I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
So I'd be lying if I didn't get the inkling to watch this movie after Screen Junkies did their Honest Trailer for it recently. If you haven't seen it, it's pretty funny and worth watching.
Of course Screen Junkies has their opinions and I have mine. I found the trailer particularly interesting when they said that it's the kind of movie that you call a classic because it came out when you were a child and you didn't know any better. That actually applies to me perfectly as this movie came out around the same time I was a kid and about the same age as Tim Allen's kid in the movie.
Now the trilogy (yup there was a trilogy of these movies) came onto Netflix recently and while I haven't been big on watching Christmas movies until the past few days, I thought this might be the right movie for the current season and I wanted to revisit the film to see if it was true and the movie was inflated as a classic because I was a kid and didn't know any better.
The Santa Clause centers around a business man by the name of Scott Calvin (played by Tim Allen). For some reason, Tim Allen always took the Disney roles that cast him as a business man who changes by the end of the movie. Anyways, Scott is spending Christmas Eve with his son Charlie (played by Eric Lloyd) on his designated visitation day as he and his ex-wife are divorced.
Well the night of Christmas Eve, Scott and Charlie are awoken to a noise on the roof and soon discover the fabled Santa Claus on the roof. Very quickly though, Scott causes Santa Claus to fall off the roof and actually die.
But Santa has a business card that says whoever finds him and puts on the suit is now Santa Claus.
While he doesn't believe Santa is real and this whole experience is nothing more than a dream, upon the request of his son, Scott dawns the red suit and becomes Santa Claus. He delivers the toys on Christmas Eve and is returned to The North Pole. There he is introduced to the elves and their supervisor Bernard (played by David Krumholtz).
Even after that night Scott doesn't totally believe what happened, but he is tasked with getting his affairs in order and accept the transformation into becoming Santa Claus. All the while Charlie believes in him and becomes obsessed with his father, but making things very difficult for Scott's ex wife Laurie (played by Wendy Crewson) and her new husband, a psychologist named Neil (played by Judge Reinhold).
Something I do find really interesting about this film was just how honest it felt. At the time, Tim Allen was a pretty big name in comedy and while he could always be family friendly, he did have an edge to his comedy that they didn't really pull back that much in this film. Knowing Allen now and his conservative ramblings, it's actually kind of funny watching him in this back in the 90s at the height of his powers. The humor is family friendly but it doesn't feel disingenuous... unlike the sequels.
Another interesting aspect of the film is how this was actually one of the first movies where I was exposed to a divorced couple. I'm not saying The Santa Clause is the first to do it but they don't really back away from it and add it to the comedy. Judge Reinhold is really a sleeper comic element of this movie. I was laughing out loud at some of his bits where he was dead serious but just nailed it comedy-wise.
The other aspect of the film is that while it does bring in Tim Allen's "edgy" 90's comedy, it feels honest in it's execution. The movie created a unique and creative take on Santa Claus making him a job title while at the same time maintaining a sense of Christmas that I really enjoy even over twenty years later.
It has a definite message about belief, family, and the holiday spirit. It doesn't get too heavy at any point, it IS a Disney movie after all but it came out at a time where Disney was just trying to make the best movies and not just doing what they think would make them money... like the sequels...
Upon a viewing now in 2017, I never realized how strange Tim Allen looks with a white beard and Santa Claus physique. But at the same time it was all make up and prosthetics so it did feel real. That's probably why it felt so strange but they did a good job.
Overall, The Santa Clause is a movie from a different time. It's not really a whole lot different than any of the early movies Disney pushed out, but it didn't feel like it was trying to be anything bigger. I can bet that when they made this movie they didn't think they would be making a sequel to this film... and definitely not one 8 years later. The internet wasn't as prominent back then but I can imagine the comment section when The Santa Clause 2's trailer would have dropped and how it would be torn apart today.
Regardless of what you think of Tim Allen, He does give his all in this film and I personally think he's a lot of fun in this film. There are a lot of people who see him as the quintessential Santa Claus and there's a reason for that.
Are there issues with this film? Yes, there definitely are. While it came out in the 90s and feels a lot more genuine than it's sequels, it still is a by the numbers Disney film. It's still produced almost out of a factory, and while I did think it had some heart to it, I feel like a lot of people get the nostalgia glasses for this film due to its sequels... which I will talk about in another review.
But overall, I think this movie took a really hard topic to write about, Santa Claus and gave him a different, unique viewpoint. I really enjoy this film to this day and I don't knock anybody who would pop this in as a classic of the holidays. Yeah, it might not be as iconic as other films but if The Santa Clause was one of the only Christmas movies I watched this year, I wouldn't feel like I wasted my Christmas movie experience.
But what do you think? Where does The Santa Clause rank among your favorite Christmas movies? Is it even close to the top? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. Need another Yule Log video? Enjoy!
Murder on the Orient Express is a great example of a movie that nobody really asked for and I highly doubt anybody is really going to put it on the top of their list of movies of 2017. That's not saying it's a bad movie, I just think of all the movies that have come out this year, I can't see a lot of people looking back and saying Murder on the Orient Express was my favorite or the award winning film of the year. That being said. I do always find myself walking into movies directed by Kenneth Branagh forgetting how much I've always enjoyed his work in the past and suddenly I am swept up into a movie that I really enjoyed.
Murder on the Orient Express follows the story of a detective by the name of Hercule Poirot (played by Kenneth Branagh). He doesn't work for any law enforcement agency or in any official capacity but instead he works as a consultant, very much like Sherlock Holmes. He travels around the world solving crimes but at the time of this movie, all he wants to do is relax and take a break from crime solving. He finds himself aboard the Orient Express, a train taking a three day journey from Istanbul to London.
Aboard the train he finds himself in the company of a whole cast of colorful and very popular named characters. It would take forever and would breach on spoilers if I went one by one of each of the characters so instead I'll just list off the actors who are involved to give you a picture of the kind of stars involved in this movie.
