X-men Apocalypse Movie Review

A small part of me really wishes that Bryan Singer was not the most consistent director of the X-Men movies. X-Men, the summer blockbuster from 2000, came out at a time when comic book movies were at an all-time low and basically kick-started a lot of the comic book movies we look up to today. So, no X-Men, no Captain America: Civil War. With that in mind, though, it really doesn't hold up all that well today; the production looks cheap, the actors, despite a great cast, deliver underwhelming performances, and its plot line is pretty simplistic. Singer's not what I would call a bad director, but he is pretty uninspired. Even his slightly superior sequel doesn't exactly rank up as one of my all-time favorites. (That title belongs to Matthew Vaughn's prequel, X-Men: First Class, an amazing adaptation that relies on his energetic and crisp style, along with a powerhouse screenplay, to look past an admittedly rushed production to deliver one of the gems of comic book movies.) What I do realize after seeing X-Men Apocalypse, however, is that Singer knows the film franchise from front to back and is willing to utilize that knowledge to his advantage, and that's precisely what he did with this film, delivering one of the more well-paced and well-developed entries into the franchise, even if it's not the most well-constructed.

This time around, the team, still in their young First Class incarnation, has to fight against the world's first mutant known as En Sabah Nur, otherwise known as Apocalypse, who's brought back to life after thousands of years and seeks to destroy the world and start life anew. He gathers up a series of followers to assist him in his havoc, including Magneto and a woman named Ororo Munroe (known to fans as Storm).

.... I can't really talk about any more plot without diving into spoilers.

I feel like the biggest reason why critics were split on this movie is because it's not very traditional storytelling, at least not for comic book movies. Most of the time, a comic book movie is able to go from point A to point B, much like the recent Deadpool. However, this film is more like jumping back and forth between points A, B, and C, with all of them eventually pointing to D. This is the kind of "in-cohesive" complaint that comes across blockbusters like Spider-Man 3 or the third Pirates of the Caribbean. However, I didn't mind this as much for two reasons: One, it did all have a point, and it was at least all about the X-Men; they didn't cut away from the main plot to focus on some snobby teen job hunting (LOOKING AT YOU, TRANSFORMERS 3); and two, every plot line had time to develop and breathe as it needed to, most likely the reason why this turned out to be the longest of the X-Men movies, which gave it a rather epic feel to it that made it one of the most emotionally powerful of them all.

That's not to say the film doesn't have a few problems either. For one, Apocalypse is kind of a bland villain; he's mostly there to spew out this "EPIC" dialogue, as if he thinks he's quoting the Bible or something, and his costume and make-up look like a Power Rangers getup. Alongside that, though, Bryan Singer's bland, smooth style really makes me wanna beg Vaughn to come back.

On the whole, though, I do appreciate how well they handled the emotional side of the story. I almost feel like this was the powerhouse epic that the franchise was building up to, and I suppose it did take a director that was there for most of the movies to assemble it consistently and properly. I'd say check it out!

Money Monster Movie Review (SPOILERS!)

This has been a very strange experience for me, folks. I had to sleep on this, I had to work my way through every bit of what I've experienced, and now, I'm just sitting here asking myself "How?" How could these top-notch, Oscar-worthy actors say yes to such a nonsensical, absurd, blown-out-of-proportion screenplay? How could Jodie Foster bring her well-constructed style to such a mess of a story? Frankly, there's really only one way I can break this down, and that's to.... Well, break this down. Beyond this paragraph, my review is going to hold major spoilers, as I look at the plot scene-by-scene and attempt to explain why this film doesn't work. But to put it bluntly now: I like the performances, I like the directorial style, and there's a few funny lines every once in a while, but honestly, I'm too baffled by the plot to recommend it. But if you want to see it and you don't want to be spoiled, stop reading from here.

Captain America: Civil War Movie Review

What can you say about this one? Marvel has beaten all odds by this point. Most franchises die after the fourth movie, but Marvel has made thirteen movies without failing once, in box office, critical reception, or even fan reception. Now, we have a long line-up of characters that we would love to see in the ultimate showdown, and that's what Marvel ends up delivering on. The strange thing, though, is that even if you didn't follow these characters and you weren't concerned about them brawling, Captain America: Civil War would still be a gripping story with well-developed, fleshed-out, relatable characters that marks the high point in the Marvel legacy (yes, even better than The Avengers).

The film picks up where the last Captain America film, Winter Soldier, left off. Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans, receives word that his friend, Bucky Barnes, is out to kill him. However, things get complicated when the United Nations decides to pass the Sokovia Accords, which will allow them to supervise and better control the Avengers. Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr., gives his consent to this, feeling guilty for a lot of the havoc (as well as death) that occurred in the events of Age of Ultron. Because of this, Steve feels that the government won't give Bucky the trial that he deserves, so he decides to detain him himself and help him get his head straight and remember who he is. Stark, simply trying to follow the law, takes action against Steve's rebellious actions, resulting in the Avengers splitting apart into two separate teams and going to war against each other in one of the biggest clashes in comic book history.

What sets this apart from being a basic clash of superheroes that we could have seen in a Youtube parody is the compelling drama in place. You know there's a disagreement going on, you know there's no contrast, and yet you agree with both sides. Conflicting ideals and high-stake drama like this make the action that much more gripping, something Snyder missed with Batman v Superman a month ago.

