Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I don't even know how to start this review.

I'm gonna try and do a spoiler free review and then I will do a spoilers review because there is so much I need to talk about in this movie that will definitely spoil the movie. But in the mean time, this review will be a non-spoiler review with more to come.

Batman v Superman is a movie that I have been pumped up for for years.

In many ways, this movie was the reason I started this blog. When I first started this blog, I wrote posts about Taken 2 and The IT Crowd but I didn't really know if it was actually going to be a thing.  And if it was going to be a thing, I think it was going to be a blog on British TV shows (I'm just looking at my list of expectations at the start of this blog). This was back in 2013 and the blog really started to pick up steam when the announcement was made at comic-con that this movie was going to happen.

The rest is history and I think I owe a lot of my success to the news of this movie coming out.

So to say my expectations were high is an understatement.

Superman and Batman are two of the most recognizable heroes of all time. And so the idea of these two fighting just makes me so excited and it got a lot of people excited about it as well.

On top of that, this movie is supposed to be a catalyst for a larger cinematic universe that DC has been trying to do for years. Everybody wants to see a Justice League movie, its just a question of how do we get there?

So Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice begins introducing Bruce Wayne/ Batman (played by Ben Affleck) into the world set up by Man of Steel. The first ten minutes of this movie I thought was great in every sense of the word. Visually it was beautiful. It connected to a larger world beautifully. It introduced Bruce Wayne perfectly. It set up the world where Superman is a controversial figure and setting up a world trying to comprehend the existence of a god. These are all things that Man of Steel basically left as a layup for Batman v Superman to tackle head on and delve into some larger ideas. The DC universe was starting to look like a thinking mans superhero franchise. Again, the first 10 minutes of this movie was fantastic.

And while we're on what was really good in this movie, Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne was a phenomenal choice.

This is a brutal Batman. This is a Batman that brands the criminals he goes after, something that is said to be a death sentence in prison. This is a Batman who has no problem maiming a criminal to a point where his life is going to be a living hell for the rest of his life because of the injuries Batman puts on him. And this is a Batman who I'm pretty sure straight up murders people. I think there is an argument to be made that he doesn't actually pull a trigger on somebody (unless its a dream and we will talk about that mainly in the spoiler review), but he has no problem with hitting them while they pull the pin on a grenade and they just happen to be right next to the grenade they pulled. There's a weak argument to be made that Batman doesn't actually directly murder someone, but people die in this movie because of Batman, so if you have a problem with that, you've been warned.

I personally liked this Batman more than any Batman I've ever seen.

And I feel like in the big picture of what this movie should have been, I wouldn't have changed anything about Batman. I think his motivation for wanting to fight Superman was solid. I thought his character was awesome.

So after that first 10 minutes, the movie picks up 2 years after the events of Man of Steel. There is a Senate commission to figure out the truth behind Superman.

And there's a lot going on in the beginning of this movie. Holly Hunter plays a Senator looking to figure out the truth behind Superman and what America's stand on him is.

You have Lois Lane (played by Amy Adams), going around and doing her reporter thing because she's trying to figure out this conspiracy. On top of that there's a little bit about her relationship with Superman... I will get to Lois Lane believe me.

And more importantly, you have Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman as a character, trying to figure out his role in the universe as well. And again, going back to some of the good things of this movie, I saw the inkling of a really good movie in there. I saw the inklings of a developing Clark Kent, something I think Man of Steel started but didn't really delve into enough. I saw them trying to do it in this movie and Henry Cavill continues to be a really good choice for Superman. I just don't think he's been given a good script yet. But there was an opportunity to really delve into who Superman is and how Superman sees himself.

And that's what the focus of this movie should have been on. This should have been a movie about Superman developing who he is as a hero, what he stands for, and what he's going to fight and what he isn't.

(I am really looking forward to the spoiler review)

So again, there's a lot going on. Superman has inner turmoil. There's the thing with Lois Lane. There's Batman's whole deal. Then there's Wonder Woman and her whole deal which I will get to. And then there's Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

Now I did a post on this casting a while back here's a link to that review

I am going to reuse a meme I used then but is definitely appropriate here.

Jesse Eisenberg...

