Dream? Rocky dares to tell the story of a boxer who just wants the simple life, and won't give up in his journey to pursue it.

This past week, I wrote my term paper for my History of Film class on Network, a 1976 film that depicts the terrifying stakes of broadcast news, and the blurring of the business and entertainment industries. With such a complex and relevant message, it was rewarded with Academy Awards for Best Actor, Actress, Screenplay, and Supporting Actress. But Best Picture of the Year went to one Italian Stallion- Rocky. The early 1970s were dominated by the end of Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. There was an abundance of negativity in American culture, so America needed the escape that Stallone and crew presented. America needed a movie that was inspiring.

As far as the acting goes, there really are only three characters with development. We really do not get the chance to explore Apollo Creed or Paulie in this film. First I'll talk about Mickey. Burgess Meredith looks like he's on his deathbed (I was shocked to see he lived another twenty three years) yet he has so much spark and enthusiasm. Mickey is a firecracker. If you've seen any sports movie post-Rocky, there's probably a grizzled old trainer. Mickey set the stage for every single trainer in popular culture. Now to Adrian. Adrian has so much character development, unlike most we see today. She's a nervous girl, hiding behind her glasses in a pet store. Rocky swoops in to save her from her "disease called being shy", and he's successful. We see her blossom into a free-spirited individual who's not afraid to speak out and jump for joy with pride in Rocky. As for the Italian Stallion himself, Stallone knocks it out of the park. He carries his performance with such slyness, it's no mystery where he got his nickname. Rocky is always one-step ahead, and he fights for goals. What's even more admirable is how different Rocky is from a lot of boxing and sports movies after. Many sports movies focus on an "unreachable" goal. Rocky has that. But many heroes fight for personal goals. They're trying to prove something to themselves. I honestly feel like Rocky's just doing it for Adrian. He loves fighting, but he loves her more, and he's just doing what it takes to reach that goal. While the belt might be nice, he's after the girl.

As for the other aspects of the movie, the script (written by Stallone) is air-tight. That's because it's not complicated. It has a few characters, and a basic plot that everyone can identify with. And the action scenes are fantastic. The famous training scene will inspire anyone watching it. "Gonna Fly Now" is an instant classic warm-up song. And the fight between Creed and Rocky is also very tense. The stakes are high. What's brilliant about the ending is that he doesn't win. We all hope he'll come out the winner, and he achieves something arguably harder. He goes the distance. He makes it to the end with Apollo Creed. It's a clever message that we don't need to win. It's about going the distance. Also, that ending scene where Adrian weaves through the crowd to say she loves him is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time. There's so much emotion. So I'd be crazy if I didn't give Rocky 10/10 stars. Don't worry, I'm not crazy. It's perfect because it doesn't try. It's a simple script, a simple idea, with simple characters. That allows Rocky to fill the hearts of all who watch it.

A personal request for my review was to also rank the sequels and give advice on which ones to skip. I'll be honest, I haven't seen all of the films. But here I go anyways.

1. Rocky (1976)- I just spent paragraphs explaining this so I shouldn't have to again.

2. Rocky II (1979)- I really like Rocky II. It doesn't quite reach the heights of the first one, but it's a surprisingly stable sequel. I enjoy how they explore Rocky's relationship with Adrian post-wedding, and his illiteracy. Plus the re-match where Rocky finally wins is amazing.

3. Creed (2015)- This is the newest film, which stars Michael B. Jordan as Apollo Creed's son who goes to an old, grizzled Rocky to learn to fight. Stallone gives a performance to rival the original, winning the Golden Globe and getting an Academy Award nomination for his tragic performance as a man who wants to erase his past, yet feels an obligation to the son of his rival. Plus, it has an interesting portrayal of inner-city African-American living that is a poignant afterthought.

4. Rocky Balboa (2006)- This is the revival of the franchise. It's not great, but it's leagues better than I heard 4 and 5 were. While his grief and depression aren't as strong as they are in Creed, we see Rocky Balboa right after Adrian's death. He fights, but doesn't care because he's so broken. That final scene, where he visits her grave and says "Yo Adrian, we did it. We did it." will break your heart. It's this tenderness that made me enjoy Rocky Balboa.

