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 was doing alright going my entire life having not seen Men in Black. It's not like I had anything against this film, I was just okay having not seen it. But then again, that's not true because when it came on Netflix I kept on seeing it and it was reminder that this movie was a moderate successful film that a lot of people remember and I had never seen it. So I decided to finally watch it, don't worry everyone, my movie watching experience is one step closer to being complete.
Men in Black follows the story of James (played by Will Smith), a detective with the NYPD. He finds himself in pursuit of a criminal who he notices some strange things about him that are quite alien. From that experience he is recruited by a mysterious man in a black suit by the name of Agent K (played by Tommy Lee Jones), to join a mysterious organization known as MIB.
The two of them become an unlikely (therefore likely) buddy cop duo because K is a old Tommy Lee Jones like curmudgeon, and James, who eventually is renamed as Agent J, is a hip and happening Will Smith like character with all the one liners and Will Smith smack talk monologues you could ask for.
They start their partnership by investigating the movement and potential crimes committed by aliens who have secretly been living among us since the 60s.
There is a main plot line following the diabolic plan of an alien who body snatches the form of Vincent D'Onofrio and his scheming to start a war against another alien race right here on Earth but I'll be totally honest, D'Onofrio's character is really unremarkable as is the rest of this movie.
There is also a female character that I suppose seemed like a love interest for J at one point in the film but the truth is, she really didn't add much to the film at all. She's played by Linda Fiorentino but really, she could have been written out of the movie and not a whole lot would have changed.
The movie is by no means bad. I really like both Jones's and Smith's character and while they're pretty much just playing themselves, I had fun with them.
I'm also sure that in 1997, this movie looked really good with the combination of visual and computer generated effects. But over ten years later, it's really nothing special.
The truth is that while the story is unique and fun, there is nothing truly remarkable about the film to make me really remember it. I really don't think I'll feel like my movie going experience has changed much after watching this film and I guess I expected it to at least a little bit.
What I've gathered about the historical context of this movie was that this movie came out at a time where summer movies were not nearly as popular or as good as they are now and this movie seemed to be an exception to that rule. I think a lot of people have nostalgic memories of this film because it was so clever in a breath of fresh air in a year where the second most popular movie was Jurassic World, The Lost World. This was also the year of Batman and Robin so I get it, there's a reason this movie seemed like a breath of fresh air and I will give it the credit its due for bucking trends in a time where movies just weren't as great as they are now.
Overall, the same way I didn't feel as though I was really missing anything by having not watched Men in Black, I find myself in a very similar situation where I don't feel like I've really gained anything by watching it. I guess I can now say I've seen it and I have some credibility when I talk about it, but the film has not really aged very well and seems very much like a product of the 90s.
Sony owns the rights to Men in Black and they have talked about rebooting the franchise, because everything gets rebooted these days. There was a rumor for a little bit of time to have a crossover between Men in Black and 21 Jump Street and I can really only give a confused look and voice my still confused curiosity.
Does these two franchise fit at all? No. Is there any real good reason to have them crossover? No not really. But oddly enough, I'm curious to see what could happen, especially now that I've seen both movies. Now I have read that this crossover is probably not going to happen and it was more of an idea being thrown around at Sony that got leaked from the hack back in 2014. But honestly this sounds more interesting than just rebooting the franchise. I don't think it's really worth putting the money into to just recreate what was already mediocre.
But overall, I liked Men in Black, it just wasn't all that remarkable. What do 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. Apparently there was something else that came out of the Men in Black series besides two other films and that was the Men in Black animated television show. I personally have not watched it but here's the intro in case you were curious. Enjoy!
So I originally had the plan to go see Black Panther again tonight. However, plans changed and I decided to check out Peter Rabbit.
Now I went into this movie not really knowing much about it. I assumed it was a kids film but the kind that really target the kid audience, not like the Pixar movies where it's a film for everyone (I was partly right on that) and I figured it was probably gonna get an "AWWW!" out of me, because... well yeah... I mean look at these guys.
I mean... c'mon! They're adorable.
The only other thing I had heard about this film was a slight controversy about how some parents got angry because they thought there were scenes about allergy bullying. I can tell you now, those parents are overreacting and the part with the allergies in question is no more funny or mean spirited (and this movie is not mean spirited) as the rest of the movie so it's a wash.
Peter Rabbit follows the story of the title character (voiced by James Corden). He, his sisters, Flopsy (voiced by Margot Robbie), Mopsy (voiced by Elizabeth Debicki), and Cottontail (voiced by Daisey Ridley), and their cousin Benjamin (voiced by Colin Moody) are always trying to steal the produce out of Mr. McGregors garden (played by Sam Neil). The movie serves as a pseudo sequel to the storybook, The Tale of Peter Rabbit where it tells the similar tale that Peter's father was caught and baked into a pie by Mr Mcgregor.
But when Mr. Mcgregor unexpectedly dies of a heart attack, Peter, his family, and all the animals of the surrounding country side have a celebration. That is until Mcgregor's estranged great nephew, Thomas Mcgregor (played by Domhnall Gleason) arrives to clean up the house and sell it so he can buy his own toy shop and rub it in the faces of his old employers who stiffed him on a promotion.
The movie becomes your typical cat and mouse chase movie where McGregor comes up with a scheme to catch Peter, Peter comes up with a scheme to embarass or straight up hurt McGregor, slapstick and hilarity ensues.
The "twist" in this film is that McGregor isn't all that horrible of a guy and while in the country he starts to enjoy his time there and becomes infatuated with the nice neighbor, Bea (played by Rose Byrne) who always looked after the rabbits and got them out of trouble with the old Mr. McGregor. So on top of the cat and mouse game between Peter and Mcgregor, they are both vying for her affection and the movie adds some of the typical romantic comedy tropes into the mix.
