Peppermint - Review

 

If your film contains cursing, blood, explosions, gunfights, screaming, and all about every ten minutes, then it says a lot that it still manages to be so boring and monotonous that it could put audiences to sleep. That’s the reality for “Peppermint”, a new revenge thriller with all the style and substance of a sticky, lint covered candy.

Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30,” “Daredevil”) growls her way through most of the scenes as Riley North, a mother whose husband and daughter were killed in a drive-by shooting on the night of her daughter’s birthday. The reasoning behind the shooting is quickly and unconvincingly coughed up by a few side characters, and quickly forgotten. Plain and simple, Garner is an actor whose talents are completely wasted on a borderline one-dimensional revenge seeking mother.

After all, why put any obstacles in the way of Garner kicking ass? Her badassery may be cool to watch at first, but eventually the film’s shoddy editing style and overuse of slow motion become too grating to ignore. Every scene transition seems to feature a weird blur effect and if its meant to be a representation on Riley’s deteriorating psyche, then it doesn’t work, since it feels like the editors simply used it whenever they felt like it.

However, her character is so cliched and thin that any semblance of depth that an editing trick like that could provide quickly evaporates. The first scene in the film where she isn’t kicking ass involves a stuck-up suburban mom yelling at her about moving in on her daughter’s cookie selling territory. No less than twenty minutes later, she’s become a completely changed person, with no reasoning given.

Yes, her family was killed, and the men got away with it, and yes this is a revenge fantasy film, but that doesn’t explain how she goes from Los Angeles to Hong Kong, kick boxing and stealing drug product from the Cartel along the way, only to end up smuggling herself back into the U.S. on time. It’s bizarrely convoluted and is mentioned once and then never again.

The supporting cast doesn’t fare much better, in performances or characterizations. Everyone is a poorly written, cliched character with no hope of depth. Annie Ilonzeh (“All Eyez on Me,” “Til Death Do Us Part”) and John Gallagher Jr. (“The Newsroom,” “10 Cloverfield Lane”) try to hold it together as an FBI agent and local detective, respectively, but both are as cliched as possible. The only bright spot comes from John Ortiz (“Fast & Furious,” “Jack Goes Boating”) as the elder cop Moises, but that’s less to do with the quality of his characterization, and more to do with the fact that he seems to be the only person in the movie who isn’t angry all the time.

Everything apart from the writing and acting isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just overly familiar. Every set, every gunfight, every explosion brings to mind other films that have done it better. At best it’s makes the film simply forgettable or bland. At worst, it harms the film’s sense of space and structure, by setting it in a series of corridors and warehouses instead of memorable locations.

Cliched is the perfect way to describe “Peppermint” but it doesn’t just go as far as the characters. Every story-beat and detail feels rehashed and reused. Every cop constantly drinks coffee with alcohol in it, the grizzled cops are the young reckless one and the aged wise one. The FBI eventually becomes involved, the public thinks she’s a vigilante, every bad guy is from the Mexican cartel and the two major cartel locations are painfully racist: a piñata warehouse and a drug warehouse filled with statues of Mary, mother of Jesus.

A handful of moments are amusing at best: at one point in the movie, Carly, Riley’s daughter, tells her mother that she should’ve punched the uptight suburban mother. That line is called back to quite effectively later on, and the scene afterwards is probably the best in the film. It allows Riley to slow down and for a moment, we see her pain and anguish. She feels like, even just for a moment, a real person. Less than five minutes later, though, she’s back to her old, boring self.

More disturbing than the film’s disregard for Garner’s acting talents is the blatant emotional manipulation it employs for most of the film, especially during the drive-by. The musical cues and flashbacks are utilized in such a razor-sharp way, it feels like the filmmakers didn’t stop until they chemically produced a product more emotionally manipulative than the SPCA’s “In the Arms of an Angel” ad campaign.

It’s the overall lack of sincerity that leads to this film failing to be any form of entertaining. Films like “John Wick” succeed because, for all the gore and badassery within, they aren’t afraid to show their characters affected by their actions. “Peppermint” robs audiences of what could have been a wonderful performance from Garner by failing to provide her with a character who is anything more than a caricature: a figure, not a person, crafted to elect an emotional response and then be immediately forgotten about.