Johnny Depp
Judi Dench
Daisy Ridley
Willem Defoe
Penelope Cruz
Josh Gad
Derek Jacobi
Hamilton's Leslie Odom Jr.
Michelle Phiefer
and Olivia Coleman
That's not the entire cast and everyone in this cast does a great job, those are just the big names in the main cast.
Soon after the train takes off it is struck by disaster and tragedy. First the engine is derailed off the tracks and the train is stuck. But more pertinent is that one of the passengers on the train is murdered and it isn't totally clear who the murderer is.
But Poirot takes on the case and thus the movie takes us into a game of Murder Mystery theater with close, almost claustrophobic, detective work with Hercule in the center trying to discover who is the murderer.
And when I say Murder Mystery Theater I do mean that in a somewhat deflating way. For as well acted as this movie is, for as great as this movie was shot, overall, it does feel like a murder mystery theater party and it doesn't feel like the stakes are ever incredibly to the point where it feels different than those parties that I have been invited to.
The benefit of that element is that Murder Mystery Dinners usually have a cast of colorful and interesting characters and that's exactly what Murder does. Everyone in this movie is really giving it their all. No matter how small their part may be, I remembered everyone in the movie. Maybe not their names, but their character. Again, similar to a Murder Mystery Party, all the characters have a very distinct characteristic (or characteristics) that make them distinguished from the rest. Leslie Odom Jr is a doctor, Derek Jacobi is a butler, Daisy Ridley is a Governess, the list goes on and on. Of course you have people with duplicate identities and people lie in the movie to hide their true motivations. It all comes together very nicely.
I haven't read the book and I haven't seen the 1974 movie so I can't say anything about how it compares to any of the previous adaptations. I've heard it doesn't add much to the previous versions but again this movie's biggest plot device is probably it's biggest downfall.
It's a murder mystery character piece. I have to imagine the reason everybody does a pretty good job is because each character is so distinct and fascinating that they outshine the story. The story is fine, but it's not a whole lot different from any other murder mystery you've ever seen before. I personally don't mind that, I think it's good to ahve something that's more run of the mill sometimes these days because when everything is being so different than run of the mill is actually kind of refreshing. But I understand how people might not be on board for that.
I think some of the performances that stuck out to me would be Kenneth Brannagh, Michelle Phiefer, Daisy Ridley, and Josh Gad. Again, everyone does a good job, hell we actually get a subdued serious performance from Johnny Depp. But those four were probably the ones I remember the most. I do appreciate the use of talented but not totally famous British actors like Derek Jacobi and Olivia Coleman. I didn't even recognize Leslie Odom Jr but its good to see he's getting work.
Overall, Murder on the Orient Express was good. It's not going to blow your mind and if you're not really into character studies, you might find it a little underwhelming, but I do recommend it if not for a pretty run of the mill murder mystery.
I know this is a pretty short review but I watched this movie a couple weeks ago and I can really only speak on the elements of the film that spoke out to me. I find it as a unique way of reviewing films that I can talk about a film with some time passed and point out the elements of the movie that stuck out to me over time. Maybe it's an excuse for taking so long to get this review out, I see it as a different perspective.
But have you seen Murder on the Orient Express? What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. Again, I have never seen the 1974 version of this film. I just learned Sean Connery was in it. Maybe it's worth checking out! Have any of you seen it? Enjoy!
I have been a fan of Seth MacFarlane's work for a long time. Pretty much every year I have a couple of days that I binge watch Family Guy and it's always a fun time. I absolutely love the Ted movies, and I even liked A Million Ways to Die in the West.
But MacFarlane has been doing Family Guy for close to twenty years now... doesn't that blow your mind? I think anybody at that point would want to eventually move onto something different. That's exactly what The Orville was. While it wasn't advertised that way, it is definitely Seth MacFarlane's attempt to move onto bigger and better things and create a different challenge for himself. And surprisingly enough, despite all the criticisms that I will definitely get to, MacFarlane still has his die hard fans that will defend this show to the point of blocking me on Twitter because I dare say something bad about this show. I always thought this was assumed but if we learned anything from 2017, it's that we all have differing opinions on a lot of things. Film and TV is subjective and it's okay to like something I don't (not saying I don't like this show). With that disclaimer out of the way, let's talk about The Orville: Season 1.
The Orville mainly centers around the character of Ed Mercer (played by MacFarlane), a Union Star Captain in the 25th century. In the first scene he discovers his wife and a fellow Union Officer, Kelly Grayson (played by Adrianne Palicki) cheats on him, ending their relationship.
Some time passes and while Ed has been in a slump, he is picked to Captain the USS Orville and head the voyages it takes into deep space.
Aboard The Orville is a group of officers that are the crew. These officers include Lieutenant Gordon Malloy (played by Scott Grimes), Ed's old friend he brings on, Doctor Claire Finn (played by Penny Johnson Jerad), the Orville's chief medical officer, Lieutenant Commander Bortus (played by Peter Macon), an alien whose species is only male, Lieutenant Alara Kitan (played by Halston Sage) another alien who is the chief security officer whose species has incredible strength, Lieutenant Commander John LaMarr (played by J. Lee), who I'll be honest, until one of the later episodes, doesn't have a whole lot to do in this show unfortunately, and Isaac (voiced by Mark Jackson), a robot with incredible intelligence.
There are other members of the crew who are tertiary characters like a gelatinous blob named Yaphit (voiced by Norm MacDonald), but the stories of the season mainly follow the main characters listed above.
But of course, every Captain needs his first officer and for Ed Mercer, things get sticky when he's informed his ex wife Kelly will be joining him as his first officer.
Now in case you're sitting there wondering why this all sounds familiar, different crew members filling in different jobs on the deck of a star ship, it's because it is exactly Star Trek. You'd be right that sounds familiar.
Now if you're sitting there thinking that the characters mentioned sound a little funny, the situations building sound comical in nature, the trailers and advertisement sound like it's going to be fun and comedic, and the fact that Seth MacFarlane has traditionally been a comedy writer and director, and all of this sounded like it was just going to be Family Guy in Space... well you'd be wrong. You'd be partially right if you said it was Star Trek with comedy, but even that isn't totally correct.