Overall, I think the voice acting in this movie is pretty fun and along with the animation that I really enjoyed, I can say that James Corden, Daisy Ridley, and a lot of the other (almost totally British) members of the cast did a pretty good job with this film.
So what's the issue?
I haven't seen The Chipmunk movies...
They look awful...
But I assume when you hear the plot of this movie, you can't help but feel like Peter Rabbit is something like that movie, or the Smurf movie. It feels like one of those kids movies where a somewhat famous actor has to deal with the hijinks of a bunch of CGI animal characters and it's supposed to be funny and I guess a little bit cute with some fart jokes, and just a lot of movement to keep the kids occupied.
And yes, there are parts of this movie that feel a little bit of how I imagine the Chipmunks or The Smurfs would be.
The story is pretty simplistic, there is a lot of immature humor, there are a lot of pop culture references that oddly enough kids will not know, and the entire movie is populated by the popular songs of the day for no real apparent reason than to get kids up and dancing to the kid friendly versions of the songs they may or may not be able to hear on the radio.
However, there are a couple of elements of this film that made it feel just a little bit different. First off, the animation is actually really spectacular. Sure none of it felt like there were actually rabbits there, but the way they moved and the tendencies of them even though they talked was actually pretty well done and definitely wasn't pushed off as a lower priority.
The other aspect of this film that felt a little bit different was how clever it was.
For as many slapstick jokes and buttcrack jokes there were, there was a lot of really smart jokes and a lot of references that might go over kids heads. And as much as this was a movie for kids, it gave off a little bit of that feeling that this was a movie that everyone would enjoy, not just kids.
Another aspect of the film was the pace. It actually had a more thought out and methodical pace that I wouldn't expect for most kids movies. In fact the kids behind us got a little bored of the film about two thirds the way through and got really antsy while my parents and I were enjoying almost every minute of the movie. So it's a little bit of a mixed bag. It's not totally a movie for kids and it's not totally a movie for adults. Enjoyable but a little bit uneven.
I will say, no matter if it's Ted or Peter Rabbit, there is something absolutely hilarious about a grown man full out fighting a CGI furry creature of whatever sort. There is a scene with Peter and Thomas that I was laughing really hard at and it was just these two beating the crap out of one another.
And speaking of Domhnall Gleason, he and Rose Byrne actually give a halfway decent performance in a movie they could have easily phoned in. I like both these actors and their relationship on screen on top of the just down right cuteness of the rabbits just made me take notice of the amount of heart this movie had. I do think at least some care and effort was put into this movie and regardless of the cheaper moments, I really came out of it having enjoyed myself.
Is Peter Rabbit going to be the best animated movie of the year? Not by a long shot. I can't totally say I will remember that I saw it to be honest in a couple of months. But if it ever is on TV again or on Netflix, I might have a watch and enjoy some of the comedy and clever lines. In my opinion, (and I feel like I'm going to offend some people who own rabbits) but it's very much like owning a rabbit. It's so cute and it makes your heart warm at times so it's great if you get to hold one and pet one from time to time, if you have a kid who is not too young that you feel could enjoy the experience I would recommend you bring them along as they might enjoy it too, but I wouldn't want to own it, just because there are some definite downfalls. (I've never really owned a rabbit so I have no idea, I'm just assuming)
But have you seen Peter Rabbit? What did you think? I personally think this movie is a little bit of a higher brow Chipmunks movie? Do you agree? 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 personally like James Corden but I understand why some people wouldn't. Well of course he did a bit about it on his late night show. Enjoy!
I feel as though it has been a while since I've written a review for a film the same weekend it came out, much less the day it came out. 2017 was a busy year that didn't really allow me to get out to get out to see all the movies I wanted to see at the time I wanted to see them and maybe this might be the sign that things are about to change. That being said, would I really miss a Marvel movie?
Black Panther is a film that a lot of people have been looking forward to ever since Chadwick Boseman appeared as Prince T'Challa in Captain America Civil War. I have been excited about it, but for one reason or another, the hype for this movie has been huge for the past few months. I guess that's partly the reason I felt the need to get this review out so quickly.
Black Panther follows the story of Prince T'Challa, not long after the events of Captain America: Civil War where his father, T'Chaka (played by John Kani) was assassinated. T'Challa is returning home to his home country of Wakanda in the middle of Africa where he goes through the ritual to officially become king and officially become the Black Panther.
Something that is made clear in the opening montage of the film is that Wakanda is a country in Africa that centuries ago was hit by an asteroid of vibranium (the same material that Captain America's shield was made out of). Since then, the Wakandans have used their supply of vibranium to create a technologically advanced civilization well beyond the modern world with their king and Black Panther, as the protector and ruler of the realm. They have remained secret for centuries, living peacefully with 5 Wakandan tribes living within the country.
And that was the first thing that really hit my interest in this film. T'Challa comes home and Wakanda is divided into 5 tribes. The dynamic between those five tribes throughout the film is very much like Game of Thrones in a way except in a non-western kind of way. A big element of this film is just the politics of the King of Wakanda being a masked superhero. So while this is a superhero film technically, it doesn't feel that way and it's one of the ways Black Panther sets itself apart.
The main conflict of the film is that T'Challa becomes King and wants to find an adversary that had dodged his father for years, an arms dealer by the name of Uylsses Klaue (played by Andy Serkis).
If you remember, Klaue played a minor role in Avengers: Age of Ultron and returns for this movie in a role that Andy Serkis does a really good job on.
The last bit of plot that is important is that Klaue is also working with a mysterious man who goes by the name Killmonger (played by Michael B Jordan) who I will talk about more later.
One of the things really going for this movie is the cast. While this movie is not the first superhero movie to center on a black superhero, it is one of the film superhero movies with a large budget that centers on a predominantly black cast. Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman, reprising his role as Agent Everett Ross from Captain America Civil War are really the only two white characters in the movie, the rest of the movie centers on really talented people of color and they pull out all the stops.
