kellym40 film review

Marvel expands its universe with ‘Captain America: Civil War’

Rating 4/5

Marvel released the third installment in the Captain America series as part of the ever-expanding Marvel universe earlier this year. Although the title was Captain America: Civil War, it did feel somewhat more like an Avengers film, and others have agreed with that sentiment. I believe it was a great story to bring to this third Captain America because I believe it did center more on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and his childhood friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). However, the overall story and plot involves every superhero and their ultimate actions and consequences, but I do believe at the heart of it was the relationship between Rogers and Barnes.

Your favorite Avengers are back: Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Vision (Paul Bettany), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and newcomers Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland).

The performances were as good as any previous Marvel film and even the newcomers performed well in their respective roles. Fans have waited for the appearance of Spider-Man ever since the announcement that Marvel had finally acquired the character from Sony. What I’ve heard and people I’ve talked to say that was one of the highlights of the film. There has been discussion I’m sure as to why Spidey didn’t get a solo film before his appearance in this adventure. All I can say is, “Come on, it’s Spidey.” I mean do we really need another origin film for Spider-Man at this point? With Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002 and the recent reboot in 2012 with Marc Webb directing The Amazing Spider-Man, I believe fans, and audiences alike, are familiar with the web-head. Now that the character is in the famed Marvel Cinematic Universe, much anticipation awaits for the release of the first solo film, Homecoming – set to be coming July 2017. Some may have considered Spider-Man’s appearance a bit rushed and a poor storyline to add him into the mix, but I disagree. As mentioned, we have already seen two different origin films within the past several years and there was a mention of Spider-Man in Marvel’s Ant-Man. The set up here in Civil War was Tony’s dialogue about the need to see him. So I believe the character is adequately introduced into the Marvel world. The one exception I have (and I may not be alone in this) is casting Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. Not that I have anything against Tomei (she is a wonderful actress), it just seems to be an unusual casting choice on some level (of course the same might be said as casting Sally Field in the role in Marc Webb’s reboot).

But anyhoo.

Back to Cap and the gang. The trailer pointed out a showdown between the heroes with each taking sides – some with Cap and some with Iron Man. The “feud” comes about as the government attempts to intervene and provide an oversight committee, a sort of accountability, for the heroes. Iron Man thinks it’s a good idea and Cap doesn’t. Therefore, you have each taking sides resulting in an ultimate superhero smack down. And that sequence was as compelling as the other fight scenes in The Avengers, but this time it was hero on hero.

What works for me in this film is how directors Anthony and Joe Russo weaved all of the characters, story and visual elements into a cohesive, entertaining film while developing character and story arcs. It was a bit lengthy, coming in at nearly two and a half hours, but there were plenty of action sequences, fights, and character moments that kept me in the film. All of the elements (costume, lighting, cinematography, visual effects, sound) come together in this film to bring these wonderful Marvel characters to life in a fun, entertaining way.

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

A brooding look for ‘Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice’

Rating 2/5

About a couple of months before audience’s reveled in Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War, DC finally put forth their first multi-hero effort in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Writers Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer penned this script with Zack Snyder directing. His most recent directorial outing was 2013’s Man of Steel. Other directing credits include 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. Snyder has a dark, brooding style that, most of the time, leaves me feeling uneasy and gloomy while watching his films. Many of Tim Burton’s films have a dark overtone, but are still somewhat more enjoyable than this. The script is a lengthy one as the film runs just over two and half hours. There is a lot packed in the film and overall it just seemed cumbersome.

Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) thinks Superman/Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is a danger to the world and he must be stopped. Superman thinks Batman is a dangerous vigilante and must be stopped. Then the film spends half the time setting up the big, climactic battle between the two caped heroes that seems to cause more destruction than really solves anything. Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) comes in and ultimately wants to pit these two together and create Doomsday from the corpse of General Zod to put an end to the heroes. It also introduces and poorly sets up Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) who comes in towards the middle of their battle and helps them defeat Doomsday. It seems DC was in a rush to try to introduce this character into their cinematic universe that they didn’t really develop the character enough to really do much of anything. They could have left the character out and most of that storyline and the film still would not be that different. Now Wonder Woman’s solo film is set to be released next June and a trailer has just been released at the San Diego Comic Con this weekend. You can view that trailer below:

Wonder Woman

They introduced this character now and then go back and release a film, which looks sort of like an origin film, and then put her back into Justice League to be out in theaters later next year in November. There was a trailer for that film shown at SDCC this weekend as well. You can view the trailer below:

Justice League

Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) were teased at the end of Batman v. Superman and will be in Justice League next year. Then those characters, as with the aforementioned Wonder Woman, are going to get their solo films. It appears DC is sort of going backwards from Marvel. Putting these characters together and then giving them their own films doesn’t appear to be the greatest decision. But I may be wrong.

When it was announced that Affleck was cast as the new Bruce Wayne/Batman, there was uproarious upheaval in the decision. There seemed to be mixed reviews about Affleck’s portrayal of the character. There were seemingly positive reviews but there were those that didn’t like the choice. It appeared to be mediocre at best. His Batman dominated more when he was fighting, although his use of firearms was a bit much. It was too aggressive for my understanding of the character.

Amy Adams brings the same low-key performance to Lois Lane in this film as she did in Man of Steel. She had moments of strength and independence but there just didn’t seem there was enough of those moments. Jeremy Irons is a great actor, but here again, it was somewhat of another dull performance of the Alfred character. Perhaps the overall dark, brooding tone had something to do with the performances. I’m not sure. But they just didn’t have that punch to the characters to hold my interest. It was almost like viewing a live theatrical performance where the actors have low energy and the play just seems to drag. I believe the same could be said here.

However, Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was different. I wasn’t sure about his casting either at the start. Of course, I wasn’t sure about Heath Ledger cast as the Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, but he was brilliant. Overall, I did like the way the Luthor was portrayed. It was completely different from Gene Hackman’s version and also the Kevin Spacey portrayal in Superman Returns. Eisenberg played him with some high energy and more psychotic (for lack of a better word).

It felt like they crammed too much in this film. As I mentioned earlier, Wonder Woman’s character and storyline could have been left out and teased the way Aquaman, the Flash and Cyborg were and the film wouldn’t have suffered any (or at least anymore than it did). The storyline where Luthor creates Doomsday seemed like an unnecessary one and just added to “create” more excitement and spectacle. That whole sequence could have probably been cut and the battle between Superman and Batman could have ended differently or with the same outcome and moved on from there. I still question how it ended. But maybe those scenes were left in there to give it more spectacle and something for the fans. The film had some merit, just not enough to keep it interesting.

kellym40 film review

‘The Purge’ should be illegal

Rating 1/5

Every so often there are films that one wonders just how they got made. The Purge is one of those films. Some people must see something and therefore the production begins. Someone must have seen something in this film to bring it to light. James DeMonaco penned the script as well as took on the directing duties. Some of his writing credits include some television as well as the 1996 comedy Jack starring the late Robin Williams, The Negotiator, Assault on Precinct 13, and his latest credits include the two sequels this film spawned – The Purge: Anarchy and the recently released The Purge: Election Year. He also directed the other two films in this series.

DeMonaco’s idea here is in the future someone thought it would be a bright idea to allow a 12-hour period where all violent crime is legal. The result of this “Purge” is low crime, low unemployment, and a civil, peaceful society. This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but somehow it presents a contrived, idiotic thought. This occurs because this Purge happens just once a year. This silly notion that one night of “rioting” will keep people at bay for a year just to do it all over again is simplistic thinking as if the Purge creates some kind of catharsis to last them a whole year. The film is set in 2022, which at the time of its release (2013) was just nine years away. Given the state of this country’s current status with all the shootings and violence, it’s hard to imagine the events of this film occurring. It’s a nice thought, but seemingly far-fetched.

