Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse

Full disclosure, this was not a movie that was very high on my list of movies I was really looking forward to this year. Sure, when I heard they were making an animated Spider-man film I thought that could be fun, but it wasn't a film I was really looking forward to. Even after the trailers I thought, I'd like to see that, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to see it. Luckily, I had a friend who really wanted to see the film so I jumped on board and checked it out and boy was this movie a treat.

The movie centers on the character of Miles Morales (voiced by Shameik Moore). He's a half black, half puerto rican kid from New York who is very bright. He goes to a private school even though he wants to be at public school with his friends. He's growing up and figuring out what he's good at under the pressure put on him by his father (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry) who just wants him to succeed.

One day when he's palling around with his uncle Aaron (voiced by Mahershala Ali), he is bitten by a radio active spider and starts to develop the same powers as Spider-man. Around the same time, Wilson Fisk, or Kingpin (voiced by Liev Schrieber) is creating a super collider that could destroy all of New York. The collider ends up creating a rift in time and space and bringing other interations of Spider-man to Miles's universe. Most notably a down on his luck Peter Park (voiced by Jake Johnson) who becomes a mentor for Miles as he tries to figure out his new powers.

Other iterations of the web slinger include Spider-Gwen (voiced by Hailee Steinfeld), Noir Spider-man (voiced by Nicklaus Cage), Anime Spider-man (voiced by Kimiko Glen), and Spider-Ham, a spider bitten by a radio active pig (voiced by John Mulaney).

All together, they help Miles figure out how to be Spider-man and team up to fight Fisk and his rogues gallery of bad guys looking to complete their world ending collider.

Oh boy, this movie was just a pleasure and a half. It was super, SUPER funny, it had a lot of heart, it had a lot of action, it had tones of comic book lore that was really fun for someone like me who doesn't really read comics, I can only imagine how fun it was for someone who knows all these characters and their backstories better than I do.

There was just so much right done in this movie.

The animation was superb. Sony is trying to copy right the software that creates this animation and they are going to make bank off of it. At first I thought it was going to be a little jarring and at the beginning it was. It runs this weird gambit of being hyper realistic, but then feeling very off kilter and comic book like or if you're wearing 3D glasses without watching a 3D movie. It is very weird. However, once you get into it and get used to it, it is gorgeous. I think it would be an absolutely crime if this movie wasn't at the very least nominated for Best Animated Picture and if it were up to me, it would win that category by far.

The voice cast was phenomenal too. Everyone seemed just perfectly on point for exactly the character they played. If you know Jake Johnson's work, he thrives when he's the slob who is down on his luck. That's exactly who he is. Shameik Moore crushed it as Miles Morales and I really liked the mentor/student relationship these two had. Even better was the relationship Miles has with his father and his uncle and how that ties into his development as a person and a hero.

The really great thing about the way this movie was structured was that Miles doesn't automatically become great at being Spider-man. He has to learn and develop his powers. And that fits in with his own personal development, and that fits in with his school and family life, and it all ties together very nicely in a great story. I feel like I'm gushing on this movie and maybe it's because I just got out of it and I'm still a little bit in shock of how good it was, but this movie had me laughing really hard. Especially with how aware it was of the Spider-man universe, while at the same time making it diagetic for an audience who may not know all the references and Easter Eggs in the film.

I guess if there was anything I'd criticize the movie on it would be the villain. Maybe its due to the fact that Kingpin in my mind will always be done the best by Vincent D'onofrio in Daredevil, but I felt like I was really lacking in a strong villain in this movie.

Even Kingpin's animation seemed a little less clean as the other characters in the film. He always seemed like an amorphous blob and while his backstory wasn't bad, it was very rushed through and not given really enough time for me to really enjoy it the way I think I should have. Doc Ock is in the film (voiced by Kathryn Hahn) and I feel like she could have been a much better villain overall then Kingpin in this film.

But the movie is generally focused on more on the character relationships built in the movie as well as the comedy of this really unique scenario that I'm not sure you could really do in a live action film.

I'll rephrase that. You could do this in a live action movie, you should couldn't do it the exact same way. Obviously if Tom Holland's Spider-man started seeing other Spider-men from different dimensions, it'd be a a little weird and jarring if one of them was an animated Spider-pig. That wouldn't fit in the MCU and very few other live action franchises.

But the movie utilized the animation format to really go nuts with the characters, situations, and create a movie that goes above and beyond where any other Spider-man film has gone.

I want to give this movie a little bit more time and another watch to really solidify any feelings I have towards it, but I do think this will end up being one of the best Spider-man movies we've gotten.

I know I'm gushing but seriously, this movie felt fresh. It felt self aware without actively making fun of itself and diminishing the credibility of the story. And it was just a surprise how much I enjoyed

this film. It is definitely a recommend for me. Go see this movie and give it some support because I want to see more of these characters and this really funny world. This movie did for Spider-man what Lego Batman did for Lego Batman, but it felt more real that even some of the previous live-action Spider-man movies we've seen come out. .

I might do a spoilers review or talk about this movie more in the future if I am able to get a second viewing here soon. But for now, I am gushing over this movie. I hope you can see it soon and hopefully we can discuss.

If you have seen the 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.

Thanks for reading!

