My thoughts on the new Dunkirk Trailer

(For my actual thoughts on the trailer itself, skip to the fourth paragraph):

Growing up, Christopher Nolan has, as a filmmaker, been a large presence in my life with films like Inception, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Prestige. So much style, atmosphere, and cerebral elements that stuck in my mind after leaving the theater that its always fun to talk about them. I've always looked forward to a new film of his being released but the last two releases, The Dark Knight Rises (has a number of problems but has a lot of good stuff too) and especially Interstellar (was quite ambitious in scope but rather predictable, emotionally unsatisfying, and a bit depressing in storyline) left me a bit underwhelmed.

With the upcoming Dunkirk in 2017, however, its still a bit too early to tell, but judging by the new trailer, it feels like Nolan is going to be back in full force with this one. When the project was first announced, I was so used to Nolan's films being in the crime, science-fiction, fantasy, and surrealistic genres with non-linear storytelling that I was a bit narrow minded and confused as to how he was going to approach the project. Was this going to be like a surrealistic war movie? A sci-fi time travel sort of thing? How is this going to work? He's never done a film of this genre before.

But in actuality, his previous films prove that Nolan is perfect for doing a film like Dunkirk all along because despite the surrealism, non-linearism, and off the wall action and spectacles, all of his films have had a gritty realism to them that helped ground the more fantastic elements so that they're believable. Following, Memento, and Insomnia are pure crime stories with the most fantastic elements being the background and situations of the characters,, high detail is given to the period that The Prestige takes place in with all the magical elements being explained, and the more outlandish parts left mysterious and vague but in tune with the tone and is not altogether too outlandish, Inception balances realism with fantasy into two worlds but sets things up in a way that the two can be confused, and The Dark Knight movies are gritty crime stories with Batman having the use of realistic military equipment in his work (and the easy means of obtaining them because he's a billionaire) and the villains being the most outlandish elements either because of how they're dressed or their background but their intentions and beliefs are realistic and gritty in an insane way.

Getting to the actual trailer itself (sorry about that), I'm immediately excited because as a history enthusiast, I love learning about anything from the past that I had never knew before (especially the 19th and 20th centuries and World War 2) and as a period piece, Dunkirk looks great: old, gritty, darker colors or lack there of. It looks and feels like an old fashioned war film akin to something like Saving Private Ryan or Paths of Glory. What adds to that feeling even more and makes me very excited are all the great members of the cast Nolan has collected: Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Cillian Murphy, and Mark Rylance. I know i'm going to have a fun time just based off that. The story itself sounds great too about hundreds of thousands of soldiers being trapped under constant enemy fire and the efforts to get them out (I haven't seen that many war films before but this kind of story mixed with the tone and actors involved always makes me want to see more of them) and I'm excited to see what Nolan does with it.

I really have no problems at all with this trailer. Really I have more of a problem with some of the reactions to the trailer on Youtube (a stupid thing to complain about because its the Internet, I know, but I just have to bring these up).

Some people have said that the trailer looks boring or it does nothing for them. The latter I can get because war films, like any genre, are not for everyone (I myself have only watched certain war films because of who was involved in production rather than the actual film itself, which I need to change) but for the people bored by the trailer: Um, watch more movies and or study history. Its a true story, it takes place during one of the greatest conflicts in all of human history, and just because it might be slower, doesn't mean it will be boring. Watch the movie and let it happen to you before you complain. Not everything has to be fast and quick cut.

The other complaint I noticed was about the casting of Harry Styles from the band One Direction in the film. While I have heard a lot of negative thoughts about the band and while I'm not really a fan of the post 2000s teen pop kind of bands/musicians that have appeared, I don't know that much about the band anyway and no one has seen this guy act so I think its a little early to complain about him. For the most part, Nolan really seems to know what he is doing and I trust his judgement. He's made controversial casting choices in the past (Heath Ledger as The Joker, anyone?) and look how those have turned out. (Really, the only time/s its felt like Nolan has miscast someone has been Marion Cotillard in The Dark Knight Rises and David Oyelowo in Interstellar (but those were badly written roles to begin with anyway, so its not really their or Nolan's (from a directing standpoint) fault.

Long story short (too late), I'm loving what I'm seeing from Dunkirk so far, I'm excited to see what the future trailers show and I'll definitely be at the theaters when the film opens next year. Let me know what you thought in the comments below:

Moana

Moana is a wonderful film: Beautifully and richly animated with strong, heartfelt characters, an engaging story, toe-tapping songs and great humor.

Directed by legendary Disney artists John Musker and Ron Clements ( of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Princess and the Frog, and Treasure Planet fame), the film is about a Polynesian girl named Moana who has loved the ocean all her life and wants to go beyond her island home to explore it, but cannot due to her father's insistence that they have everything they need on the island and her time is better suited to leading their tribe. When their source of food starts to die off however, Moana must venture out and find the demigod Maui and return a magical stone he has stolen, to make things right again.

The film has a very strong cast led by newcomer Auli'i Cravalho, a wonderful actress and beautiful singer, as Moana and Dwayne Johnson as Maui, who has a lot of funny quips and one-liners, as well as a magical tattoo (that kept reminding me of the Genie from Aladdin for some reason).

The story and animation blend together wonderfully, exploring the theme of finding one's identity and true calling in life and really opening up the scope and majesty of the epic world it inhabits, which is the culture and mythology of Polynesia (bringing back happy memories of my visits to the Polynesian Cultural Center in Oahu. If you haven't gone, I highly recommend it!). The film somehow even manages to subvert the cliches of Disney formula like joking that Moana isn't technically a princess since she's the daughter of a chief or glossing over the fact that "she is the chosen one", which is actually really refreshing. It also takes its time at telling the story, dedicating at least half an hour or so to setting everything up, but it really pays off, leaving me very satisfied emotionally.