5. Rocky III (1982)- It's far from great. It's campy, and it's phoning it in a little too much. Hulk Hogan? Mr. T? It's far from bad, but it lacks the originality that the previous two had. Granted, I haven't seen this film in a long time, but I wasn't wildly impressed. The Eye of the Tiger scene is awesome though, and I give points for that.

6. Rocky IV (1985)- Skip Rocky IV. Just do it. I didn't even make it through the film. I don't remember much except that I hated it and it ended the franchise for me. Dolph Lundgren is hamming it up in a ridiculous role. Brigitte Nielsen is a pretty awesome fighter but her character is also ridiculous. The film doesn't know whether to be funny or serious, and it ends up being laughable. This killed Rocky for me.

7. Rocky V (1990)- Didn't see this due to the mess that is Rocky IV. Heard I didn't miss much

If you're trying to have a marathon, go 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. Omit 4 and 5. You'll thank me.

Doctor Strange Review

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Michael Stuhlbarg, Benjamin Bratt, Scott Adkins, Mads Mikkelsen, Tilda Swinton

Doctor Strange is the second movie in "Phase 3" of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, that started with Iron Man all the way back in 2008. Ever since 2012's The Avengers shattered records and re-invigorated comic book heroes like Hulk, Black Widow, and Thor, Marvel has been steadily expanding its brand. While first focusing on comic book royalty like Captain America, they recently dove into cult territory by adapting the Guardians of the Galaxy to screen. That effort proved ridiculously successful, so now we have Doctor Strange making his debut appearance. Doctor Strange uses magic, in a weird blend of Batman Begins and Harry Potter. In a year of underwhelming superhero movies (Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad, even Civil War in my opinion) Doctor Strange hopes to be a breath of fresh air. I will agree, it's very refreshing. While so many movies are rushing team-ups and world-building, it's nice to just see an origin story, and a man become a hero onscreen. Stephen Strange is one of the best surgeons. The problem is that his ego controls his life. He believes he is infallible, until he gets in an accident that leaves him unable to perform. A hint leads him to Western Asia, where he studies with a monk known as The Ancient One to gain his power back, and power beyond his wildest dreams. For the most part, Doctor Strange is a success. I had a great time. As it started to sit with me, I began to realize that like Strange, it was not perfect.

The first thing I must praise is the casting. This is the most high-caliber cast of any Marvel movie I've seen. Oscar-nominees Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Rachel McAdams lead the film with Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton in a key supporting role. Add Mads Mikkelsen as a wicked villain, and you have a great cast of characters. While Cumberbatch grounds the role with his steady (no pun intended) performance, it is Swinton that makes the movie. Her performance as The Ancient One, an age-defying monk that opens Strange's eyes is some of the best acting I have seen in a superhero movie. Not only does she sell her monologues and presence, she probably has the best action sequences in the entire film. Her assistants are played by Wong and Ejiofor. Wong literally plays a character sharing his name, which is quite funny. It fits, because Wong is the comic relief. You would be surprised though, that Doctor Strange is actually hilarious. I laughed really hard throughout. Ejiofor's performance was less consistent, but I cannot deny the gravitas he brings to his performance. As for Mikkelsen, he was a good villain. Marvel has this problem where none of their villains make an impact. I call it "The Loki Complex", in that none of their villains can match their first one: Loki. Unlike Ultron or Malekith (bet you don't even know what movie he's from, that's my point) Mikkelsen's character does seem like an actual threat to Strange. While supervillains often feel threatening to humanity or the world, it is important to establish a personal connection with the hero. Marvel can't see that. The Joker is so terrifying because he scares Batman.

I have two big issues with Doctor Strange. It is too derivative, and too confusing. The scene I have pictured above is from a fight scene where realities are being combined. The effects are magnificent, and the gravity-bending action is awesome to watch. However, it is almost exactly like the scene from Inception where the city folds into itself, just with more action and less of a point. As Inception is one of my favorite movies, I take issue with the fact that this just seems like a rip-off, with nothing new added but a few more skylines. This may also sound random, but I could not stop thinking how much this resembled Kung Fu Panda. That underrated film is about an unteachable pupil, who seeks to learn from an all-knowing teacher, to one day be able to wield a magical artifact. Things get complicated as the teacher's defected former student, believed to be the Chosen One, wants to steal the artifact for himself. That description fits both Kung Fu Panda and Doctor Strange. It's nowhere near a crime, and is a great theme, but it is simply sloppy writing.