I want to talk about the comedy right off the bat because it is the biggest eye sore in this entire season.
Like I've said, Seth MacFarlane is predominately known for his comedy and his comedy has always been known to be the raunchy, boundaries pushing kind. That's just not the case in The Orville. The comedy, when it exists, is pretty tame and PG, MAYBE PG-13 rated. And that's just not MacFarlane's strong suite.
You can tell there are some MacFarlane-isms there just trying to get out but it's very subdued and really falls flat a lot of the time. There's a couple that break through the barrier MacFarlane clearly has for himself but even near the end of the season I was cringing at the attempts at humor that just didn't work. And when you're known for comedy and the trailers for the show advertised comedy, I think a lot of people thought this was going to be Family Guy in Space and it really wasn't.
Now that's not a bad thing that it's not Family Guy in Space. I actually think it's really great that MacFarlane wanted to branch off and do something different than Family Guy, or Family Guy with a Teddy Bear, or Family Guy in the old west. But the way the show was sold to people, including myself, prepared us for something totally different than the end result. Think about it this way.
I haven't seen Get Out, believe me, I intend to very soon.
Get Out was written and directed by Jordan Peele. Jordan Peele is notoriously known for his work on Comedy Central on Key and Peele, a show that is very funny and not serious or scary whatsoever. When I saw the trailer for Get Out, I had no inkling that that movie was written or directed by Jordan Peele because it didn't look, sound, or feel like anything he had done before. I'm sure there are comedic moments in Get Out (again I still need to see it so I can't say for certain) but people knew they were getting a horror film when they saw the trailers and went to that movie.
With the Orville, we all thought we were getting Family Guy in Space because that's how it was advertised and that's not what The Orville is.
But what is the Orville if it's not Family Guy in space? Well, as I said in my review of the pilot (which feels like centuries ago), this show is not a parody or even really an homage to Star Trek as much as it is Star Trek with Seth MacFarlane as the Captain of the USS Enterprise.
Yeah things are called different names, like instead of The Federation, it's called The Planetary Union. But characters in the Orville meet the same basic character skeletons created in Star Trek or Star Trek The Next Generation. However, they do have their own MacFarlane twist but it does take some time for you to get familiar with these characters and understand exactly who they are.
Ed Mercer is a great example of this. While you learn a lot about him in the first few episodes, it does take pretty much the entire season for me to really get to know him and really care about him. MacFarlane is not exactly the strongest actor, but I do think after a season his acting does improve a little bit and I at least care a little.
And if there is something to be said about Star Trek helmed by Seth MacFarlane is that he has a large network and is able to get some really big stars on his show.
There's an entire episode where Charlize Theron guest starred. And it's not like she was a cameo for 5 minutes then left, she was the main focus of the episode. Even Liam Neeson showed up in an episode once. These are big name movie actors showing up in a small Fox TV show ripping off Star Trek.
But for as much crap as I give MacFarlane for basically creating a Star Trek rip off, I do give him a lot of credit for writing really creative and innovative storylines for this show. Again, going back to Get Out, nobody knew Jordan Peele could write horror or drama, and the same goes for MacFarlane, nobody knew he could write science fiction very well and there were a lot of times I was really impressed with the really interesting routes they go in this show.
Even when he would make fun of things like Star Trek in Family Guy, you could still tell that MacFarlane really respects these pop culture references he grew up with. You can see it in The Orville because while some of these storylines have been done before, he does create his own twists and turns on them. Now some of them have their own MacFarlane-isms in it like the fact that he is an outspoken atheist. That definitely shows up in one of the final episodes. But it's his perspective and overall I really enjoy a lot of the things he offers in this show.
There are definite flaws in The Orville. Not all the characters are really fleshed out and even when they attempt to flesh them out, they're still pretty weak. Penny Johnson Jerald is probably the most experienced actor in the entire group and it's pretty apparent and probably the reason it feels like she gets an extra episode over the others in there.
Like I said, the humor is a pretty big eye sore but it's not really the focus of the show. You'll get a laugh here and there but if you're more focused on the stories and the science fiction elements, you'll enjoy yourself despite the lacking humor.
Overall, it's not gonna be for everyone. If you didn't like Seth MacFarlane's work prior to this, you probably won't be swayed by The Orville. I personally have had a lot of fun reviewing this show all season and I'll probably keep watching it just to see where things go, but I don't think I would be watching it every week just for fun. I applaud MacFarlane for doing something different and I think it was a success. So I'm not totally sure if I'm totally recommending The Orville, but it's worth at least checking out the first few episodes.
But what did you think of The Orville? I know there are people out there that absolutely loved it... I definitely ran into them on Twitter... but hey that's why I do this thing. Let me know you're thoughts on the first season of The Orville and do you think it's going to last past two seasons? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. It's Christmas. If you're looking for a Yule Log, may I recommend watching Darth Vader burn? Enjoy!
So I always make the mistake with this franchise that this is Tom Cruise's attempt at a Bourne movie. I made that mistake with the first movie and I made it again here. Jack Reacher is not like Jason Bourne. While he is an ex-military operative who is now off the radar and fighting terrorists and espionage wherever it hides, Jack Reacher is it's own weird sub-genre that you probably weren't expecting, and that's the 80s and 90s action film.
While I and other people might give Tom Cruise shit for getting old, the truth is he's only 55 and has only been acting since 1981. In the early days of Tom Cruise, he was mainly cast as the pretty boy in romantic comedies and some coming of age movies. He had roles in War movies but they weren't your classic 80s movies you think of. Nobody thinks of Born on the 4th of July as a classic 80s nostalgia romp these days.
Even Top Gun which is a classic 80s movie, wasn't really an action film as much as it was a romance with some sick fighter plane action scenes.
Sure Cruise got involved in Mission Impossible, but they never really fell into the cheesy action style that was so recognizable in films like Die Hard, Rambo, Lethal Weapon, and Point Break. Tommy never got that real shot. So for some reason I think he's trying to capture that missed opportunity now with the Jack Reacher franchise without people really knowing.