Of course you have Chadwick Boseman and Michael B Jordan who are great in this film, but then you have Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, a spy for Wakanda. Danai Gurria (Michonne from The Walking Dead) plays T'Challa's general and bodyguard Okoye. Daniel Kaluuya plays W'Kabi, a warrior from another tribe in Wakanda. Angela Bassett plays T'Challa's mother Ramonda. Letitia Wright plays T'Challa's sister Shuri in a very comedic role that I loved. And Forrest Whittaker played a tribal elder by the name of Zuri.
Like I said, lots of powerhouse actors and they're all used very well. Not all of them have the same amount of screen time but they don't steal the show regardless of how big name of an actor they are. Angela Bassett is really good but she plays her part very well and plays within the confines of the story. Everybody gets their time to shine and everybody plays to the larger purpose which is the story.
All of this is led by a director who has not had a bad movie yet, Ryan Coogler. This will only be his third movie he has directed but it continues a streak of just being quality work. I absolutely loved Ryan Coogler's work on Creed and Fruitvale Station and there's no denying that the guy is a very talented director. Honestly, I hope this movie does extremely well for the sole purpose of putting Coogler's name on every person's wish list, and that's if Creed didn't do that already.
The funny part was that in one of the first scenes, I felt the same adrenaline rush I did when I watched Creed and I was immediately reminded that this was Ryan Coogler directing. The action in this movie is solid and the performances are directed so well. I can't think of anybody that would have been a better choice to direct this film.
Coogler is also someone who I would expect to make his own film and not be easily forced into making Marvel's movie. And that is true, for the most part.
One of these days I want to create a list of things that make a MCU movie feel like a "boring ass Marvel movies", you know, the formulaic choices that every Marvel movie does now that makes me all cynical. The big things I can think of at this moment is when they stop the movie midway to do a commercial or teaser for a future film. That didn't happen in this film. There is a teaser for a future film in the last end credits scene but that's where it should be.
This movie didn't feel formulaic at all, it didn't feel like you're run of the mill superhero film, it felt like an African political thriller in the same vein of Game of Thrones. The characters with big name actors attached to them, for the most part, didn't feel like they were just there to get Marvel off their back, or just to be throw away characters (again, for the most part, more in my spoilers review).
Now don't get me wrong, there are a couple of moments where you see the Marvel beast fighting its way out, but they were in small ways and more in ways that I already knew were going to happen. This isn't a spoiler, but Black Panther is in Infinity War. This kind of comes with the territory of having a multiple movie franchise with characters from one movie crossing over into another, things are going to be spoiled. So in that way, I wish this movie had just been a standalone film, or I hadn't seen anything about Black Panther in the Infinity War movie because unfortunately, I know who is safe in this movie.
And the oddest thing about the way this movie wasn't your run of the mill Marvel movie was the movies development of the main character.
Traditionally, Marvel movies have focused heavily on their main hero and kind of thrown the villains to the wayside. However, oddly enough the biggest issue I had with this movie was how T'Challa was not written that strongly and was often overshadowed by other characters in the film, especially the villains, and especially Michael B Jordan's character.
Now Chadwick Boseman is such a strong actor that he pulls through this movie with spades regardless, but I'm going to be honest, T'Challa is actually one of the most underdeveloped heroes I've seen in a Marvel movie for a while.
Maybe it's because he had a revenge storyline and a lot of his character development came from Captain America: Civil War, but it didn't really feel like T'Challa changed that much during this film, at least not on a personal level. He becomes King at the beginning of the film and people are generally cool with it throughout the film. There's not much of a development of his character which is unfortunate. Boseman is surrounded by really talented actors who keep up with him acting-wise, but are often written better than him. The best analogy I can think of is Christian Bale's Batman in The Dark Knight. Throughout this film, T'Challa is very much like an African Batman who is also the King of this African country and the spotlight automatically goes to people around him, especially his villains.
And this is really unlike other Marvel movies, the villains are actually better written and more interesting than the main hero. Andy Serkis's character, Klaue is insane and I actually wish they would have utilized him more, but Michael B Jordan is where this movie gets really good because Killmonger is the very antithesis of all Marvel villains.
He's one of those villains where you understand where he's coming from and if the circumstances were different, you could almost see yourself rooting for him instead of the hero. In many ways, he's not wrong in his grievances and issues, but the way he goes about it is wrong. He definitely will go down as one of, if not the best Marvel villain from the movies.
I will talk A LOT more about Michael B Jordan's character in my spoilers review because there is a lot to talk about with him, but that is the main gripe I have with this movie, that the hero just wasn't developed enough and while the movie wraps up nice and neatly because it's a Marvel movie, had it not been one, I think this movie could have had a different ending and been a lot stronger of a film.
The only other "critique" I will say about this movie is that there are some politically charged messages in the subtext. It's not too overbearing and I don't think it'll take too much away from the film especially if you've got a least a little bit of thick skin, however, the problem I have with it is that it does date the film. There are a couple of moments in this movie that will remind me it came out in 2018 and making a statement on political issues of this day and age instead of a larger picture. It's not bad, just noticeable.
I think that's kind of where I'm going to close this review out. Overall, Black Panther stands out among the run of the mill Marvel movies. I don't remember having this strong of feelings about a Marvel film since Captain America: The Winter Soldier and that still stands out as probably the best Marvel movie in my opinion. One day I'll go back and re-watch all 16, 17, 29, however many Marvel movies there are and decide my top 5, but I do think Black Panther, with some time to let it settle, will probably end up being one of the best MCU movies out there. Give it time.
But those are my thoughts on Black Panther. What did you think? Where does it rank among your favorite Marvel movies? What did you think of that cast? 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 a lot of people have been talking about the Kendrick Lamar album for this film. I still need to check that out, but I loved the soundtrack for this film and the end of the review always seems to be the right place to feature a soundtrack, especially when it is solid like this film. Enjoy!