“Peppermint” could at best be described as a throwback to the pulpy grindhouse revenge films of the seventies, but even by that measure it still wouldn’t be any good. Bland action and cinematography combined with flat performances across the board leave “Peppermint” at the mercy of its poor characterizations and bad writing. Needless to save, that doesn’t save it. One could describe it as a “turn off your brain” movie, but even then, it just ends up being boring. “Peppermint” isn’t sweet like its namesake; its more comparable to a different small round edible object: Ambien. Because all this vengeful mother is going to do is put her audience to sleep. 1/5

The Happytime Murders - Review

 

Pushing the envelope is nothing new. It’s almost become an ironic thing for a film to do, since its not really all that groundbreaking to push it anymore. It isn’t groundbreaking to try to be groundbreaking. Therefore, when an idea comes along that seems genius, it requires a certain finesse to get it to a place of quality. “The Happytime Murders” does not have that finesse.

It doesn’t really have much of anything in fact. However, it does have some impressive technical aspects. In a world where puppets and humans coexist, some of the advanced puppeteering methods used by Henson Alternative are downright genius. Greenscreen, multi person rigs, special sets, and even hydraulic pumps help bring this extremely technical world to life. It’s clear the crew and director Brian Henson (“Muppet Treasure Island”, “A Muppet Christmas Carol”) are proud of this new tech, as shown via an end credits montage of behind-the-scenes footage.

This advanced technical prowess also helps bring the film’s action scenes to life in a wondrous fashion. While not all of them are great, some are just downright lazy, most employ the same level of expertise that the rest of the film does. They’re by far the coolest sequences in the film, especially when they use the puppets directly in the fights.

It helps bring believability to the scenes, adding a layer to the film as a whole. Also helping a great deal is the wonderful performance from Bill Barretta (“Muppets from Space,” “The Muppets (2011)”), the voice and puppeteer behind Phil Phillips, the movie’s main character. He does a good job, by far the best in the entire film.

Melissa McCarthy (“Bridesmaids,” “Spy”) and Maya Rudolph (“Bridesmaids,” “Sisters”) are just fine. Neither are particularly bad but neither do anything to make their performances memorable. The rest of the supporting cast; Joel McHale (“Community,” “The Informant!”), Leslie David Baker (“The Office,” “Puppy Dog Pals”), and Elizabeth Banks (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “Pitch Perfect”), just appear, say some lines and disappear. They add virtually nothing to the film.

As bland as most of the acting is, it’s the writing that truly kills most of the film. Half the time the puppet characters are spouting lines about prejudices and how humans view puppets as singing and dancing slaves. Meanwhile there are subplots about Phil’s disgraced cop career, his relationship with a human and his soured partnership with McCarthy’s Detective Connie.

None are pulled off well at all and a few simply disappear when they cease to be relevant to the story. The puppet minority allegory is mentioned a few times in the first thirty minutes, but then is dropped. Worse still, it’s never integrated into the story in any way. There are brief mentions of Phil resisting the urge to sing and entertain, instead wanting to have a real job. But this idea is never expanded upon like it seems like it should.

This isn’t just a case of potential being wasted though. Audiences are clearly meant to pay attention to these moments thanks to editing and filmmaking techniques that makes them think they are. It almost feels like they’ve been cheated when these moments amount to almost nothing.

Worse still is the fact that there is some legitimate gold in here. A few of the bits of satire are funny, and some of the grislier scenes of murder and violence could be more entertaining in a better film. But “Happytime” feels like a film that could be so much more, if it wasn’t forced to be an R-rated crude comedy.

Oddly enough, the best parts of the film are in the third act, when a lot of the more obvious and overtly crude humor takes a back seat. If all that had been taken out and Henson had just delivered a PG-13 puppet buddy cop film, then it definitely would’ve improved the film. As it stands, the film’s crude nature serves merely as a distraction from the rest of its elements.

A distraction is warranted though, as the film’s writing is so bad it’s painful. Not the dialogue per se, but more that the film’s internal logic is screwy. So many moments happen apropos of nothing, just popping up because they have to. But because none of it makes any sense, it becomes painful to sit through, making even the mediocre elements feel even worse.

Some technical expertise and a good puppeteering performance can’t save a film down trodden with poor writing, humor and a severe lack of internal logic. There’s a germ of a good idea here, and if someone was to try this again, with either a PG-13 or a far cruder R-rating, maybe “Happytime Murders” could work. As it stands, it’s just a film that can’t commit to any one plot point, subtext, or comedic tone. It avoids being unwatchable or completely awful. It’s just all fluff and no substance. 1.5/5

Crazy Rich Asians - Review

Routine, downtrodden, played out, exaggerated. These words and many more could describe the romantic comedy genre, a type of film so outplayed that there have been films about being haunted by dead exes, couples rekindling love while searching for buried treasure, witches using spells to make others fall in love, and even convincing the family of a man in a coma that you’re his girlfriend.

