“Logan” Movie Review

(via Wikipedia; Logan is property by 20th Century Fox)

Premise: It’s 2029, and the X-Men are long gone. Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) can  barely function, his regeneration powers fading and the adamantium in his body slowly killing him. Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) is suffering from a degenerative disease, causing seizures that cause everyone around him to suffer temporary paralysis (or worse). As Logan tries to scrounge up money to get himself and Charles out of trouble, he meets a mysterious little girl named Laura. Turns out Laura is X-23, a clone of Logan’s with all of his powers with a horde of agents after her. Now Logan and Charles must get Laura to safety to ensure mutantkind’s survival.

The X-Men franchise has generally been pretty successful. It has its ups and downs, but when it’s good it’s really good, particularly with X2 and Days of Future Past. Last year’s Deadpool opened up a world of new possibilities for the series, being a hard-R action comedy with a parody bent. Now comes Logan, a hard-R action/drama/neo-western and Hugh Jackman’s last appearance as Wolverine. Ever since that trailer with Johnny Cash’s Hurt came out my expectations for this movie have been sky high, and early reactions have only gotten me more excited. So was Logan good? No, it was flat-out brilliant.

Pros: After five movies (and two cameos) following the character of Logan, I can definitively say that Logan is the best we’ve ever gotten from this character. Hugh Jackman, who’s made the character so iconic, gives one of the best performances of his career, showing just how damaged Logan is after years of hardship and the loss of nearly all his friends. Logan’s not Wolverine any more, he’s back to being a shell of a man with no reason to except caring for the last friend he has. The film is ultimately about Logan rediscovering his better nature, finding a reason to live again, and performing one last act of heroism. It’s one of the most effective superhero stories ever put to screen, and the perfect swan song for a beloved character.

Patrick Stewart also gives a world-class performance as Charles Xavier. I’ve always loved him in the role, but here he shines brighter than ever before. Seeing Charles slowly lose control of his powers, to the point where he can kill people by going into a seizure, is incredibly heart-wrenching, and Stewart makes you feel so much for the character.

The surprise highlight of the film Logan’s “daughter” Laura, played by Dafne Keen. She may be small, but she’s a force to be reckoned with; imagine Wolverine as a little girl and with less self control. But she also has a surprising amount of depth, being a girl raised in a lab with no chance to really have a life of her own. It’s great to see her go on adventures with Logan and Charles, in a sense getting a dad and grandpa, and going on her own coming-of-age story. Just as this film is the end of Logan, it is the beginning of his legacy.

As I expected, the action was incredible. Logan is not as much of an action movie as the other X-Men films. It’s much slower paced, with the action more spread out, but when it comes it delivers better than anything we’ve seen before. It’s brutal, bloody, a little disturbing at times, but always a blast to watch.

Cons: It’s a fairly small thing, but the villains could have been a bit more memorable. Boyd Holbrook and Richard E. Grant both do a great job and serve their purpose, but neither of their characters are anything special. But ultimately that’s okay. The story isn’t about them, it’s about Logan, and as devices to kick the story along they get the job done just fine.

Overall: Logan is, along with Days of Future Past, the X-Men franchise’s masterpiece. It’s the best we’ve ever seen the character of Wolverine, with a well done, heartbreaking story and the performance of a lifetime by Hugh Jackman. It may be the end of an era (don’t worry, there’s more X-Men to come), but I couldn’t have asked for a better ending.

Score: A

“Suicide Squad” Review

Premise: When Midway City is taken over by a mysterious supernatural force, a group of supervillains are taken out of prison to stop the threat.

I know this isn’t the popular opinion, but I’ve really enjoyed the DC Extended Universe so far. I thought Man of Steel was very good, and Batman v Superman, despite its flaws, left me satisfied and wanting more. So here comes Suicide Squad, the film I was hoping would right the ship in the eyes of the haters. It’s got a great premise, director David Ayer knows his way around characters (watch End of Watch and Fury!), and the cast is top notch. So is Suicide Squad DC’s next big thing? Probably not. It’s got a lot of problems and won’t win over many new converts. However, I thought Suicide Squad was a decent movie that succeeded on its entertainment value.

Pros: By far the best things about Suicide Squad are the characters. As I said before, David Ayer is a solid actors’ director and the cast they assembled for this movie is impressive. But what impressed me was how the characters made the movie worthwhile. Here are the highlights:

-Will Smith was terrific as Deadshot! Yes, Smith is a solid actor with a lot of charisma, but playing a nihilistic hitman was a stretch for him and he pulled it off handsomely. But Deadshot’s not just a villain. He may be a brutal, cynical man who’ll kill people at the drop of the hat, but he loves his daughter and respects people who gain his trust, making him one of the most “real” characters in the movie. Finally, Smith did something I wasn’t sure he could do; he brought his signature charm and lit up the screen without stealing the spotlight from everyone else. Nicely done, Will!

-Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and the Joker (Jared Leto), who I put together because they’re so closely linked. Harley’s basically the Squad’s crazy one with a bit of vamp, an attractive, seductive woman who happens to be the Joker’s (almost as) insane girlfriend. You never know what she’ll do next, but it’ll always be entertaining. As for Leto, he had some big shoes to fill. Where Heath Ledger went for a chillingly realistic Joker, Leto’s is much more cartoonish, but he works in this universe. He may not be as evil, but he gets the bizarre attitude of the Joker down pretty well, an unpredictable clown prince of crime with a magnetism that can’t be described.

-Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney). I’ve always thought Jai Courtney has been kind of short-changed in Hollywood. He was great in Spartacus, and he’s a capable supporting actor, but a lot of his bigger roles have been devoid of personality. Not so here. Boomerang is one of the funniest members of the cast, and I give props to Courtney for being such an unhinged, entertaining presence.

-If anyone can be called the show-stealer, it would be El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), a Latino convict with the ability to control fire. Of all the members of the Squad, he’s the most tragic, a man who committed terrible sins who just wants to be left alone. He and Deadshot were definitely my favorites, because they had the most to their characters and were sympathetic despite their questionable morality. I know Hernandez has been in a lot of movies already, but now I’ll consider him being cast a big plus for any project.