Kodachrome

So today was the day of watching small intimate indie films. Like I've said in a previous review, I'm digging through my list on Netflix trying to get rid of some of the films that have been on there for quite a long time. If I don't watch them now, I don't think I'm ever going to watch them.

Kodachrome was a film that I saw come onto Netflix earlier this year. I watched the trailer, liked everyone who was in it, and I knew I wanted to check it out. It just took me quite a long time to actually get to it. I didn't hear anything about this film prior to watching it besides the trailer and I doubt anybody will really be talking about this movie besides me. But I still think it's a movie worth a review.

Kodachrome follows the story of Matt (played by Jason Sudeikis). He is a record executive who is kind of down on his luck. He's divorced, he's struggling to keep his job, and the only way he can keep his job is to sign a new band to the record label he works for.

One day, a nurse by the name of Zoe (played by Elizabeth Olsen) shows up in his office and tells him that she works for his father Ben (played by Ed Harris), a famous photographer. She tells Matt that Ben is dying and he wants to make a trip out to Kansas to the last place where Kodachrome film is developed.

Matt is reluctant to go on the trip but is convinced to go along when Ben's manager (played by Dennis Haysbert) says he can get Matt a meeting with the band he needs to sign, but only if he goes on the trip.

 What follows is a road trip movie about this father and son discussing their differences, their grievances, and figuring out if there's a way they could ever really forgive each other. Zoe comes along and a romance starts to bloom between her and Matt.

If the movie sounds a little formulaic, its because it is. It is not a hard movie to predict what will happen and how characters will react to certain things, or if certain events will happen at certain times. I don't think that makes the movie bad necessarily, it's just not something incredibly new.

Part of the reason this movie works is really only because of the performances by the three main leads, Sudeikis, Olsen, and most notably Ed Harris.

I loved Jason Sudeikis on SNL. I think he is a really hilarious dude, but I am really enjoying the trend he's moving on now where he's taking a lot more serious roles. I absolutely love that Elizabeth Olsen is a thing beyong her work with the Marvel Cinematic Universe because she is a very good actor. The chemistry between those two is actually pretty great and it probably makes the movie a romantic movie if you're looking for a date night movie.

And dear lord, Ed Harris is phenomenal in this movie. I seriously forgot I was watching a performance and really saw Harris as this "miserable bastard" dying of cancer in the backseat of this antique car. He looks so emaciated and the way he moves is just so believable that I seriously forgot that this was Ed Harris performing for the majority of the movie.

 The three of them come together and make this really emotional and small intimate road trip film. Yes, a lot of the film is predictable. And there are some moments where I was taken a little bit out of it because people reacted in ways that I took a moment and really just thought that that's not what a person would do in that circumstance, it's only being done for dramatic effect.

But by the same token, I knew what the ending was going to be. I called the ending from a very early time in my viewing and it didn't matter because the minute I saw the ending I burst into tears because it was built up so well. It's a pretty emotional movie and it got me.

The biggest driving force is the performances and its very well done.

This movie is not going to be for everyone. It is a lot of talking, and while there is some comedic moments in the film, it's a lot of dialogue, and driving montages, and just kind of building this emotional tension between these characters. If you're not a fan of indie films, this will probably be a little boring for you.

I do think its worth checking out due to the fact that it's not that long, it's got some really good performances behind it, and it'll tug at the heartstrings quite a bit.

I think Netflix is still working on creating their bigger budget films, but I think where they go right is their smaller budget indie films that are about human connections. I don't think this will be in my top favorite films I've ever seen on Netflix, but I would recommend it to anybody who likes personal performances and smaller films.

But those are my quick thoughts on Kodachrome. 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.

Thanks for reading!

Camp X-Ray

So this movie was a difficult one to get through because I know quite a bit about Guantanamo Bay and the military. The first huge disclaimer is that this movie gets A LOT of stuff wrong. It's not 100% wrong and they probably got more things right then I or someone else would give it credit for, but like a lot of films, the things that they get wrong often outshine the things that they get right. I'm going to try my best to not bore you with the details and focus this review on the story rather than the realism they sacrifice for the sake of a story. However, I just want it to be known that there are a lot of liberties taken with this movie, the realism issues are pretty glaring and you should not take this movie as a source of truth about Guantanamo Bay.

Camp X-Ray follows the story of a young private first class by the name of Amy Cole (played by Kristen Stewart). She is deployed to Guantanamo Bay in what I deduce is 2009. They never really state the exact date but the time stamps in the beginning say 8 years after 9/11 so 2009 it is.

She is introduced to how life as a guard at Guantanamo Bay is very difficult as these Soldiers are looking after dangerous terrorists, but at the same time their jobs are very mundane compared to other Soldiers in combat scenarios. She eventually comes across a detainee by the name of Ali (played by Peyman Moaadi). She discovers that he is a very troubled detainee who has been in custody for 8 years and has made life very difficult for the guards in his cell block. She sees that very same troublesome behavior first hand.

But as the movie goes along, she starts to develop a slight semblance of a friendship with this detainee and this provides insight into his mindset, but also the mindset of Soldiers and detainees alike in Guantanamo Bay.