While not as catchy as "Try Everything" from Zootopia or ear worm, can't get it out of your head inducing as "Let it Go" from Frozen, all the songs in Moana are still very strong, heartfelt and memorable, especially "How Far I'll Go" and "We Know The Way", which I've found myself listening to several times after having seen the movie (and plan to listen to listen to several more times in the following weeks).

I really have nothing negative to say about the film other than extreme nitpicks that I could easily overlook with a second viewing, although I could see these being problems for other people, like why, except for comedy relief and one brief moment during the climax, was Moana's animal sidekick a really dumb chicken? It had no significance to the plot. Other nitpicks include some of the jokes involving Maui being a little too meta, like an eye roll inducing in-joke to Twitter, a cliche that took away from Maui's arc a little bit, and least of all, some of the transitions into songs were a bit sudden.

But like I mentioned above, those negatives are extreme nitpicks that do very little if anything at all to deter the so many great positive elements of the film overall.

I definitely say see it! Disney has done it again!

4.5 Stars out of 5

Doctor Strange

Dr. Strange is the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the latest to introduce a new character and new environment/world to explore during their origin story. 

Benedict Cumberbatch does a great job as the titular Doctor Steven Strange, a cocky and selfish but brilliant surgeon who eventually turns sorcerer after a car accident permanently damages his hands, as do the rest of the cast, especially Rachel McAdams as Christine Palmer, a nurse and Strange's ex, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo, a fellow sorcerer, Tilda Swinton as Strange's teacher The Ancient One, and Mads Mikkelsen as the villain Kaecilius. All the main characters in the cast are wonderful acted and their relationships are really strong and heartfelt (there are some moments that are really sad and heart tugging) , especially the chemistry between Cumberbatch and McAdams. The majority of the character arcs are strong and effective as well.

The visuals and special effects are extremely well done and imaginative, as are the fight scenes. Unfortunately, two major elements of this movie hinder all the positive elements of the movie, preventing me from giving a higher rating: Strange's character arc and the world of the movie that the story takes place in.

With Strange's character arc, it just feels rather muddled. I was never really sure whether his arc was going from a selfish jerk to a more selfless person, finding a way to move on and find a new purpose in life after his accident, to forget everything he knew and see things in a new life, embrace death, or all of the above, because they felt all over the place, so I was never quite clear about what it wanted to say.. Not only that but, while it did show some progression of an arc (like Stephen practicing and learning these new skills, a lot of times, they felt really rushed, like I didn't know that Strange has been training for several months until a character says it, but it only feels like a few days. Then suddenly, he is thrown into a new location where he'll be ending up at the end of the film. The arc was in so many pieces that only the relationships he had with Palmer and Mordo felt emotionally earned (even the crossover during the credits felt rushed as well).

With the world that the story takes place in, I love the idea of someone exploring eastern methods of healing and spirituality (indeed Buddhism and Hinduism sound like very intriguing topics), but the film is so vague and confusing with the "other worlds, dimensions and planes of existence) element, that, when mixed with Strange's muddled character arc, I didn't find myself caring as much about the overall story as I should have, and I don't have much of a desire to see the film again. 

Maybe I will catch more details on a second viewing and if they fix these two problems while keeping the other elements strong in a sequel, then I will totally be on board. Until then though, I find this only an okay addition to the MCU and a meh addition to the origins section of the MCU library (Go to the first Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger for the absolute best of that section).

3 stars out of 5

My Thoughts on the first trailer for the 2017 Version of The Mummy

My thoughts on the new Mummy Trailer: I'll say right out that both the original 1932 Mummy and the 1999 Brendan Fraser remake are two of my favorite films; the 1932 version as classic monster horror and the Brendan Fraser version as an epically fun and old fashioned love letter to pulpy treasure hunt adventures. 

After the disastrous Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, however, I thought the Mummy as an overall series was good to put to rest and I was satisfied emotionally, thinking they had covered all their bases with the slow creepiness of the old fashioned horror in the original and the fast paced romance and adventure of the remake and even the more explicit horror of the Hammer versions.

On the same note, I love Tom Cruise and his movies like the Mission Impossible series, Edge of Tomorrow, Minority Report, and some of his early work like A Few Good Men. 

When I heard that Universal was bringing the Mummy and Tom Cruise together, though, I had to pause with some interest. Its Tom Cruise, its the Mummy, and its in modern day and played straight horror. Okay, this could be interesting. Let's wait for the trailer and check this out.

Well, the trailer has arrived and...meh?

It starts off with a well choreographed exploding airplane scene but the tone just feels off. It feels like a mixture between Mission Impossible and Transformers, with a little bit of Clive Barker thrown in (which is ironic as Barker was originally hired to work on a version of The Mummy in the early 90s before the Brendan Fraser one came out. But from what I've seen of Barker's work though, none of it comes off as "This is Ancient Egypt" to me.

There were a couple of weird sound effects in that airplane sequence though: the first being the sound of one of the pilots being hit by the locusts crashing into the windshield. I'm not sure, but wasn't that sound effect a death cry used in Goldeneye 64 from the 90s? Second, while Tom Cruise's scream is a bit weird in general, he can use it to great effect like in Mission Impossible or Edge of Tomorrow, but here? It sounded really weird. Almost forced in a way. Then again, that would make sense because Cruise has hung off the side of a plane in flight and propelled down the largest building in the world so pretending to be in a plane crash wouldn't seem that scary.

The Mummy's tomb and the Mummy herself played by Sofia Boutella, who I'm dying to see in Star Trek Beyond, have a weird tone as well with the tomb looking like something out of H.P Lovecraft rather than an Egyptian tomb, and the Mummy kind of looking like the villain from The Ring.

The film itself is meant to serve as an entry in Universal's new franchise spin on their classic Horror Monsters with all of them coming together ala The Avengers or the Justice League, which is brought up in the trailer via Russell Crowe's appearance as Dr. Jekyll. While Crowe's casting as Jekyll kind of makes sense, I can't help wondering what he'll look like as Mr. Hyde. But every time I think of that, it keeps bringing up images of the Mr. Hyde from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a bad but corny and fun (to me) film and that just comes off as really bizarre.