Man I wanted to like you. I really, really did. I wanted to say to everyone that despite all the naysayers, despite all the people that didn't like him in the trailer, despite all the movies you've been in in the past, Jesse Eiesenberg played a good Lex Luthor... but this was not the case.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Lex Luthor and like a lot of this movie. There is an inkling of good just screaming to get out. Lex Luthor spends most of the movie conniving and preparing for a larger plan and I will say, when you finally figure out his motivations for why he's doing the things he's doing, he does a decent job conveying those thoughts.

But as Lex Luthor, it just wasn't the right choice. As much as I wanted it to work, as much as I wanted Jesse Eisenberg to surprise us all and really be the Lex Luthor I wanted him to be, on top of his character being wasted, it just wasn't a great choice. I don't think I would have liked the character any more than I do now if someone else had been casted, but I think I would have been happier with the character if say a Bryan Cranston was cast as Lex Luthor. I still think that's a great idea and should still happen (Spoiler review ;) )

I will delve a lot more into Lex Luthor in the spoiler review but I think his character was just not written well and the casting was just wrong all together.

And then there's Wonder Woman.

Here's what I will say about Wonder Woman.

I'm excited for a Wonder Woman movie now more than ever. I was always excited for Wonder Woman but this movie had a couple of scenes that screamed A WONDER WOMAN MOVIE IS COMING!

While we're on the topic of good things, I liked Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I think she's going to be great in her next movie. I think everyone who was skeptical of Wonder Woman is very quiet now.

That being said. Wonder Woman did not have to be in this movie. The only reason Wonder Woman was in this movie was to promote her movie coming up, and give DC bragging rights that they brought in a female superhero before Marvel did. And to that I say... way to go DC, you brought in Wonder Woman... what do you want a cookie?

Wonder Woman did not have to be in this movie and definitely not to the level that she was.

And Wonder Woman leads me into the part of the movie that I didn't think I was going to like and that's the Dawn of Justice Part.

From the beginning, I was worried that this movie was going to be split into two. It was going to be Batman versus Superman but it was also going to really promote the forming of the Justice League and the Dawn of Justice part was going to be shoe horned in there.

And in a sense it was.

Wonder Woman was definitely shoehorned into the movie. There are a lot of cameos for The Justice League that were shoe horned into this movie. And the truth is, that doesn't bother me. I knew it was going to happen. In fact I liked the way it did happen. I wasn't sure how they were going to introduce Wonder Woman, I wasn't sure how they were going to introduce members of the Justice League and they did it in a way that was really well done. I thought it wetted your appetite enough to get excited but didn't totally take away from the movie by itself.

It does take away from the movie when it happens in the weirdest spot you could ever put it. I'll say exactly where in the spoiler review but The Dawn of Justice part of this movie was just not put in the right place.

And that's kind of the theme with this entire movie. There are so many good parts about this movie, there are inklings of good in this movie, its just where its placed. Its how this movie is structured on a very basic level that just makes in an incoherent mess. And that is hard for me to say because I really wanted to not just like this movie, I wanted to love it.

I think performance wise (even to a point Jesse Eisenberg) everyone did a good job. I think the real blame here goes to Zack Snyder.

Now before I go on, I do have to note that a lot of these things might not be directly Zack Snyder's fault. A lot of this movie could have been the mandate of the studio wanting to create a franchise and shoveling as much shit into this movie as they could.

But studio blame can only go so far. Zack Snyder needs to be held accountable for a lot of the choices being made.

I don't think Snyder shouldn't have directed this film but it is obvious that this is too big of a project for him. Snyder at the end of the day decides how the movie is structured, he decides what from the script goes in and what goes out. And the biggest problem with this film is not the actors, its the structure and that falls directly on the director and writers, mostly David S Goyer.

And I have gone to bat for these guys in the past. I have pointed to times where they succeeded and when they didn't succeed, I said let's wait and see if it ends up panning out. I have spent years saying these guys are cooking up something good with Batman v Superman and we all just have to be honest with ourselves and say, on a basic level, this was not a well made movie.

I'm gonna just leave it at that and treat this a little bit like a two parter because the real criticisms I have with the movie are very spoiler heavy and not something I can say in this post. But overall, I have seen worse superhero films, but as a film alone, Batman v Superman is an incoherent mess. There was a lot of potential and a lot of good things will come out of this movie. But at the end of the day, this is not the movie I was waiting 3 years for.