One of the complaints about Man of Steel and Batman v Superman was that they weren’t fun. I disagree, but I do think Suicide Squad had a goofy energy its predecessors lacked. The humor is more prominent and usually works very well, especially from Harley Quinn and Captain Boomerang. The action, while not on the scale of a Kryptonian smackdown, is well choreographed and brutally manic. And of course, the cast of characters is a fun bunch who work very well together. These qualities separated the film from the superhero pack and went a long way in making up for its flaws. Speaking of which…

Cons: If the best thing about Suicide Squad is the characters, the worst thing is the story they’re in. It was clear I’d like the characters from the first scene, but in the first act I thought to myself “they’re also setting up a good story”. Unfortunately, it goes to waste once the bad guy’s introduced and the plot kicks in, and when its revealed what the goal of the mission is I was left completely cold. The story also wasted a great opportunity to make the Joker the main antagonist rather than a peripheral character, instead opting for supernatural baddies with no personality. It pains me to say it, but you can tell that David Ayer needed a lot more time to work on the script.

While I really liked a lot of the characters, there were some that disappointed. The only one that I had a problem with was Enchantress, who initially has some cool stuff going for her but is a big letdown when her role in the story’s revealed. Cara Delevingne was fine in the role, but the way the character was executed was pretty disappointing. There’s also a few characters who were underused and didn’t need to be there. Killer Croc is a threatening presence who can kick some serious ass, but he has hardly anything to do (and has a really cringeworthy black stereotype line till the end). Same with Katana. If these characters weren’t in the movie I think it would’ve kicked the movie up a notch and let the good ones have even more screentime.

Verdict: Although it could’ve been a lot better, Suicide Squad is a really entertaining movie that’s a nice showcase for its heavy-hitting characters. I just wish they could’ve inhabited a better story.

Score: B-

“Jason Bourne” Review

Premise: After years of living off the grid, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) resurfaces to uncover the truth about his past and expose a new CIA assassination program, Iron Hand.

Seriously, that poster is all I needed.

I was a big fan of the first three Bourne films, especially The Bourne Ultimatum. They’re some of the best spy thrillers of the 21st century, combining intense action with engaging stories of political intrigue. Unlike a lot of people, I liked The Bourne Legacy, but it was a big step backwards from the first three, and a big part of that was the absence of Jason Bourne. Needless to say, Matt Damon’s back for this one, and it has looked great. The trailers were fantastic, I loved the supporting cast they gathered around Damon, even that one poster was enough to send chills down my spine. So was Jason Bourne a good movie? Yes, but in a theme that’s been common this summer, not as good as I hoped.

Pros: Saying Matt Damon was great as Jason Bourne is like saying ice cream tastes good. It’s so obvious it goes without saying. He was born to play this role (no pun intended), and makes an already interesting character that much better with his laconic performance. You believe him every step of the way as the best assassin the CIA’s ever had, a disaffected loner, a man out for revenge. Add to that the fact that we haven’t seen Bourne in nine years, and his presence becomes a breath of fresh air that’s hard to match. I didn’t love the movie, but I certainly loved Matt Damon and Jason Bourne and would be up for more sequels.

They also assembled a great supporting cast for this film, arguably the best they’ve ever had. Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina, The Danish Girl) is great as Heather Lee, a CIA operative with a moral core and a hidden agenda. Tommy Lee Jones and Riz Ahmed (The Night Of, Nightcrawler) also make good additions as CIA director Robert Dewey and tech CEO Aaron Kalloor, respectively. But the best if Vincent Cassel as the Asset, a mysterious assassin who has a history with Bourne himself. The Bourne franchise has had plenty of solid villains, but not a lot that I thought could go toe-to-toe with Bourne. The Asset is the most menacing threat he’s ever faced, a cold, hard man who’s more an unstoppable force of nature than a normal man. But Cassel brought something to him that kept him grounded in the real world while still seeming otherworldly. He was a great villain, one of the most memorable of the summer.

The film is also very well directed by Supremacy and Ultimatum’s (as well as United 93 and Captain Phillips) Paul Greengrass. Greengrass has always been a capable director, and while I’ve had some complaints about him (*cough* shaky cam *cough*), he knows how to bring the thrills, and he does once again. His style really suits films like these, which allow him to bring in gritty realism and political intrigue while still keeping that glossy Hollywood sheen we know and love. The film is intense, ruthless, and usually quite entertaining, and owes a lot of that to Greengrass’s skillful direction.

Cons: One of the things that always impressed me about the Bourne series was the quality of the writing by Tony Gilroy. Unfortunately, Jason Bourne is definitely the least well written. Gilroy did not return, and instead the screenplay was written by Greengrass and first time scribe Christopher Rouse, and it was missing the punch of the other films. The two biggest problems I had were:

-There’s a 20 minute period (from when Bourne meets up with recurring character Nicky Parsons to when he finds a mysterious hacker) where I was pretty bored. The action in that period of time was good for the most part, but whenever the plot came in I couldn’t help but nod off. Luckily, it comes pretty early in the film and I was sucked back in later on.

-A plot thread with Aaron Kaloor, a Mark Zuckerberg expy played by Riz Ahmed. Ahmed is very good in the film, but his character is completely unnecessary and drags the movie down. There’s also some very on-the-nose security vs freedom dilemmas he has to go through that left me rolling my eyes. It felt like Greengrass and Rouse really wanted to put a big political statement into the film when it would’ve been better off with something more subtle. If the film had just been about Jason Bourne trying to figure out his past (and take down some baddies along the way) I probably would’ve liked the movie a lot more.

Now, I’m not saying you need to bring Tony Gilroy back to ever be good. I just think Greengrass and Rouse (a longtime composer) are a too green as far as screenwriting goes and should’ve left that job to someone else.

Overall: Jason Bourne is an entertaining movie that revisits a great character, brings the action without overdoing the shaky-cam, and throws in a few nice twists and turns along the way. If you’re a fan of the franchise or spy films in general I think you’ll enjoy the movie. Just don’t go in expecting another Ultimatum.

Score: B

“Star Trek Beyond” Review

Premise: While on a rescue mission, the U.S.S. Enterprise is attacked and shot down by raiders led by the mysterious Krall (Idris Elba), who steal a dangerous artifact and take most of the crew prisoner. Now it’s up to Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and co. to rescue the Enterprise’s crew and find out what Krall has up his sleeve.

I’ve been one of the rebooted Star Trek franchise’s most ardent defenders for a long time. I think the first one is a stroke of genius nearly equal to Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, and I had a great time with Into Darkness despite its flaws. I get why hardcore Trekkers wouldn’t like them, but I think J.J. Abrams made two movies that were true to the spirit of Star Trek while giving them a more action-oriented, Star Wars-esque flair. So Star Trek Beyond, this time directed by Justin Lin of Fast and Furious fame, had my attention from the get-go. The first Sabotage trailer was a misfire, but after that the marketing found its footing and has gotten me really interested. After seeing Star Trek Beyond, I was very much satisfied, and while it probably won’t be in my best of the year list or anything, it’s a really enjoyable movie and a highlight of the summer.