Then again, this is only the first trailer and I don't want to judge a book by its cover It will be interesting to see what kind of "straight horror" scares and atmosphere they bring to the film and, seeing behind the scenes footage, I could tell the cast and crew were having a great time, especially Tom Cruise, and that's usually a good sign. I've seen Cruise in some bad movies but even then, he's always entertaining and is usually the best part of a movie. Even if the movie itself is bad, I know I'll enjoy watching him in it, guarenteed.

For now, I'm being cautiously optimistic until future trailers and the actual film comes out, but for this one trailer, all I can think is "eh, I don't know about this."

The Edge of Seventeen

Its been quite a while since I've seen a film that has been able to balance the awkward, messy, raunchy, heartbreaking, and hilarious elements of a teenage life, while also portraying it with truth and realism. The Edge of Seventeen is able to do just that. You know a film has touched a human truth when its making you cringe while watching it. Indeed, all I could think during these scenes was "Its too real! Its too real!" (Probably why I haven't gone to that many teenage films over the years).

Plot-wise, the film is all about the awkwardness: All her life, Nadine, played by Hailee Steinfeld, has been uncomfortable in her own skin, dealing with the pressures of school and a troubled family life, which is especially exacerbated by an early tragedy. When her best friend and brother start developing a relationship with each other, everything in her life starts to go to pieces.

The script is incredibly jam-packed, delivering not only a lot of hilarious, quirky, and vulgar dialogue, but also moments of bitter painful emotion, that left a sting in my chest once they left the character's lips. It all feels natural and well developed. For a lack of a better word, true to life.

Hailee Steinfeld, who I was happy to see again after her great performance in True Grit, knocks it out of the park with a balanced performance of whiny selfishness and quirky warmth. She's a typical whiny selfish teenager but there's a lot more going on with her under the surface. Steinfeld has great chemistry with everyone else in the cast, especially Woody Harrelson, who gives a nice understated performance as her wisecracking history teacher, and Hayden Szeto as an awkward filmmaker classmate, who she has a sweet relationship with.

The fact the film is produced by James L Brooks, who is known for his warm and hilarious human dramedies like Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News, As Good as It Gets as well as The Simpsons, is no surprise to me because it definitely feels like the kind of film he would make (I hope to check out those three films above soon as well).

On the downside, the film does have some cliched moments such as Nadine's encounter with "the boy she fantasizes from afar", which I could definitely see coming, and I wish some of the resolutions with the other characters could been done a bit stronger, but these are rather minor faults in an otherwise fantastic film.

Definitely check it out.

4 stars out of 5.

My Thoughts on the upcoming Lion King remake.

(This is my first blog piece about my thoughts of an upcoming film. I'll try to do this more in the future as well as classic movie reviews as well).


I usually try to be open minded about remakes, adaptations, and sequels, I really do. I really enjoyed the Disney Cinderella and Jungle Book live action remakes for instance.

I also always look forward to a film by Jon Favreau because he's made a lot of fun movies like Iron Man, Elf, and the recent Jungle Book remake. Even his less well received work like Zathura and Cowboys and Aliens.
But now, Disney is announcing that Favreau is going to be directing a live-action remake, that I just can't see working out: The Lion King.

I'll get my personal bias out of the way and say that The Lion King is not only my favorite animated Disney film of all time, but also my favorite overall movie of all time. However, this is not the reason for me putting the movie down so early.

Rather, its for two main reasons: the visual aesthetic and the voice acting.
With the visual aesthetic of the other Disney live action remakes, those worked because live action versions of the stories in those movies had been done before and done well, and I was curious to see what kind of visual flair Disney and the directors that they picked for that remake would give to it.
Those live action remakes also had at least one physical human actor on screen that helped sell and ground the idea of it being live action.

With a live action version of The Lion King, however, that is not the case. The Lion King, despite taking inspiration from Shakespeare, is its own unique film that was hand animated, and other than the sequels, games, and tv series in its franchise, has never been remade outside of that.
The style in the animated Lion King allowed the filmmakers to tell the story in a creative way, with the feelings and tone of mysticism, mythology, and cartoony humor encapsulated in the shell of a nature documentary.
With the live-action version, however, its all animal characters, which means most likely photo realistic CGI (technically still an animated movie.) Because of that, I have a feeling only the nature documentary aspect would come through most effectively. Don't get me wrong: photo realistic CGI characters have been done well both physically and emotionally in other movies: Smeagel/Gollum in the Lord of the Rings, the Na'vi in Avatar, and even all the animals in the Jungle Book live action remake.

However, speaking of the Jungle Book remake, this restricts those characters or even the story from doing the more cartoony and supernatural elements effectively. When Jon Favreau made the live action Jungle Book, he tried to keep some of the original elements from the animated version in, like the songs. Because he did that though, the scenes that included those elements came off as awkward and even ruining the moment in his version (Christopher Walken as a menacing King Louie starts singing "I Wanna Be Like You" out of nowhere).
Part of what made Favreau's live action Jungle Book work so well though was when he pulled away from being faithful to the animated version and doing his own thing (Mowgli saying goodbye to the wolf pack and his adoptive mother, Raksha in the rain being a top example of that).

Going onto the voices, while I'm sure Favreau and his crew will try their absolute best to find effective actors for the roles in the live action Lion King, with the animated version, I think the crew on that film absolutely nailed the casting. When I bring up the following list of actors, their roles in the animated Lion King is immediately what I think of: James Earl Jones...that's Mufasa! Jonathan Taylor Thomas....that's Young Simba! Nathan Lane...That's Timon! Jeremy Irons...that's Scar! (etcetera, etcetera.) (In fact, that's kind of the same feeling i had with Phil Harris as the animated Baloo, with it feeling awkward when I heard Bill Murray as Baloo in the live action version, besides the fact that Murray has such a distinct voice).