Something really impressive about this film is how low budget it feels at yet doesn't feel at the same time. It is a very intimate movie with very few location changes and close quarters interactions between PFC Cole, Ali, and the other Soldiers she runs across, including a chauvinist team leader by the name of Corporal Ransdell (played by Lane Garrison). Not a whole lot of "action" happens in this movie and the vast majority of it is just people talking in these close quarter rooms and hallways. There's usually a barrier of some sort between Cole and Ali (#symbolism) and it's more about the dialogue and relationships she builds between her and Ali and the Soldiers around her.

While I'm giving the movie some credit, I do want to applaud some of the issues that the movie touches on. I will say some of them are handled a little heavy handed than others and the facts aren't totally correct, but I do appreciate films that at least try to delve into those issues about the military.

Another thing to note is that the performances in this film were pretty good.

For as much Twilight crap as Kristen Stewart gets (and partially deserves) I think she actually did a pretty good job in this movie. I know women in the military who Kristen Stewart's character reminded me of. I think she did a really good job playing a young, inexperienced Soldier who's first big deployment is to a unique place like Guantanamo Bay.

The other actors around her did a good job as well. I'll talk about Lane Garrison's character a little more later, but I thought he did a good job as the chest beating tool Soldier creating conflict for the main character. I haven't seen Peyman Moaadi in a lot of things but I really liked him in this film and I'd like to see him in more. John Carroll Lynch plays a burnt out officer. He's probably the least developed of all the characters, but I liked his big moment in the film. And the other guys Cole works with were played very well.

There's some pretty good messaging in the film about some timely issues for Soldiers in the modern military addressed in this movie. They talk about the kind of wars we fight today compared to the wars we used to fight and how that affects Soldiers today. They talk about the experience of Soldiers at Guantanamo Bay compared to those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and the toll that can have on people. The movie has some interesting commentary on female Soldiers that I don't think they touch on enough in the film. And of course, the movie has some political feelings about Guantanamo Bay as a whole that are at least worth discussing. Again, on all those fronts, I think this movie takes a few too many liberties to get a point across, but I can appreciate the intentions.

I think my biggest issues come with how heavy handed some of the messaging is in the film. Some of the characters in the movie are caricatures while some are made sympathetic and reasonable just for the sake of creating a story and these interactions would never happen in reality.

A really good example is Cole's immediate superior played by Lane Garrison. From the beginning, he is a caricature of the ignorant chest beating Soldier you imagine from Full Metal Jacket. And don't get me wrong, I know people in the military who are just as big of tools as Lane Garrison is portrayed in this film, I'm not saying its totally off at all. Like I said, the movie feels a little heavy handed to make a point for a narrative. And for people who aren't aware of reality versus creative liberty, that narrative driven messaging might get through.

This is not a bad story on paper. Finding the humanity in others that authority or governments have ingrained in us to think are just monsters is a good message. I think if you take this story out of Guantanamo Bay, it's a really interesting story. It's a really well shot, low budget film that hits on some really good issues. But I do think the movie takes its messaging a little bit past the point where my suspension of disbelief could allow it.

And that's not the film or the directors fault. It's totally within their rights to message whatever they want in whatever way they want to. I just thought the movie was a little bit predictable, a little preachy, and not based in any kind of real world reality. Again, it touches on some good timely topics and has some good things to say, but not all of it hits the mark the way I think I would have wanted it to.

I'm not going to say you should avoid this film because there are some things to like about it. I would just say if you're going to watch it, try and take it all with a grain of salt and see the good themes its trying to convey, although not in perfect execution all the time.

But those are my thoughts on Camp X-Ray. 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.

Thanks for Reading!

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

I have not written nearly enough about Black Mirror as I think I originally intended earlier this year. I had a short period where I was savoring every episode of Black Mirror I could because it was so good. And then just like that, I kind of forgot about Black Mirror until Bandersnatch came out. And I'll make mention that I barely heard about this movie until the day before it came out. That's how strong the Black Mirror brand is for me, I can be out of that mode for quite a while and then just like that, I can get back into it no problem.

But what's different this time around is that the entire movie is an interactive choose your own adventure. I've seen movies or games like this before but they are very, VERY hard to do. Choose your own adventure books are really hard to read for me because you wonder if you made the right choice and with the different storylines, I can lose track of the story.

So I'll be honest, when this movie started and I figured out it was fully interactive, like there wasn't an option not to have the interaction, I was not wild about it. However, I pushed through because I was hoping to be surprised.

Bandersnatch follows the story of a young video game programmer in the 80's by the name of Stefan (played by Fionn Whitehead). He is developing a new choose your own adventure game called Bandersnatch. The game is heavily based on a novel by an author who went crazy and killed his family. Stefan has a deadline to make the game and the process sends him down a rabbit hole of questioning his reality.

Along the way he has a relationship with his father (played by Craig Parkinson) that is troubled, he meets another programmer who knows more than he lets on (played by Will Poulter), and his therapist (played by Alice Lowe) is trying to help him along the way.

It's kind of hard to delve too much into the story without giving it away and because this is such an interactive experience, I think there is a lot that can be spoiled.