The best part of Star Trek Beyond, like its two predecessors, is the stellar cast. Getting replacements for the likes of Shatner, Nimoy, etc. was supposed to be impossible, but each crew member is pitch perfect. Chris Pine’s Kirk has always been a different beast than Shatner Kirk, a cocky young maverick with a lot of heart but much to learn. It’s been a lot of fun to watch, but here he really grows into his role as Captain Kirk, extraordinary leader. But the standout for me has always been Karl Urban as Bones. He’s always been a welcome presence in these films, the loyal friend to Kirk, the doctor with the terrible bedside manner, and the voice of reason all wrapped into one. He’s a delight! The rest of the crew all get their moments to shine, with Chekhov (played by the late, great Anton Yelchin) getting more to do than in either of the previous films. It was a nice sendoff for a terrific young actor cut down in his prime who will be greatly missed.

There’s another character in the film who pleasantly surprised me; Jaylah, an stranded alien played by Sofia Boutella. When she first popped up as Samuel L. Jackson’s right-hand woman in Kingsman, I thought she was solid but wasn’t sure if she had much of a future as an actress. I was absolutely wrong. She was great in this, playing off the cast really well (especially Scotty) and once again being a capable fighter who can kick some serious ass. I can’t wait to see her in The Mummy now!

Beyond also does something that Star Trek 09 and Into Darkness didn’t do; it made the story small. At its heart, this is a survival story about a few people trying to save their friends…with a creepy artifact that could destroy the universe as a MacGuffin. It’s not as action heavy (although, as befitting a Justin Lin film, the action is great!) as the previous films, focusing more on the exploration aspects of Star Trek, along with the usual banter between the cast that I’ve come to know and love. It still sticks to the general tone of the Abrams helmed-films, while going off in a new direction that I think worked very well.

As for weak points, the clearest is the villain, Krall. Idris Elba gives a fine performance, but the character is not a very strong one, especially in contrast to Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan. We don’t learn his motivation until very late in the film, and while the reveal was good in theory, I think it would’ve been more powerful if it came at the midpoint. He also falls into the trap that Star Trek 09‘s Nero did; he’s forgettable. Nothing he does really stands out, he’s just sort of a generic doomsday villain for much of the film and has no depth. That said, Elba’s acting goes a long way in making him more bearable. Getting a terrific actor tends to do that.

There were also some periods where the film dragged on too much. There are definitely a lot of fun scenes with Kirk/Chekhov, Spock/Bones, Scotty/Jayla, but sometimes they went on for too long or repeated themselves. A bit more variety in their scenes and the film would’ve been greatly improved.

Star Trek Beyond is pretty much exactly what I wanted, a really fun adventure with the characters I’ve come to know and love. It’s got a good mix of action and exploration/survival, terrific humor (Simon Pegg was one of the writers!), and brings you back to a universe that’ll take your breath away. Not Wrath of Khan quality, but a satisfying watch nonetheless.

Score: B+

“The Legend of Tarzan” Review

Premise: Years after being stranded in the Congo and raised by apes, Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård) has made a name for himself in England as a wealthy socialite. However, he’s called back to his home when it is threatened by Belgian bigwigs looking to make a quick buck and must defend his human and apish brethren from subjugation.

I’ve been fairly excited for The Legend of Tarzan, much more than most people I know. I thought David Yates of Harry Potter fame was a good choice to direct. The casting of great talents like Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, Christoph Waltz, and (of course) Samuel L. Jackson was a stroke of genius that gave me even more hope. We also haven’t seen Edgar Rice Burroughs’s most famous creation in a big movie in quite a while, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to inject new life into the property. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t very satisfying, and unfortunately might give Hollywood pause before making a franchise.

Let’s start with the positives. Alexander Skarsgård is a fantastic Tarzan. I haven’t seen much of Skarsgård’s work, but in what I’ve seen he’s consistently impressed me. Even in movies or shows that I don’t really like (True Blood, the Straw Dogs remake) he’s electric, a force of nature who should be a big star. It’s no different in The Legend of Tarzan. Here Skarsgård shows a magnetic heroism that I don’t think I’ve ever seen him display. This film may not be good enough to earn him the crown of action star, but he has one that right on his own. Whatever people may say about the movie, I hope they recognize his skills as an actor.

Margot Robbie also plays a solid Jane Porter, Tarzan’s love interest. Ever since she hit it big with Wolf of Wall Street, Margot Robbie has often been a shining light in mediocre films. Last year there was Focus, this year there’s The Legend of Tarzan (I hope I didn’t jinx Suicide Squad). Like Skarsgård, she has everything it takes to be a star; loads of talent, good looks, and enormous likability. The role of Jane didn’t have much meat this time around, but Robbie gave it all she got and made the material better whenever she was onscreen. Job well done!

Where The Legend of Tarzan fails for me is the story. I was expecting an pseudo-origin story of Tarzan coming of age and having his first big adventure. What we get is a sequel without an original film to follow up. Tarzan/John Clayton III is in England for a good portion of the movie, definitely not in full fledged lord of the apes mode. That could’ve been okay for a third of fourth movie in a franchise, but this is your reboot. Tarzan’s not like Batman. He’s been out of the spotlight for a while, so you need something to reintroduce him. This film assumes you know the backstory and keeps you out of the jungle for way too long. You get bits and pieces of the origin along the way, and there are certainly some entertaining action sequences, but the script doesn’t let Tarzan do what he does best. Instead, it tries to bite off more than it could chew with undercooked political drama.

It pains me to say it, but I did not like Christoph Waltz in this movie. Waltz tries his damndest to get something out of his character, but it’s so cliched that I got flashbacks to his performance in The Three Musketeers. He plays a mustache twirling thug with no redeeming features, unable to show any of his signature charm. I want to see Waltz in more Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained quality fare, but I’m worried that he’s being pigeonholed as “cliched villain, A, B, C and D”.

And the visual effects? Not great. I understand that not all CGI animals can look like they did in Rise of the Planet of the Apes or The Jungle Book. But this movie had a huge budget, and I’m shocked they didn’t put it to better use. The apes look like something out of a PS3 cutscene; fine if you’re playing a video game, hopelessly outdated in a movie. When movies are made for less money that blow your visual effects out of the water, there’s really no excuse.