However, in recent years the genre has seen new life breathed into it thanks to smaller stories told from new points of view (“The Big Sick,” “Love, Simon”). “Crazy Rich Asians” is definitely a new point of view, but its anything but small.

From frame one, “Crazy Rich Asians” flows from scene to scene with delicate and impactful camera movements. Each moment is framed elegantly, and it feels like the first film in a long time that could be viewed and enjoyed purely based on its sets and cinematography. Director Jon M. Chu (“Now You See Me 2,” “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”) and Cinematographer Vanja Cernjul (“30 Rock,” “Nurse Jackie”) work to make each location and moment pop with color and beauty, regardless of whether the scenes are short and filled with talking, or a grand overhead shot.

A delightfully upbeat score from Brian Tyler (“Iron Man 3,” “Now You See Me”) helps accentuate the moments of Nick Young and Rachel Chu. Young, played by Henry Golding, oozes charm from every pore of his body, and it’s a testament to the sharp script that he never feels condescending or mean. He’s just a charming, genuine guy who’s easy to like.

The supporting cast frequently steals the show, with Awkwafina (“Ocean’s 8,” “Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising”), Ronny Chieng (“Ronny Chieng: International Student”), Nick Santos (“Superstore”), and Ken Jeong (“Community,” “The Hangover”) constantly providing belly laughs and moments of clarity. Their down to earth nature help prevent the film from becoming a spectacle of excess. Gemma Chan (“Humans,” “Submarine”) is wonderful as Nick’s cousin Astrid, although her subplot could have been given more time to shine.

However, the two showstopping scene stealers are Constance Wu (“Fresh Off the Boat,” “EastSiders”) as Rachel and Michelle Yeoh (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Sunshine”) as Nick’s commanding mother Eleanor. Wu is an absolute delight, exuding intelligence and wit at every moment. On the contrary, Yeoh plays Eleanor with a calm demeanor that hides a fiery spirit. All it takes is a smirk and she shuts down conversations and disputes in a flash.

While it may be gorgeously shot and written with a sharp tongue and quick wit, thanks to screenwriters Peter Chiarelli (“The Proposal,” “Now You See Me 2”) and Adele Lim (“One Tree Hill,” “Las Vegas”), this is still a romantic comedy. It can’t break free of every cliché, and it does fall prey to many of the same beats that virtually every rom-com treads over.

Not that it’s boring or bad, quite the opposite. It uses those elements and has fun within the clichés without completely reinventing them. It helps that, again, it does all of this with a script that’s quick witted and could easily be compared to the best work of romantic comedy legend Nora Ephron.

Most of all though, underneath the family politics and the gorgeous excess, this is a film that it never afraid to have fun. It keeps a consistently exuberant energy throughout the entire runtime that simply invites its audience to smile. Half of the time it feels like its actors aren’t even acting, just all hanging out together, having a good time and making each other laugh, and this wonderful sense of fun is what really makes this film shine.

It also can’t be understated how much love fills “Crazy Rich Asians.” While that may seem like an obvious point, it is a romantic comedy after all, it feels so genuine. Love between friends, family, significant others, it all comes across so effortlessly. Instead of simply delivering a story of two people who seem to be together just because they can stand each other, Chu and his crew have created a story where people genuinely are in love, and its all the better for it.

“Crazy Rich Asians” is a ridiculously good time. It may not reinvent the genre, but it certainly has fun within the clichés and well-trodden story beats. It’s charming cast, witty script, and delightful sense of fun help deliver a romantic comedy that is just crazy fun. 4.5/5

Christopher Robin - Review

 

Winnie the Pooh is probably the most unlikely candidate to make a comeback in today’s age of excitement and genre pushing excess. He’s slow, witty and tends to meander about. Rarely does he do anything with expediency and most of his stories tend to have an element of sadness to them. The latest film featuring the bear of very little brain, “Christopher Robin”, is set to tell the story of what happens to the Hundred Acre Wood after its human caretaker grows up. Is the resulting story as sweet as honey or is it of very little brain as well?

Clocking in at just around an hour and forty-five minutes, “Christopher Robin” manages to hit the sweet spot in terms of storytelling and pacing. It meanders about slowly, allowing its story to take as much time as necessary to build its conflicts to satisfying emotional crescendos.

Not once does it overstay its welcome or feel too slow, thanks to excellent visuals and voice work from its entire cast, especially the legendary Jim Cummings (“Darkwing Duck,” “Goof Troop”). This man has been voicing Pooh and Tigger for over twenty years, and his performance as the eponymous bumbling bear is still wonderful.