Then comes the confusion. I'm all for complexity. After all, Inception is one of my favorite movies. I honestly feel that the writers of Doctor Strange had no idea where it would end up. At the conclusion, instead of a feeling of triumph shared with the hero, I felt perplexed. What is Marvel thinking? Why are they going in this direction? When will someone explain what an Infinity Stone is? Isn't the MCU complicated enough without sorcery and magic? A viewer should not be left with that many questions. Questions are a great technique for franchise film. They leave the viewer wondering, and install anticipation for the sequel. Even films like Gone Girl make use of questions to add a sense of dread for the characters' futures. But a movie should never make you question what you just watched.

I think you should try out Doctor Strange because there is a lot it has to offer. It has great acting, great visuals, and a sense of wonder that is too rare at the movies. But if you do not fancy over-complicated plots and a general sense of confusion, it's probably not your movie. A warning to people on the fence about 3D. To me and the group I went with, we all found the 3D to be too much, and sickening at points.

Rating:

Sully Review

Starring: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Anna Gunn, Autumn Reeser, Mike O'Malley

You probably know the story of Chesley Sullenberger (aka Sully) and US Airways Flight 1549. "The Miracle on the Hudson" is what the press labelled it. If you aren't familiar, go read about it and come back. I'll give the short version. Flight 1549 was struck by a flock of geese as it was taking off, destroying both of the engines in flight. The captain, Sully, guided the plane to a forced water landing in the Hudson River, something that had never happened before. And miraculously, every single person on that flight survived. Hailed as a hero, it was only a matter of time before Sully's story would make it to the screen. And who better to take on the role than Tom Hanks and director Clint Eastwood? Sully is a depiction of one of the greatest heroes of our time that doesn't lavish its subject. Sully was just doing his job. While the film falls short every in a few places from pacing and a few supporting characters, the message remains constant. And in an era where not many great messages are out there, it's refreshing to see Sully shine

Sully is grounded by Tom Hanks' fantastic performance in the titular role. Tom Hanks is one of my favorite actors because he always delivers. While he gave fine performances as Walt Disney in Saving Mr. Banks, and James Donovan in Bridge of Spies, not since Captain Phillips has he really given such a deep and layered performance. Hanks has demonstrated time and time again that he is the best actor to play the American "Everyman" in film, and his last four mainstream roles prove it. Sully is just an average guy doing his duty. He doesn't see the point in the pedestal the media places him on, and doesn't feel that he alone is the hero that saved the 155 souls on board. He carries this demeanor into the investigation. Yes, there is an investigation, and who better to head it than Anna Gunn, TV's favorite b*tchy wife from Breaking Bad. Because at the end of the day, while 155 people survived, Sully destroyed the plane. I actually found myself steaming at the investigation team for the accusations they made at Sully, and the test footage they showed. It seemed as if they were robots rather than humans. This would be a fine narrative to go by, albeit probably not true (especially when the team feels they were misrepresented), except Eastwood doesn't let that happen. In the end, he shows that the team investigating Sully do have hearts. They just have to do their job, which is unfortunate, but it plays back into the theme of Sully "just doing his job". I don't see why they felt they were portrayed poorly in the film. I think (and this is the same argument I had for Eastwood's last film American Sniper) that it was all up to interpretation.

While Sully certainly rises to the occasion, it does fall flat in a few categories. Laura Linney's performance as Sully's distraught wife is particularly poor. I love Linney, and I truly believe that the way she acted is the way someone could act in that situation. But after the credits, you see the real Sully, his crew, and his family. And the real woman is so far from the Laura Linney performance that it's baffling. Another few times there was humor when there really shouldn't have been. That may have been intentional, but I often found myself cracking up at parts that didn't seem like it should have been humorous. The film also makes a point at going inside the lives of the survivors, and showing their side of the story alongside Sully's. They try to force some dramatic stories onto us, but none of them stick. They feel tacked on and useless next to Sully's. I understand why Eastwood wanted to portray all the sides to this story, but sticking with Sully would have been best. All in all, it's a very enjoyable movie that lacks in certain areas. I cannot express how much I enjoyed seeing Sully. Go see it, and see a wonderful story unfold.