Something I am really appreciating about Netflix these days is that they are putting at least a portion of their money into developing really interesting and original science fiction stories. Stranger Things of course is their big money maker but then you have shows like Black Mirror, The OA, Bright, and Altered Carbon that have had varying results. But the thing I like about all these titles is that while some of them are good, some of them are bad, and some of them are somewhere in between, they are doing something different and creative. And that is something I have to remind myself when examining my thoughts on The Discovery.
The Discovery takes place in a world where scientists have discovered that when we die, a part of us leaves this plane of reality. It is titled, The Discovery and it is explored by a scientist named Thomas Harbor (played by Robert Redford). His theory suggests that when we die, a part of us, potentially the soul, leaves our bodies and goes somewhere. They don't know where but it is determined as proof that when we die, there is a place we go after.
This of course sends the world into chaos as people believe that if they commit suicide, they have proof they will go somewhere and belief fills in the blanks. People believe they will go to a better place if they die and the number of suicides go up dramatically.
The story mainly follows Thomas Harbor's son, Will (played by Jason Segal) as he goes to see his father right as he and Thomas Harbor's cult-like organization is on the cusp of a new discovery.
Will meets a woman by the name of Isla (played by Rooney Mara) and the two of them develop a romance while delving into what happens and where they go when they die.
The result is an interesting science fiction story with some decent performances that ultimately falls a little bit flat with its execution.
This is a tough movie to review because the truth is, I was interested in a lot of what was going on throughout the entire film. The whole concept is fascinating and the way they go about exploring the concept is pretty interesting, but at the end of the movie it seems like they were going for an emotional response and there are just a couple of things taking me out of that emotional feeling.
That is mainly shown in the relationship between Segal and Rooney's characters. I really only know Jason Segal from comedies, How I Met Your Mother and I Love You Man. And I love him in those movies and I think he's a good actor, but it was weird seeing him in this very straight serious role.
Rooney Mara is a good actress and the two of them individually do a good job in the film. But while the relationship they develop is okay, it isn't strong enough, or given enough time to really make me feel as though it earned the emotional ending this movie had. This movie is described as a romantic science fiction film but it doesn't seem to get the romance part totally right. It does the science fiction parts right but the romance falls short.
And unfortunately with a plot that involves mass numbers of people committing suicide, the subject matter doesn't really make for a light film at all. The majority of the film is in overcast and dreary tones so it might feel like this is just a downer of a film because a lot of it is. There are a couple of moments that are supposed to be a little comedic but while everyone is doing a good job with their performance, it is pretty sorrowful and dower throughout the film.
The science fiction elements are good, however, you can tell this movie was on a bit of a budget. A lot of the cool science fiction stuff is masked by discussions about the theoretical, but you don't see the results of those theories very much and when you finally do, it ends up being a little bit confusing.
Luckily the science fiction elements, at least talking about it, does cover up the dower mood of the movie and does carry us along enough for it to be entertaining. I feel like if there was a bigger budget, we might be able to see some cool visuals or at least do more with the concept of the after life or wherever someone goes after they die, but as it is, it leaves the audience wanting a little bit more.
I don't regret watching The Discovery. There are a lot of cool ideas and the individual performances were at worst, passable. Robert Redford of course is the veteran in this movie and he does a decent enough job as the father figure who is entrenched in his research. Jesse Plemmons, or as I have jokingly referred to him as, Budget Matt Damon, plays Will's brother Toby and he does a good job in the film.
Overall, I can't say I wholeheartedly recommend this movie. In many ways it reminds me of The OA. It has a concept that is really interesting and they address it a little bit to keep me interested, but where The OA had bad performances and bad overall execution, The Discovery just lacks that momentum, chemistry, and the budget to really escalate it into a movie that's worth your time. If you like science fiction movies, especially those from Netflix, you might enjoy this film, otherwise, it's probably one you can skip. You won't be missing anything huge if you skip The Discovery.
But those are my thoughts on The Discovery. Have you seen it? 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. Robert Redford came on the Today show and talked about The Discovery. Enjoy!
I am not a huge fan of subtitles. If I've learned anything from the first season of Narcos its that you shouldn't let subtitles scare you or turn you off of a show and I think I knew that before I went into it, but it didn't really set in until I was about 5 episodes in and loving it. I'll talk more about the subtitles because it is a huge element of the show, but the reason I'm just getting finishing the first season of Narcos is because of the subtitles that I didn't want to read. But now that I have finished it, let's talk Narcos Season 1.
The first season of Narcos follows the true story of Pablo Escobar (played in this series by Wagner Moura). For a good part of the 80s, Pablo Escobar was enemy number one for the United States when it came to the war on drugs. The show begins at the start of his drug production and distribution career in Colombia, and the real life DEA agents that dedicated much of their lives to tracking him down, Javier Pena and Steve Murphy (played by Pedro Pascal and Boyd Holbrook).
The interesting thing about this show is that it delves into a part of history that, I'll be honest, I'm not really aware of. I think it's coming to a time when a lot of the information about the war on drugs in the 80s is becoming declassified and enough of the people involved are dead so it's okay to talk about things like this now, but while I had heard about Pablo Escobar, I didn't know much about him. On one hand, Narcos is a really interesting history lesson on the war on drugs and the lengths that both these drug cartels, AND the government officials, including DEA agents were willing to do to combat one another. In the case of Escobar, the things he did to gain power and the things he did to avoid capture, and in the case of the DEA, the things they were willing to do to investigate his crimes and the lines they were willing to cross to do what they perceived was the right thing.
And that's where the dramatization comes in. Now I don't know how much of it is true, how much of it is dramatized and while the show does do a really good job at filling giving interesting history lessons without it feeling like a documentary, I imagine that a lot of the show is hyperbole in order to create entertainment.