Never Go Back is really a sequel only in name because it returns to a character we didn't know much about in the first film, Jack Reacher (played by Cruise). He's a former Military Police Officer who now just kind of drifts around helping people like a weird ex-military superhero.
At the beginning of the film he forms a connection with an Army officer by the name of Major Susan Turner (played by Colbie Smulders) and Reacher goes to find her. But when he does he figures out she's in jail for a crime she didn't commit. Well Jack Reacher gets on the case, eventually breaks her out of jail, and the two go set out on a mission to clear both their names as a conspiracy unfolds.
Again, you would probably assume by that set up and the exaggerated use of the Military Police they have in this movie (like it's really, REALLY exaggerated) that this movie would be very much in the vein of Jason Bourne where he's fighting government agents and they have to avoid getting caught by the government and a shady organization. And while that is a lot of the plot, surprisingly the movie takes a turn and decides to focus more on the characters themselves and the addition of a girl named Samantha (played by Danika Yarosh) who the shady organization believes is Jack Reacher's daughter. The rest of the movie is this weird pseudo-family road trip where Tom Cruise is trying his hardest to be a combination of Jason Bourne, Liam Neeson from Taken, and bald Bruce Willis (AKA the one who doesn't care).
I've never read the Jack Reacher books but he comes off as a Jack Bauer character whos been hardened by what he's seen and he just kind of grunts. That has never been Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise is your suave charismatic action hero. If he's not that he's your suave charismatic jerk who becomes humble and turns into an action hero.
He's not Jack Bauer, he's not Liam Neeson from Taken, HE'S NOT BRUCE WILLIS. And that's a good thing! Tom Cruise is funny, he's likeable. He's got a fantastic smile. And he doesn't smile once in this movie. He just stares and tries to look intimidating. At least in the first film he had a little bit of fun with it and he got a couple of one liners that made him seem like a badass.
I wonder if this sequel was never supposed to happen because it doesn't totally seem like Cruise has his heart in it. I don't know what 2016 and 2017 did to Tom Cruise but he used to put his heart and soul into every movie he was in and now for some reason he's started to not care. This and The Mummy are perfect testaments to that. I really hope he's got his head in the game when it comes to Mission Impossible 6.
Colbie Smulders is in this movie and...
Listen I love Colbie. I loved her in How I Met Your Mother, she's got a great talent for comedic timing. She's fine in The Avengers but she's never had a huge role. She really wasn't very good in this movie. I don't know exactly what it was because she does do a good job at portraying a woman in the military and she does have her moments of being a badass.
But she doesn't really have much of a character. As much as she's definitely not the damsel in distress, they don't quite create a character that I connected to at all. There's no romantic chemistry between her and Cruise which isn't exactly the point of the movie but still noticeable since they allude to it, and her acting is a little wooden at times.
I want to see her get more leading roles and allow her to expand past comedic roles, but I just hope she gets better roles because Susan Turner is ultimately a kind of boring character.
I don't really remember a lot about Samantha but I do remember saying this movie would probably be a lot better if she wasn't in the film. I think she does bring the third act to an interesting close because the bad guys going after her and Reacher fighting them off to protect her did feel very reminiscent of 80s action films that Cruise never really got to be apart of.
However, while there is some nostalgic value to the atmosphere created by Jack Reacher, it's a weird medium to try an recreate a specific genre of film during a specific time period. It doesn't totally work. I think it worked better in the first film when people seemed to give a crap but when Tom Cruise doesn't seem like he wants to be there it might be a good sign your movie isn't very good.
The movie as a whole is your pretty typical action film. There's some good fight sequences, and an alright mystery that you're trying to solve with Reacher. But overall, it's a pretty mediocre and forgettable film. I actually enjoyed the first Jack Reacher a lot more than I thought I was going to and while I wasn't racing out to see Never Got Back, I was excited to watch it. However, after some time to digest the film, I realize it really wasn't that great and it's probably one you can skip. There are a lot more Tom Cruise vehicles out there to go and check out, this one you can probably skip.
Also I really don't get the title of the movie... I'm sure that's what the book was called but it doesn't tie into the movie at all.
But those are my thoughts on Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. Gotta love the Conan spin on the opening scene. Enjoy!
The Big Sick kind of sums up my 2017 in a reflective way. It's a movie that I probably wouldn't usually go and see in the theaters and would just wait to see when it hit streaming services. But then when it hits streaming services I immediately regret not going to see it in the theaters. I feel like there have been a couple of movies like that this year and while I've only been to a handful of movies in the theaters, there were a lot of really great movies this year.
Before I go on I should mention that there's been a lot of transition going on with me and my work the past few weeks and while I did watch this movie last month, I am just getting around to this review now. I'm hoping December will allow me to knock out some more reviews so I can end the year strong but I don't see the changes slowing down to a huge degree. We'll see overall.
The Big Sick is based on the true story of comedian Kumail Nanjiani and how he met and got together with his real life wife Emily (played in this movie by Zoe Karzan).
Right off the bat this movie plays into a story that we don't see too often but it's also not the first time we've seen it and that is a romantic comedy from the perspective of a struggling stand up comedian. It's been a while since I've seen it but I remember really enjoying the Seth Rogan/Adam Sandler comedy Funny People and this kind of reminded me of that but better. Funny how Judd Apatow directed that film and he also produced this one.
Kumail is a struggling stand up comedian in Chicago. He's trying to be noticed by agents and show organizers and basically competing against his friends, fellow comedians played by actual comedians like Bo Burnham, Aidy Bryant, and Kurth Braunohler.
Kumail also has his own problems at home as his family is a pretty orthodox Pakistani Muslim family. Kumail loves his family but he doesn't really adhere to the traditions they push on him, especially the idea of arranged marriages.