Rating:

Sausage Party Review

Starring:  Michael Cera, James Franco, Bill Hader, Salma Hayek, Jonah Hill, Nick Kroll, David Krumholtz, Danny McBride, Edward Norton, Craig Robinson, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig

By the time I saw Sausage Party this week, I had already seen the headlines. "The Most Offensive Movie Ever Made", "A Filthy Feast", "Literal Food Porn". It's the only other mainstream R-rated animated movie besides South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. The opening of the film is presented with enough whimsy and allure that it almost tricks you into believing it's a kids movie. There's a musical number and the animation is just so bubbly and child-like, almost second-rate compared to Disney and Pixar. Until that hot dog bun comes up. The sausages didn't really need an animator to make them sexual, but the buns have been specifically designed to be very "suggestive". Sausage Party is incredibly baffling. It presents ideas that are so brilliant, discussing religion, beliefs and morals, but then it throws it away for raunchy humor and trying to push boundaries. It's vexing that I still can't get a feel for whether I enjoyed it or not. Overall I laughed, but sometimes it was because I could not believe what I was seeing. Parents be cautioned...this is no children's movie.

The whole premise is that food is alive, and it doesn't know that it will be eaten by humans. The food in the supermarket anticipates when the "Gods" will take them to the "Great Beyond" and free them. It's obviously playing off of religion. When Seth Rogen's character Frank discovers the truth and tries to tell the food, they refuse to believe it. They would rather die and see the Great Beyond, because of what they've been promised. The idea of religion and that we believe "the best story" is really interesting. I wish it was explored more, and in more depth. I wish the movie settled with the idea that everyone can choose religion, and you can't force someone to believe. That's a message I wouldn't expect from Seth Rogen. Bickering between a Jewish bagel and a Muslim lavash mirrored the Israel-Palestine conflict, until someone points out that they have more in common then they think they do. It's so witty. But the conclusion of that storyline is that everyone has been lied to and the food tries to kill the people to achieve vengeance. Does that mean we need religion or we're savages? Am I looking too much into a raunchy food porno? Messages aside, I really appreciated the original humor. It was rarely "laugh-out-loud", but it's the type of clever humor that made me smile and chuckle to myself, mostly at the brilliant food puns. While some jokes might be seen as racist, I think overall they were pretty clever, though insensitive. There's a latina taco, African-American grits, and a gay twinkie. It's so stereotypical, and this movie doesn't hold back, making fun of just about every religion and race. The fact that it really hits everyone makes it seem a little more acceptable. Everyone got thrown on the cutting board and no one came back unscathed. I was promised a movie that would push boundaries and cross lines, and it certainly does that in every scene.

For all the interesting religious and cultural insights (a personal favorite is the African-American grits and Native American liquor getting their aisles replaced by crackers), Sausage Party throws it away for a VERY graphic orgy scene at the end. While the end result is so over-the-top, Sausage Party does present surprisingly mature ideas on sex and sexuality. The character of Brenda (brilliantly voiced by Kristen Wiig) has an interesting moral conflict. She and Frank broke through their packages to touch hands, and while he's on his mission for the truth, she feels everything that's happened, including falling out of their packages, seeing the truth, and getting lost, is because of their premature touching. Because "sex" is so repressed in this community, the food's belief system causes her to blame herself for everything. It's just like how many religions disapprove of sex before marriage, and shows how religion can really get in the way of people just trying to live. But, when she and Frank finally have sex, it's a ridiculously graphic scene. It's almost as if it was so repressed everyone turned into animals. It's just a free-for-all, and then the whole supermarket joins in. The Jewish bagel has sex with the Muslim lavash, and it's almost entirely just for shock value. While it was happening, I could not stop laughing, partly because I was so uncomfortable. Another sex story that's mishandled is the douche. This literal douche (he's the bad guy and it's a hilarious pun) wants revenge for being knocked out of the cart and losing his fluids. To do this, he rapes many characters to take their juices. It's shocking, and just not very funny. The discomfort I felt was kind of angering to see that happening. I wasn't offended, but I certainly don't think rape should be taken lightly.While it's genius to have a douche as a villain, his jaw-dropping actions really crossed the line for me.