But while we're on the matter, let's talk about the superhero roster here. The old characters from the previous movies are well-handled and stick to their previous personalities, but the new characters are surprisingly given just enough development time as well. Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther delivers a well-developed origin story that fans most likely didn't expect to get until his stand-alone movie, and while Tom Holland's role as Spider-Man is brief, it's well-served and believable. I was even pleasantly surprised by the appearance of Paul Rudd as Ant-Man.

I would say that I recommend you check this out, but let's be honest, you probably already did. What, you didn't? WELL, GO SEE IT THEN!

Rating:

Barbershop: The Next Cut Movie Review

I've talked before about how the best comedies out there (Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Deadpool, for instance) are the ones that go all out and are off-the-wall, 100% over-the-top goofy, but sometimes, a comedy doesn't need to be the absolute best. Sometimes, a comedy just needs to be a casual, sentimental, relaxing comedy where people can just be straight-talkers, and that's exactly the kind of experience audiences got out of 2002's black comedy, Barbershop, a film about a man trying to decide if he wants to sell his barbershop or keep it for his buddies on the south side. The film featured an all-star cast as well as some light-hearted comedy, so naturally, it became a big hit, which resulted in a sequel as well as a gender-reversed spinoff, neither of which sprung any kind of heavily positive response (and neither of which I have personally seen). So, the franchise was put to rest for a while until just last week when the gang returned for another round of more (ahem) cutting-edge comedy, and while it may appear unfamiliar in certain ways (Trust me, you'll know what I'm talking about in a sec....), it holds up as one of the better comedies of its kind.

The film once again follows Calvin, played by Ice Cube, who still runs a barber shop on the south side of Chicago with his buddies, including Eddie, played by Cedric the Entertainer, Rashad, played by Common, Jerrod, played by Lamorne Morries, among others. They're all concerned about the rise of gang violence in the area, fearing for their families' safety, fearing for their futures, and fearing that the government won't take the right actions to help them out. Calvin is so concerned that he's thinking of moving the shop up north, as well as sending his son to Catholic school. As for the rest of the barbers, they propose to gang leaders in the area that they cease fire for 48 hours in exchange for free haircuts during that period for anyone who walks in.

So, as you can tell, there's a lot more focus on dramatic, political elements here than there was in the first movie, making this less of a comedy and more of a dramady. While that may shut out a lot of hardcore fans of the first film, I honestly felt it fit in exceptionally well and doesn't detract from a lot of the comedic elements from the first film. Cedric the Entertainer still delivers a lot of laughs, you still get a lot of that straight talk with no limitations.... Nothing's really missing; the film just decided to look at a few more serious elements. Part of what still keeps it together is Ice Cube as Calvin; he's no Chiwetel Ejifor or Denzel Washington, but as the protagonist that we're all supposed to relate to, he keeps a pretty straight face among all these comedy stars, allowing the dramatic elements to flow naturally.

My consensus? For fans of the first film (as well as the sequels I still haven't seen), Barbershop: The Next Cut definitely worth a look.

My rating:

The Jungle Book (2016) Movie Review

The Jungle Book is the latest in Disney’s line-up of live-action reboots of their animated classics directed by Jon Favreau.

In this version, we meet Mowgli, a young man cub who’s part of a wolf pack accompanied by a panther named Bagheera. They join the rest of the jungle in a temporary truce at a spring lake where he gets discovered by a tiger named Shere Khan, who vows to hunt him down once the truce is over with. For this reason, Bagheera leads Mowgli towards the man village when, along the way, he bumps into creatures known as Kaa the snake, King Louie the Primate, and, of course, Baloo the bear, all the characters we recognize from the original.

Now, I wasn’t sure what to expect going into this; I wasn’t a huge fan of the original film, Disney’s live-action reboots, thus far, have been literally a hit and a miss, and the trailers didn’t really say that much about the film itself. However, I was overall incredibly impressed by this film. Unlike Alice in Wonderland where they tried to tell what was essentially a mindless trip of nonsense as a war story, The Jungle Book converts its story that was originally used for jazzy musical numbers in its predecessor into a dark and dramatic action story with phenomenal character development and a few twists up its sleeve.

A good chunk of what makes these characters so strong is in its performances. Ben Kingsley brings majestic characteristics to Bagheera, practically a match made in heaven. Idris Elba holds a very intimidating performance as Shere Khan. Seriously, name another actor that can roar his lines like him. Bill Murray is very fitting as the lazy, goofy, but also friendly and relatable Baloo, Scarlett Johansson is very sinister as Kaa, and Christopher Walken…. Well, he’s hilarious in anything he does. The only performance I didn’t like was Neel Sethi as Mowgli. His performance is very stiff and lifeless. Despite him shouting every line he has, there’s just not much energy to his delivery. But to cut him a break, he did have to go on green screen for basically this entire movie.

The entire jungle in this and all of its inhabitants is 100% CGI, but much like Avatar or the two recent Planet of the Apes movies, the texture and detail that went into it is so extensive that it’s still cool to look at, and the animation on the characters is much more fitting to their personalities than if the filmmakers had attempted to use real animals.

Overall, The Jungle Book is by no means perfect, but it’s much more impressive and far more engrossing than any other live-action reboot that Disney has sent out thus far. Definitely check it out.

Rating: 

Thanks for reading! If you like this blog, be sure to rate it and share it with your friends, and be sure to subscribe, as there's more to come soon!