The interesting thing is that he's not just an Americanized character in a traditional household, you can tell he really does like the culture and he respects it, he just doesn't follow it to the letter as his mother and father (played by Zenoiba Shroff and Anupam Kher). But his brother Naveed (played by Adeel Akhtar) adhered to that system and Kumail is expected to as well. So night after night he is visited by women his mother wants to arrange to marry him.
But the main focus of the story comes when he meets and starts dating Emily Gardner, a white woman.
Now I had heard about the plot of this movie so I thought their relationship was going to go one way when it really didn't.
The first act is really just these two getting together and finding the differences between them culturally. It's a really interesting look at just how different people can be. Now I think there is definitely some extra drama thrown in there just for the sake of drama but it works for the most part.
But the main conflict comes later when a medical emergency occurs and Kumail is set in the middle of an awkward family meeting between Kumail and Emily's parents Beth and Terry (played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
I feel like I've already given some stuff away and I was only describing the plot of the movie but I also want to be vague because this really is a movie that is so layered and probably one of the best films of the year.
I really thought this was just going to be a simple comedy about how this guy met his wife, but somehow it manages to be funny, heart warming, insightful, tragic, and nuanced. It hits so many interesting levels of analysis of our world today but at the same time is absolutely timeless.
I mean first you've got the main couple in Kumail and Emily. Now the big headline when this movie came out was how it showed a relatable interracial couple. I'm sure that element of the film spoke to a lot of people and it does do good work for representation in film, but if that doesn't connect to you that's totally fine. You can appreciate that nuance while still take your own connection out of their relationship because they're very much a couple of the time we live in and it's refreshing and tangible.
2017 has really been Kumail Nanjiani's year because he just keeps on showing up in a lot of stuff I watch. He's a hilarious guy and he does great character work. He's always been a tertiary character or a cameo here and there in comedies. I think one of the best things I saw him in this year was the episode of Harmon Quest he was apart of where he was incredibly funny.
However, it was great seeing him in this film as the main character and not only that, in a really honest straight role.
He's a stand up comedian so obviously he's going to say a lot of really funny lines (a couple of them actually had me laughing out loud for a good five minutes at least), but he also gets the opportunity to show off his acting chops in this film and it was great to see him show what he could do as an actor.
A part of the film that I thought might feel forced but actually worked really well was the commentary about racism in the stand up world. Kumail faces racism in this movie and it's handled really, really well. It's handled with just enough care to give it the justice it needs but at the same time there are some jokes about it that might be my favorite jokes of the entire movie. It's not the main focus of the movie but it does have it's place in the many layers this movie has.
Zoe Karzan does a pretty good job in the film. I won't say she was the standout part of the film because that's just not true but she works well, especially when she's playing off others, especially Nanjiani.
But the best work comes from Holly Hunter and Ray Romano.
Holy crap, if these two don't get nominated for something this year at the Oscars I'm going to be actually a little bit mad because these two are hilarious, incredibly sad, and just all around a great time. There's a good segment of the movie where Kumail is just hanging out with Emily's parents and it's the best parts of the film.
Another odd layer that's added onto this film is the relationship that people have with the internet and the medical field. Both Hunter and Romano showcase that paranoid you get when you don't know what's going on medically so you Google it and it makes your paranoia so much worse. Somehow this movie is able to subtly talk about that as well throughout the film. Other subtle takes this movie had was on hook up culture, technology, and the internet culture we have. Obviously they all take a backseat to the big issues like family, relationships, and culture but still it was an interesting touch.
Overall, there is very little I didn't like about this movie. I of course am always skeptical about the "true story" claim and knowing that it was based on a true story prior to watching I did spend a good amount of time questioning what actually happened and what was created just for the sake of creating a rounded Hollywood movie. But the fact that Nanjiani and his wife actually wrote this script makes me love this movie even more.
I had a feeling I was going to like this film, I didn't know it was going to be one of my favorites of the year. You can tell a lot of hard work and care was put into this script and the making of the film because you just get the feeling of your heart being warmed throughout the film.
I have to applaud Nanjiani, Emily Gordon, and everyone else involved because this movie is a treat.
But those are my thoughts on the film, what did you think? I know I'm a little late to the party so I get the feeling a lot of people have seen it since. If you haven't, it's on Amazon Prime so check it out. But I want to hear thoughts? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. Wanna talk about two actors that won 2017? Gal Gadot and Kumail Nanjiani. It's a long video but it's kind of fun watching these two interview each other, talk about acting, etc. Enjoy!
Ultimately, Justice League was a movie that needed to happen. We can get single movies for better or worse like Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. We can go as low as Suicide Squad, trying something new but also something that could fail and have no bearing on the overarching storyline. We can go as high as we can with Wonder Woman, making really great characters and storylines separate from the DCEU chronology and franchise timeline. But ultimately, there needed to be a movie to follow up the mess that was Batman v Superman, and Justice League was that movie...
Just a disclaimer, I enjoyed this movie. I enjoyed all of 70% of the movie. Instead of just having potential like Batman v Superman did and failing to realize that potential, Justice League really did encapsulate what I wanted out of a Justice League film. I went in with low expectations and had a lot of fun with it. It was that last 30% and mainly the last act I had the biggest issue with. And I will probably go straight into the spoilers review after writing this non-spoilers review because that is where I can talk specifics and exactly what bothered me about this film. But I will say, overall, I chalk this up as a win for DC. Not a Home Run, but at least a base hit to keep the game going, and let's be fair, that's really what they needed right now.
Justice League takes place not long after Batman v Superman and Bruce Wayne (played by Ben Affleck) and Diana Prince (played by Gal Gadot) are trying to gather warriors or meta-humans to form a team to fight back the dangerous world conquering force of Steppenwolf (played by Ciaran Hinds).
Right off the bat, Steppenwolf is not that great of a villain. Like a lot of things in this film, he felt very much like a Marvel-style villain where he was just the strong dangerous villain but didn't have much explanation of who he is or what his deal is. He just wants to conquer Earth.