But what do you think of Batman v Superman? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as your requests for future reviews coming out of this blog. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews first hand.

I'll leave you with this. I saw this a couple days before the movie came out and I really enjoyed it. Its Batman v Superman if it came out in the 90s and the trailer that would come out of it. But since I can't always put up the right stuff, here's the actual end video of the BvS trailer but with Christian Bale. Enjoy!

House of Cards: Season 2

Season 4 is calling me, but I can’t start watching it until I am done with the 2^nd and 3^rd season. As I am writing this, I am almost done with the 3^rd season, so I am hoping that that review will come out quickly after this one, but I am also really pushing to start watching the 4^th season because that is why I am doing all of this.

Now if you haven’t seen Season 1, I’m not totally sure why you are reading this review. This is your warning because the only way to really give a review of the second season is to talk about events that happened in the first season. This is your SPOILER ALERT.  

When we last left Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey) in Season 1, he caused the death of Peter Russo (played by Corey Stoll) and manipulated the Vice President to step down so he could come in and take his place. One of the last scenes of the 1^st season is the President (played by Michel Gil) offering Frank the position of Vice President. It of course seems like Frank is surprised to have been offered a position out of the blue, but this has been his plan all along and it had finally come to fruition. However, one of the last scenes is also Zoe Barnes (played by Kate Mara) and her other reporter friends, gathering evidence, and getting closer and closer to the truth of how Frank manipulated his way to the Vice Presidency, and possibly uncovering some illegal involvement with the death of Congressman Russo.

Season 2 centers on Frank as the Vice President of the United States. Now having not knowing too much about what could happen in this season, I wasn’t totally sure how this could really be as interesting as the first season. The Vice President is an important office in the executive branch but it definitely has its limitations. However, this only helps the progression of this story because it focuses Frank on the ultimate prize. And if you don’t know what that ultimate prize is, you obviously don’t know that much about Frank Underwood or House of Cards.

Along the way, Frank encounters some new characters that either help or block his path towards power, or they do both. Some of these characters are new, some of them are old. Some of the new ones include Raymond Tusk (played by Gerald McRaney) an influential business man and confidant of the President. There becomes a war of influence between Frank and Raymond and I’ll say, it gets really, really good. Then there’s Jacqueline Sharp (played by Molly Parker) who Frank picks as his successor as Whip in the Senate. Molly Parker quickly becomes one of my favorite characters and that continues on into the 3^rd season.

Then there are characters we knew from the first season who try and get in Frank’s way, like the reporter and friend of Zoe Barnes Lucas Goodwin (played by Sebastian Arcelus) who continues to dig into the evidence against Underwood with Zoe. Mahershala Ali returns as Remy Danton who is now working for Raymond Tusk and he plays an intricate role in this season.

Frank has his allies as well including his wife. Claire (played by Robin Wright) has a huge role in this season as she begins to act like the Second Lady and you can definitely tell she has her own ambitions and her own goals. She has a huge role in this season as her past comes to light and she enters the public eye more if not just as much as Frank.

Michael Kelly returns as Frank’s Chief of Staff, Doug Stamper. Doug’s role is made interesting in this season as Frank and Claire bring on a new communications director in Seth Grayon  (played by Derek Cecil) Competition begins to brew between the two of them and needless to say, it just gets good all around.

Doug is still dealing with some of the loose ends from the 1^st season and that includes the prostitute they used in the downfall of Peter Russo, Rachel Posner (played by Rachel Brosnahan). She returns and they delve into her life a little bit more. While I wouldn’t say she’s the most interesting character in the entire season, I was still interested in her story and the struggles she is going through. The relationship between her and Doug continues to evolve and I thought it was really well done.

The cool thing about season two is when the show starts to become politically relevant. The first season as focused heavily on the characters and their development. We needed to know who Frank Underwood was, we needed to know who the people around him were, especially those who carried onto the 2^nd season. There were political issues that came up for sure, but they were pretty low key and local issues. The focus of the first season was more on introductions and laying the groundwork for the future.

Season 2 starts to focus on policy because Frank’s scope has expanded. The show starts ripping political situations right from headlines and putting their own spin on it. Frank deals with the Tea Party and the immobilization of Congress, as well as government shutdowns.