Now this is just initial impressions from a news announcement and I could be wrong: Favreau and his team are effective and really good filmmakers and they made the live action Jungle Book mostly work, but with the Lion King, it feels like a different situation: the mysticism, mythology, cartoon humor, and nature documentary feel were such an integral part of the animated version's story and atmosphere, that if they pull too much away from those elements, they'll lose what made the film great and if they stick too closely to those elements, it'll just be a retread of the original version. Even if they find a middle ground, I can't help but feel I'll be asking: what's the point?
I'll still watch the film when it comes out but still.

Captain America: Civil War Review

Sorry its so late but here's my review of Captain America: Civil War. After an accident during a battle with mercenaries leads to casualties, Captain America and the Avengers must deal with both the Sokovia Accords, a government bill designed to regulate superhuman actions, and the reemergence of The Winter Soldier, who may or may not be responsible for an attack on the United Nations.

What else can I say about this movie other than it is complete jam packed! At least four or five subplots are going on at the same time and yet most if not all of them end up working out really really great. The characters all have deep personal moments and their stories all tie together nicely, whether they're main or secondary. As a result, two big plot moments that I could see coming, still really hit hard emotionally and had big impact on the plot.

Even the introduction of new characters, The Black Panther and the new Spider-Man played by Tom Holland, who I was worried would be needlessly forced in, worked out really wonderfully. So much so, that they made me definitely want to see the Black Panther and Spider-Man solo movies that are coming out the next couple of years (despite me either not having much interest or having lost interest in those characters beforehand). If I had any problems at all with their characters, its that the beginning of Black Panther's arc felt a little bit rushed and could have used just a little bit more build up, but that's really just a nitpick as the rest of his arc is solid (and it can be argued that the buildup will be fleshed out more in the solo movie).

I thought I was going to have issues with the decision to make the character of Aunt May. here played by Marisa Tomei, younger, but the way it was executed and the version of the Spider-Man world that the character was placed in, I thought worked very well and I look forward to how both characters are further portrayed in the solo movie.

All the leads like Chris Evans as Cap, Robert Downey Jr, as Iron Man, Scarlett Johannson as Natasha Romanov, etc. do a great job in their performances, fitting so effortlessly into their roles that they feel like old friends. While some of the actors and characters are fairly new to the series like Paul Bettany as Vision, Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlett Witch, Chadwick Boseman as The Black Panther, and Tom Holland as Spider-Man, I can definitely see them starting to fit into their roles here and further down the road as well.
Daniel Bruhl also does a great job with his role as a surprise villain, who, as opposed to a lot of Marvel's villain, is very subtle and "behind the scenes" in his evil doing. On the one hand, because of this, his character is somewhat forgettable, but at the same time, his actions and character development really leaves a big impact on everyone else.

Along with the actors, the film really comes together thanks to the work and talent of the directing and writing teams Anthony and Joe Russo (who directed both this and Winter Soldier) and Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who have been with the series since First Avenger (Woohoo!). They've really done their research and really took the time to make the story and characters work, right down to the fantastic cinematography, lighting, action scenes, etc. If I had any complaints in this area, it'd be that the title cards for the locations (Laos, London, etc.) needlessly fill the entire screen and are a bit distracting. Again, a nitpick).

Really, the only major problems I have with the film involve its tone and the rest being due to personal bias mixed with nitpicking.
With the tone, I appreciate the fact that the film tried to go for a darker more complex feel but its overall tone feels a bit uneven and a little wonky. There are huge chunks of the film that are completely serious and almost humorless. While there are comedy bits here and there though, they're mainly to break the tension from earlier scenes. When the film gets to the big German airport fight, however everything goes completely crazy and hilariously insane (in the best way possible). However, as soon as this sequence finishes, it jumps right back into seriousness.

As a result, the tone feels like a serious sandwich with some hilarious comedy in the middle, or in less convoluted terms, two different movies and that was slightly distracting.

In terms of personal bias, the scene I'm thinking of involves one of the big plot moments that I could see coming. While it does work emotionally and story-wise in the film for Cap, and makes sense for the Cap movies overall, it involves a character who I highly enjoyed watching, both in the Cap movies, and in their own personal TV series. With the moment involving this character that happened in Civil War, and with their TV series most likely being canceled (I'll find out by next week), unless something happens with this character in the upcoming Infinity War movies,.it looks like this character's time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is sadly coming to a close. I find this really unfortunate as I feel a lot more fun adventures and character development could be had with them.

Nitpick-wise, while the movie was called Captain America: Civil War, it still felt like it was Avengers 2.5 or Avengers 3 quite a bit. However, I only classify this as a nitpick because, personally, I've been used to the singular Marvel movies as being one of the heroes surrounded by a supporting cast, with maybe a cameo or a secondary role by one of the Avengers, and this was a new experience. Not to mention that the final result works as both a Captain America and Avengers movie anyway.

Other than that, any other nitpicks are extremely minor like wishing some characters had a little more screen time/things to do but it makes sense as to why they are like this.

Other than problems with tone and my own personal feelings, this is a great entry into both the Captain American series and the MCU series at large. Out of all the Marvel Universe films, all three Captain America films have turned out the strongest (Iron Man 1 aside) into a solid could be classic trilogy, and I personally think it is because Cap is the most human out of all the Avengers characters. He's not a spy, a billionaire, a god, or a robot. He's just a regular guy who's trying to do the right thing. Sure, he's genetically enhanced, but he's still down to earth, has morals, makes mistakes, feels pain (and insecurity at times) and he has gained and lost a lot, mainly through his own actions. He's human but he's the ideal human, both in physicality and spirit. (I'm sorry if that was really cornball and cheesy).
I definitely say see it if you haven't already.

Rating: 4.3 stars out of 5.