So the biggest thing I would say about this film is that it does handle the choose your own adventure probably as best as it can. Like I said, choose your own adventures can be difficult to create and be digestable for an audience. I do think this movie does two things to keep it more diagetic. The first is that the movie eases you into the whole making decisions thing. There are choices that will make a difference and there are choices that won't. Even the ones that do make a difference make the "wrong" decision almost a part of the story itself.  Again, I don't want to spoil anything, but there are choices that I think the movie wants you to make for the sake of the story. Certain choices change the information that is provided to the characters as well as information given to the audience. I know there are multiple endings as you would expect from this kind of medium, there are also parts of the story that can't be "unlocked" as it were unless you make the "wrong" decision. It's hard to really explain but in practice it works really well.

On top of all of that, there are certain choices that will take you back quite a ways in the story but it does give a brief overview to catch you right back up to where you were. This makes it a little bit easier to make whatever decision you want and not worry too much about larger consequences because you can come back to a certain point.

On top of that, the film gives the very similar clausterphobic, uneasy but mind bending feeling that you've probably come to expect from Black Mirror at this point. There are great ideas in this film and it's really cerebral. I think that's also a part where the choose your own adventure format works. It makes you feel apart of the story and adds another level to the narrative.

That being said, I do feel like some of the way they use that does come back and lessen the impact of the entire film. I'm thinking of one choice you make that veers off into a particularly self aware section. It was entertaining and like a lot of Black Mirror, there is some humor to be had with these stories. But I do feel like certain choices might take you out of the larger story experience that I would expect from these episodes of Black Mirror. Yes, they are very aware which parts will do that and you get that recap of what led up to you making the next decision, but I do think I would have preferred to have a couple of versions of this story so I can see every outcome without having to go back and make all those decisions again.

I would like to see a complete narrative with all the certain choices that lead to one outcome and all the certain choices that lead to another. I feel like that way I can get the more emotion driven experience from each outcome and not have the funnier ending disrupt the impact of the more serious endings.

I have to applaud Netflix for taking on a new medium like this. It makes sense, Netflix has the money to just run with crazy ideas like this and give it the time and effort to make it something that brings people in. I think the performances are good, the ideas are interesting, and the use of interactive storytelling is done well. I just wish I didn't have to start the whole movie over if I wanted to see a certain ending or weird side plot.

The same thing happens in video games with choice factors included. That's usually where I will go to Youtube to see the alternate endings when I can't just reload a game where I left off, but that just seems a little more difficult in this movie.

I think this might be a movie I will revisit pretty soon to do some more exploring, but as it is, I think it's a risky move that somewhat pays off. I enjoyed experience and I could be up for a few other future Netflix projects like it. I don't want this to become a huge thing, but I think it's well done how it is.

Have you seen/played Bandersnatch yet? What did you think? Have you seen all the endings? Which one did you prefer? 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.

Thanks for reading!

Mary Poppins Returns

So in the lead up to this film, I had some mixed feelings. On one hand, I didn't really want a sequel to Mary Poppins, key word a sequel. I would have been fine if they had reimagined the story but I was weary about a sequel. But then Emily Blunt was attached and I thought, I like Emily Blunt. She's a gem, she might do a pretty good job. Furthermore, I saw the trailer and I liked what I saw. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but it seemed like a good time. And then I started hearing bad reviews of the film. And while I try to avoid reviews before seeing movies like this that I have emotion invested in, I was still worried.

The end result was just like the lead up, mixed feelings. I think overall I had fun with this film. It was a good Disney film to release over the holidays and give that warm fuzzy feeling that Disney is really good at. I think if this movie wasn't in the shadow of the titan that is the 1964 Julie Andrews film, this movie would have been perfectly serviceable if not an instant classic. Unfortunately, the natural feeling is going to be to compare the two films. I'm going to try and provide a fair look for this film based on its own merits, but like anything Disney does these days, this movie is rife with callbacks to greater films and it becomes hard not to compare. I will do my best.

In 1935, the Banks children from the 1964 film, Jane and Michael (played by Emily Mortimer and Ben Whishaw) have grown up. Michael has kids of his own and Jane is fighting for workers rights or something like that.

The family has fallen on hard times financially after the death of Michael's wife Kate and Michael's Children (played by Pixie Davies, Nathaneal Saleh, and Joel Dawson) have needed to grow up quite a bit, helping him around the house as he is struggling to take up a job at the bank just to make ends meet. And in their moment of need, who arrives but Mary Poppins (this time played by Emily Blunt) to come and look after the Banks children. What follows is a musical romp as Mary Poppins, with the assistance of a lamp lighter named Jack (played by Lin Manuel Miranda) helps the Banks family deal with grief, find joy and light even in the darkest of times, as well as help them search for a certificate of shares so that they may keep the house from a (frankly unnecessary) villainous Bank owner (played by Colin Firth).

And when I say musical, I mean full blown, randomly break into song straight up musical. Don't get me wrong, the first Mary Poppins was for sure a musical. But there are two distinct differences between the music in Mary Poppins Returns and the music in Mary Poppins.

First and foremost, I feel there were two or three too many songs in this movie. Not only that, but many of these musical numbers were long and felt out of no where. It's a tell sign in a musical when the dialogue needs to be shaped to set up the next song as opposed to the songs coming naturally with dialogue and I felt like that happened far more than it should have in this film. I also felt like the pure number of songs and how frequent they were, took the impact out of those bigger or more consequential songs. For example, close to the beginning of the movie, there is a big musical number set in this imaginary world of the bathtub. It's a fun song, but it was so grandious, especially for a really insignificant scene in the grand scheme of things, that it overshadowed the songs that followed it, that I think were far too close together to begin with.