Now there is still the conniving massing of power from the first season in the second and that’s why I think season 2 works a lot better than season 3. I’ll talk more about that in my review of the third season, but the important thing to know is that there is a great balance between power plays and dirty schemes between characters, and actual politics and policies going on in the country. Season 2 evolves the character of Frank Underwood because in the first season, everything he was doing seemed to be just for himself. In the second season, his priorities are still on his massing of power, but that rides in tandem with the needs of the country. So in many ways, Frank ends up being the good guy by accident, only because it’s the best thing for the country. It’s like the right thing is being done, but in the wrong way and by a person we know is just down right evil. It really makes you feel weird about who you are rooting for and who you are not.

But I think probably the strongest portion of the show is seeing the influence Frank has over the President. From the very beginning, you see a tug of war for the president between him and Raymond Tusk. The more the show goes on, you see Frank begin to get the other hand and the President sees him as a trusted companion and friend. And that’s where things get sad because you start to get to know the President better than we did in the first season and you know that all of this is just Frank’s power play. On top of that, you know how things usually end when Frank Underwood gets close to somebody, especially someone you learn to be a genuinely good person. Its different from Frank’s relationship with Peter Russo because you couldn’t really see the entire plan until you saw it in front of you, and at that point it was too late for Peter. The difference is, you could guess Frank’s goals in courting the President and you know that it probably isn’t going to end well for Garrett Walker.

As I mentioned, Claire becomes an intricate part in that manipulation, especially with her relationship with the First Lady.

There are just so many good parts about the second season that I can’t really decide which one I like more. I think I probably like the second season more because of the new additions like Molly Parker, and other characters, and the shared focus on a bigger policy picture that builds on the scheming and great political intrigue that was built on by the first season.

As far as complaints go, I will bring up the same issues someone might find in the first season. This is a very dry show. It’s a lot of dialogue, it’s a lot of drama, and very little real action. It’s more than likely that if you’re tired, this show might put you to sleep and you’ll have to rewind to catch up on all the drama that enfolded while you were lulled to sleep by Frank Underwood’s southern drawl.

On top of it all, this season is just as heavy, if not more than the first one. If you don’t like rooting for the conniving and just down right ruthless people, House of Cards might not be your thing. But I think if you’ve made it this far, you probably enjoy that kind of thing, you sicko.

But if you like the first season, you’re going to really love the second season. I don’t think they lose their stride at all and the ante is only raised in the second season. I of course will talk about that trajectory when it comes to the third season, but for now, I think the second season of House of Cards takes what was built in the first season and only improves it.

As you can see, I’m getting better at reviewing full seasons, but it’s a lot easier when the season seems more like a mini-series/mini movie rather than a full season of TV and it’s a little bit easier to digest. But what do you think about the second season of House of Cards. Do you think it was better or worse than the first season? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I’ll leave you with this. Here's a video that Kevin Spacey did for the Correspondent's dinner. Its a spoof, it might be a little high brow but its kind of funny when John McCain shows up. Enjoy!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Ever since I saw the trailer for this movie, I was really interested in seeing it. It’s starring Tina Fey. Its about war correspondents. It’s about war correspondents in Afghanistan. The title is incredibly military oriented. The cast from Fey to Martin Freeman, from Margot Robbie to Billy Bob Thornton, just looked really good. This movie just looked good.

The problem is this movie has the feeling of a lot of movies that come out throughout the year. There’s nothing incredibly sexy about it. It’s not a comic book movie, it’s not a big budget film. It’s not a rip roaring comedy. It’s just a film. A dramedy. And as much as I love those, I just don’t go out of my way to see those kinds of movies. Dramedies, straight up dramas, etc. It’s what happened with Straight Outta Compton. I know I still need to see that movie but I had all the intentions to go and see it but there wasn’t anything that really drew me to it.

However, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot to me seemed like a really interesting film that I was incredibly interested in checking out. So I did.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot follows the story of Kim Baker (played by Tina Fey). She is a low level reporter at a television news station and she is dissatisfied with her job. She is given the opportunity to become a war correspondent on a short assignment to Afghanistan. This takes place in 2003, at the beginning of the War in Iraq and the focus diverts from Afghanistan to Iraq. They need to have reporters on the ground to keep the support for the War in Afghanistan up.