So, The Legend of Tarzan just isn’t a good movie. It’s not terrible and there are definitely good parts, but overall its a very disappointing movie that gives you none of what you want from Tarzan. I don’t blame David Yates, and I certainly don’t hold it against the cast. I just think everyone involved was working on something that was flawed from the get-go.

Score: C

“The BFG” Review

Premise: A young orphan named Sophie is spirited away to Giant Country by the titular Big Friendly Giant, a runt of the little who feels like an outcast. Sophie and BFG strike up a friendship, and soon find themselves having to save Britain BFG’s more bloodthirsty brethren. Based on the book by Roald Dahl.

The BFG has been one of those movies that I’ve haven’t been super pumped about seeing, but was nonetheless planning to see all along. The marketing has been nice enough but hasn’t wowed me, but film’s pedigree is the stuff of legend. You’ve got an adaptation of one of Roald Dahl’s most popular books, adapted by the late, great Melissa Mathison (E.T.) directed by Mr. Movie Magic Man himself Steven Spielberg, and starring Mark Rylance fresh off his Oscar win for Bridge of Spies. How could it not be good?

While it probably won’t go down in history as one of Spielberg’s classics, The BFG is still a very good movie. The best part is Spielberg returning to a realm he hasn’t worked in for a long time – family filmmaking. In fact, many of the things that made E.T. such a beloved film are at work in The BFG. When Sophie is snatched at the witching hour, when she enters Giant Country, whenever she and BFG go exploring, you feel a childlike wonder that sweeps you away into the film itself. It’s not always seamless, but when you see the strings you’re pulled right back in. The witty source material and the Spielberg/Mathison combo certainly don’t hurt either. In short, The BFG does what great family films do best, being easily digestible for kids while not treating the audience like goldfish.

But what would The BFG be without a winning duo in the lead roles? Obviously Mark Rylance makes for a terrific BFG. I can see how some would find his character annoying, but I ate him up. His folksy rural English accent, his facial expressions, his body language, even the way he interacts with his surroundings are all priceless. After this and Bridge of Spies (and with Ready Player One on the way), I wouldn’t be shocked if he and Spielberg worked on ever one of the latter’s movies for the rest of their lives. Ruby Barnhill, for her part, is a solid Sophie. She’s an adorable kid and shares a lot of chemistry with Rylance, and I can’t wait to see her in more movies. I wish her well on any future projects. These two are also dynamite together. There were even a few times where I got flashbacks to Elliott and E.T., with both characters switching roles depending on where they are. Rylance and Barnhill make a great pair, and are definitely the highlight of the movie.

Where I think The BFG falters is in not having much of a conflict for a good portion of the movie. Yes, there’s a group of carnivorous giants, and they’re always on the lookout for Sophie, but they aren’t really a threat most of the time. They’re entertaining, and there are a few scenes where Sophie is in genuine danger, but for at least the first half of the movie we mostly just see Sophie and BFG bonding. Most of that’s great stuff, and I understand the book was kind of like this too, but I feel like they could’ve kicked in the main plot a bit earlier while still keeping all the nice moments intact. It also wraps up way too easily (no spoilers).

Also, some of the CGI on the BFG (mostly in the first half) looks off when he and Sophie share the screen. Not a dealbreaker, but noticeable.

Overall, The BFG is light, entertaining, touching summer fare, with the Spielberg touch that we all know and love. I could’ve done with a more dynamic story, but following these characters was a lot of fun and I left the theater quite satisfied. Take your kids, your friends, or just yourself. I don’t think you’ll regret it.

Score: B+

June 2016 Movie Rundown

I wanted to do full reviews of all these movies, but life happens and you get backed up. Oh well, summer movie season will do that. Now that it’s over, I thought it’d be a good idea to give my quick thoughts on all the movies I saw this June (minus TMNT: Out of the Shadows, which I got to review in full). Here they are, from best to worst.

Finding Dory

When I first heard that Pixar was making a sequel to their 2003 classic Finding Nemo, my first reaction was “ummm…okay?” Don’t get me wrong, Finding Nemo is an all time great animated movie, and I had confidence in the abilities of the Pixar crew. It was just kind of strange that they would choose to make Finding Dory before Incredibles 2 or Cars 2 (oh wait, that happened…). Well, the I am glad to say that this investment paid off; Finding Dory is a great movie.

To answer the question “can Dory carry her own movie?”, yes, yes she can! From the first flashback of her as a toddler to the final frame, you are with Dory the whole time, rooting for her to find her family. She’s an immensely sympathetic character, even more so than in the first movie. Moving her center stage could have been a swing and a miss, but it actually ended up making her even more likable. And who could go without mentioning the vocal talents of Ellen DeGeneres. Ellen is so damn funny and once again brings so much to the character that I cannot imagine anyone else in this role. If there were a best vocal performance Oscar she’d win it hands down.

Another thing I appreciated was Pixar’s decision to not just rehash the plot of Finding Nemo. The plot kicks off when Dory remembers where her long lost parents lived, so she, Marlin and Nemo go to a California marine hospital to find them. It might sound like a carbon copy, but trust me, it’s not at all. The setting is a lot smaller in scale, but is a nice change of pace from the whole Pacific Ocean. The basic plot points are similar, but still have enough to set them apart that they feel fresh. It also doesn’t go the full Cars 2 route and change too much. Finding Dory strikes the right balance, being readily identifiable as a sequel while changes enough to stand on its own.

Dory also has a nice supporting cast to back her up. We get old favorites like Marlin and Nemo, and cameos from Crush the turtle and Mr. Ray. But there’s also plenty of great new characters. The standout is Hank the octopus (Ed O’Neill), who unlike most fish in the hospital who want to eventually return to the ocean, wants nothing more than to spend the rest of his days in Cleveland! He’s very funny, and the relationship between he and Dory adds a nice layer to the story that separates it from the original. There’s also the injured whales, Destiny and Charlie (Kaitlin Olson and Ty Burrell), and sea lions Fluke and Rudder (Idris Elba and Dominic West reuniting from The Wire), who add a lot to the comedy and are just as entertaining as anyone in Finding Nemo.

Is Finding Dory as good as Finding Nemo? Of course not. Finding Nemo held together better as an overall story; the second act of Finding Dory gets a little repetitive (lots of backtracking!), and the plot’s more predictable this time around. I also would have liked a few more gutbusting laugh-out-loud moments. However, the movie is so entertaining that I hardly cared at all. Finding Dory is a sequel done right, flipping the perspective to an erstwhile sidekick and making her a great protagonist in her own right. It also recaptures the magic of the original while still having the courage to go down its own path. A great movie that’ll surely be one of the summer’s standouts.