(If anyone is curious, while I do agree Winter Soldier and Civil War are the better films, my personal favorite is still The First Avenger because its great old fashioned action/adventure fun, its got strong characters and stories, great performances, beautiful cinematography (and just because I love anything from the 30s and 40s).

The Jungle Book (2016) Review

Sorry it took me so long but I finally got to see the live action Jungle Book movie that came out (technically this is my second time seeing it because I arrived late at the first showing and thought I had missed some of the opening. Turns out, I just missed the opening titles). I apologize in advance that this is such a long post and if I accidentally reveal too much, let me know and I'll take it out).
A live action remake of the 1967 animated Disney film, this version is directed by Jon Favreau and stars newcomer Neel Sethi as Mowgli amidst a large array of CGI animals voiced by an all star cast and feels like a mix between the animated version and a slightly darker old fashioned adventure, like the original Jungle Book stories.

Despite being entirely filmed on a sound stage in downtown Los Angeles, I kept forgetting that fact both times I watched the film. The CGI work is absolutely fantastic, expertly designed and painstakingly detailed. Not to mention richly atmospheric and brightly colored (More of this please!)

The animals are almost at that level of design as well, although some might find it lacking (I myself found it ranging from not quite there to so real, its a bit unnerving/distracting. There are some moments though where its accomplished just right, such as when Mowgli and the wolf put their heads together). Even so, the CGI mixed with the story and characters is done at such a level, that even if the CGI does bother you, it won't for very long (I found myself ignoring it more this time around).
The voice acting for the animal characters has a similar range as well: The actors that absolutely nail their roles are Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha, Mowgli's adoptive wolf mother, portraying so much power and emotion in so few words (and making me kick myself for not having seen her Oscar winning role in 12 Years A Slave yet) and the great Ben Kingsley as Bagheera.
While getting off to a slow start, I was quickly won over by Idris Elba as Shere Khan, giving the character the perfect amount of menacing power both vocally, and as an incentive, physically as well (Even psychologically at one point as well)..

The two voices I was most worried about, Scarlett Johansson as Kaa and Christopher Walken as King Louie, actually turned out to be rather effective despite certain problems with the scenes that they were in (which I'll get to in a moment). Johansson was able to manipulate her voice in a such a way that, when mixed with the visuals, was giving me some pretty good goosebumps by the time the scene was over. Walken as Louie also gave the character a good amount of menace and danger, kind of playing the role like a New York gangster (albeit as a giant orangutan).
Finally, I come to Bill Murray as Baloo. What else can I say other than he's charismatic in the role? That's both a good and a bad thing however. Good, in that it helped ease me in and enjoy his performance, but also bad in that the second I heard his voice, I kept picturing him as Bill Murray and couldn't quite embrace him in the role like I did with Phil Harris in the animated version.
Despite this being Sethi's first role, he does a fairly good job, giving a nice physical and vocal performance through much of the film, despite being by himself most if not all the time, and I look forward to his future roles. That being said though, there are things he does need to work on as quite a few of his line deliveries come off as a bit distracting or non-believable (although that's understandable given the circumstances he was working under).

When it comes to the negatives, there are two big ones, namely some wonkiness in the execution of the story and the inclusion of the more obvious elements of the animated version, both of which might be tied together. With the story, the flaws lie in some of the transitions that lead to bigger scenes, with some of them feeling rushed or a little sloppily done. This would include Kaa knowing Mowgli's backstory of when he came to the jungle, Mowgli being reluctant to leave the jungle, when Mowgli first meets Baloo, and Baloo upsetting Mowgli when trying to get him to the man village. While the first of these is understandable and is actually done fairly well, the remaining three are done either in a rush or with a sloppy execution or both.

The biggest problem I had with the story though was the arc where something big happened to an important secondary character that drives Mowgli toward the climax. While the event that happened was shocking, I did not feel the character was built up enough emotionally to leave a proper impact for the audience when the event does happen and the aftermath that leads up to the climax.
What I think hurts the film most though is the inclusion of the more obvious elements from the animated version, like the two bits I mentioned above, the opening and closing, etc. If all those elements had been removed or tweaked and a little more focus had been put on the old fashioned adventure elements (similar to what Kenneth Branagh successfully did with Cinderella last year), then I think the film would have been that much more stronger.

Going back to those transitional scenes, the inclusion to make Mowgli's reluctance to leave the jungle (for one scene mind you) similar to the animated version, where he was a bit of a brat, not only felt way out of character for this version of Mowgli, but also undermined a big emotional scene that occurred right before it.

With the Baloo scenes, while not a problem in terms of being straight from the animated version, was a problem in how they were executed. The former in that instead of easing Mowgli into calming down and starting to trust him, Baloo simply says he has to do something for him, and the latter was executed in such a lazy cliche way, that I had to stop myself from groaning. Both end up hurting the character of Baloo and was another reason why I had trouble fully embracing this version of the character.
Then there are the inclusion of the classic Disney songs, "Bear Necessities", "I Wanna Be Like You" and "Trust In Me" which really feel unnecessarily forced in to tie into the animated version more ("Bare Necessities" and "Trust in Me" less so but that's not saying much). The most unnecessary of the three is Christopher Walken singing "I Wanna Be Like You". Not only is it straight out of left field, but it also undermines the vocal and physical threat that is established for the character (Walken can definitely be effective when he plays it straight, folks. Cowbell, parody, and weirdness jokes aside).

"Trust in Me"'s placement in the ending credits isn't bad as Johansson has a beautiful voice and keeps up that serpentine allure she had when voicing Kaa, but the execution of the song itself, mixed with the background pictures during the end credits, still felt a bit distracting as it came off more like the opening to a James Bond movie than the closing of a Jungle Book movie.
"Bear Necessities" while a little rough in its execution, was not that bad, but simply felt out of place as there was mainly action and drama beforehand with no songs to ease us into it. (Plus. I hate to be that guy but its hard to do a new version of the song when the animated version did it so iconically). Again, if these songs had been removed and the story a little more straightforward, then it would have been a bit more stronger.