In my opinion, it does take a few episodes to get used to the format. The subtitles were a big blocker with this show, but after watching the first two episodes, the other hurdle I had to get over was the fact that I was learning a lot with this show. And I mean that in a good way. While there is a lot in this show that is probably dramatized, there is probably a lot that is true and fascinating. Just coming to that understanding and getting used to the format does take a few episodes but when you're used to it the show had both interesting historic facts and really good drama. The three characters I've mentioned so far are characters that are consistent across the board and they are really good at their performance. I got invested in the characters of Steve Murphy and Javier Pena. It's not until later on in the show that you start to see some of the consequences of their choices take effect on them and their personal life and they are interesting character studies.
But then there's the performance of Wagner Moura as Pablo Escobar and I have to give him a hand, he is a powerhouse.
From the beginning, you know that this guy is not a good guy at all. He does really horrible things, and he's not a good guy. And yet, as the season goes on he oddly has more scenes where I feel oddly sympathetic towards him as he's dealing with the things in front of him. He's the kind of antagonist that you understand what could maybe drive him to the lengths he goes because there is a very personal narrative being told, and yet he only continues to be this menacing figure who you have no idea how he's going to react to a particular situation. Is he going to hug you or beat you over the head with a pool cue...
Those are the villains that I love the most and that's where the intriguing format comes in. A lot of this is based off of real life accounts. A couple of months ago I watched The Infiltrator with Bryan Cranston and it seems like there were so many characters and personalities in this saga that was the war on drugs in South America.
Another thing that people might like about this show is the politics and Game of Thrones-like scheming that happens among Escobar and other players. There are a lot of really great actors playing drug dealers and cartel leaders who most people will have absolutely no idea who they are unless they study law enforcement and the war on drugs, however, there is a little bit of a politics battle going on throughout as Escobar both creates peace among drug dealers in Colombia and yet it is fragile and it is very much like Game of Thrones.
But what's even more interesting is how Escobar interacts with the politicians of Colombia, and the internal politics of the country during the 80's. Something I found very interesting was the lack of American politics mentioned in the show. They bring up the fact that Reagan starts the War on Drugs and they bring up the Just Say No campaign, however, the bigger focus is the internal politics of the Colombian government trying to deal with Pablo Escobar and the federal agencies like the DEA and CIA's affect on their decision making.
And this is where I actually started to appreciate the subtitles because it didn't feel like a problem that only affected America that we can easily perceive it as. This problem affected Colombia dramatically, probably more than the US, and it was fascinating seeing that perspective.
Again, I can't speak on accuracy on how that struggle was portrayed but I really appreciated it.
And that's where I'll start talking about the subtitles because that is something you really need to be aware of before going into Narcos.
98% of the show takes place in Colombia or Latin American countries. 98% of the people in those countries mainly spoke Spanish. There is a lot of English being spoken in the show, especially when the DEA agents are in the scene. However, about 60% of the show is in Spanish and requires non-fluent speakers like myself to read subtitles. It is a thing, so if you don't like subtitles, you need to be aware that you have to pay attention and read subtitles to enjoy this show.
However, one of the huge things I took away from that is that it required me to pay attention to what was going on on screen and once I got used to the subtitles, I saw the emotions and non-verbal choices made in the show. This sounds stupid and obvious, but the subtitles made me pay attention to the show more.
I think that when I watch TV shows that don't have subtitles I find it easier to focus on something else and get the jist of what's going on from what I hear. However, Narcos taught me that there is a lot going on screen that I need to pay attention to in order to enjoy the show to its fullest extent. So even if you don't like subtitles, I do recommend Narcos, and highly.
Put on top of the subtitles is the fact that the show is a bit of a slow burn, especially towards the beginning. A lot happens and it does take a lot of energy that most shows don't require of you.
But again, I do think it is worth it. The performances are one thing but just the historical drama that occurs really do make the show worth wild and probably one of the best shows on Netflix right now.
I think the cool thing about Netflix right now is that they are putting out so much original content that even if I wanted to do a list of the best shows on Netflix, it would be a long list of shows I would need to watch. I still might do a post some day soon just pointing out some of the best shows that are on Netflix right now and why they are extraordinary, but for now, I will say Narcos is a show you definitely should invest time into.
But those are my thoughts on Narcos Season 1. Have you watched it? What did you think? Is it worth the subtitles? 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. Like I said, it's been enough years that information has become unclassified and these stories can be told more. I've already mentioned The Infiltrator, but the Tom Cruise film, American Made is another example of a movie that is part of the War on Drugs in Latin American chronicles that I'm interested in checking out. You might see a review of this movie soon. Enjoy!
So here's my history with the Cloverfield franchise.
I watched the first one and almost immediately forgot about it. It wasn't bad, I just didn't care about it that much. Eventually I want to go back and rewatch it but all I really remember about it was that it was a Blair Witch Project-like Godzilla film. Overall, I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't think much of it after that.
Then 10 Cloverfield Lane comes out and suddenly I get intrigued. Not only is it a pretty well done movie, not only was the execution of the film secret and sudden, but the "connection" between these two films was very cerebral and left a lot of questions. Suddenly I was intrigued by the Cloverfield franchise and where they were going.
And then The Cloverfield Paradox was announced on the Superbowl, airing on Netflix immediately after the game. Now I had heard some rumblings a couple weeks before the Superbowl saying that the movie had been bought by Netflix, but I didn't read into it at all. Honestly I went in with a blank slate and unsure of what I was going to get. Was this going to be a true sequel? Was it going to connect the series at all? Was Cloverfield going to be the new Twilight zone? I don't know.
The Cloverfield Paradox takes place as the world is suffering from an energy crisis. The story centers on a crew of six scientists from around the world who have been sent into space on the Cloverfield Station to test the Shepard particle accelerator. They believe this accelerator will give them sufficient, renewable energy for the world.
But after one of the tests, something goes wrong and the crew needs to find a way to survive the effects of the accelerator and the location it takes them.