The film stars Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey, who play James and Mary Sandin, a wealthy couple who live in a gated community with a high tech security system in their home. James works for a company that sells these systems and virtually everyone in the local community owns one. James and Mary have two teenage children Charlie (Max Burkholder) and Zoey (Adelaide Kane). In order for the film to progress, DeMonaco’s script enables the neighbors to resent James for his wealthy living from the profits of these security systems and the Purge allows them to take vengeance upon the Sandin family.

The performances were nothing extraordinary. The actors were decent with what they had to work with from the apparently generic horror film type characters DeMonaco created. There didn’t seem to be enough suspense or thrills to keep me in this film and really care for these characters. I suppose there was enough revenue this film collected in order to produce two sequels now in this series (which I probably will review sometime down the line), but for now I’m left with this trite piece of work.

kellym40 film review

Sci-Fi dives into a world of ‘Surrogates’

Rating 3/5

The world of science fiction has brought many ideas and inventions through the years. In 2009, Surrogates hit theaters and presented a futuristic world where people stay at home and live their lives through mechanical puppets and can virtually be anyone and do most anything. They control these “surrogates” through a type of virtual reality system where direct human interaction is nearly non-existent, as is most violent crime and any other dangers of daily life. Jonathan Mostow, whose most recent sci-fi directing venture was the third installment in the Terminator series, Terminator: Rise of the Machines, directed this film and seemed to do a better job with this material he was provided with by writers Michael Ferris and John Brancato than the Terminator film.

The script’s story had a somewhat interesting premise that might appear to be similar in other stories in the genre and poignant to today’s world where many people “live” their life with Smartphones. Here’s a look at the trailer below:

Surrogates Trailer

On the surface the film looked and felt like a piece of science fiction with a little mystery added to the story. Bruce Willis plays Greer, an FBI agent who, along with his partner Peters (Radha Mitchell) investigate a double homicide in the beginning of the film, an incident in which sets the story in motion. The homicide is of the destruction of two surrogates that have also killed their users. This is something that is not supposed to happen, and therefore the mystery and investigation unfold and develop. An interesting part is during the course of the investigation, Greer’s surrogate is destroyed and he ultimately opts to not get another one. And so, he spends the rest of the film without a surrogate. He is an actual human interacting in a world full of robots. During the run of the film, Greer begins to realize how much he misses actual physical touching and human contact. This is an underlying theme in the film and I think an important aspect to look at in today’s world with our dependence upon technology.

Surrogates is not a blockbuster but does have interesting overtones and themes in connection with technology, because in many cases today it seems our use of technology isolates us from others, just as Greer felt as he was venturing into the world in real life as others were still virtually living. Many people today are fascinated with technology and social media and become so engrossed in being “social” on their phone, they miss being social in “real life.”

kellym40 film review

‘Central Intelligence’ fails to be intelligent

Rating 2/5

In mid-June, the film Central Intelligence hit theaters. The movie starred a couple of big names with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Kevin Hart to lead the cast into what looked like a typical action comedy. Rawson Marshall Thurber, whose most recent adventures in film directing were Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story and We’re the Millers (among some television credits), helmed the director’s chair. I’ve seen Dodgeball. That movie seemed like another typical Ben Stiller/Vince Vaughn silly comedy that appeared to work a little better than this film.

They say in theater (stage plays), comedy is the hardest genre to direct and produce (I should know because I’ve performed in several or been a part of in some capacity through college and such). Because of the sheer fact of the timing of jokes and dialogue and pacing, comedy is difficult. So if it is done right, then the laughs and audience should enjoy it. If the pacing or timing is off, then the show doesn’t quite work as well. Somehow with this film, Central Intelligence didn’t seem to know quite what kind of movie it was supposed to be and therefore didn’t work as well as it could have. It had the makings of an action-drama, but weaved comedy, a touching “love” story, and an overlaying message about bullying in the script, which was penned by Ike Barinholtz and David Stassen. Just as we were getting into the second act (the main thrust of the film) I wasn’t sure what to think about it. And by the end of the film, I was (lack of a better word) confused. I wasn’t sure those elements worked together well for this film. While the film did have moments of touching friendship, laughter and action, it just didn’t work well enough to keep up with the overall story.