Score: A-

The Conjuring 2

I was late to the party on The Conjuring, having seen it just a few months ago. I’m not a big horror fan, and while there are some that I love, I have to wade through a sea of crap to get there. Well, The Conjuring was a diamond in the rough, my favorite horror film since The Descent and among the best films of 2013, period. So here comes The Conjuring 2, a movie I normally wouldn’t be excited for, but it had a pedigree that few horror films can hope to possess.

The film has a simple premise; Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) travel to England to investigate Hodgson family’s house for paranormal activity. But like the first one, director James Wan milks this premise for all the scares it’s worth. It doesn’t have as many “oh shit” moments, but Wan uses his hallmarks to build the tension to a fever pitch. The music, the cinematography, the sound design, and everything else all add up to a pretty scary experience, one that proves that atmospheric tension mixed with the right amount of jump scares is the best way to go.

One thing that separates the Conjuring franchise from much of the horror is the presence of capable actors, and they once again give it their all. Just like in the first film, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are terrific. They play the Warrens so well, have such good chemistry, that I’d go to see The Conjuring 3, 4, 5, 6 just to see them interact. They could look for poltergeists in space, in the hood, wherever, and I’d believe it because of them.

Where The Conjuring 2 falters is precisely what the first film avoided; indulging in cliches. It’s not to the point of ruining the movie, mind you, but for a non-horror fan like me they can easily wear on you. I’m fine with jump scares, but they need to be used sparingly in order to work. This film has a lot of them, and they’re not always well placed, sometimes being used where a subtle music piece or a creeping buildup would do the trick better. There’s also a period in the second act where the film drags for too long, slowing the pace to a crawl. Luckily, it comes roaring back for the finale, but the lull is noticeable.

While it doesn’t equal the first Conjuring, The Conjuring 2 is a solid horror sequel, with a lot of scares, great performances, and another star turn by director James Wan. If/when The Conjuring 3 is announced, I will be a very happy man.

Score: B

Warcraft

Given the track record of video game movies (e.g. CRAP), I’m a little surprised that I was looking forward to Warcraft so much. Maybe it’s residual affection for my pre-teen WoW days, but I had a lot of hope that Warcraft would be the movie to bring video games to the screen the right way. The marketing hasn’t knocked my socks off, but a lot of the casting intrigued me, I love director Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code), and I’m always up for a good fantasy epic. So was Warcraft the first great video game movie? No, and I can definitely see why it got a lot of negative feedback. But I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Warcraft tells what’s basically a first contact story in a fantasy world; orcs and humans meeting for the first time after the orcs’ world is torn apart, and coming into conflict when their cultures clash. Except it’s more Dawn of the Planet of the Apes than Independence Day. The stuff with the orcs is by far the best part of the movie, thanks to showing that not all orcs are evil, but that they’re a race just as complex as humans. You have evil orcs like the sorcerer antagonist Gul’dan, but you also have heroes like Durotan who just want to protect their people and live in peace. The portrayal of the orcs is the main reason why, despite all its flaws, I’d like to see a Warcraft movie franchise; you don’t need them to be uniformly evil like in The Lord of the Rings, and can explore how they interact with the archetypically “good” races.

Beyond the orcs, Warcraft sets up an engrossing fantasy world. While watching this movie, I got flashbacks to my twelve year old self exploring Azeroth and remembered all that I loved about the games (even though I sucked every one of them). You might get a Tolkien vibe at first glance, what with the humans, elves, dwarves, etc., but it’s a different breed entirely. Just like Middle-Earth, there are so many stories to tell in this world, whether they’re adventures about saving the world or tense political dramas.

Some of the acting, particularly in the orc camp, is great. The standout is Toby Kebbell of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes film as the orc hero, Durotan. Out of all the characters, I was with him most of all. He sees Gul’dan, the man who plunged the orcs’ homeland into chaos, trying to rule over the survivors and does not like what he sees one bit, trying his best to save as many as he can. Other actors that brought their A-game include Dominic Cooper as Llane, King of Stormwind; Paula Patton as Garona, a half-orc sent employed by the humans as a spy; and Robert Kazinsky as Durotan’s best friend Orgrim.

However, there were other actors who I thought were completely miscast. From what I’ve seen of Vikings, Travis Fimmel is a good actor, but I didn’t think he was right for the role of the Sir Anduin, the main character on the human side. It’s not that he was bad, but something felt a little bit off, like his character should’ve been a supporting one rather than a main player. I would’ve preferred seeing King Llane take on the protagonist role, since he was a much more interesting character. Ben Foster, another great actor, felt very out of place playing a mage more suited for the likes of an older actor. However, the only actor that was outright bad was the young man playing Foster’s apprentice. He felt like a cut-rate Harry Potter meets Peeta, wooden and unprepared for such a big film. Sorry guy, but this wasn’t your time to shine. Maybe next time.

Warcraft also something in common with another controversial movie that I happened to like, Batman v Superman; a disjointed and clumsy narrative structure. It felt like there was a lot more story to tell, but the studio/filmmakers were worried about going over two hours and cut too much. A lot of plot points are glossed over too quickly, and the exposition, while necessary to a degree, was too thick for my liking. The movie also loses a lot of steam in the third act, mostly because of a few plot developments that took away my reason for caring. Disappointing, especially after all the great set-up in the beginning.

Overall, I liked Warcraft, but I wanted a lot more. That said, I feel there’s more to tell, and thanks to it doing gangbusters overseas I have hope for a sequel to do it better. I understand why a lot of people would dislike this movie, especially if they have no interest in fantasy. But for me it was a fun time at the movies, a decent introduction to a world worth revisiting.

Score: B-

Free State of Jones

A civil war movie about whites and blacks teaming up to buck the Confederacy and establish their own mini-state? Based on a true story? Starring Matthew McConaughey? Sign me up! I was always excited for Free State of Jones. It had an impressive cast, the trailer had one me over, and it portrays a period of history that is tragically underused in film. So, obviously this movie was going to be great, right?

Before I get into this, I did not hate Free State of Jones. In fact, there were elements that I thought were great, especially the acting. Of course, Matthew McConaughey is great in it. We’re now past the McConassaince and are now in the Age of McConaughey, where all the Fool’s Golds have been washed away and replaced with The Lincoln Lawyer and Dallas Buyers Club, and in Free State of Jones McConaughey proves his star has not dimmed. Gugu Mbatha Raw (Belle, Beyond the Lights, Concussion) also continues her rise, and Mahershala Ali (Predators, the last two The Hunger Games films) gets his chance to be in the spot light. I hope this movie’s poor quality doesn’t prevent him from getting more big roles, because he really deserves them.