While Sausage Party is interesting, and is certainly full of clever humor, I believe it throws all of it away for shock value. It's probablythe most inappropriate movie I've ever seen, and I don't know if it has any re-watchability. I can pick and choose certain scenes, and talking about it with friends who have seen it certainly bring some laughs, but I'm still confused about the film. I'm not even going to address the "twist" ending, which is the kind of introspective humor that belongs in Seth Rogen's This Is The End, not Sausage Party. If you're ready for what's "in store", go see Sausage Party. You truly have to see it to believe it. Words will never be able to accurately describe what is depicted.

Rating:

Suicide Squad Review

Starring: Will Smith, Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, Joel Kinnaman, Viola Davis, Jai Courtney, Jay Hernandez, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Cara Delevigne

Suicide Squad is one of the most anticipated releases of 2016. An adaptation of the DC comic book team of the same name, Suicide Squad teams up famed Batman villains Deadshot, Captain Boomerang, El Diablo, Killer Croc, Enchantress, Katana, and of course....Harley Quinn and the Joker. A lot of the fascination with the film was driven by its comedic marketing campaign, as well as the innovative performances by Jared Leto as the Joker, and Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. The commercial and critical disappointment of Batman v Superman also fueled interest, as director David Ayer promised a difference in the somber and serious tone of the DC universe thus far. The numerous trailers, characters, and songs really made Suicide Squad break every August record possible, and score one of the biggest openings ever. Then the reviews hit. I saw Suicide Squad late, so I had already witnessed the horde of negativity towards the film. And it wasn't different between critics and fans. The 27% score on  RottenTomatoes was echoed by disappointed fans. I tried to have an open mind for Suicide Squad, but there was just so much riding on this film for me. I am constantly frustrated with the DC superhero movies rushing their storylines. Suicide Squad was hopefully going to be the new beginning...but it's just another road block. It's not a step back, and actually isn't horrible. Their are salvageable parts that make it an enjoyable movie. It doesn't deserve as low as 27%. But it truly is a disappointment in the long run, and DC fails to live to expectations once again.

I think the Joker and Harley Quinn deserve their own section. I really liked the portrayal of Harley Quinn. I think the Harley that I saw in the cell, and in the training was the Harley I'm familiar with. But I don't think her relationship with the Joker was particular believable. It was very thinly crafted. I had no introduction to their relationship because it starts somewhere in the middle. I think the claim Davis' Amanda Waller made that she was "crazier" than the Joker was interesting. This Joker was definitely a little more subdued. But the claim was never really explored. Harley didn't always seem crazy, she seemed as if she were stumbling around sometimes. I loved Margot Robbie's mannerisms, but I hated her accent. It was so bad, and basically a different accent every time she opened her mouth. The Brooklyn accent never really stuck. Now to the Joker. I didn't love Jared Leto's performance, but I see that it could possibly be improved with more screen time. The true casualty is that he's barely in the movie. It's disappointing, because so many people are intrigued by a new Joker, and one that is innovative, but closer to the comics' roots than Jokers before him. He's a gangster, and that's an angle not seen since Nicholson played the character. Breathing life into a character that could have died with Heath Ledger is a huge selling point for any movie, and the ad campaign for this film capitalized on it. But no one could emerge from this film truly "loving" this Joker, because he barely gave a performance. This Joker is a far departure from Ledger's performance, but it doesn't commit to a new direction. I was mostly confused about where Leto's Joker stood, but I think the future installments will do him justice. I love that the Joker with Harley is finally hitting the big screen.