The performances by Hart and Johnson were nothing more than ordinary. At times, I felt Johnson’s character just wasn’t sure how to act and it seemed the comedy was a little forced at times (maybe much of the time), which made me feel unsure and even uneasy about the character. Hart’s character was a little more believable, but it still seemed somewhat under par. Amy Ryan, Danielle Nicolet, Aaron Paul, and a couple of other big names, Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, lend their talents in cameos. Bateman’s character had a little more screen time than what I would call a cameo, but yet that still didn’t seem to redeem the film. All of the performances appeared to be nothing special here.

The premise, at first, seemed promising. And the overall story was something seemingly “fresh” in buddy action-comedy, but apparent flaws with the script and direction stalled the film from being better than it could have been. The film is rated PG-13 and comes in at about 1 hours and 47 minutes.

 

 

kellym40 film review

The science heroes are back in ‘Ghostbusters II’

Rating 3/5

The original Ghostbusters was original and took on a surprising following over the 30 plus years since its release in 1984. When I first saw this second installment in the theater, I wasn’t quite sure what to think of it. Honestly, I thought it wasn’t as good as the first one (but I was still only a teenager at the time of its release in 1989). I decided to revisit the film since it was just on TV at the time of this writing.

The four Ghostbusters are back: Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to battle this new paranormal threat. Sigourney Weaver returns as Dana Barrett, who has a new baby. Also returning to the supporting cast are Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) and Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts). Peter MacNicol joins the cast as museum curator Dr. Janosz Poha, who seems to have a crush on Dana, and becomes a servant to Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg), the 17th century evil spirit trying to enter the world through Dana’s infant baby. Ivan Reitman returns to direct.

The film’s opening sequence shows Dana out with her baby in a carriage. She stops to talk to a street vendor, and then the carriage mysteriously begins rolling down the sidewalk into the city streets. In this sequel, there does not seem to be a whole lot new to bring to the table as an evil spirit tries to enter this world from beyond (in this case a painting) and bring an end to humanity. After viewing the film again, I can say I liked it a little more than my original viewing in 1989. It does have some merit despite having a similar story. The means by which the evil spirit attempts to come into this world is different and the presence of this mysterious pink slime that responds to various human emotions adds to this new story.

There is some expository dialogue between the characters to explain what has happened to them in the last five years and catch the audience up from the events of the first one. Soon the Ghostbusters discover the pink slime and begin to analyze it and investigate, get imprisoned for a time, then called upon when things start getting really bad.

Ghostbusters II isn’t too bad, at least not as bad as I originally thought. Again, as with the first film, the humor and comedy comes from the story and dialogue rather than being forced for comedy’s sake. Some of the dialogue, though, might not be as clever and witty as the original but still is decent and moves the story. There are some good moments here and there to keep the audience entertained. It’s not excellent and falls just under the original 1984 film, but it’s fun entertainment.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Ghosts be afraid, the Ghostbusters are here

Rating 4/5

With the release of the ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot with a female cast, and my recent review of that film, I decided to revisit the original 1984 film and offer some thoughts. You can view the trailer for the reboot here:

Ghostbusters 2016

The original film, written by Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis, is a comedy classic that has seemed to endure for over 30 years.