It is taken a step further though, thanks to the intelligence of the script. Writers Alex Ross Perry (“Listen Up Phillip”) and Allison Schroeder (“Hidden Figures”) go to great lengths to make this the most mature film of the Pooh franchise. Material relating to the importance of family and growing up is introduced, but it’s done in such a wonderfully scatterbrained way that it keeps the feeling of routine out of the picture.

The writer and director Mark Forster (“Stranger Than Fiction,” “Finding Neverland”) isn't afraid to inject somberness into this adventure without warning. It leads to moments of genuine shock and emotion, which in turn allows the emotional payoffs to feel just as impactful.

Ewan McGregor (“Moulin Rouge,” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”) is excellent as the elder version of Christopher, keeping a balanced childlike wonder and adult pessimism throughout the film. Haley Atwell (“Agent Carter,” “The Duchess”) is also great as his wife Evelyn, but the standout of the humans is young Bronte Carmichael as Robin’s daughter Madeline. She’s completely adorable and wonderfully charming, feeling right at home with the creatures of the Hundred Acre Wood.

Geoff Zanelli (“Disturbia,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”) and Jon Brion (“Punch Drunk Love,” “Lady Bird”) manage to incorporate the classic Pooh themes into the music. Many characters have the melodies to their own songs playing underneath scenes involving them, and there’s a delightful piano whimsy to the entire affair.

Pooh and his gang of misfits all look great, with attention to detail in every facet. Tigger’s worn face resembles gray facial scruff, and the felt pads of Pooh’s hands are worn from years of play. It’s a gorgeous film in its simplicity, opting for quiet practical forest shots instead of busy computer-generated backgrounds.

Like previously stated, “Christopher Robin” does not overstay its welcome or have bad pacing. However, it does take a bit to really get going, and while its meandering nature is charming and lighthearted, it may seem slow and off putting to some.

Also, while the more mature and adult nature of many of the story elements is handled well, it results in a film that is fine for kids around the ages of 9 and upwards, but those younger may be scared or frightened of some plot elements that stray further than normal from the general family friendly nature of Pooh’s other outings.

“Christopher Robin” is an incredibly sweet and simple film. It knows exactly what it wants to say and how to get it across, without sacrificing intelligence, wit, or the maturity its story needs. Excellent vocal and physical performances balance out a meandering story that results in a film a lot like the silly old bear himself. Sweet, lovable, a bit slow, and endlessly charming. 4/5

Teen Titans GO! To The Movies - Review

 

For those unfamiliar with the show, “Teen Titans GO!” is a reboot of the original early 2000’s “Teen Titans” TV series. It abandoned the original’s serial-based plots and anime inspired style, for colorful flash animation art and quippy pop culture references and poop jokes. While the show has received generally mixed reception over its run, Warner Bros. Animation has decided to bring it to the big screen with “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Can it be better than its source material?

Fans of the “GO!” reboot will be glad to hear that the show’s brand of fast paced jokes remains intact in this adaptation. However, even detractors will be glad to hear that the film’s sense of humor and storytelling is leagues ahead of what the show has to offer.

Jokes hit their mark far more often than in the show, leading to many amusing references and tongue in cheek jokes related to superheroes and the movies created around them. Both DC and Marvel are targets throughout the film, and some of the best jokes come from a true place of surprise.

This awareness of superhero abundance also helps the story succeed as well. The plot is based around the overabundance of superhero films, so much so that heroes without a film are considered inferior. This leads Robin to attempt to land himself a movie, and thus we have the basic plot.

It all works nicely together, jelling like a Saturday Morning Robot Chicken episode. There are indeed a few jokes that don’t land, and some that over stay their welcome. They’re easy to look past, though, due to the rapid-fire nature of other background and foreground gags happening, and the earnestness of the vocal performances, with Scott Menville (“Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue,” “The 7D”), Hynden Walch (“Adventure Time,” “ChalkZone”), Khary Payton (“Young Justice,” “The Walking Dead”), Tara Strong (“Batman: Arkham City,” “The Powerpuff Girls”), and Greg Cipes (“Ben 10,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012)”) all reprising their roles as Robin, Starfire, Cyborg, Raven, and Beast Boy, respectively.

Will Arnett (“Horrible Bosses,” “Arrested Development”) and Kristen Bell (“The Good Place,” “Veronica Mars”) provide great work, and there are a whole host of cameos that are wonderfully done, but the real stars are the Titans. The cast from both the original show and “GO!” reprise their roles and bring a cheerful earnestness that only seasoned voice actors can bring to a film this bizarre.