And that leads me to the next point in that none of the songs really felt like instant classics the way they felt in the 1964 film. I do realize some of that is subjective. But even the songs I really liked I felt were undercut by the feeling that we just had a song and we're going into another one? And furthermore, I just don't feel like people are going to have these songs marked as iconic the same way the '64 film did. When you think of Mary Poppins, you think really great songs like 'Feed the Birds', 'Supercalifracioulisticespialadocious' (excuse my spelling), 'Chimchimery' or other songs. I didn't feel like any of the songs in this movie really stuck with me the way those did. The songs were performed really well, everyone sings nicely, but overall I think time will tell.

I do believe there was at the very least a hint of authenticity in the execution of this movie. I enjoyed the characters and the actors in this movie do feel invested and having fun with the characters. Of course Emily Blunt never stood of chance of doing a better Poppins than Julie Andrews, but I think she does a really good job nonetheless and she makes the character something of her own while still giving overt nods to Andrews performance.

I liked Lin Manuel Miranda in this film. Yeah he didn't capture the same unique feeling that you got with Dick Van Dyke's Bert in the first film but on his own, I liked him. He's a good singer and he brought a lot of the same joy he brings seemingly all this projects so I liked that. I realized this was his first live action movie role since the release of Hamilton and it'll probably be his break into film. He's charming as he always is, and I really enjoyed his musical performance. Side note: there is a "rap" in this film and you're either going to be indifferent and enjoy what you have in front of you like I did, or you're going to absolutely hate it.

The rest of the actors in the film do a pretty good job. I really liked Ben Whishaw, even though Michael could have been written better. Emily Mortimer is always a fun time, Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, and everyone else is totally serviceable because they're all really good actors who give it their all in everything.

Like I said, not everything works. I don't think Mary Poppins needs a villain and Colin Firth didn't need to be such a blunt villain. Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer could have been given better written characters, and the structure of the plot could have used some more work.

I hate the people who defend certain films by saying, if you didn't enjoy this movie, you just don't know how to have fun. I think people might say that to defend this film and in my opinion that's a cheap excuse to defend subpar films. I don't think Mary Poppins Returns is perfect by any means. Part of that is that it's trying to match a movie that is "practically perfect in every way" to this movie which is practically good is a lot of ways. It just can't be done. I think there are some really creative ideas, songs and visuals in this movie. There's a scene very reminiscent of the sidewalk chalk they jump into into the first film where they go into a porcelain bowl and I thought to myself, wow that's actually a really creative and inventive world to explore. I think the songs while not nearly as memorable are pretty well done and they're performed well.

This is definitely a movie I plan on revisiting and maybe I'll do a review of the original Mary Poppins to do a full comparison just for fun, but as it stands I think if you're looking for a fun light hearted, kind of cotton candy style romp, I think you'll enjoy Mary Poppins Returns.

I think you could look at Mary Poppins Returns in a very cynical way and I wouldn't totally blame you. The story of Mary Poppins has gone from a simple, fairly unknown children's storybook to a widely marketed and highly produced feature film event you have today.

I think more people are protective of the 1964 film because they grew up with it. And yes, you can be cynical about where we've come, how we got there, and comment that we'll never reach that simple magic I think the 1964 film got perfectly.

But, like I said before, I do think there is at least a hint of some authenticity in this sequel. While some of it feels mass produced, I do think it's going to be unfairly compared to the 1964 film and just the way films are made, the technology on hand makes recapturing that magic absolutely impossible. I think there should be an understanding that this movie was never going to be as good as the first one. That was like lightning in a bottle. But that doesn't mean it's bad.

I say go see Mary Poppins Returns with that disclaimer in mind and see what you think yourself. I think you'll probably have more fun than you think.

But those are my thoughts on Mary Poppins Returns. 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.

Thanks for reading!

Sicario: Day of the Soldado

This was not a movie I, or I can argue a lot of people, were really pushing for. The first Sicario film in my opinion is a master piece of a film. The trailers for its sequel seemed good but there was also a feeling of it being a cash grab and capitalizing on a super successful movie. I thought Emily Blunt and Denis Villeneuve were two vital parts to the first film and while I didn't want Emily Blunt's character to return in the sequel as her arc was seemingly complete in the first film, I couldn't really imagine a sequel without her.

Nonetheless, I was still really interested in this film and I've been playing a lot of Ghost Recon Wildlands, a game in which I think was directly inspired by the first movie. That along with the visceral feeling I got out of The Punisher, I thought this would be a perfect movie to watch based on the types of stories I've been interested in lately.

Sicario: Day of the Soldado follows two of the main characters from the first Sicario film, Matt Graver, the brutal ends justify the means CIA officer (played by Josh Brolin). And Alejandro Gillick, the former lawyer turned CIA trained hitman who has a beef with the cartels who murdered his family (played by Benicio Del Toro).

After some brutal terrorists attacks (that they do not shy away from at all) on US soil, the United States government decides to let loose Matt Graver and the CIA in Mexico to start a war between the cartels. The plan is to kidnap the daughter of a cartel boss (played by Isabela Moner), who just so happens to be the one that killed Gillick's family, and start a war between his cartel and the others.