Oh and he looks ridiculously cartoonish the entire movie. I think the crowning jewel of things that sucked in this movie was the CGI. Not just for Steppenwolf but a lot of things. The way the characters move, the scenery, it looked really fake. I'm usually not too bothered by CGI. I know that a being from space isn't actually there. But a lot of the film felt like I was watching a cutscene from Injustice. Granted that did give it a little bit more of a comic book feel which I will talk about more later, but it looked really fake.
The way he tries to conquer the world is by attempting to collect 3 mother boxes on Earth that give him incredible power. The entire movie is based around Steppenwolf trying to retrieve those boxes and the fledgling Justice League trying their damnedest to assure the safety of the human race and keep that unlimited power out of the hands of this alien from outer space.
Like the team making superhero films like the Avengers before it, the first act of this film is mainly meant to establish the team and who is being brought in to defeat Steppenwolf. Something that I did like about the set up of the Justice League was how they managed to establish each member's world in a way that didn't take too much time, but also didn't feel horrible rushed.
We see Batman and Wonder Woman taking down bad guys in their respective cities, but we also see them planning to get the team together.
We're introduced to Barry Allen (played by Ezra Miller) and we see his relationship with his father Henry (played by Billy Crudup) who is in prison for a crime Barry believes he didn't commit.
We're introduced to Aquaman/Arthur Curry (played by Jason Momoa). We see him saving people out in the Ocean and we eventually see Atlantis and Mera (played by Amber Heard) his eventual wife? Maybe? We can see there is a tense relationship between him and the Atlantians so I don't think that they're married yet.
Then we're introduced to Victor Stone/Cyborg (played by Ray Fisher) who was brought back to life by Star Labs and their use of a mother box. We meet his father (played by Joe Morton) and we get the understanding that Victor is still figuring out his abilities as a Cyborg and it's bound to create some drama in his future standalone films.
I have to give Zach Synder and Joss Whedon credit. They touch on every character's backstory, place of crime saving, and future conflicts very briefly in order to introduce them effectively and seemlessly get us excited for future films with them.
Overall, the team aspect of this film is the best part. I like all of these characters and I want to see them again. I really hope that's the aspect of the film that saves it because there are a lot of missteps with this film.
I thought the casting for this film was really well done. For the most part everyone had something to do in this film and even if characters were only there for a quick cameo, because of the calamity of the threat of Steppenwolf, those cameos didn't feel too forced or like they were promoting future films.
The one character I think they could have done without was Lois Lane.
I hate saying that because I love Amy Adams and I think she's a great Lois Lane but for some reason I don't think Zach Snyder or anybody at DC really knows what to do with her. This happened in Batman v Superman where she was ultimately kind of pointless in the film and unfortunately it kind of happens again.
If there is going to be another Justice League film, maybe just say Lois Lane went on a trip out of town or something.
I will talk about this more in my spoilers review but I did want to address it very briefly here because it is actually something that brought the film down for me quite a bit. Due to the trailers we know that Superman is in the film. Henry Cavill is in the opening credits. It is not a spoiler to say Superman is in this film in one capacity or another. The only thing I will say right here is, they did it wrong. That's all I'll say. They did it wrong. I will talking about that a lot in my spoilers review.
The other big issue I had with this film was the tone.
Now tone has always been an issue with DC films. Man of Steel and Batman v Superman were said to be too dark and dower. Suicide Squad was said to have a mixed bag of dark and goofy, something that didn't work. I think the only DC movie that the tone right was Wonder Woman and they got it right on the money. Now Wonder Woman came out while Justice League was in the middle of production so I imagine they were too far gone to really make it like that, but there is definitely a tone change in this film and I think they went too far to light and goofy.
This is most apparent in Wonder Woman, but every DC film, whether they've been good or not has felt different than Marvel films. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman had jokes, but not too many and definitely not at the moments we were supposed to feel other emotions like sadness, tension, etc. They never resorted to Marvel bathos where a serious or sad moment is happening and it's undercut by a joke.
That happened multiple times and it pissed me off so much. Not only do I hate that ploy so much. But I never thought of that as DC's style. I don't know how much of it was Joss Whedon's doing, but it felt like halfway through the production of the film Marvel took over and had their take on the Justice League.
I like Joss Whedon, I'm sure he did a lot of good things for this film after the tragedy that befell Zach Snyder's family forcing him to leave the project, but a part of me wants to blame him for the campiness and jokes that were funny, but at the wrong moments. I'm probably giving him too much credit but there just seemed to be Whedon fingerprints all over some of the moments and it made me angry.
This movie felt like a comic book. And while you'd think that would be a good thing I don't think it worked in the world that Zach Snyder and DC set up with the previous 4 movies. The DC movies always had a cool blend of comic book movie and Christopher Nolan Batman movies that I actually really enjoyed. They were wild enough to feel like superheroes were on screen, but still a little bit grounded to feel like something important was happening.
Justice League feels like a lot of fluff.
It felt like it was trying to hit all the familiar notes a successful comic book movie should hit but not really digging in too much.
And to be fair, it's a team up movie. It's getting the band together so they can play awesome music later down the road. There's a lot to be entertained by in this movie. It's a fun movie. I don't think anybody would say this movie is boring.
But it's all pretty surface level and it's trying to hit a reset button from the mess left by Batman v Superman. Overall, the film is a very serviceable superhero film. I think we give too much credit to 2012's The Avengers because it blew everyones socks off to see our favorite heroes gather to fight evil all together on the big screen for the first time. Because The Avengers had such a great set up, it's seen as a great film when in reality the story is kind of weak and the individual character development isn't really there. The same goes for Justice League. In fact I give them a lot of credit for what little crappy set up they had going for them.
I do recommend going out and seeing this film. I mentioned that it was a base hit for DC and it might just be enough to keep the franchise going. I hope that's true. The box office for this film has been pretty weak especially considering how expensive this movie was but I really hope we see these characters more. If you take anything from this movie, it will be that these are well made characters and we could see greatness come from them, we just need to do it right.