So Baker packs up and goes to Afghanistan. There she meets a host of characters involved in the international war correspondent world. She meets a famous war reporter in Tanya (played by Margot Robbie), her Afghan “fixer” Fahim Ahmadzai (played by Christopher Abbott), a cocky Scottish reporter Iain (played by Martin Freeman), and a Marine General (played by Billy Bob Thornton).

Baker is embedded with Marine platoons during fights with the Taliban, she has interviews with high ranking Afghan officials, (including one played by Alfred Molina), all the while having quite the experience in Kabul.

This story is based off a true memoir of Kim Barker, an international reporter. I don’t really know how much of it is true and how much of it isn’t. My philosophy when it comes to “True Stories” is that I always take them with a grain of salt. I’m sure there is a thread of truth throughout the story, but the more important thing to think about is, is this movie portraying a good story? Is it compelling enough and is it keeping me interested? If the answer to that question is yes, it really shouldn’t matter the validity of the story. I mean unless they are saying things that are just outlandish and slanderous, I don’t really care if a story is true or not because most of the time when it says Based on a True Story, there are good chances that there are a lot of liberties taken.

But what did I think of the movie. I really liked it. I think we all know Tina Fey as a comedic actor, especially from her work on SNL and television like 30 Rock and The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. However, I can’t really think of a lot of dramatic roles that she has taken on in the past. Sure there have been dramatic moments in a lot of the comedies she has done, but I think this is the first time that I’ve really seen her do something that is not entirely comedic in nature. While there are a lot of funny moments in Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, its about war correspondents in Afghanistan. There’s a lot of serious moments to it.

Now I don’t think dramatic acting is really Fey’s strong suit. I don’t think it was an Oscar caliber performance, but it was still really good and great to see out of an actress that I think we’ve all known to be pretty straight forward as a comedic actress. She did a good job.

One thing I guess I could say that works against Fey in this performance is that she is so well known as a comedic actress. She's freaking Tina Fey. While I liked her performance and I thought it brought out a really great dramatic side of Tina Fey, I could see how this could be seen as Fey just playing herself. Especially with the added comedy, it doesn't necessarily feel like she's playing a different character, she's just playing Tina Fey going out to Afghanistan. A more serious Tina Fey then we are used to, but at the time time, its not a very different character than we've seen from her before and I just hope this opens up some doors for her to become an actor with a more diverse variety of performances. 

Other performances worth mentioning are Martin Freeman as Iain MacKelpie. As per usual, Martin Freeman is just down right charming in everything he does and I really enjoyed his character, especially as his relationship with Fey's character evolves in the story. But what's more is that, sorry if this is a spoiler, even though they eventually begin a romantic relationship, he is not the center of her story when that happens. She still has her story that she needs to go through and he is a supporting character. There's a hint at the end that he remains apart of the story, but again, this is not a love story, at least not first and foremost. First and foremost, this is a story about a woman becoming a war correspondent in Afghanistan. 

The other great thing about this movie is the story. I was really invested in this woman’s story and the experiences she goes through. I was also interested in the characters she meets along the way. They had their own personality and they were all interesting and essential to the story.

I also thought the mixture of comedy and drama was done very well. As much as you could have played this movie off as a full on drama, the fact of the matter is, some of the situations these reporters are in are so serious they’re almost funny. It’s the kind of stuff that is hard to make up, which makes me think that the funniest moments of the movie were actually the most true. Don’t hold me to that because again, I don’t know what was true and what wasn’t, but I thought the mixture of comedy and drama was very good throughout.

The one thing I have to say against the story was some of the conflict created. There’s a certain point in the movie where there’s a lot of tension between characters and it really makes this world of war correspondence really cutthroat. Again, I don’t know the validity of that, maybe it is that cutthroat. But a part of me thought that a lot of the conflict near the end was to give a little bit of drama to the last act of the movie and felt a little bit forced overall. It wasn’t horrible, I just thought it was a little bit out of character at some points and could have been left out.

It doesn’t really take away from the fact that I really enjoyed this movie.

The movie also touched on a lot of issues regarding the war in Afghanistan and I think its topics that are incredibly relevant given our current circumstances in that country. Afghanistan was really a forgotten war in the shadow of the war in Iraq. Furthermore, the movie really puts a human face on the people of Afghanistan and focuses on the culture and people, rather than the faceless terrorists that I’ve seen in recent movies about the wars in Iraq and Afganistan like 13 Hours, (I know Libya not Afghanistan or Iraq) American Sniper, and the Hurt Locker. I’m not saying those movies are bad or offensive, but it is good to see Afghanistan as a place where actual humans live.