Despite these problems, the film really does work effectively, having enough strong story and character elements, action, drama, comedy, editing/pacing, and CGI work to engage the audience emotionally and effectively pull them into the movie. Even better, not only does the film feel like an old fashioned adventure, but it has a nice balance between light and dark and an overall lightness, innocence, and upbeat attitude that makes you feel good leaving the theater and is something that I think is sorely missing from movies lately.
Add this as another positive project to Jon Favreau's directing belt as he definitely has an eye for cultural and nostalgic kind of projects (Iron Man 1 and 2, Chef, Elf, the highly underrated Zathura and Cowboys and Aliens, and finally this one).
I definitely say see it if you haven't already.

Final Rating: 3.4 stars out of 5.

(One last note. I was very happy to finally see a movie where wolves were portrayed as good guys. Thank God!)

Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

Whelp, I finally got to see Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice...meh. While not not as bad as I thought it was going to be, it was still really bad. The basic plot being that Bruce Wayne becomes vengeful of Superman after many of his employees are killed in Zod's attack and Clark Kent becomes distrustful of Batman's vigilantism in Gotham City. Lex Luthor works behind the scenes to manipulate the two into fighting each other. Throw in Diana Prince/Wonder Woman sneaking around and Lois Lane investigating a mystery bullet fired during an encounter with Superman in the desert and you've pretty much got the movie. I'll focus on the good elements first though, namely Ben Affleck as Batman, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and roughly the first 30 minutes. Despite the way their characters are written or lack thereof, and in Gadot's case, not being given much to do, Affleck's performance was fairly good as he had the right intensity and darkness needed for the role so I look forward to how he performs in the solo Batman film that he's directing in the future. Gal Gadot has a nice mysteriousness to her performance and a backstory that, judging from the footage shown so far, could be explored pretty nicely in her solo movie. I have mixed feelings about her theme song though in that when played with the images on screen a few times is rather catchy, but overall, a rock guitar theme just doesn't feel like it suits the character of Wonder Woman herself, to me anyway. A good chunk of the first 20-30 minutes are beautifully shot and surprisingly atmospheric such as the opening with Wayne's parents' deaths and the suspenseful chilling first appearance of Wayne as Batman and I wish the rest of the movie was like that. That's where all the bad stuff comes in, however. Despite being somewhat coherent, the story and script is an absolute mess. While having some fairly interesting ideas and concepts like heroes being led astray and questioning whether the power Superman has is a gift or danger to the public, the execution is very sloppily done, making Batman and Superman look very bad as characters, which I'll get to in a moment. Random moments happen in the film just so other random moments can happen later on, and appearances or mentions of other superheroes in the DC Universe pop up purely to set up their solo films and the Justice League movie later on, including an appearance in a dream within a dream that is never dwelled upon or referenced again. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, given nothing to do, comes off as a rather obnoxious rip off of Heath Ledger's Joker, having no rhyme or reason to his schemes, other than he's clearly insane. Amy Adams as Lois Lane, gives it her best shot, but her character does not need to be in this movie at all. Well known great actors like Jeremy Irons, Laurence Fishburne, Holly Hunter, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are all right in their assortment of roles but largely forgettable (Lane is the most successful at being memorable and emotionally resonant, giving me the only genuine laugh, when she first meets Batman, and the only genuine drama, in the film's stone cold bummer of an ending. What's worse is that I found myself either reflecting on earlier films that these actors had been in or earlier portrayals of these DC characters that I wished I was seeing instead like Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams, Silverado, and Open Range, Holly Hunter in The Incredibles, Jeremy Irons in The Lion King and Die Hard with a Vengeance, Laurence Fishburne in The Matrix, and Diane Lane in Chaplin and My Dog Skip (heck if you wanted to go with the leads, Affleck in Daredevil, Argo, and Good Will Hunting and Henry Cavell in last year;s Man from U.N.C.L.E.) For the DC portrayals, there's Jackie Cooper as Perry White, Gene Hackmen and Clancy Brown as Lex Luthor, and definitely Michael Cane and Michael Gough as Alfred in the Nolan and 90s Batman movies. Getting back on track (sorry about that), I come to my two or three biggest gripes with the movie, which are the way that the characters are portrayed, Zack Snyder's direction, and the set up of the DC Cinematic Universe. With the characters of Superman, Batman and even Wonder Woman a little bit, I get what the filmmakers were trying to do in making the heroes and their world modernly dark in that they are heroes led astray, worn down by failures and or mounting evil, but we never go clearly enough into their backstories, so we never get a full sense of why they are like this (even if you've seen Man of Steel!) As a result, Batman and Superman come off more as whiny, selfish,nihilistic cruel jerks/a-holes. Superman is even fine with being a "God" at certain points, clearing threatening that he might kill his opponent if they're not careful. But the only character that makes sense when they're talking about Superman, or at least the Superman that a lot of people have grown up with is a secondary character speaking through a news broadcast, saying "Maybe he's not a god or a demon. Maybe he's just a guy who's trying to do the right thing." And that's who Superman is and is supposed to be! If the filmmakers wanted to make darker versions of Superman and Batman, have them be as they originally were: strong, enduring, kind, loyal, and smart with strong values, and make their worlds around them as dark and complex as possible to test them. They have their quirks and weaknesses and weren't always trusting of each other but they respected each other and kept going. Sometimes they did lose their way or give up in despair but they always had something or someone to help them get back on their feet. That's what a true hero is and that's why Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and other heroes like Captain America and Spider-Man (Sorry DC Fanboys) have endured to myself and many other people since we were kids. They had values and codes that they always followed and never gave up. Next with Zack Snyder's direction, again, he does offer some great cinematography and moments of pure suspense and drama, as well as going in certain directions or doing certain things with the characters that are intriguing, but overall, I still think he is way better as a cinematographer than a director because in every single film I've seen of his, he's either hired bad screenwriters, fiddled too much with the screenwriting himself and clearly doesn't know how to tell a proper story, and or he cuts out too many important story and character details that would make things clearer in editing, so his films always end up feeling rather lacking or overbloated. (He even messes up the continuity between films as well with Man of Steel ending with everyone knowing that Clark Kent is Superman but in this movie, only Lois seems to know who he is. Not to mention portraying the characters in a way where the audience is expected to know what the characters or doing or are the way they are because it was in the comics (but that only die hard comic book fans would know) Finally, my last gripe is with how this film sets up the DC Cinematic Universe that's meant to come up in the next few years. I can see the filmmakers trying to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and be similar in structure with solo and group films but also different by making their films darker and doing the group event movies first followed by the solo movies, which is an interesting idea. However, while leaving certain details to be answered in the solo movies, not enough character and backstory was given to the characters here in this movie to engage me, make me care about them, or look forward to seeing them in future movies. Plus the others are randomly dropped in there to set up their movies and the Justice League movies too. While some of the future movies do look good and are written and directed by other filmmakers, like the Wonder Woman and Batman solo movies along with Suicide Squad, I won't hold my breath until I get to see them (If they're anything like Batman V Superman though, my hospitality for the DC Cinematic Universe will be pretty dried up (and this from a guy who loves both DC and Marvel!) I'll stay optimistic though. For the time being, I'll wait for Captain America: Civil War and watch the Nolan Batman and Christopher Reeves Superman movies again, all of which do have well rounded stories and characters you can become emotionally engaged with. If you're a die-hard fan though and you want to see your favorite DC hero on screen, talking and fighting, as well as references to popular DC stories,in the comics, I say go for it, but for everybody else, I definitely say skip it! Final Rating: 2.3 stars out of 5