Halfway through the film, the plot seems to stop for an extended gag based around time-travel, and that gag is the best way to describe “To The Movies” as a whole. It puts the plot at a standstill to have some fun riffing in the DC universe. It isn’t Shakespeare, and isn’t going to deconstruct the way we view superhero films, but it is a bundle of fun, and that’s all it wants to be.

Surprisingly, there are also quite a few musical numbers that are pulled off well. The film also switches back and forth between different animation styles and techniques for different gags, even poking fun at a Disney classic about a third of the way through in what is probably the film’s best joke.

If you need 90 minutes of fun, look no further than “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Fixing many of the problems the show had, the film is extremely funny with a well thought out plot. Nothing here is Oscar worthy, and there are definitely parts where it dips into the realm of grating, but the highs absolutely outweigh the lows to provide the most bizarre superhero film and studio film this side of Deadpool’s domain. 4/5

Mission Impossible: Fallout - Review

 

Love him or hate him, Tom Cruise (“Top Gun,” “Tropic Thunder”) will undeniably put himself on the line for his beloved “Mission Impossible” films. “Fallout” is no different, featuring lots of real-world stunts and crazy action, but it's also unique within its own series.

“Fallout” is the first film in the series to pull plot and character elements directly from a previous film, “Rogue Nation”, to build its story. Ethan Hunt must track down plutonium being sold to the remaining members of the previous film’s villain organization, The Syndicate, now known as The Apostles.

The film keeps the pace up throughout its entirety, not once letting audience members take a breath until the very end. It's incredibly refreshing that this tension works so well. Often in blockbuster cinema, threats to the characters feel so inconsequential and fake, due to an over-reliance on CGI, close calls, or any combination of things.

However, this is directly what sets “Fallout” apart. It feels like at any moment, something could go wrong. This is backed up by the green screen-less stunts and the rock-solid emotional core of the plot, and it allows the film’s tension to remain, even throughout quiet scenes.

“Fallout” isn’t afraid to put its characters through hell, but not just physically. “Fallout” is the most emotional of all the “MI” films, with moments of heart and tears peppered throughout the action. These are people who constantly put their lives on the line and could come back dead, and writer/director Christopher McQuarrie (“The Way of the Gun,” “Jack Reacher”) isn’t afraid to touch on those sentiments.

It’s almost impossible to describe what makes this outing so great, especially in comparison to 2011’s “Ghost Protocol,” and 2015’s “Rogue Nation.” Both are excellent films, head and shoulders above the first three, but there’s just a spirit within “Fallout” that sets it apart.

Never before has it felt like Hunt and his team could truly lose their fight, and it’s been years since any action film has so expertly avoided the feeling of inevitable victory. This is a film not afraid to pull punches, and yet it never feels too down. It does dabble in the somberness of its situation, with plenty of painful ironies and close calls, but it never overwhelms the proceedings.

That’s due to Cruise and McQuarrie having such a tight grip on the details and heartbeat of the film itself. It never goes anywhere they don’t want it to, meaning every fleeting moment can be carefully calculated to deliver the most excellent action film they’re capable of making.

Cinematographer Rob Hardy (“Ex Machina”) helps to bolster this excellence by giving the film an absolutely gorgeous look. Warm colors, in particular orange, accentuate this adventure, coupled with the most excellent musical score the series has seen yet courtesy of Lorne Balfe (“Pacific Rim Uprising”, “The LEGO Batman Movie”).

Cruise and the rest of the cast bring their A game to these proceedings, ratcheting the tension up even higher thanks to genuine emotional performances from each. Ving Rhames in particular is a standout, finally getting the recognition he deserves for his efforts throughout the series.

The entire film is such a white-knuckle experience that keeps you so in the moment, that it isn’t until credits role that audiences can appreciate just how good the film was. It’s an action film that delivers best in class action, without ever letting it sacrifice the character’s emotional arcs, the plot, or really anything.

It isn’t a stretch to call “Mission Impossible: Fallout” the best action film of the year, and one of the year’s best so far. It also wouldn’t be a stretch to put it up near “Die Hard”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “The Dark Knight”, or “The Great Escape (1963)” as one of the greatest action films ever made, period. Relentlessly tense, constructed with razor sharp genius attention to detail in both its action and its emotion, and gorgeous to look at, “Fallout” isn’t just a damn good time at the movies. It’s pure, sublime and phenomenal. Mission accomplished. 5/5

Sorry to Bother You - Review

 

Everything you’ve heard is true. “Sorry To Bother You” is incredible. Boots Riley’s directorial debut is a contradiction in and of itself. A film advocating against capitalism that is smashing box office records. It’s a film that shouldn’t exist in this day and age, and the fact that it does makes it all the better.