But those are my thoughts on Justice League. Like I said, I'm jumping straight into my spoilers review because that is where I will talk more specifics. But what did you think? Do you think the DC cinematic universe is in trouble? Did Justice League give us a base hit or did it strike out DC? I have used a lot of baseball metaphors in this review. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. I of course am probably going to be in the DC mood after watching this movie so I'll probably end up playing more Injustice. In case you haven't watched the Injustice cutscenes movie, here it is. Enjoy!
Chappie was directed by Neill Blomkamp, a South African director responsible for the film District 9, probably one of my favorite films of 2009. District 9 was nominated for Best Picture that year and I think it probably should have won. While Blomkamp wasn't nominated for Best Director that year, he had a pretty great start to his career. Four years later he came out with the film Elysium... I honestly don't remember Elysium. I did a review for the film back in 2014 but that was very early on in my blogging days and the review isn't that good. One day I want to go back and check that film out again but from what I've heard people aren't wild about it. But still, Blomkamp had one film that was nominated for Best Picture and one film that people were lukewarm about. That's no reason to quit.
And then Chappie happened.
I saw trailers for Chappie and I didn't think it looked that bad. I heard the bad reviews about Chappie but I couldn't believe it was that bad, especially from a guy who made one of my favorite movies of 2009. There has to be something redeemable about that film...
And then I watched Chappie.
Chappie takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is 2016 and the crime rate has risen immensely. To combat that rising rate, a private company called Tetravaal creates law enforcement robots. They have been mainly programmed by a company employee by the name of Deon (played by Dev Patel). Because of his work, crime has gone down.
But Deon has his own pet project in the works, a project his boss (played by Sigourney Weaver, she really doesn't have much of a role in this film at all) does not sanction. Deon wants to install a program into one of the robots that would create consciousness and create the first real Artificial Intelligence.
Now Deon seems like a smart guy. He goes to Sigourney Weaver and asks her if he can use one of the robots that have been set for dismantlement. When she says no because of insurance reasons... you know instead of being afraid of creating Skynet, Deon decides to steal a robot set for dismantlement and install the AI into it. This is confusing because Deon is doing something illegal... very illegal. We've also seen Deon with robots in his house, there really isn't a reason why he couldn't create a new robot and install this program there instead of using company property. This is one of many moments you will hate Deon throughout this film.
However, Deon is captured by a group of gangsters (played by Jose Pablo Cantillo, Yolandi Visser, and a South African Rapper named Ninja... I'll get to him don't worry). They want Deon to give them the off switch to the robots so they can pull off a heist and get money to pay back a drug lord. Deon, instead of lying to people who clearly don't understand Artificial Intelligence, bargains with these people that instead of killing him, he'll give them the robot he stole from the company and turn on the artificial intelligence, you know, instead of just giving them the robot and testing the AI on another robot he steals once he's out of this very dangerous situation.
It is at this time that Chappie is born.
Chappie (voiced by Sharlto Copley) starts his development very much like a child. He doesn't totally understand words at first, he doesn't understand social interaction at all, but he does start learning very quickly.
And this is where Blomkamp's heavy handed social commentary comes in because it asks the question where do we learn behavior. Chappie has influences from a lot of people in this movie. He of course learns from Deon who says from the beginning that he is Chappie's maker and his authority comes from that title. He also starts to learn from Yolandi Visser's character who inserts herself as Chappie's mother figure. And then you have Ninja.
Yes, there is a character named Ninja in this movie. He's played by a South African rapper named Ninja.
While Deon and Yolandi are supposed to be the nurturing figures in Chappie's life, the ones who will put him on the straight and narrow, Ninja is the drugged out step father that Blomkamp assumes all criminals have.
It's not really a surprise that this guy was a pain in the ass on set, but he's just a horrible, horrible actor. He and Jose Pablo Castillo's characters are horrendous stereotypes and just annoying characters overall. They want to teach Chappie to be a gangster and help them pull off this heist. So there's this tug of war for Chappie's humanity throughout the film and it's just cringe-worthy. As much as they portray Yolandi Visser's character as this motherly figure, she does absolutely nothing but talk in a "Motherly" voice to Chappie, and Deon, my god Deon is annoying as hell.
He leaves Chappie with the gangsters but comes back with development toys and exercises to mold Chappie into a functioning member of society. He yells just the most cringe-worthy lines to Chappie like FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS and BE ALL YOU CAN BE.
I really like Dev Patel. He's a really good actor. But when he doesn't have a good script, it can really seem like he's not that good. Nothing about this film is Patel's fault though, it is all the script.
Deon has this weird dynamic between being Chappie's good influence and being his maker. There is a weird allegory going on with Dev Patel and God which never truly makes a lot of sense. It's a bummer because despite the horrendous dialogue he's given, Patel actually doesn't give that horrible of a performance in this film but overall his character is annoying and not very smart. Especially when we start to see Hugh Jackman come in as the main villain of the movie.
Now you might be wondering why I'm just now introducing Hugh Jackman. The truth is, this movie didn't need him. There was already plenty in this movie to talk about, especially regarding consciousness, nature vs nurture, etc.
But man I am glad they had Hugh Jackman in this movie and boy am I glad that Hugh Jackman really has a thing for fighting robots. I mean he basically has the same role he had in Real Steel and boy is he the most entertaining part of this movie.
Hugh Jackman plays a rival engineer at Deon's company. He's former military and he wants to push his own robot system but nobody seems to be a fan of it. Probably because it's a giant ED 209.
Seriously, Hugh Jackman spends the entire movie wanting to sell this to law enforcement agencies and they say no. And for good reason. Why doesn't he sell it to the military? This would be really great for the military, not preventing street crime.
But this is just one part of why Hugh Jackman's character is so ridiculous he becomes the best part of the film.
Jackman is sporting this weird mullet throughout the film, he wears kaki shorts, and he's always carrying a gun the entire film.
Hugh Jackman seems to be the only one having fun in this movie and it's because his character is a psycho.
I don't care if it's a spoiler because you really shouldn't see this movie, but at one point Jackman turns off all the law enforcement robots, creates mass chaos in Johannesburg, all for the opportunity to take his ED 209 out for a murdering spree where he brutally murders almost everyone in his path.