Zootopia Movie Review

Haven't done a film review in a while (Sorry about that everyone) but I'm here with a new one, Zootopia!: When Judy Hopps, a bunny from the rural town of Bunnyburrow, becomes the first ever rabbit police officer, she moves to the big city of Zootopia to get to work. For her first big case, she is forced to work with a con artist fox named Nick Wilde in order to solve the disappearance of several missing mammal residents.. I'll admit that when I saw the teaser trailer for this, I was about ready to write it off. While the concept was interesting, it looked a little too corny and cynical for even my tastes: the tagline being "like nothing you've seen be-fur" (har har). And this is from a guy who grew up with Looney Tunes, all the Disney features and shorts, the 70s Robin Hood being a notable example, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Boy, was I wrong! Little did I know that this would turn out to be an engaging buddy-cop mystery film with themes of stereotyping and racism (Irony of ironies). The animation is beautifully done and the world of Zootopia is wonderfully detailed and thought out, from how animals of different regions could all live together in one big area down to how all the businesses and locations could allow easy access for both bigger and smaller animals. The animation and locations are also very strong in atmosphere, ranging from warm and upbeat to dark, suspenseful, and terrifying (this film is not afraid to go dark and deep). The characters are wonderfully designed, animated, and perfectly cast, especially Ginnifer Goodwin as the upbeat and determined Hopps and Justin Bateman as the sly, sarcastic Nick Wilde. At the end of the movie, I felt like they could have gone a little deeper with the Nick Wilde character, but I may have missed a few details (nothing another viewing can't solve). Other members of the cast include Idris Elba, Alan Tudyk, Maurice LaMarche, and Shakira. Except for a small plot hole that I didn't even notice until long after the movie was over (so grasping for straws here) the story is solid, feeling well-rounded, deep, and emotion filled. Really if I had any negatives to say about the movie, it would be because I'm over familiar with the buddy cop, mystery, and optimistic underdog coming to the big city genres. I instantly recognized their tropes and set ups in the first thirty minutes and I think that did momentarily distract me. I also guessed who the surprise villain was (but that may have had more to do with being an idiot and looking at the Wikipedia page a few days previously). All that being said, the story, characters and mystery that used those genres was still really good and solid, and more than enough to keep me interested and entertained. Plus, I love those genres anyway and the tropes and cliches are what make those genres possible (what would science-fiction be without aliens, robots, or outer space for example) so it was unfair of me to judge the use of genre in that way. I haven't seen a good old fashioned buddy cop film in a while and this really delivered, also adding in some new twists and turns. Plus I'm always a sucker for an optimistic underdog story and a good mystery. Like I said above, those are very minor grasping at straws, proves I watch too many movies negatives and I have a feeling that if I watched the movie again, I could totally ignore those minor distractions and my final rating for the film would be even higher than it is now. Some people might be fatigued by Zootopia's theme of racism, especially with what's going on in real life right now, and accuse the film of beating the audience over the head with it, but that's definitely not the case (The Oscars on the other hand...). While there is constant dialogue and exposition references to racism (or rather speciesism in this case), the story handles it very well, spacing it out so that it feels natural in the story and with the characters, with the rest of the time being done visually and subtlety, so that it comes out to just the right amount. Zootopia also teaches its lessons through the story in a fun, interesting way with its engaging mystery and the likable characters. When it does have to be told through exposition, its still done in fun ways like kids putting on a play, and when it has to be serious, its like a good friend having a reassuring chat with you when you know you've messed up. It also comes out at just the right time to be relevant, not speaking down to the audience, and have enough for both kids and adults. At the same time, it was so entertaining and heartfelt that I think it has enough power for quite a while, if not years to come. I'm probably laying it on a little thick at this point, but at the very least, I can definitely tell why its become a hit with critics and audiences. Overall, Zootopia is a great time, having strong characters, an engaging story, beautiful animation, and a lot of imagination. Some people might be distracted by the genre tropes or the theme of racism but the four elements above do so well at delivering with the genre tropes being given new twists and turns and the theme delivered in a believable, heartfelt way that its definitely worth it. If anyone still has complaints, they'll probably be minor nitpicks at most. Zootopia is a wonderful film and I definitely say see it. Rating 4.7 stars out of 5 (will probably be higher when I see it again)