I don't want to spoil a lot because there is a lot of intriguing stuff going on in this movie and that's where I give a lot of the credit to the directors, writers, and producers. They start talking about different dimensions and play around with that concept and it is a lot of fun and intriguing.
But here's the thing, while I had a lot of fun with the directions they take the story, there are a lot of elements about this movie that never really get answered. I know JJ Abrams didn't direct this film, but it does have his footprint on it, especially when he brings these really great ideas and questions to the table but doesn't follow through correctly and the pay off is off.
I think Dane Cook said it correctly when he was talking about Lost, but it applies to JJ Abrams in general, "I HAVE 42 NEW QUESTIONS AND NO GOD DAMN ANSWERS" and there will be a couple of those moments in The Cloverfield Paradox.
But that being said, again, I'll mention that it does make sense that Netflix picked this up as there is a lot of science fiction elements that really make you think in this movie and it is a good time. For me, I think I could look past the plot holes and just forgotten plot elements because I really did have a good time with the story and those science fiction elements.
The cast is really great.
Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Ava Hamilton, the main-ish character of the movie and I don't know who's brilliant idea it was to start giving this gorgeous, very talented actress a lot of leading roles, but continue what you are doing because she is talented AF. I knew her first as the sister of Freema Agyeman's character in Doctor Who, but since she's been in a lot of really great TV and movies like Black Mirror and Beauty and the Beast and she's just an all around talented actress. She does a really good job in this film along with the rest of the cast.
David Oyelowo plays the American Captain, Daniel Bruhl plays a German astrophysicist, John Ortiz plays as Brazilian medic, Chris O'Dowd plays an Irish mechanic, Askel Hennie plays a Russian crew member, and Zhang Ziyi plays a Chinese scientist. They all do a good job.
There are some other characters like Ava's husband, Michael (played by Roger Davies) but the other roles are either insignificant or could ruin the plot so I'll leave it at that.
Overall, I enjoyed The Cloverfield Paradox, but not enough to say it was the best of the three Cloverfield movies or that it blew my mind or anything. It's fine. I think it does the science fiction, horror genre that Netflix is killing these days nicely, and it brought up some good ideas.
I don't think this movie needed to be as connected to the other Cloverfield movies as much as it was and if this movie hadn't been called Cloverfield, it would have been just fine. I think people went in with bigger expectations than necessary and of course, people were going to be disappointed when it didn't meet those expectations. I think people were waiting for some kind of mind blowing moment, but the reality is, that hasn't really happened with the other Cloverfield movies.
The first one didn't blow my mind, at least not when I first watched it and 10 Cloverfield Lane made me think for sure, but in all reality, a lot of the hype for Paradox came from speculation that we had built up from 10 Cloverfield Lane, probably the best film in the franchise.
If you haven't seen The Cloverfield Paradox yet, I do have one thing to say to you, leave all your expectations at the door. Whether you've seen the previous movies or not, just go into this movie with an open mind because there is a lot to enjoy. You're going to get a movie that has a lot of tastes of other movies like Alien, Black Mirror, etc in it, but it doesn't flow exactly as well as you'd like. There's also a lot to criticize and it is not a perfect movie by any means.
The fallout of this movie will be interesting because I'm not the only one who was underwhelmed by this movie. So if they want to make more Cloverfield movies, they need to decide what kind of direction they're heading with this film franchise. Is it going to be a Twilight Zone style film series or is it going to be a straight up monster science fiction franchise. I think they've got something really good but Abrams and the people he works with need to figure out where they want to go with it moving forward.
The other interesting fallout of this film is the fact that it was put on Netflix. Now people were really excited about it coming out on Netflix because it was a high budget science fiction film with a diverse cast. However, when the movie released, people couldn't help but feel like it wasn't quite good enough for theaters so streaming services was the obvious choice.
Here's my thoughts on that. I do think this could have come out in theaters and a lot of people would have gone to see it. I don't think it wasn't good enough for the theaters but it doesn't help that it wasn't that solid of a film.
I want to see more films go straight to streaming services but the weird thing is that the last two movies that I've watched that have done that have been this film and Bright, two films that were fine, but not two films I would put in theaters if it meant that they would be more popular on streaming service.
So I find myself in a conundrum because I do like the theater-going experience but at the same time if there are good movies that are sent directly to streaming service, and Beasts of No Nation is a good example of this, I want that to happen more. What I don't want is for Netflix and other streaming services to be the dumping grounds for mediocre to poor movies that couldn't make enough money in theaters. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
But those are my thoughts on The Cloverfield Paradox. What did you think? Was it overhyped? Was it torn apart unfairly? 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 on a totally unrelated note, there was a new teaser trailer for Venom and I'm gonna be honest, I was really underwhelmed by it because it showed absolutely nothing. I know that's kind of what teaser trailers do, but if I didn't know anything about Venom (which is basically the case) what am I supposed to be excited about in this film? Tom Hardy? Michelle Williams in a black turtleneck? Tom Hardy riding a motorcycle? I don't know! Enjoy!
So for some reason, I have never seen Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. I've heard a lot about it, know the references, the quotable lines from it, but never actually saw all of it in context and never knew what the story was about. Having seen it now, I'm conflicted. The part of me that comes out when I turn off my brain thought this movie was really entertaining, the logical side of me though, wow that was a really dumb flick. Which side won out in the end?
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective follows the titular character (played by Jim Carrey) who is, as the title suggests, a pet detective. Ace has an eccentric personality but he does care about animals and is, decent? at his job which is mainly if someone loses a pet, he's the one to call to find it.
So when the Miami Dolphins lose their mascot, a dolphin named Snowflake, Ace Ventura takes the case.
He is assisted by the publicist of the Miami Dolphins, Monica from Friends (Played by Courtney Cox, and yes the character has a name but I really never picked it up and honestly, it's Courtney Cox, it's not like it was nuanced character).