One of the things I’ve heard about Free State of Jones is it has no story. That’s not true; it has a thousand stories. Seriously, this movie is so overstuffed. It seems like every character has a story to tell, even when we really don’t need to hear them and they could be in the background. This lack of focus means that the film isn’t nearly as moving as it could have been, feeling more like a second-rate History Channel special than an actual movie. It’s a great example of a film that’s too ambitious for its own good, trying to be an epic and getting carried away with its much too wide scope.

It pains me to say that Free State of Jones is one of the most disappointing movies of the year so far. I was hoping for Oscar season five months early, but instead I felt like I was back in the dump months. Well, at least the actors kept it from being a total waste.

Score: C

Independence Day: Resurgence

Independence Day: Revenge of the Fallen! Independence Day: The Phantom Menace! Independence Day: The Quickening! All fitting titles for a film of this quality.

No beating around the bush with this one; Independence Day: Resurgence suuuuuuuucks! I had some hope for it after seeing the first teaser, but all my hopes for a dumb fun action movie went up in flames as soon as the movie started.

I’m not gonna pretend that Independence Day had a great story or Shakespearian writing, but those elements were at least tolerable and didn’t get in the way of the fun. Resurgence, on the other hand, is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen put to screen. The worst part of the film, if I had to pick one element, is the dialogue. Where the Independence Day had some quotable one-liners, this one made me want to rip out my eardrums whenever someone opened their mouth. Especially painful are the attempts at comedy? I may go hard on Michael Bay’s Transformers humor, but ID: R makes those movies look like The 40-Year-Old Virgin. I audibly groaned whenever one of those stupid characters tried to give me a chuckle, and I’m still doing it even a week later. UUUUUUUUGH!

The plot and the world created for this film is also nothing short of horrendous. Yes, the first film was cheesy and didn’t have a great story, but it was believable enough that I could sort of relate to it. Here Earth is basically a hyper-futuristic world that feels more like Coruscant than anything feeling at home in this franchise. Nothing ever feels real, not the relationships, not the battles, not even the way humanity’s able to survive! Seriously, how do you fight back against a spaceship the size of a country! You don’t! You’re gonna die! Accept it! And the ending? One of the most pathetic sequel hooks this side of Maze Runner.

Finally, the acting is atrocious. I may have been worried about the casting of the poor man’s Chris Hemsworth, Liam…Hemsworth, but he gives one of the less embarrassing performances. Jeff Goldblum’s back, but not with a vengeance, phoning in it so visibly that you can see the “fuck you, pay me” rolling off his lips. Maika Monroe follows up her star turn in It Follows by not doing much of anything. But the saddest display of acting, especially since I love Star Trek: The Next Generation is Brent Spiner. He’s so goofy and over-the-top that, in a film full of bad performances, he stuck out for all the wrong reasons. Everyone’s lines failed, but his fell the hardest and fastest. The one saving grace in the film is Bill Pullman, who still projects enough presidential toughness and grace to give the movie and ounce of dignity.

Also, no Harvey Fierstein! You can’t do that!

As far as I’m concerned, Roland Emmerich is at the top of the Hollywood shit-list. He took his masterpiece and gave it one of the worst sequels I have ever seen, and the worst movie of 2016 so far. We’ll always have Independence Day, but now this shit is burned into my memory.

Score: F

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” Review

Premise: One year after the events of the first film, scientist Baxter Stockman helps the Foot clan rescue Shredder on his way to a new prison. Now it’s up to the turtles to do battle with Shredder, along with a host of new villains including mutated freaks Bebop and Rocksteady and living alien brain Krang.

Going into the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I was expecting a disaster. I had hoped for a movie that had more of the vibe of the 80s comics, which balanced intense action with a surprisingly dark sense of humor. Instead, it looked like we’d be getting the 80s cartoon, which I’ve never been a fan of, in live-action form. Surprisingly, I thought the first movie was pretty decent. Not a great movie by any stretch, but entertaining enough that I’d be up for a sequel. Well, the sequel came, and it’s pretty much what I feared the first movie would be.

Pros: By far the best thing about the first movie were the turtles. When your human cast is led by Megan Fox, those turtles better be good, and good they were. Fortunately, Out of the Shadows follows up the first movie’s success and portrays the turtles very well, with one exception. Leonardo is a leader I can get behind, Donatello’s still that lovable nerd that can do a lot of the heavy lifting, and Rafael may be a surly jerk, but he’s still a cool character who will lay down his life for his family if need be (now you know which one I didn’t like). You also get to see a lot more of the turtles this time around. Where the first movie hid them for way too long, this one shows them off at every available moment, definitely to its credit. If only the movie were as good as its heroes.

Surprisingly, I really liked Tyler Perry as Stockman. Normally, Tyler Perry and Baxter Stockman’s names are both poison to my ears (although Perry was great in Gone Girl), but Perry brought more to the character than I thought possible. Whenever Stockman came onscreen I knew I was gonna be entertained, and after this I can say with confidence that I misjudged Tyler Perry when he was doing Medea. He can be very funny, at least when he’s not in drag.

Cons: From very early on in Out of the Shadows, I had a feeling that Krang, that stupid talking alien brain, was gonna be the sinkhole that brought the movie down whenever he showed up. And…I was totally right. First, his presence. When did the previous movie ever hint that there was alien life in this universe? It was Turtles vs. Shredder, end of story. Krang shows up out of nowhere, with zero buildup and zero context. Second, his voice is torture to listen to. It reminded me of Harry the homosexual from Family Guy on steroids! Maybe if this were a cartoon and we weren’t supposed to take Krang seriously I’d be able to bear it, but I don’t think that was the intention. Third, he hijacks the movie from Shredder, the ostensible big bad who isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss for most of the movie. Ugh!

Stephen Amell (Arrow) as Casey Jones? When I heard that casting I was really excited. Here was a chance to bring this character to the screen again and do him right! Unfortunately, both Amell and his character were wasted. He has about one scene where he gets to do anything, and even that was just saving April O’Neill (who is worthless!). I wish Amell the best of luck if he continues in the film world, but this was not the right movie to build a career off of.

They really didn’t do Michelangelo justice in this movie. He’s always been kind of dumb, but at least he’s usually an endearing character and is a competent ninja despite his intellectual weaknesses. Mikey from Out of the Shadows would fit right in with Patrick Star or Lloyd and Harry on their worst days. I seriously felt like he’d have gotten himself killed by drinking the bleach under the sink had the other turtles not been around to help him. Sad, because I really wanted him to steal the show again.