The film seemed to have all the right elements that appeared to have worked together flawlessly. With the comedy team of two Saturday Night Live alums, Bill Murray and Aykroyd, and Ramis, a funny man on his own having written several classics as Animal House, Caddyshack, Stripes, and Groundhog Day, among several others, and director Ivan Reitman putting this cast, with its great supporting cast, production pieces, and the scientific, yet witty, dialogue together into comedy gold with a mixture of action, sci-fi, and a little suspense. You can view the original trailer here:

Ghostbusters – Original Trailer

A quick synopsis of the film is three parapsychologists, after being fired from their university positions, decide to set up a service in which they capture ghosts and become the Ghostbusters. Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis bring their characters to life with humor, quick-witted and intelligent dialogue, and a believable grasp of the scientific language. During the course of their adventures, they take on another member to their team portrayed by Ernie Hudson. All of the characters are varied and well acted with performances by Rick Moranis, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts as they round out the supporting cast.

The special effects in this film are many and decent for the time (1984) in which it was released. The story and plot appear simple but effective. The world of the paranormal and the “real” world collide during the climax of the film and results in the ultimate showdown between good and evil. The film is a well-blended mixture of a well-written script, visual effects, great direction and performances, and the right amount of comedy that flows from the characters and story rather than seeming forced and just there just for comedy’s sake.

kellym40 film review

The secret is out with ‘The Secret Life of Pets’

Rating 3.5/5 

Another animated film hit theaters this summer along the lines of “Toy Story,” “Finding Nemo,” and this summer’s “Finding Dory.” The writing credits for this film go to Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio and Brian Lynch. It is directed by Chris Renaud, who directed the “Despicable Me” films and 2012’s “The Lorax,” among others, and Yarrow Cheney is credited as co-director.

The animation is this film appeared to be a slice of the animation for “Despicable Me” and the story had elements of the “Toy Story” series. But all in all it was an enjoyable film, even with the familiarities.

The first several minutes of the film showcased a series of bits and scenes in which we see how a pet might actually spend their day while the owners are away. These clips essentially filled the trailer for the film before its release. In the opening, the audience meets Max, voiced by Louis C. K., a Terrier who is living a happy life with his owner, Katie (Ellie Kemper). The story picks kicks up when Katie brings home a new friend for Max. Instantly, Max does not like his new friend, Duke (Eric Stonestreet), who appears to be bossy and boisterous and so Max develops a plan to get rid of Duke. The next day on their walk, they slip away from their dog walker and have a run in with an alley full of stray cats. During the confrontation, their collars are ripped off. Max and Duke are then picked up by animal control. They escape with the help from Snowball (Kevin Hart), a rabbit with a vengeance towards humans. They are lead back underground where they find Snowball to be the leader of gang of animals who have been abandoned. As Max and Duke work together to make it back home, Gidget leads her own search party with the help from some other friends.

The film had its share of fun humor and touching moments blended with some action sequences that would keep children and adults alike entertained with the story. The animals such as dogs, cats, birds, a pig, a snake, and so on were brought to life by their actions and dialogue. Other familiar actors provided their voices to help bring some of the other main animated characters to life on screen like Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey, Hannibal Buress, Bobby Moynihan, Lake Bell, and Steve Coogan.

The film stands on its own as a new animated adventure with lively characters and a tender story about friendship and the longing to love and be loved. And coming in at just under 90 minutes, it’s a good length to where the story is not too drawn out and still can keep the audience’s attention. All in all, it is a fun, family film.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Tarzan swings into action in ‘The Legend of Tarzan’

Rating 3/5

The character of Tarzan has been around for more than 100 years and was first created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The latest film adaptation hit theaters July 1 and starred Alexander Skarsgard at the jungle hero. The screenplay, written by Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer, and director David Yates took the material provided by Burroughs and created a story of an original adventure with occasional flashbacks to effectively bring the character’s origins to light.