Probably the best parts of the movie are these two working together and playing off each other. I thought that there would be a piece missing if you didn't have that Emily Blunt character who is the naive lawful good of the bunch but they do a pretty good job at making these characters interesting, even without that relatable character. I have to go back and watch the first Sicario because I don't know if they are exactly the same characters and of course I don't think they have that same magnetic characters draw in than they did before, but I think it works for this film.

The other thing this movie was able to do was make me interested in seeing more Sicario sequels. I don't want them to go to nuts and I would only want to see it if they really had a story to tell, but while the movie is not nearly as polished and great as the first, I still really enjoyed watching this world and would love to see more of it and that's mostly due to the actors involved.

I do think Josh Brolin might be one of the best actors working today and I think he needs to be given more roles. I think 2018 was his dark brooding year as he played this guy, Thanos and Cable in Deadpool 2, but I thoroughly enjoyed all those roles as well as this one. He plays such a dark but also complicated character. In the first film it was a great foil against the lawful good of Emily Blunt, but in this there's a little more depth and I enjoyed it.

I think these Sicario movies run a pretty good balance between high intensity, raw action and real dramatic moments. While I think this movie shows that they're going to lean more towards the action side of things if there's a future to these movies, which I will talk about later. But I think they still could delve into these characters more, especially Matt Graver.

So this movie serves a couple of purposes and one of them I think was to give Benecio Del Toro his middle age to old man and a teenage girl in a truck movie. Think Logan or The Last of Us if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I do think the best moments are the moments between Del Toro's character and Brolin's character, but when he's on his own, it does show that Alejandro Gillick is a complex character that I think definitely has a future in a future film.

I've always had mixed feelings about Benecio Del Toro and the choices he makes. He has such a range and he can go from a quiet killer in this film, to a weird character like the Collector in the Marvel films or whatever his character was in The Last Jedi. I forgot how much I'm interested in this lawyer turned hitman and I enjoyed him in this film.

Isabela Moner has a pretty bright future ahead of her. It's going to be a little weird next year seeing her play Dora the Explorer because in this film she is this terrified girl kind of along for the ride and she has to react to some pretty horrific experiences and she does a good job.

I think one thing I'd change looking back is develop the relationship more between her and Gillick. There's a point in this movie where the plot hinges on the relationship these two have created and while I believe part of it, I don't really see that connection that changes everything without giving spoilers.

I think as a whole I enjoyed this movie, but I do think there are two big elements that kept this movie from being anywhere close to the first film. The first is that the movie is a little uneven in how it's structured and I swear it just seems to stop at a certain point without to me a proper climax. As the movie was finishing up, I looked at the time stamp and I realized there wasn't much left and I felt like there should be. I get the feeling they're leaving some more of the story for the third movie (which I hate), but I was kind of left wanting more.

But I think on top of not feeling really complete, this movie just didn't feel new in any way. I'm not saying that makes it totally bad, I just don't think I'm going to remember it that much. The first film was gritty, it was raw, and it had characters you really cared about. This film has some of that, its for sure got the raw action, but I don't know if it takes all those ingredients and really makes something worth while in my opinion. This movie felt more like a set up for a larger climax in a third movie that I really hope will be a lot better.

And that's really where we're at right now. There is going to be a third movie to this film series and I'm not nearly as opposed to that as I was when I watched the first film. I think if anything, the fact that this movie was not nearly as solid as the first makes me hope that they learn from their mistakes and make a really solid third and final film that wraps up all the loose ends.

Again, I think raw action is good, its a staple of these movies. But I think what I want to see is actual care taken with these characters and bring their development to a hedge. I imagine the next film is going to pit Josh Brolin and Benecio Del Toro against one another and they'd be dumb not to take that opportunity. But make it an actually good complex movie, not just the Call of Duty movie we're never going to get.

Overall, it's a little bit of a mixed bag with Sicario 2, but I enjoyed a lot of it, a lot more than I thought I was going to. I think overall, this movie shows that Sicario can be a franchise while still giving me at least a little hope that it doesn't have to be a cash grab, that there can actually be good stories told. Only time will tell if they actually do that with the third film, but I think if you're a fan of the first film, you will probably still enjoy the sequel.

But what did you think of Sicario: Day of the Soldado (I still don't really know what that title means)? 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.

Thanks for Reading!

The Pirates of Somalia

So it's that time of year again where I watch a bunch of the movies that I have had on my Netflix list for the entire year. These are usually movies that are critical hits, but not movies you can just watch randomly. These are the films I want to be paying attention to the most to try and get the best of cinema. The Pirates of Somalia is a good film, but it's definitely not the best film I'm going to watch on that list.

The Pirates of Somalia follows the true story of Jay Bahadur (played by Evan Peters). Jay is a high school graduate who wants to become a journalist but is having a hard time really getting his work off the ground. He continuously received rejection letters and is living in his parents basement doing work to get by until he can hopefully go to Harvard.

One day he comes across a drunk Al Pacino playing his favorite journalist. I have mad respect for Al Pacino, but the guy looks like he just got out of bed and is really only in like 2 scenes of the movie. If they took Al Pacino out of the end of the movie, you probably would have forgotten he was in the movie at all. But Al Pacino says that the best way to become a journalist is to jump into the deep and and make a name for himself out in the field.