The plot is laughable, even if you compare it to the first movie and all the other TMNT films. With the exception of the turtles’ story, everything is very sloppy, un-entertaining, and will probably lock out anyone who doesn’t like the original cartoon. I already mentioned Krang’s introduction and Shredder being wasted, but why stop there. I know Bebop and Rocksteady were dumb in the show, and it’s fine to have them be simpletons here. But why would Shredder make these idiots his top lieutenants? Why is there some sort of mysterious mutagen that can turn anyone into human/animal hybrids all of a sudden? Why is epic showdown between the Turtles and Shredder such a letdown again? All of these questions and more will be answered never.

Megan Fox and Will Arnett are terrible once again. April O’Neill has a lot of potential from the comics and Arnett is normally really funny, but they’re some of the lowlights of this current TMNT incarnation. On the bright side, at least they’re not in it as much and don’t steal valuable screentime from the turtles.

Verdict: The first TMNT film may have been a pleasant surprise, but this one is anything but. Terrible story, a bunch of annoying or underused characters, and very little going for it other than the Turtles themselves. I can see people enjoying it if they grew up the cartoon or are under ten years old, but otherwise stay far away.

Score: D+

“X-Men: Apocalypse” Review (overdue)

(From this point forward I will be switching from a 10 point rating system to a grading system. I want to avoid confusion with people thinking a 7 is a C, for example. I feel an A-F system will solve that problem.)

Premise: It’s 1983, new grounds are being broken (comment if you get that reference). Ever since Magneto’s (Michael Fassbender) assassination attempt on Richard Nixon and his foiling by Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) in Days of Future Past, the existence of mutants is now common knowledge. Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) has rebuilt his school for mutants and is moving up in the world. A new generation of mutants is coming into their own. But the survival of the world is threatened by the reawakening of En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac), the world’s first mutant and harbinger of the apocalypse. Now the X-Men must reunite and stop En Sabah Nur (aka Apocalypse) from wiping the slate clean.

If there was one movie this year that had the highest ceiling to crack, it would be X-Men: Apocalypse. Although not as high on my anticipation list as Captain America: Civil War or Batman v Superman, for me it had the toughest act to follow. X-Men: Days of Future Past was the best of the franchise, my favorite movie of 2014, and one of the best comic book movies of all time. I’ve been looking forward to X-Men: Apocalypse, but not as much as I “should” have been. I always thought it would be a good movie, but the marketing for it was so-so and didn’t do much to get me hyped. The mixed critical reception also tempered my excitement a bit. Well, after seeing it I can say with certainty that X-Men: Apocalypse is pretty good…but it should have been great.

Pros:

One of the best parts of the First Class generation X-Men films has been the relationship between Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr/Magneto. That continues in Apocalypse and provides its most powerful moments. Both Charles and Erik have rebuilt their lives, with Charles becoming a teacher to dozens of young mutants and Erik assuming a new identity in Poland with a wife and daughter. But they are polar opposites when responding to tragedy and persecution. Charles tries to bring people together and convince the world that mutants are just regular humans with extraordinary abilities. Erik lashes out at the world and blames all humans for the sins of a few, making him a prime target for Apocalypse’s manipulation. This clash of world views once again makes for great entertainment, and McAvoy and Fassbender play their roles near perfectly.

Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver was one of the highlights of Days of Future Past, so it’s no surprise that they brought him back. Well, they recaptured lightning in a bottle: Quicksilver is great once again! Director Bryan Singer, writer Simon Kinberg, and actor Evan Peters bring so much to the character, making him hilarious and cool in equal measure. He’s also one of the most relatable characters in the movie. He’ll try to be a hero, but his goals are nothing lofty. He just wants to help people, and sometimes he’ll succeed, sometimes not. A great change of pace from the likes of Xavier and Hank McCoy.

There were also some new characters that I really liked. Scott Summers/Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were the standouts, and I could definitely see them being the franchise’s standard bearers in the future. I thought Sophie Turner as Jean Grey was a little iffy at first, but as the movie went on I ended up liking her in the role, even if she didn’t pop like the former two. Finally, a lot was riding on Apocalypse himself. He’s one of my favorite comic book characters ever, and I was hoping they would do him justice. While he’s not going to go down as one of the great film supervillains he was a perfectly serviceable antagonist and was always an interesting presence.

The whole first half of the movie is really engaging. From the first scene showing Apocalypse’s current incarnation’s origin, I was hooked and didn’t check out for a very long time. I liked seeing how all my favorite characters have lived their lives since Days of Future Past, setting up the return of Apocalypse, showing the changes in the world around them, introducing some new blood. In fact, for a lot of the movie I thought it could be on a First Class or X-Men 1 level.

When it tries for humor, the film mostly succeeds, especially with Charles going to meet his old flame Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) and Nightcrawler trying to adjust to live in America. Good stuff.

Cons:

As great as the film started out, it really loses steam in the third act. Whereas the first two acts had a great pace, solid action set-pieces, always kept me entertained, after that the movie’s quality takes a dive. There’s a long sequence in Colonel Stryker’s base that I thought, while it had a nice bit toward the end, was completely unnecessary and bogged the story down. But where the ass really drops out of it is the big fight at the end. With a few exceptions, the action in the final battle was badly shot, poorly choreographed, and had some lazy special effects to boot! A real disappointment, especially because I was enjoying the movie so much before.

It pains me to say this, but Jennifer Lawrence severely phoned it in as Mystique. Lawrence is a terrific actress, and while I’ve never loved her as Mystique she didn’t bother me…until now. Her lack of interest is extremely apparent, and I always felt that she was so bored with this franchise that she just gave up. There was no emotion in her delivery, her body language, everything was sad to watch. Whenever she was onscreen, I wanted to stand up and shout “You’re Jennifer Lawrence. Be good!” Oh well. You can’t have everything.

Some of the new characters were wasted. While Storm was had a decent amount of character to her, the same could not be said of her fellow horsemen Angel and Psylocke. Angel’s introduction, going toe-to-toe in a cage match with Nightcrawler, is fantastic, so I was ready for yet another great new character. Nope! After he joins Apocalypse he has nothing to do. Same could be said of Psylocke to an even greater extent. I counted; she only had four lines in the entire movie! Now you might say “Days of Future Past had Bishop and all those other mutants for, like, three scenes!” The difference was, in my opinion, they made the most of those characters with their little screentime. They didn’t with these two. Sad!