The Big Short

The Big Short is the true story about three groups of men who discover the housing market is unstable and seek to profit against the big banks, only to deeply regret it when it leads to the Financial Crisis of 2007. I'll admit that before seeing The Big Short, I knew next to nothing about the market crash (how I passed Economics in High School, I'll never know) and even afterwards, I was still a little fuzzy on some of the details, but overall, the film really helped me understand what was going on and kept me emotionally involved. I have a feeling that if I watched the film a few more times and did my own research on the terms mentioned, I'd definitely get the full picture about what happened. Of course, I couldn't become emotionally involved without the necessary elements. The film features an all-star cast of players ranging from Christian Bale and Steve Carrell to Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt. The films uses their abilities mixed with great writing to full effect, wonderfully capturing the range of comedy to drama. The feel and tone of the film is instantly portrayed from the first image, is consistent throughout and flows naturally into the darker heavier scenes later on in the story quite well. The comedic side is balls to the walls crazy, portraying the feel of a pseudo-documentary with news footage, the breaking of the fourth wall, texts and pictures at the bottom of the screen and random celebrity cameos to explain some of the complex terms used. This not only helps the film really feel like its taking place in the mid 2000s, but also captures what the main characters are like as people: they're cocky, angry jerks, but they're likable jerks. They want to fix the wrongs the banks have caused, they want to pursue their dreams, they want to do right by their families and co-workers. This is none better captured than in the performance of Steve Carrell, who I really think is the main character. Carrell's Mark Baummstarts the film very self-absorbed and angry at the big banks for being jerks and also has unintentionally pushed his family to the side but as the film progresses, he becomes angry for the right reasons and also despondent about what's going on. Like the overall film itself, when Mark and the other characters feel the real weight of the situation hit them, we feel it too and it really sinks in. I will admit though that because the film moves at such a break-neck speed with its comedy, I fell a little behind in understanding the terms, and as a result, didn't feel the full emotional impact of the drama when it hit. But there were enough quiet moments, clear explanations, and visual storytelling that I was still fully engaged. Indeed, when I left the theater, I had started to get angry. Like I mentioned above, if I watched the film again and got the full picture, I know I'd end up furious. Other than that, my only other complaint was more of a personal one in that I wanted to see more of Christian Bale and Brad Pitt's characters in an emotional sense. Bale's character is the one that starts the whole thing off and he does portray a full emotional arc of social awkwardness and guilt that he may have screwed up, but at the same time, he felt more like a passive character who actively starts things off but then rides in the back seat the rest of the way through the movie. With Brad Pitt, he is wonderfully involved with a full emotional arc as well but he was a secondary character in the story of the hopeful entrepreneurs, and I just wish he had been more front and center as well. Overall, I wanted to see more of all these characters. To continue following them in their everyday lives and in their adventures in the financial world. In a TV show perhaps? In Summary: The Big Short is a well crafted,, wonderfully acted. hilarious and dramatic film that not only made me feel smarter about something that I know nothing about, but also made realize how serious the real world situation it portrayed was, despite a few moments where I was lost in the economics talk. Rating 4.5 Stars out of 5.

"Joy" Review

. David O. Russell returns with his lucky troop of actors (Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Robert De Niro) in "Joy". "Joy" is the story of Joy Mongano, a struggling single mother, who becomes a billionaire after selling her new invention, the Miracle Mop on the Home Shopping Network. Sounds like your pretty standard setup for the popular "rooting for the underdog" kind of story, right? I thought so too, but what I didn't take into account was this sort of material being put into Russell's hands. The result being, for a lack of a better word, utter insanity. The film bounced back and forth so many different times with its many elements and switching tones that within the first twenty to thirty minutes, all I could think was "What the heck is going on?". It felt like Russell was trying to make the underdog story more interesting to himself by combining elements of "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Fighter" with a flair of Wes Anderson. But this is done in such a confusing way that it felt like the story was taking place in the 50s or 60s, rather than the late 80s and early 90s when the actual events took place. This constant back and forth also stifled the potential for some great storytelling with the secondary characters and the actors who played them like Virginia Madsen as Joy's soap opera obsessed mother, Robert De Niro as Joy's father who can't seem to maintain a relationship, and Edgar Ramirez as Joy's ex-husband who is a singer still living in her basement. In the first thirty minutes or so, there are no consistent moments of storytelling or moments where the audience can take a breath with the characters because everything is thrown at you at breakneck speed. As a result, the emotional moments with these characters is nearly if not completely lost later on , where they are much needed. This is especially true with Diane Ladd as Joy's grandmother, who also serves as the film's narrator but is only in the film for ten to fifteen minutes, and Bradley Cooper as the executive who gives Joy's Miracle Mop a chance and serves as her business mentor. However, the only memorable thing about him was his constant spouting of trivia about the founding executives of movie studios like Louis B. Mayer. The film also rushes its ending, cutting off the emotional victory the audience should be feeling with Joy and jumping forward in time, mainly to summarize what happened to all the characters, so by the time the credits rolled, I felt confused and emotionally unfulfilled. The film has two saving graces, however. The first is Jennifer Lawrence as the emotional center of the story. It goes without saying that Lawrence is an acting powerhouse, and here, like in Silver Linings Playbook, she does it again. I could feel the anger and frustration building when we first meet her and felt it explode when Joy breaks down in front of her daughter late in the film. That scene alone was absolutely gut-wrenching and heart-breaking. The second saving grace, actually due in part to Lawrence, was when Joy first goes to QVC to promote her mop. That scene worked for me because the film started to slow down, the elements were coming together and the audience was allowed to engage with the story and characters. Because of that, I was able to become emotionally hooked for the rest of the movie. In Summary: Jennifer Lawrence delivers a strong performance as the main character in "Joy" but David O. Russell's inconsistency with the tone and rushing with the storytelling hampers everything else. Ranking: 3.0 Stars out of 5.