Jay takes this advice quite literally and decides that he's going to go to Somalia to do investigative journalism on the new wave of piracy in the country, especially since no news organization at the time could get anybody into the country because it was so dangerous for reporters to be there. He gathers money, much of it lent to him by his parents, and he goes to Somalia to start writing a book.

When he gets there he starts interviewing pirates, adjusting to a different dangerous culture, and falls in love with one of the wives of a dangerous pirate. He's joined by a translator by the name of Abdi (played by Barkhad Abdi) and the two of them get into some scrapes with dangerous pirates right in the midst of when the topic became relevant to the western world, especially with the hostage situation involving Captain Phillips.

This movie reminded me a lot of the Tina Fey movie, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. There are a lot of similarities. The movie centers on a journalist who has no experience in international journalism. In both movies they go and live in a very dangerous place where not a lot of reporters are. They both get in with corrupt leaders, they both meet with warlords and dangerous people. They both shoot AK-47s with those dangerous people. They both get in too deep with drugs or alcohol. They both put their translator and those helping them at risk, for the sake of getting the story and there is a part of just for the thrill that is a part of the story. And both movies have some comedic elements to offset the really dangerous environment these journalists find themselves in.

But whereas Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was really good with balancing the comedy, the pacing, and the intense moments. The Pirates of Somalia is a bit of a drag at some points. There are a lot of points in the movie where I dozed off and had to rewind, or I just wasn't interested in what was going on. Which is a shame because I think this movie does a lot of things right.

The majority of the characters I believe are Somalian actors and they do a really good job. You'll remember Barkhad Abdi from Captain Phillips and he's probably the best part of the film. I really think people need to start utilizing him in more roles then just the guy from Somalia.

The topic is really interesting too. I'm a student of international relations and politics and as the movie points out, not a whole lot is known about Somalian pirates, and even less was known about them in 2009. This movie does hit on some really interesting topics and I did enjoy a lot of parts about the film.

I think one of the issues I had with the film was Evan Peters. I was so lukewarm on his performance because, like the film, there are parts about it that work and there are parts about it that really didn't work.

Evan Peters has this very young look. I think this really works for the film because the point of the film is that Jay is a really young guy with no experience being thrown into this crazy scenario. I think that worked. Even with his obviously fake beard and long hair wig, he still looks incredibly young. Even the characters choices sometimes work.

They play Jay off as his really eccentric free thinker. Maybe is like that in real life, but especially at the beginning he's talking all this hipster BS about how he's fighting the machine or something like that. A part of me thought it worked because again, he's a young kid with no experience and it's better than having him be a super generic white dude in a movie where he's already gonna stand out.

But this often made the character not really that relatable in a scenario that I think a lot of young people (myself included) would find very relatable. I think a lot of people want to just say screw it and go off and do something crazy like this guy does in this film. The end message of the film does kind of work against that idea though as the movie is trying to send the message of greater understanding and less interference with a place like Somalia. So unfortunately, the movie is put in a weird position of having this character be super eccentric and sometimes unlikeable, but also avoiding a white crusader or privileged vibe to him.

Again, it's not bad, just a little uneven at times. Oh... and I really hated his beard and clearly a wig he wore for the latter half of the movie.

I think the biggest issue of this movie is just the pacing. It's an interesting story and it actually made me want to go out and read the book and do more research on this guy Jay Bahadur and Somalia as a whole.

But the movie just didn't feel like it had enough backing behind it. It felt very low budget with a premise that seemed like it needed a bigger budget and a little more Oompf to it.

I felt like they were going for a comedic style or just a stylistic approach in general that got lost in the mix somewhere.

The movie gets really cerebral at times for really odd reasons. It cuts to these animated shorts or trippy imagery that isn't real but that help explain (sorta) the situation in Somalia with these pirates or what's going on in Jay's mind at the moment. Sometimes it's when Jay is dreaming, sometimes it's when he's high, but other times, there is no reason and its just trippy and cerebral for the sake of being trippy and cerebral. But it feels very uneven.

Overall, I think The Pirates of Somalia had a really interesting story and topic to cover and it just didn't quite hit the mark as much as it should have. I don't feel too strongly about it to say you should openly avoid this one, but I also don't think it's one you need to go out of your way to look into. It's a fine movie but there's probably a reason you've never heard of it.

But those are my thoughts on The Pirates of Somalia. What did you think of 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.

Thanks for reading!

Mission Impossible: Fallout

I believe there are two eras of Mission Impossible films. The same way Fast and the Furious started a new era where the franchise wasn't about car racing anymore, it was a heist film, Mission Impossible went from an adaptation of an old TV series nobody has ever watched trying to find its identity, to the Fast and the Furious of high level espionage films. I believe the first era is the first three movies. They vary in their quality from low key but smart with the first one, over the top John Woo stupid fun with the second one, and the forerunner that struggled to be memorable with the third. The second era are 4-6 where the movies are fun, suspenseful, and a great time when you're in it, but for me personally, those latter films didn't leave the impact the first three did even though they're probably better films. It's difficult to explain, but I remember far more about the first three films more than I have about the latter three.