There's no doubt that this is a talented cast. But I believe only one person emerges unscathed, and that's Viola Davis. As Amanda Waller, she expertly blended menace with insanity. She was one crazy woman, but one no one would ever cross. Davis has proved time and time again she's a talented actress, and this was no exception. While Nick Fury assembled the Avengers and left them to their own devices, Waller really is ingrained in their actions, always watching them and messing with them. Then there's Rick Flagg, played by Kinnaman. He does nothing. He has no superpowers, and though he claims the Suicide Squad works for him, Waller foils him constantly. It just makes him look like an idiot. He's dating June Moon, aka Enchantress: the film's main villain. Cara Delevigne was probably the worst part of the entire movie. She deserves her own paragraph, but it was truly pathetic. Killer Croc, Katana, Slipknot, and Boomerang also had nothing to do. They shined in certain places, but overall they contributed nothing to the team. Slipknot even was the first to die, in a death so obvious you could see it coming a mile away. And El Diablo didn't even shine. He never fought until the end, in a random twist with a thin backstory and loose morals. It just wasn't interesting. Every action scene proved it was "The Will Smith Show." He had the backstory, the motivation, and the star power. He was alright. I didn't hate him, but I didn't love him, as he was a little too one-dimensional. It felt like the studio was so obviously "shoving him down my throat", and I just didn't care for his character. The sad part of Suicide Squad's team is that so many people feel useless. In Marvel, even if the heroes are less powered (i.e. Black Widow, Hawkeye), they still feel useful to the audience. They have intellect, and tactics that make them seem valuable. Only about three members of the Suicide Squad felt like they could really do damage, and were necessary.

Where to begin with Enchantress? She was a member of the Squad that was so obviously going to turn evil. It's the old worn-out story of another personality controlling someone to be evil and fight their allies. The ad campaign tried to hide it. They pulled the old "bait and switch", teasing us with a Joker and flipping at the last second. She was controlled by her heart outside of her body, in a case held by Waller. The scene where Waller stabs the heart with a pen to try and kill her was so pathetic. I rolled my eyes and laughed, because it was so ridiculous. It was such a stupid idea. I also don't understand how that same heart (now stabbed) could be given to Enchantress and still be viable. As for Delevigne, she barely acted. It was a different voice than hers, speaking in a made-up language and hula dancing like a cheesy showgirl. It was just yet another CGI villain with NO motivation, NO morals (be them good or evil), NO feasible plan but to destroy everything, and NO sensible way of achieving that plan. She even fights a different CGI monster. It reminded me of the worst Transformers scenes imaginable, except not even action-packed. DC has great villains! Batman has great villains! So why was this opportunity wasted? There is nothing salvageable from Enchantress, and her involvement in the movie is what dooms it. Just like Doomsday in Batman v Superman, she's a third-act CGI antagonist. The studio so obviously switched the original plot of the Joker to the Enchantress story. I'll never understand the reasoning, and it further frustrates me. Where DC was supposed to correct its mistakes, it just makes the same ones over again.

So is Suicide Squad really bad? It's not, but it's certainly not great. I can't say I'd ever see it again, so that's the failure of a superhero blockbuster. These are supposed to have re-watchability. Everything good is just overshadowed by horrible executive decisions. This version of the movie is not the version I saw in the trailers that got me excited. I heard that the executives really came and sliced it up, and they removed everything great. Harley Quinn would have been perfect in medium doses, but she's so over-the-top it's kinda stressful, even if I did like what she did with the character. The Joker doesn't even have a chance to make an impact. Will Smith is front-and-center for some reason. The musical soundtrack deafens the audience with rap verses. A stupid subplot with a generic villain weighs the whole film down. This movie had so much potential. Just listen to "Heathens" by twenty one pilots and watch the trailer. That's the best version of the movie you'll ever see.

Rating:

Ghostbusters Review

Starring: Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth

The new all female Ghostbusters film is probably the most polarizing film in recent memory. Before it even came out in theaters, haters were slamming it on YouTube, calling it: unnecessary feminism, an unwanted reboot, and essentially, "the movie nobody wanted". It currently stands as the most disliked movie trailer in internet history. People wanted to "kill" this movie before it even had a chance to open. I wanted to see Ghostbusters for myself because I am a fan of the original. I distinctly remember the first time I saw it, and the wonder I felt. I was pretty intrigued when I heard the plans to gender-swap the main characters. I was never offended by the female update because of the talent in front of and behind the camera. Paul Feig directed Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy. Those are three very funny movies, and all good. Wiig and McCarthy are famous for being hilarious, and Leslie Jones's offbeat humor on SNL always brings a laugh. Jones, along with Kate McKinnon's pitch-perfect impression of Hillary Clinton, and her original characters on the same show sold the film for me. I'm always open. If they can do it and do it right, then I cannot argue with the effort to remake a classic movie, even if it's risky. And oh, they tried. It's unfortunate that it just wasn't as successful as it should have been. Because of this, the 2016 all female Ghostbusters fails on so many fronts, even if I was surprised that it wasn't completely terrible.