The story seems simple and does not appear to be written as a full action-adventure filled with many fight sequences and special effects that are known for summer blockbusters. The story picks up as Tarzan, or John Clayton, has been living in England for years with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie) and learns the King of Belgium might be promoting slave labor in Tarzan’s homeland. Upon learning of this news, Tarzan plans a trip to return to his jungle home with the assistance of George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), an American representative of President Benjamin Harrison. And of course Jane is not going to sit around and let her husband leave her, so she insists on returning with him. Soon after they arrive, they are ambushed and Jane is captured. Tarzan chases after his wife and her captor, Captain Rom (Christoph Waltz) who works for the King.

Skarsgard brings Tarzan to life with heart and quiet strength. Robbie’s portrays Jane with her own sense of female strength, and is not your typical damsel. Jackson puts some humor into his character as Tarzan’s sidekick. And Waltz brings his usual charm and charisma to the antagonist Captain Rom, with the right amount of bad-guyness (yes I just created that word) to the role.

As mentioned, the film does not contain a lot of large battles, fight scenes, and non-stop action (because I don’t believe it’s meant to). But it does have its share of those elements that prevent the film from becoming too dull. What worked for me was the fact that it wasn’t a retelling of an origin story, which I thought it might be when I was viewing the trailers and hearing about its upcoming release. The film seemed to intertwine the flashback sequences into the overall story to bring the right amount of background for the main characters without seeming awkward and disrupting the flow of the story. The characters appeared genuine and varied, which added to my enjoyment.

Overall, the story and characters were engaging and the film not bogged down by a lot of special effects, although there were some but not overbearingly so. The film seemed to accomplish what it was supposed to be. A simple story of the bad guy being bad and trying to take more that he should, and the underdog triumphantly overcoming some obstacles and saving the day (and the feisty damsel in distress). With a budget of $180 million it has garnered $103, 371, 594 domestically in revenue as of July 17, and over $195 million worldwide. The film isn’t necessarily a big summer blockbuster thus far, but it is decent summer entertainment.

kellym40 film review

From 1984 to 2016, the ‘Ghostbusters’ are back

Rating 2/5 Stars

More than 32 years ago, a film was released, penned by a couple of guys named Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, and became a comedy classic. The film had the right amount of humor and story and the execution of those elements were blended well by the crafty Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters II, Kindergarten Cop, Twins, Dave, Six Days Seven Nights – and a host of other memorable comedies and action-comedies).

Now, 32 years later Paul Feig and Katie Dippold pen a script and thus, Ghostbusters is remade. But somehow, Feig’s (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy) direction fails to do bring this adaptation up to par. I say adaptation because it is adapted from the script by Aykroyd and Ramis. That is one thing I liked about the film. It wasn’t just a rehash of the same story and characters with a couple of things changed here and there. It was a fresh take on the story with some big names in female comedy today like Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, and Kate McKinnon. Leslie Jones joins and rounds out the four Ghostbusters.

McCarthy and Wiig play former friends and paranormal enthusiasts who had a falling out after writing a book together, and get sucked in to chasing paranormal activity after witnessing a sighting of a ghost. They are joined by a nuclear engineer (McKinnon) and subway worker (Jones).

While the film had its moments, I believe much of the comedy present was there for comedy’s sake. It seemed to have a lot of gags and “funny” bits, too much for my taste. The ladies’ new receptionist (Chris Hemsworth) was one the funnier roles, but there I think much of his actions and dialogue seemed to be there to just for comedy’s sake and Hemsworth’s portrayal appeared to be a little forced at times. It did have a decent story that I did find it somewhat captivating, and the characters were varied with some entertainment value, but, overall, I think it was trying to hard to be funny and just didn’t work for me.

The original cast even had cameos, which still didn’t seem to save the film. Bill Murray played a debunker of myths and facts. Aykroyd portrayed cab driver. Ernie Hudson played Jones’ uncle who happened to own a funeral parlor where she got the hearse (a nod, if you will, to the original). Even Sigourney Weaver had a cameo.

The film just seemed to not have enough substance to keep me fully entertained for the just under two hour run time. However, the other members in the audience seemed to enjoy the film there was a lot of laughter. So, while the film may work for some, it just failed for me.