I'm pretty sure Jackman was locked into some kind of contract so he just went nuts with this movie and just had a ball.
And that's the main problem with this movie. This movie takes itself WAY too seriously.
I get that Neill Blomkamp tells stories with social commentary, that's kind of his thing. I don't want to give him too much shit for wanting to say something with his films. But at a certain point it goes way too overboard and it just feels heavy handed and overdramatic, especially in his use of slow motion and cringe-worthy melodrama.
A story about a robot gaining consciousness and going through human development starting from birth is an interesting concept, I think that Blomkamp had something here. I've heard that Blomkamp is starting up own movie studio to make short films and I feel like Chappie could have been a really good short film
But to pair it up with commentary on crime, militarization of the police force, and transformer like action just doesn't totally fit in your grand scheme of commentary. When you pair this movie with amateur actors who are South African rappers for some reason, it doesn't totally fit in your grand scheme of commentary.
To give credit where it is due, the special effects that went into this movie, especially making Chappie move and interact with the world was really, really well done. I think great visuals are something the Blomkamp has been able to use in his films very well and I guess I have to give him credit for creating a character that is fully CGI but still feels pretty real.
But it feels out of place and campy when they give it a gun, teach it to shoot "gangster" style and try and force feed us this message about consciousness and nature versus nurture.
Overall, Chappie is worse than I thought it was going to be. I don't even think the reviews I heard about it gave it enough justice as to how bad this film is.
Neill Blomkamp was supposed to direct an Alien movie and since this movie came out they have kind of backed away from that news. Before I saw this movie I thought that was pretty harsh, but after seeing this, I kind of understand.
I don't think Blomkamp is a bad director... yet. I still want to see more films from him especially since I've seen both District 9 and Elysium and don't think those movies were incredibly awful. We gave M Night Shyamalan countless of chances before we branded him a bad director, let's give Blomkamp one more chance before we shun him from the world.
But those are my thoughts on Chappie. What did you think of this film? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. So Chappie came out in 2015, since then we have had a couple of instances of Artificial Intelligence in the news. This is the news story of the Facebook robots that started making their own language and Facebook quickly destroyed those computers as fast as they could. Do you want Skynet? Cause this is how you get Skynet. Enjoy!
So since Taika Waititi is the new thing these days due to Thor: Ragnarok, I thought that I would pop in his sleeper comedy of 2015. Just a disclaimer, I did watch this movie a couple months back but never got around to writing a review for it. I finally watched it again and now I'm going to review it to capitalize on the hype after Thor Ragnarok. #exploitationofpopulartrends!
What We Do In the Shadows is a mockumentary set in New Zealand. It follows the story of a bunch of vampires living in a flat in Wellington. In this group you have Viago (played by Taika Waititi), Vladislav (played by Jermaine Clement), Deacon (played by Jonathan Brugh), and a Nosferatu vampire named Petyr (played by Ben Fransham).
The premise is that these vampires let a film crew into their home to get an inside look into their lives leading up to the Unholy Masquerade, a party where all the supernatural creatures of Wellington come together.
The result is a criminally underrated comedy that not enough people have seen. I think among movie circles it has become more popular but I don't know too many casual movie goers who have seen this movie and that is a shame. It's on Amazon Prime, check it out!
Early on in the film they turn a stranger named Nick (played by Cori Gonzalez-Macuer) into a vampire and he joins them in the flat. Him and his friend Stu (played by Stu Rutherford) show the ancient vampires how to get into clubs, watch Youtube videos, and just live in the modern day.
That of course brings its own drama but the main appeal of this movie is just these guys becoming accustomed to living in the 21st century while being vampires. This leads to some really dark gory humor. If you're squeamish at the sight of blood you should still see this movie just know that there are some parts where blood squirts out of people's necks... I mean it's a vampire movie what did you expect?
There are also some "scary" moments in the film. And I mean that in the lightest of terms because I am not a fan of jump scares and even I thought these were pretty tame. It is still worth watching.
I don't want to overhype this movie. It's really funny and an underrated comedy but I don't think it goes down as one of my favorite comedies of all time. Taika Waititi and Jermaine Clements, the directors of the film have a certain style of humor that is pretty dry. I think it's hilarious but there's a chance it might take a little bit to really enjoy. Furthermore there are a few (not a lot of) parts that kind of drag.
I think part of the reason I didn't get through this film all the way the first time was because I just wasn't in the mood for the dry humor that movie presents. I still thought it was funny but I had to be in a certain mindset.
Still I can't recommend this movie enough. Another really great element of this movie was the fact that the practical effects of the film are absolutely fantastic. The budget of this film, in comparison with other big films, was absolutely nothing and yet Waititi and Clements were able to creates some really great imagery and practical effects to not only add to the comedy, but also add to the atmosphere of the film that these guys are vampires.
These guys had to have had fun making this movie and it could have easily been made with less practical effects and still have been funny. However, the stunts and movie magic they use really do make it feel like these guys are actually vampires.
But the practicality of the film also works towards the overall atmosphere and feeling of the film. While it looks great, I think there's a bit of charm in how practical the effects are. If they had a bigger budget I think Waititi and Clements could have put in CGI and made it more realistic but I don't think it would have contributed to the overall feeling of the film. There's a scene where they run across a group of werewolves and they eventually turn. The werewolves don't look real at all but it adds to the comedy.
The leader of the werewolf pack is played by Rhys Darby who is an actor who I haven't really seen in a lot of film but I always recognize him when I do. Apparently Waititi is talking about making a sequel/spin off of this film called What We Do In the Moonlight focusing on this group of werewolves and I promise you, after watching this film, you will be excited for that film.
Overall, I hope I'm not overselling this movie. It's really underrated and definitely worth checking out. Even if you don't have Amazon Prime, try and find this film, it is worth the rental.
But have you seen this film? If you have let me know what you thought about it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films 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. I love TED Talks. And I'm starting to love Taikia Waititi. Did you know he did a TED talk? Enjoy!