The plot centers on Cassius Green, a telemarketer for RegalView who is inspired by a coworker to start using his “white voice” while on calls. He does so, and immediately becomes successful. This is what the film’s summaries and trailers describe, but it only amounts to the first third of the film. That first third is also interesting in the context of the film itself.

It has bizarre editing choices and chooses to fixate on odd points and visuals. Some moments feel awkward and some lines are delivered bizarrely. However, once Cassius begins to see the world around him as it truly exists, as opposed to how he thinks it exists, those flaws fade away, and it becomes apparent that these were all choices made by Riley to further build the world of his film.

Decisions like this come up all throughout the film. The cinematography and sets give way to some extremely inventive scenarios that are pure low budget eye candy. Everything has a kind of weird tilt to it that seems reminiscent of if Terry Giliam’s “Brazil” was set in a modern-day Oakland.

Lakeith Stanfield (“Short Term 12,” “Death Note (2017)”) plays Cassius with a goofy kind of incompetence that grows and festers throughout the film, boiling over to create a rebirth that is a joy to watch. His performance in the latter half of the film is further enhanced thanks to great “white voice” work from David Cross (“Mr. Show”, “Arrested Development”) Tessa Thompson (“Dear White People”, “Thor: Ragnarok”) plays his morally grounded, activist girlfriend Detroit with razor sharp wit and a refusal to step down from her beliefs.

Terry Crews (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Idiocracy”), Jermaine Fowler (“Superior Donuts,” “Crashing”), Steven Yeun (“The Walking Dead,” “Okja”), and Danny Glover (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “The Color Purple”) round out the supporting cast as Cassius’s Uncle and friends, respectively. However, it's Omari Hardwick (“Power,” “For Colored Girls”) and Armie Hammer (“The Social Network,” “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”) who completely steal the show as the manager of RegalView and the manager of WorryFree, respectively. Omari manages to provide a swagger that’s intoxicating to watch, backed up by a sleazily great “white voice” provided by Patton Oswalt (“The Goldbergs,” “Rataouille”).

“Sorry To Bother You” clearly has a lot to say. From the long scenes depicting violence towards labor unions to WorryFree’s clear slavery parallels to the latter half of the film’s startling twist, it's not afraid to put its messages front and center. However, within that decision lies the genius of Riley’s script and his world building.

This is a journey and a world so bizarrely similar and disconnected from our own, that one can ignore the political and moral allegories and still have fun with the bonkers nature of everything happening on screen. Riley carefully balances these elements in such a way that they always complement each other and never sabotage themselves. There’s even nods for hardcore film fans, including one particularly knowing wink towards director Michel Gondry’s work.

Top all of that off with a joyously bizarre musical score and set designs and you’ve got one of the most unique, bizarre, and batshit movies of the entire year, and maybe the entire decade. It's staggering that a film that features deep themes of classism and violent riots, can also pull of some extremely juvenile humor expertly. It’s a sign of a great director and a great satire.

Boots Riley has unmistakably made a mark on cinema with an audacious and bizarre debut that won’t be forgotten anytime soon. The balance of sharp wit and sobering truths, even in the face of some of the most insane ideas of the last decade of filmmaking, backed up with creative sets, cinematography and acting helps to make “Sorry To Bother You” an absolutely unforgettable satirical treat. The future is calling, Mr. Riley. And it may have an Oscar for you. 5/5

Ant-Man and the Wasp - Review

In a way, the first Ant-Man film was a throwback to the early days of the Marvel Cinematic universe when it was released in 2015. It was a solo film with smaller stakes that introduced the world to a bizarre hero. It was good, not great. And it was soon followed up with its main character appearing in a team up film. However, will Ant-Man and Wasp continue to follow in the footsteps of their Marvel Cinematic Universe counterparts, and produced a sequel better than the first?

Paul Rudd (“Clueless,” “Anchorman”) remains as charming as ever as the goofy Scott Lang, an ex-con turned superhero dealing with the repercussions of his decisions in “Civil War.” But his story is not the focus here. Evangeline Lilly (“Lost,” “The Hurt Locker”) helps to transition the character of Wasp away from a nagging two-dimensional daughter figure from the first film and into a fleshed-out superheroine here.

Her story is clearly the focus, and the ongoing struggles of her and her father play wonderfully against the carefree nature of Scott and his own struggles. There are a lot of elements at play all at once here, and while not all of them are done as well as others, the fact that they're all happening at once helps to add to the sense of urgency and to the film's time component.

That's right, in a wise move, the film is mostly on a time limit, and it helps to raise the stakes on an otherwise small-scale adventure. It adds some wonderful tension to the proceedings as well as create moments for humor. And there are a lot of humorous moments.