And the movie is your pretty standard mystery comedy as Ace follows the clues to find the dolphin-napper. It is pretty straight forward and not really anything that crazy beyond the character of Ace Ventura himself.
I've never been much for making videos (though I have thought about it) but if I were going to, I would want to play footage from this movie, but with the soundtrack and atmospheric tone of Nightcrawler or American Psycho because while Jim Carrey was creating a cartoon, in a live action movie I can't help but think that this guy is not just eccentric, he's insane.
In my mind you've got Patrick Bateman, the eccentric Wallstreet executive who is secretly a serial killer. Lou Bloom, the eccentric freelance journalist who is secretly a sociopath, and then you've got Ace Ventura, the eccentric pet detective who, well I don't know what he secretly is but based on this character that might be a rabbit hole I don't want to go down.
But as weird as Carrey plays him to a point where I get a little bit concerned, this is one of those roles Carrey had in the 90s where he just put his all into it and he was at the peak of his comedic prowess.
While I think everyone else was phoning this movie in because they knew it was just a dumb comedy with a ridiculous plot, Carrey just went nuts. This movie almost makes me want to watch the new Netflix documentary about Jim Carrey's portrayal of Andy Kaufman that everyone was pretty much confirmed that Carrey might be insane and then make a new documentary about Jim Carrey getting into this role because it is insane.
The physical comedy Carrey brings is irresistibly funny and while it does not really age well as a comedy, there is something really unique about his performance.
That being said I wouldn't say it's Carrey's best performance by a long shot. It's very rough and almost chaotic and when you get past just how weird it is, you start to realize that it's really not that different than the other performances Carrey gave in that decade and since.
Jim Carrey's success really came from his ability to do physical comedy, impressions, and just the limits he would go to make people laugh. The funny thing is, you can see all of the great elements of Carrey's performance in other movies with much better, more interesting stories.
His physical comedy and witty quips are better in How The Grinch Stole Christmas, his oddball characters are better in Dumb and Dumber and Bruce Almighty. Ace Ventura is certainly a unique character, but he's not a unique Jim Carrey character. I highly doubt I am going to remember much about the story of Ace Ventura and instead I'll just remember the lines and physical comedy, which I was kind of already tracking before I even saw the movie.
Overall, I honestly think you can skip Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. I think the funny lines and physical comedy that are memorable are enough on their own that you could probably be aware of them without actually seeing the movie and the reality is, the movie isn't that great. It's cheesy, poorly acted by everyone besides Carrey, and just doesn't age well. I mean I had no idea that this movie centered around the a connection with the Miami Dolphins and I'm sad to say it, but in a few years, I doubt new audiences of this movie will know who Dan Marino is.
But those are my quick thoughts on Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. There's really not a lot to say about this movie, plus I need to start writing my review for The Cloverfield Paradox. But what do you think? If you grew up with this movie, what makes it stick for you? 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'm convinced that Ryan Reynolds stole some of his inspiration for Deadpool from Ace Ventura. Ace Ventura is probably similar to what Jimmy Carrey would do if he eer got the role of Deadpool... except more obnoxious. Anyways, here's the new Deadpool trailer. Enjoy!
The year was 2005, the year prior had seen the epic conclusion to what is often considered the greatest trilogy of all time, The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson was on top of the world and could really do whatever he wanted. So what did he do? He remade King Kong.
I'm pretty sure King Kong was one of the first PG-13 movies that I ever went to by myself with some of my friends in the theaters. We absolutely loved Lord of the Rings and when we heard that Peter Jackson's next film was King Kong, there was nothing stopping us anymore from going out and seeing his new movie. Now I've never seen the 1933 original so you won't see any comparisons to that film here, but I do think I will be comparing my initial viewing to the viewing I had a couple of days ago, 13 years later. I've seen bits and pieces of this film a couple times since 2005, but I think a couple of days ago was the first time I sat down and watched this 3 HOUR LONG movie front to back with the same attention I had in that theater in 2005. I also found it interesting coming back to this movie after watching Kong Skull Island last July.
The movie mainly follows the story of a young actress by the name of Ann Darrow (played by Naomi Watts). Darrow is a performer in the midst of the Great Depression. She's down on her luck until she is approached by the quick witted, silver tongue movie producer, Carl Denham (played by Jack Black). He is in a hurry to get on a boat and start sailing across the Ocean to film a movie in exotic locations, and he needs a leading lady. So Denham, Darrow, and a boat full of other characters set sail. In the meantime, Denham has a map leading the boat towards a mysterious island he believes nobody has ever discovered before called Skull Island.
The boat is populated with both the crew of the movie and the crew of the ship. This includes Denham's assistant Preston (played by Colin Hanks), the Captain of the Ship, Englehorn (played by Thomas Kretschmann) the first mate Mr Hayes (played by Evan Parke) the cook (played by Andy Serkis), a young sailor named Jimmy (played by Jamie Bell), a self obsessed leading man actor (played by Kyle Chandler), and the writer of the script, Jack Driscoll (played by Adrien Brody).
The first act is mainly the crew coming together, setting sail, and finding the island while the audience gets to know these characters. But after that, they reach the fabled Skull Island.
There they find all sorts of dangers like giant bugs, cannibal natives, dinosaurs, and of course, the 25 foot tall gorilla, King Kong (motion captured by Andy Serkis).
In case you hadn't picked up, the second two hours of the movie, basically when they get onto the island and beyond, is where the movie really picks up and gets good.
They spend WAY too much time on the boat headed towards the island and WAY too much time focusing on characters that overall aren't that important.
The main characters you should really care about are Ann Darrow, Jack Driscoll, and Carl Denham. There are some good moments that come from the crew and the other cast members I mentioned before, but unfortunately in multiple cases, it really doesn't add up to much and it would have been more beneficial for the movie to develop the main characters more than focus on Jamie Bell and his relationship with the first mate. Again, not bad performances, but some of those story lines really don't go anywhere.
But what about Kong? How is he in this film?