Mission Impossible: Fallout continues the high intensity espionage chronicles of Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise), an agent with the shadowy Impossible Mission Force (IMF). His mission (should he choose to accept it) is to find three nuclear bombs that a terrorist organization called The Apostles has planned to set off around the world. There's a long backstory about the Apostles that has something to do with the Syndicate and the villain from the first movie (played by Sean Harris) from the first movie, and how they're related to a broker that goes by White Widow (played by Vanessa Kirby) and I'm gonna be honest, I only sort of paid attention during that part. Bad guys are trying to make bombs, good guys need to stop them, that's really all you need to know.

It's funny because one of the only things I remember from the previous two movies (and even the third one too) is that the government doesn't trust Ethan Hunt. But this time, they send a guy from the CIA to help and oversee Ethan by the name of Agent Walker (played by Henry Cavill).

And I do have to pause for a second to point out something kind of comedic. Mission Impossible has never been a love story. He's had love interests, he's bedded women before, but it's not vital to the story the way it is for James Bond. There are like two (arguably three if you count Michelle Monaghan, and I'll get to her) women that Ethan has this sexual tension with, but I don't know if any of those relationships even came close to the sexual tension I saw between Tom Cruise and Henry Cavill. In another movie, the bickering back and forth and competition these two have would have turned this movie into a romantic comedy. Again, different movie, different time.

The movie follows a very similar formula if you've seen the previous ones. Ethan and his team made up of Benji (played by Simon Pegg) Luther (played by Ving Rhames) and whatever female they have for the movie come together to investigate, spy on, and ultimately take down the terrorist or bad guy trying to inflict terror onto the world with an evil plot.

The slight differences in this movie is that Henry Cavill is in it and he plays a significant role as he is a check on Ethan Hunt. And Rebecca Ferguson reprises her role as Isla Faust, and once again, she's probably one of the better parts of the film. Rivalries form, its a lot of spy vs spy. And it's a lot of fun. 

And while I'm describing the characters and plots as pretty generic, I don't necessarily mean that as a bad thing. I've just come to the revelation that Mission Impossible is the Marvel of espionage spy thrillers. Every couple of years, we get a by the numbers spy thriller with a likable hero who is the best of the best, but untrusted by his organization. He's surrounded by loyal side characters who provide some comedic levity to the dire mission they're embarking on, and a woman with a backstory you'll care about more than the others. There's also another guy, maybe he's Jeremy Renner, maybe he's Henry Cavill, but he doesn't trust the hero. At one point, the hero will face off with this rival. In the case of Fallout, he'll have some probably unintentional sexual tension (am I the only one who saw this?). Suspense will happen, really cool stunts that Tom Cruise did himself will occur, some humor is thrown in there for good measure, and you have yourself an entertaining film. Oh and Alec Baldwin is in it for some reason and its still weird.

If you read my review of Rogue Nation, I'm realizing a lot of the same notes I had on that movie carry over to Fallout. I still thought Rebecca Ferguson was probably the most interesting part of the movie and would probably watch a movie about her over any of these Mission Impossible movies. I still think it's weird that Alec Baldwin was in this film. I guess a difference is that I thought that Simon Pegg was a little less funny than I remember him being but he's still a lot of fun.

I should mention a disclaimer with my viewing experience of this film. I had just finished watching The Punisher which is a much more realistic gritty look at the espionage military genre. Mission Impossible is a little more commercial and clean. That shouldn't take away from my opinion of this movie as they really are different, one being a war drama and the other being a James Bond-esc spy thriller, but if it feels like I didn't enjoy this movie as much, that probably has something to do with it.

Mission Impossible films are spectacles. They're opportunities for Tom Cruise to go around the world and run, A LOT. They have their double crosses, their twists, but this one just frankly didn't get me. I think they could have been done a little bit better.

I will say that I loved the action, the stunts, and the ending was actually pretty suspenseful. And the music was extraordinary. I had moments where I stopped and just listened to the music it was that good.

This movie is by no means bad, I'm just pretty sure it's going to fall into the same category that Rogue Nation and Ghost Protocol did. They were really entertaining but I'm not going to remember a whole lot about it in a couple weeks. I watched it yesterday and I'm still already forgetting some stuff.

Ethan Hunt isn't really a deep character. They kind of delve in a little bit into his relationship with his ex-wife (played by Michelle Monaghan) but I felt like at the end of it all, she was really in this movie just to give closure so he can be with Rebecca Ferguson if they're able to score her for the next film. The villains are not entirely memorable, and these movies have more just become the Tom Cruise stunt show. Again, I'm not saying its bad. The Tom Cruise Stunt Show is an entertaining show. But let's not pretend these are ground breaking films.

I really shouldn't be this salty. This is a movie you're going to have fun with and more thought is put into it than other movie franchises. If you're a fan of by the number spy thrillers that are totally serviceable and entertaining, you're going to have a good time with Mission Impossible: Fallout. I'm happy with the fact that I checked this movie out and I can discuss the phenomena that is Mission Impossible, because in reality, there's no reason why this movie is on its 6th film and probably will have a sequel. But hey, you could probably say the same about The Fast and the Furious and I think these two franchises are very similar to one another.

But those are my thoughts on Mission Impossible: Fallout. 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 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.

Thanks for reading!