On a more personal note, the movie really is a supportive of the military and if you’re in the military like I am, you’ll get a lot of the jokes presented in the film. I was in the theater with only about 8 other people and there were some jokes that only I was getting and nobody else was laughing at. But don’t let that turn you away from this movie. It is a great look into both the military and war correspondence in Afghanistan and if you’re interested in that, it’s definitely a movie worth checking out.

As you can tell, I have a lot of good things to say about this movie. While I don’t think it’s a movie that is going to be in contention for an Oscar next year, I do think it’s a hidden gem out there and it’s a very good movie.

But have you seen Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I’ll leave you with this. Here's Tina Fey on Jimmy Fallon talking about the film. I swear she is just a gem Enjoy!

Groundhogs Day

I saw Groundhogs Day when I was pretty young. The main parts that I remember from that movie are the parts where Bill Murray kills himself and thought that this movie was a very sad movie if a guy tries to kill himself and he just keeps on waking up on the same day. I realize that those scenes were supposed to be more funny than I remember, but even watching it now, I kind of saw it as still kind of depressing.

Before I get into the full review, I should mention one part that is pretty crucial to the lens I watched the movie in. I don’t think it was intentional, but this is something that probably hurt my viewing process.

I’m not a fan of Bill Murray.

It’s not that I don’t like the guy, I think he’s a successful actor and he has to have a fan base out there. And I’m also not saying that I haven’t liked him in certain things. I liked his cameo in Zombieland and his small role in Grand Budapest Hotel. I also know that I haven’t seen him in everything. I really want to see Stripes. I also know that he has had a history doing movies with Wes Anderson, movies I’ve always been interesting in delving to.

However, a lot of the movies people think are Murray’s best performance, I just don’t really understand. Caddyshack is one. Ghostbusters I was underwhelmed with. Lost in Translation I was underwhelmed as well. And honestly Groundhogs Day is another one I just don’t understand the appeal for.

Groundhogs Day follows the story of Phil Connors (played by Murray), a weatherman with a local news station. Connors is overall, a mean guy. He’s sarcastic, he’s rude, and he doesn’t take his work seriously. All he wants to do is move up and he doesn’t care about those around. At the start of the movie, he and his crew, his producer Rita Hanson (played by Andie MacDowell) and his camera man (played by Chris Elliot), are sent to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the famous Groundhogs Day forecast.

Things are pretty straight forward throughout the day. He gives a less than mediocre report on the groundhog, and they try to go back to Pittsburgh but are snowed in. Phil goes to sleep but instead of waking up the next day, he wakes up at the beginning of Groundhogs day and thus is stuck in a time loop where he needs to repeat Groundhogs day over and over again.

The rest of the movie is him trying to find a way out of the loop and learning to be a better person, all while stuck in a small town with a number of funny folksy characters.

Now this will be the only time I make reference to this but this exact set up was used about 20 years later in 2014 with the movie Edge ofTomorrow… and it was done better.

Now these two movies could not be any more different. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they wake up on the same day over and over again. There are a couple of conventions that repeat, like the character stuck in the loop saying things that other people are going to say before they say it and being able to predict something is going to happen before it even happens. But apart from that, Edge of Tomorrow is a serious war action movie while Groundhogs day is a Bill Murray comedy.

But in my personal opinion, I think Edge of Tomorrow used the time loop better because it was explained and it was happening for a specific reason.

In Groundhogs Day, the time loop is never explained and there’s never a solidified reason on why it happened on this specific day and to Phil Connors.

Now I’m not saying the set up for Groundhogs Day is necessarily bad, and I will explain that a little bit more later in the review, but I’m gonna get it out of the way, now that I’ve seen both films, I’m gonna say that Edge of Tomorrow did a better job in a movie about a guy going through a time loop where he repeats the same day over and over again.

But what are the good things about Groundhogs Day. While I think Edge of Tomorrow did it better, you can’t forget that Groundhogs Day was the first to play around with this concept and its an incredibly creative idea. I also think that this concept needed to be a comedy concept before it was taken seriously because it is a very funny concept. It was even comical in Edge of Tomorrow.