It’s as if Marvel saw the reception to the first film and simply gave the writing team of Chris McKenna (“The Lego Batman Movie,” “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”), Erik Sommers (“The Lego Batman Movie,” “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”), Andrew Barrer (“Haunt”), Gabriel Ferrariand, and Rudd and director Peyton Reed (“Yes Man,” “Down with Love”) more room to get weird with the character and the humor. It ends up being funnier than the first film because of this, and probably one of the weirdest Marvel movies yet.

Ghost, played by Hannah John-Kamen (“Black Mirror,” “Game of Thrones”) makes for an extremely interesting antagonist, especially when her motives and goals become revealed. This aren’t always as black and white as they seem, and the writers clearly enjoyed pitting these different minds and motives against each other.

Shrinking and growing around within the action is still extremely cool, and the crew continues to take advantage of the size differences for some visually engaging battles. It never gets old to see them jump around a wall at the size of an ant, only to grow to a building a moment later. Most scenes play out like Rube Goldberg machines of tiny action and they’re a joy to watch.

Overall, it’s just a more solid film than the first. The script is tighter, the story is more fleshed out and original, and the humor is brighter. Rudd really struts his stuff in the third act with some truly weird bits (“Oh, jellybean.”).

It also helps to show that Marvel still understands the importance of smaller scale stories. It’s fun to roam around the universe and save the world from Hydra death bombs, but it’s also perfectly fine to not do that. It helps create a sense of ease and carefree enjoyment within these smaller adventures.

However, that does lead to the fact that the film is weak in quite a few spots. The pre-Marvel logo scene feels like it unnecessarily talks down to the audience and second set of villains really feel undercooked. Again, the film does have a smaller scale and focus than past Marvel films, and some will also see that as a negative.

None of this can change the fact that “Ant-Man & the Wasp” is still a bunch of fun. It’s a funny film that isn’t afraid to get weird and let its incredibly charismatic stars just let loss and do their thing. Couple that with some excellent action and emotional arcs, and you get a film that is just an incredibly solid adventure. Nothing huge, but then again, that’s not really what Ant-Man or the Wasp do. Small scale enjoyment is their specialty. 4/5

Incredibles 2 - Review

 

Coming 14 years after the original, “Incredibles 2” enters into a world saturated with iron men and American captains. When the original was released, super hero films were occasional and not very good. The world has changed a lot since then, most evident by the fact that this sequel releases just a few months after “Infinity War,” a giant space opera of a super hero film. Do the Parr’s and their world still work well in this new day and age?

Gorgeously animated, “Incredibles 2” does in fact work quite well. Everything about this retro yet futuristic world pops with color and life. The advancements made in the last 14 years of animation haven’t changed designs or characters, instead making them even more beautiful than they’ve ever been.

Color in particular is an impressive standout detail. A chase scene halfway through the film is almost entirely orange and red, the Parr’s new house is a lush gorgeous sight to behold, and the city skylines put on display are frame worthy.

None of it gets in the way of the characters, however. Everyone is still just as super as ever, and the new focus on Elastigirl is pulled off excellently. That plot helps to showcase the film’s best aspects, its details.

Instead of saddling her with the lead 'just because', writer/director Brad Bird (“The Iron Giant,” “Ratatouille”) comes up with a legitimate and logical reason for her to take center stage. It shows how much care has gone into this world and it makes the film so much better for it. This is a double-edged sword though, as the care and attention put into the world seems to have taken away from the reasoning behind this tale.

While Bob and the kids take a definite backseat to Helen’s story, their interactions are fine enough and are entertaining. However, the entire plot feels a bit scummy given that it all revolves around trusting and relying on each other… which is the same exact message the previous film taught these characters. If they’d actually learned it then, this film’s events would’ve have played out like they did. It’s as if Bird gave the Parr’s a case of Deja-Vu for the sake of a sequel.

Michael Giacchino’s (“Up,” “Coco”) score pulse through some of the most fluidly animated and most fun action scenes of the year, and it speaks to the movie’s strong sense of fun and entertainment. Compared to the first film, which brought up heavy ideas of power, right and wrong, and the value of the everyday person, this sequel is a lot less intense and far more family friendly. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s so damn entertaining anyway.

It almost feels as though Bird wanted to get the serious stuff out of the way first, so he could let loose and bring out the absurdities in his world with the sequel. Because let it be known, the film is supremely weird. But it revels in it in the best ways possible, integrating its weirdness into the plot in clever ways.