First, as always, I'll talk about what was good, and not just well-intentioned. There are a few salvageable pieces that are great. Kate McKinnon is absolutely hilarious. Her character is so goofy and crazy that her performance feels completely genuine. With all of her spot-on impressions and original characters on SNL, Ghostbusters proves she is simply a great character actor. Leslie Jones is also hilarious. I walked in with a small trepidation of her character. McCarthy, Wiig, and McKinnon's characters were all scientists, and Jones was the black one who "knew New York". That stereotype was a little worrying, but I'm happy to say it didn't play into the plot at all. She was a great asset to the team, and had some of the best jokes in the film. I was also surprised by Chris Hemsworth. He was outstanding as the dumb receptionist. While Annie Potts was a charismatic and competent source of laughs in the original, Hemsworth was a dumb "hot guy". Many of us know these guys exist, but I've never seen one put to film so accurately, and he gave so many laughs. The cameos in the movie were also some of the high points. While Bill Murray's cameo was a little disappointing and half-hearted (he wanted nothing to do with this film), appearances by Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson, Dan Ackroyd, and Sigourney Weaver were some of the biggest laughs in the movie. The appearance of the famous ghost symbol, Slimer, and a very fitting nod to the late Harold Ramis also were very well executed scenes. The action sequences were also choreographed with a lot of physical humor and wit.  New York City was very well-realized, and I loved that the movie immersed me in a world that was its own, but still connected to the original. The movie was at its best when it was being witty, and connecting back to the original. This makes sense, as the original Ghostbusters is so witty and original. There is never a dry joke in the original film. Sadly, the humor is not this film's forte.

This film suffers from issues in its tone. It tries to be hilarious, and it just isn't. There was not one joke that really had me laughing, nor were there any jokes that stuck in my brain. That is the true failure of a comedy film. It also tries to switch from comedy to some serious sci-fi paranormal depictions. And it's simply not scary. Then it tries to give Kristen Wiig's character a serious motivation, giving her a backstory monologue complete with sob story music. And her story just isn't sad. I didn't feel for her character. The one thing Wiig always brings to her movies is a leading quality. She grounds her films with her characters, so I understand why she was cast. But she brings nothing to the table for comedy, which is disappointing because she's so funny! But nobody made my eyes roll more than Melissa McCarthy. Personally, I am so fed up with her humor. It's just not funny to me anymore. She's just yelling, and the jokes weren't even funny. I loved Spy, but that was a huge departure for her. I don't think she made me laugh even once, and boy, she tried very hard. That's the sad part of this movie, and how I would sum it up. It tries so hard. It tries to be true to the source material, which is admirable. It tries to pave a new wave of remakes forward, which is also admirable. But then it tries to tackle its haters...which is where it becomes so pitiful. There are extended scenes with the characters looking at YouTube and reading hateful comments out loud (comments on their work that mirrors the real hate for the trailer) and talking about how no one has faith in them, and women can do it, and they'll prove "the haters" wrong. The villain is also a one-dimensional, spiteful internet troll. Yes, they re-wrote the villain to be a nerdy guy who hates the Ghostbusters. It's just too on the nose. The film literally ends with the women looking at the New York skyline, tears in their eyes, saying "Well, that wasn't terrible, was it?" It's just trying too hard. I was looking for Ghostbusters to prove my worries wrong, yet all it did was blow them up in my face and mock those who held such criticisms.

Overall, there are some really promising parts of Ghostbusters. I truly believe the forces behind the film: the director, producers, and actors, tried very hard to make a good movie. But what I witnessed was a film that tried to hard to do everything at once, and had very little success. What should have been funny was not funny. What should have been intense was not intense. What should have been witty remarks at the skepticism of the female leads was instead overused mocking. It's disappointing, because I really was rooting for Ghostbusters. I have no problems with changing the men to women, because I think if it works with the right talent...who am I to complain? But this is different. The talent failed. Ghostbusters is, and will forever be, an example that classic films DO NOT need updates.