This is probably a function of having very few human characters, but I felt like the carnage wrought by Apocalypse had no emotional impact. There’s probably a body count in the thousands, and yet we really only see how Apocalypse effects the mutants. We don’t even get a single tear from Charles. What a waste.

Overall:

To summarize, X-Men: Apocalypse is a good movie, flawed but mostly entertaining. However, I wanted it to be a great movie. I wasn’t asking for a Days of Future Past style masterpiece, but I still can’t help but feel disappointed and I can see why it’s getting mixed reviews. Chalk to up to very high expectations. Still, it’s definitely worth a watch and is on the X-Men franchise’s good side.

Score: B-

“Neighbors 2” vs “The Nice Guys”

And no, I haven’t seen Angry Birds. I wanted to, but some people told me I wouldn’t think it was funny. I’ll wait for Netflix or something.

Anyway, last weekend was a damn good one for comedies. A sequel to one of my favorite comedies of 2014, one that gets better every time I see it, and a new film by director Shane Black (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang; Iron Man 3) harkening back to the buddy cop films of a different era. But how do they stack up against each other?

Neighbors 2

Mac and Kelly Radner (Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne) are looking to sell their house with a second daughter on the way. However, a wrench is thrown in their plans when a sorority moves next door with help from the last movie’s frat head Teddy (Zac Efron). Now it’s up for Mac and Kelly to keep the girls from partying for thirty days in order to make their sale a done deal.

In theory, I should’ve been very excited for Neighbors 2, especially because I thought the first one was so funny. However, there’s always been something a little…off about the marketing. I can’t really describe it, but something just didn’t feel right. Maybe because a bunch of comedy sequels suck? Well, Neighbors 2 is definitely no Hangover 2. In fact, it comes pretty close to the original.

The basic formula is there, but it’s still really entertaining. Basically, everything that’s a holdover from the first film still works great. Rogen and Efron have great chemistry, and them becoming friends (spoiled in the trailers) was a great turn for the movie to take. Both of their characters are likable, but have plenty of faults that still make it fun to see them strike out. Rose Byrne stands out once again! I like her as a dramatic actress, but she is damn near perfect for movies like this. There’s also some nice cameos from familiar faces, and small roles for Efron’s old frat buddies were one of the highlights of the movie.

It’s also a very funny movie. While it doesn’t have as many rolling-on-the-floor moments as the first film it’s almost always entertaining and got a lot of giggles out of me. It might have helped that I didn’t see that many trailers.

Neighbors 2 also has a nice message for girls that I wasn’t expecting. In case you didn’t know from the trailers, the girls actually made their own independent sorority in order to party without having to hang out with hyper-sexist frat boys. Yes, they’re still doing some irresponsible things, but that’s not the point. The film shows that girls shouldn’t have to feel pressured to conform to boys images of them, a message that needs to be taught a lot more often.

Also, a little thing, but this one’s ending was much better. The first Neighbors had a very abrupt ending that took me out of the movie, but this one wrapped up very nicely. No spoilers, just telling you that it’s very funny and even heartwarming.

The biggest negative are the sorority girls themselves. Whereas Teddy and his friends from the first movie could be jerks sometimes, but they were still likable. These girls weren’t until well into the third act. I think it’s the way they talked and acted. They were pretty much the female versions of dudebros, with all the annoyance that entails. And as much as I love Chloe Moretz, this character was not the right one for her. I’m not saying she can’t be crude; watch Kick-Ass and you’ll fall in love with her. This character was just very hard to glom on to.

Overall, Neighbors 2 is a successful comedy sequel. Not a triumph like 22 Jump Street, but a very entertaining movie that most people will enjoy quite a bit, especially if you only saw the first trailer. It may be formulaic, but why fix what isn’t broken?

Score: 7.5/10

The Nice Guys

If Neighbors 2 was a trip down memory lane, then The Nice Guys was a breath of fresh air. I had been dying to see this movie for months. Shane Black’s a great writer/director, Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are two of my favorite actors, and I always have a soft spot for crime/comedy/mystery combinations. I was bummed to see it not make all that much money, but wasn’t surprised given the competition. So, I’m urging everyone reading this to give The Nice Guys a chance. I don’t think you’ll regret it.

The best thing about the movie is the dialogue. Black’s directorial debut Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is one of the unsung gems of the 2000s, and a lot of the charm from that movie carried over. The dialogue usually isn’t gut-busting, it’s more very witty quips and exchanges, but it always hits, and makes the really big laughs all the more worthwhile. I really hope The Nice Guys becomes the next goldmine of quotable lines.

Another thing that makes The Nice Guys so enjoyable is the chemistry between Crowe and Gosling. Their characters are both comedic spins on classic noir-type characters, Gosling the bumbling P.I. Holland March and Crowe the gruff, violent thug Jackson Healy. When the two of them come together, the results are nothing short of magical. They don’t always see eye to eye, they may not even like each other for a lot of the movie, but their interactions were always entertaining. They’re also frequently joined by March’s daughter Holly (Angourie Rice). If there’s someone who can get good performances out of kids, you can’t do much better than Shane Black. He made Ty Simpkins one of the best parts of Iron Man 3, and he does it again with Rice in The Nice Guys. A nice surprise!

The film takes place in Los Angeles in 1977, and the setting was a huge complement to everything else. Every period detail is spot on, from the clothes to the music to the historical references. If you go see The Nice Guys (you really should) you’ll be transported to a world where L.A. was a smoggy crap-heap, porn was still in theaters, and disco ruled the day. And if none of that sounds appealing, it still makes for a great setting.

I did have some issues with the movie, most of them fairly minor. The basic story is two detectives trying to find a missing girl, but with a lot of twists, turns, and conspiracies. It works for the most part, but sometimes the story gets a little too big for its britches. About two thirds of the way through it becomes a much bigger movie in scale, and I don’t think it needed to be. If you’ll see the movie you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. I get that the movie was trying to evoke 70s conspiracy thrillers, but sometimes it tried a little too hard. Still, I was always with the story and even when it went a little off the rails it brought me back in pretty quickly.

Also, one of the henchmen (played by Beau Knapp) in the movie, and he’s really tad over-the-top. Like I said before, not a big thing, but sometimes he got a little in-your-face for my liking.

Once again, I implore you all to check out The Nice Guys as soon as you can. It’s a fun, witty, highly original film that deserves better than what it’s getting at the box office. I’d love to see more films like it in the future.

Score: 8/10