Well, that's a loaded question. On one hand, the CGI and visual effects of the film were really great for 2005 and they had Jackson's fingerprints all over it, especially if you were a fan of his cinematography in Lord of the Rings. The guy really knows how to shoot large scale scenes and fill up a shot with a beautiful frame.
However, the CGI has not exactly aged well. Again, it's impressive considering where we were, but oddly enough, Kong didn't age as well as something else Jackson and Serkis did in the past, and that's Gollum. I feel kind of bad for Jackson because he really struck gold early on and everything is compared to that since, but Kong looks CGI now 13 years later. Still a beautiful film, but you can see it was made in 2005.
But the other aspect of the 25-foot tall gorilla is actually done really well, and this is something I don't think I noticed when I watched the film when it was first released.
There is a relationship between Ann Darrow and Kong. It is a confusing one, especially for younger viewers who might not understand it, but watching it now with a different lens from when I watched it at a young age, I can see a really touching relationship between two characters who never actually speak.
I mean I'll be totally honest, I got a little bit emotional towards the end having watched it in total completion. I don't know how Jackson managed to make me feel about a giant ape and his relationship with a woman, but he did it. Color me impressed.
While there are a couple of moments that make me scratch my head in this movie, multiple of them being moments between these two, when these two are on screen, I actually was pretty interested watching it a couple days ago as opposed to my teenage self who was more interested in everything that happened outside of these two bonding. That being said, the scenes with the rest of the crew trudging through the jungle of Skull Island is still pretty awesome.
Like I said, Peter Jackson knows scope. So when Adrian Brody, Jack Black, and the other crew members are facing down natives, running from a brontosaurus stampede, or fighting endless waves of giant bugs and slug monsters, it is pretty awesome to watch.
There are still some moments in this movie that were very suspenseful, there are still moments in this movie that are just down right disturbing, but they still maintain that sense of adventure and almost make the experience more worth while.
I've noticed this with Peter Jackson's adventure films like this and Lord of the Rings. I had moments in Lord of the Rings were I was terrified as a kid. The Orc spawning chamber scene is still really gross in my mind. The scene where crew members are being devoured slowly by slugs in this movie is still really disturbing, however, it makes for a really fun adventure film.
And then of course there is the awesome scene where King Kong takes on three T-Rex's. People rave about the scene in Jurassic World where the T-Rex takes on the Indominus Rex and it made one of the most bad ass monster fights scenes on film, but all those people forget about when Kong crushes the skull of a T-Rex with a rock. It's amazing.
Someone I actually came out of this movie really impressed with was Jack Black.
While the two roles couldn't be more different, Jack Black plays a very similar role that John Goodman was playing in Kong Skull Island. It's not very often you can say that Jack Black gave a better performance than John Goodman.
He has this intensity that both really fits with his off screen personality and the character. He's compelling and yet batshit insane as well. I remember not being very impressed with Black's performance and being a little distracted because this was also the same year I discovered Tenacious D. But 13 years later, I can't help but really be impressed with Black's performance and wish he had gotten a few more serious roles because of it.
And then there's Adrien Brody.
Let's just say Adrien Brody was a strange choice for this film. His character is a little bit odd and feels a bit out of place. He mainly feels like a love interest and yet trying to make the love interest a little more sensitive and not as gruff as the love interest had been in previous versions, including mainly the original 1933 King Kong.
But Brody is as boring as rocks in this movie. I think when I was a teenager I thought he was cool just being a guy going on an adventure like this and being the good guy, but now I see a character who really did not need to be in this movie at all.
So where does this movie stand now? Well it's kind of hard to say. There are little things that I noticed after watching this film that I think were a little bit sloppy and not done all that well overall. However, there were also a lot of really great moments that I really liked.
Something I really liked was just the way the movie was shot. Not only does it feel huge like a Lord of the Rings film or Titanic, but it also feels like it's paying homage to the movie it's remaking. It's a love letter to the cinema of the 1930s in a way I don't think a lot of people, including myself in 2005, understand.
The script for this film was masterfully done and it almost felt like a Shakespearean play instead of a big block buster movie.
But at the same time, when the blockbuster film qualities rear their head, they really do and it's a little bit distracting. There are a couple of slow motion shots that feel out of place and really only show up once or twice. You get great performances from Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Andy Serkis, but then you get Adrien Brody? It's somewhat of a mixed bag.
Now the movie leans towards being really good more than uneven but it does have its uneven moments.
When I first saw the film, it didn't really resonate with me, and I think subconsciously, I was aware of the uneven moments. But years later, I can't help but really appreciate a lot of what this movie has to offer.
In my mind, this and Kong Skull Island can hardly be compared because this is just so much better executed. Yes it has it's uneven moments, but at least people give a damn, at least the good moments make me care about this film as opposed to just waiting to see how its going to connect with the Godzilla movie that came out in 2014.
The only thing I will say Skull Island has over this film is that, King Kong should always be as big as he can. It's interesting watching this movie in retrospect after Skull Island because he just looks small compared to the other.
The other downfall of this movie in comparison with Skull Island is that this movie needs to be watched in a theater or on the biggest TV you can find just because it is such a large scale movie and not watching it on a big screen, would be a crime. I watched Kong Skull Island on a small TV on the back of someones chair in a plane and I was fine. This movie needs to be experienced, and Skull Island can just be somewhat enjoyed with some popcorn and maybe a beer.
Overall, it's not even a competition. This movie is better and I think it has been a highly underrated film since. This movie is on Netflix so I do recommend you carve out 3 hours to check it out. I guess that is another downfall as the first hour of this film is quite long and drawn out. But I still recommend checking it out.
But what do you think of King Kong? Do you remember the first time you watched it? What did you think then and what do you think now? 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. There are a couple of moments in this movie that are really fun to just watch individually and one of those is definitely the fight between Kong and the three T-Rexs. Enjoy!