However, the film's biggest flaw is in its villain. It's is extremely predictable, especially when compared to the first film’s. To clarify, the villain itself is well thought out, well performed and well written. But, it's also obvious who it is by the time it's revealed. To Bird’s credit, he does deliver a few twists that help to hoodwink the audience, but the result isn’t nearly as jaw dropping as it could have been.

“Incredibles 2” is an odd kind of movie wherein it just feels hollower, like a cash-grab despite many fantastic elements. The dialogue and characters are great but the overall plot and the characterizations feel thin. Its constructed well and still ahead of many other typical Hollywood animated films in recent years, but you can't help but feel that this is a film simply going through the motions. Bob, for example, goes from being a strong and intelligent father who learns to be more present by the end of the first movie, to a bumbling fool who borders on Homer Simpson levels of fatherly incompetence.

While extremely entertaining and filled with tons of great dialogue and animation, “Incredible 2” feels like it betrays the first film a bit. The plot only really makes sense if the characters forget what happened in the first film, and given how amazing that first villain was, Screenslaver is a bit bland. It’s still very entertaining, but not quite super. 3.5/5

Solo: A Star Wars Story - Review

 

A fan would be forgiven if their excitement level for “Solo” isn’t as high as other Star Wars films. The behind the scenes turmoil, coupled with the confusing idea of doing an origin story for a nameless smuggler makes this film seem like a very odd thing for Lucasfilm to focus on. But now it’s out, the marketing, behind the scenes and weirdness has passed, and now all that remains is the film itself. Should you have a bad feeling about this?

Alden Ehrenreich (“Blue Jasmine,” “Hail, Caesar!”) manages to rise above any initial worries related to his casting. His Han is funny, sweet and impulsive. He adds a fast thinking layer to his version of the eponymous smuggler, and it manages to do Ford’s original take on the character justice.

Donald Glover (“Community,” “Atlanta”) is the star of the show, however. While most of his Lando scenes are action based, when he is given a moment to sit down and lay his suave charm on, he does so excellently. He’s a character you simply want to see more of, as he adds a warmth and glow to every scene he’s in, without a doubt cementing himself as the best part of the film.

Of course, Chewy is there too. His scenes with Han still feature their trademark excellent back and forth, but now that he’s given a true subplot of his own, it goes a long way towards establishing him as more than a walking carpet. Emilia Clark (“Game of Thrones,” “Terminator Genisys”) does just fine as Qi’ra, Han’s childhood friend. She layers on just enough charm and smiles to help survive a fairly underdeveloped character, as does Paul Bettany (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Wimbledon”) as the crime lord Dryden Vos.

Woody Harrelson (“Now You See Me,” “White Men Can’t Jump”) manages to surprise as Tobias Beckett. There isn’t anything particularly new to his character, but he feels like Obi-Wan did to Luke. An older mentor who truly wants to impart some knowledge to this younger protégé. He does so with gruff and downtrodden mannerisms that manage to add enough to rise above a cookie-cutter mentor cliché.

While the cast is all well and good, it’s the story they inhabit that proves to be the films weakest element. While the idea of a western/heist film in the Star Wars universe sounds cool, what writers Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan have done is delivered an almost aggressively average heist film plot. The banter is good, no doubt about it, but the beats of this story are so familiar that it makes it hard to get excited about each passing scene.

However, each passing scene does manage to hold weight due to the simple fun of seeing these characters meet and interact. The meeting between Chewy and Han is one of the film’s highlights, and teasing moment involving other characters and brief mentions do manage to get a chuckle.

Visually, it’s one of the strongest Star Wars films to date. While that could easily be chalked up to advancements in technology, its more than that. The film has such a devout reliance on practical effects that do wonders in fleshing out the world. When Han sits in a dive bar and gives a death glare to a shifty looking alien, it works so much better than with CGI, because its clear Alden was looking at the alien puppet/costume.

It also helps to avoid the typical disconnect during big action scenes between the actors and their surroundings. They’re bolstered even more by the excellent cinematography from Bradford Young (“Arrival,” “Selma”). The camera seems to float through scenes, delivering even the most routine angles with a new sense of vision thanks to excellent lighting and sets. This isn’t the pristine nature of previous films. This is a movie filled with wretched hives of scum and villainy. John Powell’s score also does wonders, taking Williams’s classic notes and infusing them with a touch all his own.

“Solo” is many things. It’s a fun romp through the Star Wars world with characters that are fun to watch. It's also a poorly paced and extremely routine heist film. It’s also constructed and shot so expertly that it’s a joy to watch. Make no mistake, this is a fun summer blockbuster, packed with adventure and twists. But it also could have been so much more. It is, as Qi’ra tells Han, “A little rough around the edges, but still good.” 3/5