Furthermore, it’s a movie that has a pretty straight forward moral. Just be a good person. We live in a world where we yearn for new and original ideas and ideas and morals need to be subtle. Groundhogs Day is an example of what movies used to be in that they needed to spell out the moral pretty clearly and the ending had to be wrapped up in a tight little bow. That’s what pretty much happens in Groundhogs Day. It’s a pretty self-contained story which is refreshing and good for the nostalgia in me.

But while the movie is pretty straight forward, it is also very vague, especially in the reasons Phil is caught in this loop. I mean its basically to teach him a lesson and make him become a better person, however, you never really know what is causing the time loop. And while I mentioned before this was something that Edge of Tomorrow did better at, I think it was a good choice for Groundhogs Day to not explain that phenomena and focus more on the story. These days everyone is doing world building and trying to build a franchise. If Groundhogs Day had created an explanation for why Phil was caught in this loop, it would have been more of a fantasy film more than a straight up comedy, which I think works better in the long run and focuses more on the moral of the film.

Now I will talk about the not so great things in this movie.

Part of the reason I’m not a huge fan of Bill Murray is that he’s supposedly revered as this comic genius, and yet I have a really hard time finding him funny. I have come to understand that Bill Murray’s type of comedy is very dry and ironic. He doesn’t rely on voices, or impressions, or really even jokes. His comedy more comes from how he responds to funny circumstances with a sarcastic tone and deadpan reactions. Which I think works sometimes, but when that’s his shtick all the time, I just can’t really say that I am a fan of Bill Murray. It’s the same reason I can’t say I’m a real fan of Melissa McCarthy because while I laughed at her shtick once in Bridesmaids, she keeps doing the same thing and its not as funny as it was the first time I saw it.

Furthermore, I’m not wild about any of the performances in this film. Andie MacDowell’s character is just down right annoying both in her dialogue and her delivery of it and the rest of the characters in the movie are such small parts that its not really worth mentioning.

This movie centers totally on Phil Connors and his Bill Murray reactions to the continuous loop he finds himself in. He out of the blue is interested in his producer, probably because he ran out of women to sleep with in Punxsutawney and he finally got around to her. But the movie makes it seem like he falls in love with her but at the same time they don’t really show the days he really gets to know her the way you would expect someone to if they said they were in love with them. I mean he’s got the time.

Maybe I’m thinking about this movie too critically when it should just be a straight forward comedy. But the reason I have a hard time just taking it as a straight forward comedy is because the movie doesn’t see itself that way. There are actually some kind of serious moments in the movie, like when he tries and saves the homeless guy on the street. That’s something that is pretty serious. And when a movie has those moments, its does set its own tone, especially if its supported by comedy that is not in your face joke oriented but instead very dry Bill Murray comedy.

On top of all of that, I have a hard time staying awake during this movie because it is so dry. You’re not going to get a lot of laugh out loud moments in this movie because of Murray’s humor, because of the weird tempo of comedic moments to serious moments. I’d like to say this movie is smarter than all of that, but it doesn’t market itself as that and its just too disjointed for me to really understand what they’re actually going for in this movie.

Groundhogs Day will give you chuckles. It will also give you a pretty creative concept for a comedy and it will give you a pretty straight forward moral driven comedy. However, it will also provide you with a very dry and a lot of questionable funny moments. You may love it if you are a fan of Bill Murray, but it might not be the laugh out loud rip roaring comedy you were maybe told it was.

I know a lot of people hold this movie in high regard and I am not saying you are wrong, its just not my cup of tea because I am not a fan of Bill Murray. I tried watching his Christmas Special and I gotta tell the truth, I got kind of bored of it.

But overall, those are my thoughts on Groundhogs Day. What do you think? Can someone explain the appeal of Bill Murray please? I feel like it’s something I’ve really missed out and need someone to explain to me. Maybe my thoughts will change. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me ideas for movies or TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I’ll leave you with this. While I'm not a fan of Bill Murray films, I do recognize that the guy seems like the kind of guy anybody would want to hang out with. He seems like a decent enough person and I understand why people just like him. Here's him talking on Jimmy Kimmel and I do have to say, I get it. Enjoy!