Rating:

Finding Dory Review

Starring: Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Hayden Rolence, Ed O'Neill, Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy, Kaitlin Olson, Ty Burrell, Idris Elba, Dominic West, Sigourney Weaver

There was certainly a lot of excitement going into Finding Dory's premiere. June 17th, 2016 was a date I was anticipating since the first day Ellen announced the sequel, and I know many of my high school-aged friends were anxiously waiting Finding Dory's arrival. It's a little strange, especially when in the theater, because older teens and adults made up most of the audience. Truly Finding Nemo was a huge film in my childhood. I've seen it more times than I could possibly count, even going as far to see the 3D re-release my freshman year. I recently took out the old VCR tape of Finding Nemo to jog my memory and see if I'd still appreciate it at 19 years old. I wasn't surprised to see that it held up exceptionally well, even thirteen years after I'd first seen it.  Finding Dory has quite a lot to live up to. I'm certain if you haven't seen the film yet (I'm a little late on the review), you've heard it's either as good as Finding Nemo, or you've possibly heard it's even better. After seeing the film, I can confirm it is as good as Finding Nemo. While it doesn't carry the same whimsy as the first film had for me, it really transported me back to being a kid who lived for Pixar movies, while making me feel like as an adult, I can really appreciate a meaningful animated movie. Finding Dory really is as good as everyone says it is.

The best part of a Pixar film are always the characters. While Dory was great as a sidekick, it's clear that she can hold her own as the lead. Pixar has crafted such a realistic and relatable character, and Ellen only gives Dory life. Her charismatic voice performance makes her impossible to not like. The new characters are amazing as well. Hank the octopus (septapus) in particular made a big impact on me. I really related to his character and his arc was very well done. I wasn't a big fan of Destiny the whale shark, mainly because I thought her design was too cartoonish in a movie where the fish really look realistic. But her scenes were funny, and her nearsightedness was a great joke. Bailey the beluga whale made me laugh constantly, thanks to Ty Burrell's great voice and snarky demeanor. Plus, his echolocation was very cool and a great way to educate kids about the animals. I think everyone will walk away loving the sea lions. Idris Elba and Dominic West (partners on The Wire) play two hilarious lazy sea lions that try to protect their rock from Gerald, who's a little special. Their banter back and forth is hilarious, and they have some of the funniest dialogue in the whole film. The two characters I didn't like were Nemo and Marlin. I thought they were very unneeded. Until they met up with Dory again I thought their plot was very flat, I didn't particularly like Becky (nor did I understand why she couldn't talk) and I thought Marlin was very mean. You would think he learned a little from his adventures in the first film, but he resorted back to being mean to Dory.

As you can see in the above picture, Baby Dory is very adorable (and compelling!). I think the way Dory's past was tied into the present was so masterful. You really felt the loss of her parents and her need to find them, because the exposition of her childhood was so well done. It was reminiscent of finding a piece of Nemo all the way to Sydney, but more emotional. Every scene of Baby Dory brilliantly tied into the current plot and carried some emotional heft. From "what do we say to the undertow?" to "Mommy likes purple shells" everything was utilized brilliantly. I thought a certain scene with her parents (no spoilers) was so emotionally touching, and the image was burned into my brain for the day. Pixar has been accused of emotionally manipulating lately, probably because between Toy Story 3 and Inside Out, their films weren't very great, so it seemed like you were crying because of forced emotion. Finding Dory trumps those films, to feel like their most genuine sequel since Toy Story 3.

I think Finding Dory really nails it the Pixar formula. It's a great story and it has great humor. There are running gags that are hilarious every time, like the Sigourney Weaver voice, and the "three hearts" joke. I waited to see Finding Dory in both 2D and 3D to give a proper review, mostly because Finding Nemo in 3D blew me away with how well the effects worked with the ocean setting. I'd recommend Finding Dory in 3D only because it really immerses you into the film, but other than that it's fine in 2D. I highly recommend Finding Dory. It's fun for the entire family, younger kids and older teens with both appreciate it, and it has a lot of clever humor, with an emotional story. It doesn't quite match the perfection that Finding Nemo effortlessly had, but for a new generation of kids, this will certainly be a classic.

Rating: