The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Believe it or not, I remember a time when Steve Carell wasn't a household name. He had appeared in a couple of shows and had small but hilarious roles in movies like Bruce Almighty and Anchorman. But then 2005 came along and suddenly Steve Carell would boost into one of the biggest names in comedy. First he was the star of a little comedy show that was based off a British television show called, The Office. And then in August he got his own movie to star in with a first time director named Judd Apatow.

While The 40 Year Old Virgin is not necessarily a movie full of firsts, it does feel like a jumping off point for a lot of people. Carell, Apatow, Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, even Kevin Hart has a small role in this movie along with a couple of actors who would go on to be really popular in The Office. So what made this movie such a starting off point for so many people?

The movie stars Steve Carell as a man named Andy Stitzer. Andy works at an electronics store and he is very socially awkward. He avoids social interaction, his house is full of nerdy memorabilia, and his co workers all think he's a serial killer.

His co workers, (played by Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, and Romany Malco) need another player for their poker game so they cautiously invite Andy.

During their poker game they start talking about their sexual encounters and it comes out that Andy has never had sex before. Suddenly all the pieces come together and his coworkers are no longer afraid of him and instead make it their goal to get Andy laid.

The fascinating thing I found about Andy's coworkers is that they, and other characters, all have their own view on sex. Romany Malco's character, Jay, is convinced that all Andy's problems will go away if he has sex, like that is the only thing. Seth Rogen, Cal, believes that not only should he have sex, but he should have the weirdest sex imaginable. Paul Rudd, David, who is still hung up on his ex, believes that Andy should find somebody he really cares about. The really funny thing about these guys is that the movie points out the fallacies in their arguments and the nature humor to their viewpoint.

I'll say it right off the bat, this movie actually tackles the topic of sex and virginity in a way that is very typical to Judd Apatow. There are a lot of really raunchy jokes. There's a lot of cursing, and a lot of juvenile humor... however, the movie does tackle the topic in a very real way and actually gives the character and situations a lot of heart.

Throughout the movie Andy shows interest in a woman by the name of Trish (played by Catherine Keener). They actually develop a relationship that could have easily been phoned in to make room for Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd making more jokes about how the other person is gay (definitely a thing that happens in the movie, don't worry, I'll talk about it). But instead they give us a relationship that is funny. They give us scenes that are both funny and actually a little profound, especially when Andy is at a class about sex with the daughter of Trish (played by a young Kat Dennings).

For all the moments where the topic isn't handled tastefully, there are a lot of moments where it really is handled tastefully.

That being said, I do think the movie struggles to stay on target at times.

Yes. The scene where Steve Carell actually gets his chest waxed on screen is super, SUPER funny. And no wonder people respect the hell out of this guy and his commitment to comedy because I will tell you, I would not do that.

But despite how funny that scene and other scenes are in the movie, I can't help but feel the movie stops in its tracks for certain scenes that don't really amount to much. A lot of the times it's just a silly situation and the movie stops so these guys can make as many jokes about that as the run time will allow. Are a lot of them funny? Oh yes, there are scenes that I wouldn't take out of the movie regardless of how they stop the movie in it's track for comedy. But there might be some that I would or I would cut them down a little bit because this movie felt long.

The movie is 2 hours long and it feels longer. It's entertaining throughout the majority of it but after a little bit there is a little bit of a stretch to keep the suspension of belief alive.

A perfect example of this is that sex class he brings Kat Dennings to.

While at this doctors office, he sees a bunch of models of what the vagina looks like and Andy has this sense of wonder as if he's gone 40 years without ever Google-ing vaginas.

And I get that this was 2005 and times were different back then and this scene would be even funnier if it happened at the beginning of the movie. But this scene happens in the latter third of the movie. He's already had exposure to sex, had the opportunity a couple of times, and yet he's still confused about female anatomy about an hour into this movie. Weeks have gone by since his friends started this experiment. Even in the unlikely scenario where he never figured this stuff out in the past 40 years, it is truly odd that weeks later he still is so clueless.

The good thing is, I feel like I'm kind of nitpicking when it comes to this movie. There are a lot of really great things to say about this movie.

The cast of this movie is really good and it's especially interesting knowing how early this was in their career and the lengths they were willing to go to make people laugh.

And this movie will make you laugh hard, probably in the first 2 minutes. The characters sometimes feel unrealistic, but there is a lot of heart to them and they never feel cartoonish. You care about Andy, his friends, the people he interacts with and there's a broad scope of where this movie goes, especially with the fact that it does take a lot of detours to just make you laugh.

Yeah, there's a reason my parents didn't let me see this movie when I was younger, it's a raunchy movie. It's hilarious, but I wouldn't show your kids. There's a lot of adult themes and jokes that are really based towards high school to college aged people. But I do think it is a solid movie regardless.

For some reason the movie has the feel of a 90s comedy with the premise that you really only could find in a post 2000s world.

Overall, I highly recommend The 40 Year Old Virgin.

But 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 also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

See you next time.

Ingrid Goes West

One thing I do like getting involved in the movie watching community is that I discover movies that usually I would have no interest in at all. The only reason I wanted to watch Ingrid Goes West was because someone on a Youtube video said it was a really underrated film of 2017 and if this person, who's opinion in movies I respect, liked it, I thought I might like it too.

Ingrid Goes West is another movie similar to Colossal (both on Hulu) where not a lot of people heard of it or saw it when it came out but it really is an underrated film.

 Ingrid Goes West follows the titular character Ingrid (played by Aubrey Plaza). From the beginning we know two things about Ingrid. We know she ends up in a behavioral health ward for assaulting a girl she followed obsessively on Instagram, and we know that her mother died sometime before the start of the movie.

Beyond that, we don't know a whole lot about Ingrid. She is obsessed with Instagram and she has this ideal person that she wants to be, but in reality she drinks cheap beer, eats horribly, and isn't the people she idolizes on Instagram. This becomes important later in the film, but the plot really starts when she starts following a woman on Instagram who makes a living off of just taking pictures of stuff and posting it. Ingrid becomes obsessed with this woman named Taylor Sloane (played by Elizabeth Olsen) and while the obsession does take a few baby steps before blowing up into course of action that are on par with any horror film stalker, they get there and you get a really uncomfortable but entertaining film.

Ingrid moves to California and basically inserts herself into Taylor's life. And she does it very craftily. Sure there are parts that she's awkward about it and she doesn't do it exactly smoothly, but she is willing to do almost anything to become Taylor's friend and it's really weird.

But the movie is really becomes the underrated film people online talk about because it is so weird. On one hand, you have this really unsettling woman who we know from the beginning is unstable and will go to uncomfortable lengths if she doesn't complete her goal or she doesn't earn the friendship of the people she follows, but at the same time you have a woman who is clearly going through some emotional issues and just wants to fit in and be loved. The film is a weird juxtaposition of those feelings because you're not sure if you should feel bad for Ingrid or if she's going to become a Batman villain.

Speaking of Batman, her landlord is played by O'Shea Jackson Jr and for some reason his only real character trait is that he's obsessed with Batman. While I'm not wild about his character in general, I think Jackson gives a good performance along with everybody in this film. I've heard that Aubrey Plaza has done a lot of indie films and she has made a little bit of a name for herself beyond being April Ludgate from Parks and Rec. She does a really good job in this film and like I said, the dynamic of being scared of this woman and being sympathetic towards her only works with her performance.

Elizabeth Olsen's character is really fascinating because on one hand, she's the "victim" in all of this. She's the one being stalked and she's kind of the one you're worried Ingrid is going to attack if things go wrong. But at the same time, Taylor is a narcissistic and really the worst kind of person, especially if you hate people who are WAY too into their Instagram.

Wyatt Russell, who starred in one of my favorite Black Mirror episodes plays Taylor's husband, and Billy Magnussen plays Taylor's brother Nicky. They both give a pretty good performance. Magnussen plays the coked out brother and above all you just kind of hate him, but you love to hate him.

If I had to pick a weak link, it would either be Russell or O'Shea Jackson Jr, more because their characters aren't written as well, but that's not to say they both didn't do a good job.

 I have to agree with the people who say this movie is really one of the more underrated films of 2017. It's not just a drama about Instagram, it will kind of mess with you and that's because a lot of it has the feel of a psychological thriller.

The other thing to know about this film is that it is a little bit of a comedy. You're allowed to laugh at the dark humor and it is pretty funny at times.

My only complaints would be about the characters that maybe don't get as much development as others, and how extreme things get very quickly. If you know anything about story structure, you can guess where this ends up and I think the movie kind of takes a middle ground of going to an extreme and keeping the characters likable. I don't want to spoil the end of the film because it is decent, but if you watch it you might understand. I don't think it's a bad ending, I just don't know if it really has the impact this movie was building up to.

But overall, I do agree, Ingrid Goes West is a dramatically underrated film and if you have Hulu you should definitely invest the 90 minutes for this film because it will be worth it. Be prepared to be disturbed but at the same time laugh and have a decent time. It will also make you rethink your entire existence on social media... so that's fun.

But those are my thoughts on Ingrid Goes West. Did you see this one? 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 and see you next time.

Ready Player One

So I've become a little bit picky with the movies that I choose to see in the theaters. You can be assured that I will always see the Avengers, the Deadpools, the Star Wars, and other big films in theaters, probably on the first day and at the very least the first weekend, but other movies like Ready Player One, you're a little less likely to see a review about a film like this while its still in theaters. And I'd like to say it's because I've become more particular and snobbish about which movies I'll go and spend my money on but the reality is, it's laziness. I've become lazy and just don't get off my ass to see these movies in theaters when there are plenty of movies at my fingertips in places like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and HBO. The theater I went to last night used to be the biggest theater in town and now it's probably struggling to stay in business because of people like me.

But the other part is that as many movies as I have gone to by myself, I don't like doing it. If it was my job, if there was a financial benefit to it, I would look past that. But this is a hobby. A very long drawn out hobby. And I still prefer going to movies in the theater with people instead of by myself.

All that being said... I'm glad I found someone to go with me to this movie.

Ready Player One is set in the somewhat distant but somewhat close future of 2045 (it is a lot closer of a date than people realize). In this future there is overpopulation and people have started living on top of each other in what they call stacks, just trailer homes on top of each other.

We are introduced to our character Wade Watts (played by Tye Sheridan). He's just your average kid(?) living in Colombus Ohio. But he like almost everyone in the world now, decides to forget the life he has the in the real world and instead logs in to a mass online virtual reality world called, The Oasis.

Created by a man named James Halliday (played by Mark Rylance, Spielberg is really enjoying working with him these days), on his death bed he put out a challenge to everyone playing that if they could find three keys in three challenges, they would find an Easter Egg put in the game by Halliday himself. Whoever finds that Easter Egg will earn Halliday's shares in his company and become the richest person on earth.

However, when the movie starts, 5 years have passed since that challenge was put out and nobody has found any of the keys. Now there are corporations, one in particular run by a man named Nolan Sorrento (played by Ben Mendelsohn) using all their power and wealth to beat the game and win that prize, and there are players like Wade who want to honor the true memory of Halliday and do the right thing with the control they would have if they won.

Now before I start tearing into the reality this world creates as opposed to the reality of what it actually would be like, I will say this. This movie was based on a book.

It's a really interesting concept and I'm interested to read the book now from the movie. I don't know how much of the pop culture references were pulled from the book and how many were just the perpetual nostalgia for everything made in the 80s and 90s we have today, but they took on quite an undertaking by incorporating all these pop culture references into one movie while still managing to maintain some original-ish, looking characters. I'll talk a little bit more about the story later but this movie and the book, had a similar goal of movies like The Hunger Games. This movie was pretty sneaky in its way that it managed to disguise itself as a unique adventure film when in reality its another Young Adult Hunger Games genre film. I'm glad it wasn't too gratuitous in that realm but don't worry, there's a lot of gratuitous stuff in this movie I'll talk about and the first thing is how this game doesn't feel or even address the reality of gaming culture.

The book and screenplay was written by a guy named Ernest Cline. I have no doubt that Cline is a nerd. I have no doubt that he is a gamer. I have a feeling that a lot of the pop culture references and video game references were from the book. And these references they're not just mainstream references, there are some deep cuts. I picked up on some subtle things but the internet is vast and full of people who saw this movie a bunch more times than I did and they saw references that I didn't pick up or didn't even know were references. 

However, the movie addresses gaming in the way Steven Spielberg would probably see gaming. It's this rosy pop culture nostalgia world played by nice, good looking guys and girls like Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke who plays one of the other avatars that Wade comes across, when in reality the gaming world is filled more with not so great looking people who are just assholes like Wade's aunt and her boyfriend, OR run by 11 year olds who cuss a lot more than they should at their age.

Now I should have a disclaimer that I am apart of the gaming community. I don't consider myself a bad person and I'm sure there are a lot of people out there just like me, in fact we're probably the majority, we're just not as loud. But the movie kind of skips over the stereotype of the gamer it kind of mentions a little when there are a lot of jokes and commentary you could have on how toxic gaming culture can be.

There's a couple of scenes in the movie where Wade is warned that it's dangerous to meet people in person who you meet in the Oasis because you could run into a fat guy who's just cat fishing you. But when these characters actually meet, they're just your typical Hollywood hot attractive people in their 20s. I think they could have done a lot more with the reveals in this game. Especially with the kinds of challenges they run across. And especially since this movie is trying to be a little bit of a pop culture self aware comedy along with being an adventure film, I think they could have banked on that a little more.

But another criticism I have of the movie is that the narrative, which could easily be woven into a unique and person Spielbergian tale was really overshadowed by the spectacle of having all kinds of pop culture references everywhere you look.

The pop culture references in this movie are vast and like I said before, deep, and whoever is on Youtube pointing out every single reference they make in this movie... God Bless You. But at the heart of it there could have been a story about a hero similar to the likes of other heroes in Steven Spielberg, Zemeckis, or any of the other heroes referenced in this movie.

Instead we get a group of heroes who only end up being as strong as the pop culture reference they pull out of their pocket... literally. They pull stuff out of their pocket the same way you would in a video game and of course if you're a nerd, you'll recognize it and say to yourself...

And the truth is, I can't decide if I liked the movie more when it was heavy CGI in The Oasis, or when it was in the real world and had the Hunger Games vibe to it. Both ends really have their downsides but at the same time they have their upsides too. The Oasis is just oversaturated with pop culture references that it distracts from the story, but at the same time I don't want to be the stick in the mud who didn't enjoy seeing Iron Giant and Gundam get in a fight with Mech Godzilla.

The real world has the Hunger Games, "we gotta fight "The Man", the quirky popular actor white guy villain who's trying to take over the world from his seat of power", but at the same time I was interested in the future that was being created and I kind of wanted to see more of it. While the movie does say that everyone is playing on The Oasis now, there still does seem to be a society out there and I was a little curious on what that world was like. I think if it was really this dystopian world that people were escaping from in The Oasis, I would have liked to see more as to why it was so easier to go into The Oasis.

I definitely think this is quite low on the totem pole of movies that have been made by Steven Spielberg because I personally think he can do a lot better than this film. But even with that thought, I can't help and say that this movie was directed masterfully. The performances were good despite the kind of cheesy writing, and I think overall if you go into this movie just wanting to watch an adventure film you're not going to be disappointed.

And I will give credit where credit is due, this movie is a love letter to fans of pop culture and video games. Like I said, it feels like a love letter written by Steven Spielberg who definitely felt more comfortable making 80s pop culture references than video game references, but it is trying to give power to the nerds of the world. I found this movie's message about nerd culture very similar to the one in Galaxy Quest, where it's the fans and the gamers who save the day in the end, not so much the attractive Hollywood actors. (sort of).

Overall, I had a fun time with Ready Player One. There is a lot to tear into it, but if you enjoy pop culture without any of the toxic fanbase or fandom surrounding it, you'll probably have a good time with this movie. It's a rosy tinted view of gaming, pop culture, all in a nice cookie cutter YA novel, but it IS Steven Spielberg. Even when he's not trying (which don't get me wrong, I think he was trying here), he still creates really good movies.

But what did you think? Did you like Read Player One? Did you catch all the pop culture references. I actually like to call this movie Member Berries the movie.

But what did you like or dislike? 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, I'll see you next time.

The Fifth Estate

So I'm gonna try really hard to write this review without getting too political. I don't really have any agenda in this review to say anything political. Buy me a beer sometime and I'll talk your ear off, but this blog is about movies and I try to avoid polarize people on things besides movies

The topic of Wikileaks is a political mine field. Some people believe it's great, some people believe it isn't. The problem, and one of the reasons I want to avoid talking too in depth about Wikileaks is that I'm not 100% informed on every single factor of Wikileaks and it continues to be a developing actor in the world. I will say that you should take some of the messages (for and against, because it does ride that line but I'll talk about that later) with a grain of salt. Even the movie at the end suggests that the best way to figure out the truth is to do your own research and find out the truth for yourself. I would echo that recommendation. Alright, political disclaimer finished, let's talk about The Fifth Estate.

The Fifth Estate centers on the origins of the information website Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). The movie mainly follows the relationship he has with a german man by the name of Daniel Domsheit-Berg (played by Daniel Bruhl) who had an uneasy partnership with Assange from the beginning. The movie chronicles their journey and the rise of Wikileaks, mainly leading up to the release of the largest data leak in US history by Bradley Manning in 2010.

And that's the best summary description I can really give because the truth is, their origin and creation of Wikileaks isn't as glamorous as you would believe.

If you don't know what Wikileaks is, it is a datasharing website that allows for whistleblowers to anonymously leak documents for public viewing. However, they make it very clear that this information is published over the internet and Assange and Berg rarely meet with sources in the movie.

Now while they do an interesting job at providing a cerebral imagery for the sharing of information and the "volunteers" that Assange states they have working on this project...

... the truth is this movie is about hacking.

Another side note, as much as people want to believe that hacking is super interesting and requires super fast fingers and keyboarding, the truth is, hacking is very boring and slow. And to be fair this movie portrays hacking (the very little we see) in a realistic, non-dramatic manner.

But my main point in all of this is that this movie is centered on a really dry subject.

It's a lot of people looking at computers, and talking about the implications and political consequences of these leaks, which they are definitely there. I went to school for Political Science so a lot of this was really interesting to me. But if you're looking for action, espionage, or even just some more fast paced movement, you're not going to get it here. While being accurate to both the idea of hacking, and the timeline of events (and even that I'm not totally sure of), this movie is actually a little bit boring.

This movie is two hours long but it feels like three. It is a very dense movie and while the intrigue starts early, it does take quite a bit to get this movie going and it is A LOT of talking.

Now, that being said, the talking and performances, actually pretty well done. And this movie has a stacked cast. I don't know if many of these people were popular in 2013 when this movie came out, but there are a lot of familiar names from today.

Obviously you have Bruhl and Cumberbatch, but then you have Alecia Vikander, Dan Stevens, Peter Capaldi, Anthony Mackie, David Thewlis, Laura Linney, and Stanley Tucci. You even ahve the Red Woman from Game of Thrones (Carice van Houten).

And they all work together pretty well. I won't bash the performances in this movie because I like almost everyone. I'm still a little skeptical on Daniel Bruhl. I don't think I mentioned this in my review of The Cloverfield Paradox, but he's always been an actor that I've heard a lot about and his presence in a movie always gets a lot of hype, but when I see him I can't help but be underwhelmed. He's perfectly serviceable in this movie, but he's just out shined by better actors, especially Cumberbatch.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in this movie.

I think I remember back in 2013 when people were saying that they thought Cumberbatch was going to be in the running for his portrayal of Assange. I think those reviews might have come out before the movie came out and it got mixed reviews.

He really does do a good job though. The guy definitely has range and he's definitely portraying a complex character.

I think the interesting thing about watching this movie is watching it in 2018, years after the events of the movie and watching it within context. Like I said, this has been a developing story and we still don't really know the extent to which Wikileaks has affected the public discourse.

I do think the movie perhaps overestimated how influential Wikileaks was and it does kind of exist in a time capsule as Wikileak's involvement in the 2016 election is yet to be fully discovered.

I think if you were interested in studying more, this movie would be a good jumping off point (again with a healthy grain of salt consideration). If you lose interest after watching the movie, you've got a long dry trip in front of you.

Overall, The Fifth Estate hasn't exactly aged well, but it does give an interesting, and idealistic view of the work of Wikileaks and it's origins. This movie definitely does have a bit of an agenda and while it's not 100% for Wikileaks, it does bend a little more in favor of the movement than against it.

I don't think that should deter you though. The only things I think should would be the length of the movie and the pacing. There are very good performances in the movie, and if you're interested in the topic it might be a little interesting.

But it's not a really great movie that will bring interest to people who aren't really interested so I would say if you're not interested in the topic, you can skip this one. It's a bit of a slog fest. I think there are a couple of ways this movie could be approached and I'm not sure this is the best way. This movie is of course based off a book published by Daniel Domsheit-Berg so it kind of had to go in that direction, but I think it also could have focused on other elements to make it more interesting.

I think if this movie was made in 2018 it would probably focus more on Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci's storyline set in the State Department and show the larger aftermath consequences of leaks, especially those perpetrated by Bradley Manning. Personally I would have eaten that up a lot and they could have taken a little bit of an espionage angle to keep the movie going.

But overall the movie had a message to send out. I think that message is a little bit construed by the fact that it does try to share both sides of this situation and why it's political. But as it is, I would say only check this movie out if you're interested in the politics of Wikileaks or want to be. Otherwise, I'd say it's a long 2 hour slog fest that doesn't quite reach the impact it wanted.

But those are my thoughts on The Fifth Estate. What did you think? How do you think this movie has aged? Comment and Discuss Below! I don't mind political thoughts on this post, but keep it civil if you're going to do it and make sure you have your facts straight.

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, I'll see you next time.

Masterminds

So while I have been pretty light on the number of movies I've watched recently, I haven't run into anything that has been really bad. I've seen some movies that I wasn't really a fan of, or I recognize that it's not a well made movie, but I still enjoy it. Masterminds might be the first movie I've seen in a little while that was not just poorly made, it was just down right bad.

And that's a little bit surprising because this cast is actually really solid. While I've never really been a fan of Zach Galifinakis, Owen Wilson has made me laugh in the past, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnnon and Leslie Jones are all wickedly talented comedians, and I have really enjoyed some of Jason Sudeikis's recent work (especially Colossal, if you haven't seen that, check that out). But for some reason they are all just terrible in this film.

Masterminds is apparently a true story about the second largest heist in US history. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I thought that this was the largest heist in US history but it's not. The strange thing is, they allude to the largest heist in US history IN THIS MOVIE... so why not just tell the story of the largest heist in US history? Maybe this is a better set up for a comedy but even that I'm skeptical of.

The story centers around David Scott Ghantt (played by Zach Galifiniakis). He is a lonely odd ball who is very responsible and trusted at his job at the Loomis Fargo armored truck company. He's engaged to marry Kate McKinnon making a really strange choice of not being a character but instead being a funny voice and just being weird. I get the feeling she wasn't wild about this movie and decided to just be weird. If it was funny I'd be down, but it's just awkward and she doesn't really add much to the movie. Anyways, David is on track to live a pretty boring life.

But then he meets Kelly (played by Kristen Wiig). She doesn't work at Loomis for very long but not long after she is fired, she recruits David to help her and her friend Steve Chambers (played by Owen Wilson) to rob the Armored Truck company they used to work at. The plan would be to have David load up as much money into an armored truck, rob the company, then David would flee to Mexico and wait for Kelly to join him where she could bring him more money, at least that's what they tell David.

What actually happens is that Steve and Kelly leave David in the lurch in Mexico and eventually when the heat gets turned up when the FBI, lead by an agent played by Leslie Jones starts snooping into thing, Steve tries to turn David in and even hires a hitman (played by Jason Sudeikis) to kill David in Mexico.

The weird thing is, when I explain this premise to people who haven't heard about this movie, they actually laugh. Maybe it's the way I explained it, but in reality this should be a funny premise. Jason Sudeikis actually has the potential to be a really funny character and at first, while he's not overtly funny, I couldn't help but smile when he plays the stereotypical blood thirsty hitman who enjoys his job, so much that he wants to make it a challenge and take David out with an old timey Mexican musket. That's really the only time I chuckled a little in this movie. The rest of it was really awkward and poorly done.

Like I said before, there are some good actors in this movie. Owen Wilson, Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon are all really funny actors. They've been in a lot of things I've really enjoyed. For Wilson, Wiig, and Sudeikis, I've actually thought their dramatic work has been better recently than their comedic work. And for all of them, their comedic work does depend on the script and director. I don't really know the writers of this show very well but the director Jared Hess did Napolean Dynamite. Now I personally like Napolean Dynamite, but it's a very particular film that just worked perfectly when it really shouldn't have and I don't think he's really done much worth while since including this movie.

And then there's Zach Galifinakis.

Galifinakis for me has always been a bit of a one hit wonder. He's funny in The Hangover and that's about it. I don't know if I've really seen a movie with him that I've really enjoyed because of him and I don't think he's all that funny.

The one exception to that rule is his Funny or Die segment of Between Two Ferns. That has been a riot in the past.

But he's made a career off of just being the oddball and being really awkward. And while that worked in The Hangover, I haven't seen another situation where I've really thought it was that funny because it feels like he's just redoing exactly what he did before. This character is essentially his character from The Hangover if he was Southern from North Carolina and worked at a Armored truck company.

And before I go on, I can't help but think that this is happening to Kate Mckinnon.

So McKinnon is probably one of the greatest things that has happened to Saturday Night Live in quite a while. She is able to impersonate A LOT of characters and she is absolutely hilarious.

What I've found though is that impersonations and creating silly characters for sketches on SNL doesn't always translate to movie roles. Often times it seems like they don't really know what to do with McKinnon on movies like this one and Ghostbusters so they just say, be weird! And without a lot of direction, McKinnon probably just ends up doing something she thinks is funny and could be funny for a five minute sketch, but for an entire movie it's not funny. I'm worried that McKinnon will just be brought onto projects when they want a female who is weird the same way they've brought on Galifinakis when they want a chubby weird guy and I don't really want that to happen to Mckinnon.

I think Masterminds is just a cautionary tale. Just because a Saturday Night Live cast member is super funny during sketches, doesn't necessarily mean they can be hilarious in a live action movie.

And Masterminds is not the first time this cautionary tale has been told. Night at the Roxbury, Waynes World, Superstar, even the new Ghostbusters were all movies that were banking off SNL stars bringing comedy to a weak movie and failing because they didn't have the direction.

Leslie Jones is a really funny comedian, but she hasn't been in many movies and if she doesn't have a strong director, her and McKinnon are going to flounder and just give awkward performances.

Because if veteran actors like Sudeikis and Wiig, who have been in big movies for a while now and have proven themselves to find their niche in movies, can't save a film like this from being incredibly unfunny, how are novices like Jones and McKinnon going to?

It has been a while since I've seen a movie I thought was just really down right bad. I'm usually pretty lenient. I'll have a movie where I maybe didn't like it very much but I can recognize what they did right, or I'll see a movie that I liked but recognize probably isn't very well made. Masterminds was an example of a movie I really didn't like because it was so bad and those haven't happened in a while. Probably because I tend to avoid really bad movies, but sometimes it's fun to point out the worst movies out there.

But those are my thoughts on Masterminds. What did you think? Did you think it was funny? Which parts? 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, I'll see you next time!

Justice League Spoilers Review Part 1: What Took Me So Long?

So I’ve wanted to write this review for a while. Usually I can knock out a spoiler review pretty quickly, especially if there are spoilers that are worth talking about. If you’ve seen infinity War, you know that there is A LOT to talk about when it comes to that movie. It is pretty telling that Justice League came out last November and I’m just talking about spoilers now. I’ve tried to write this review multiple times and the result has been difficult. There’s stuff to talk about but I’ve had a difficult time harnessing my comments into something constructive. I don’t like talking about stuff just for the sake of saying, “that was cool”, or “that was dumb” . While I have done that and will do it again, I usually bring up spoilers for a purpose. I usually talk about the specifics of a movie, especially a movie in a franchise, because I figure it will lead to something larger in the future.

Unfortunately, for two reasons this has been difficult with the DC cinematic universe. The first reason is, there really wasn’t a whole lot of promise for an intriguing future that came out of Justice League. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there, I know there is a lot to talk about when it comes to future movies with the DC cinematic universe. But Justice League didn’t allude to any of that in a way that warranted an interesting review. I’ll hopefully get into that a little bit more when I start talking about specifics, but before I do, I want to talk about the second reason, because I think this was the main reason why it took me so long to get to this review.

The second reason is that Justice League didn’t fill me or a lot of people with hope that there was going to be a future with the DC cinematic universe. Because we live in a world of accelerated supply and demand, there are somethings set in motion over at DC that can’t be undone like the late staged production of Aquaman set to come out later this year, or the immense popularity of Wonder Woman, almost guaranteeing a sequel in 2019. Everything else, after Justice League just became a big question mark. So even if there were big plot elements that were going to play into future DC movies, was that even worth talking about if those ideas and concepts would never be realized in future films?

And to be honest, I still don’t know if talking about these plot points from Justice League are worth it because the future is still so unclear for DC. The only confirmed films right now are Aquaman, directed by James Wan and set to be released in December of this year and Wonder Woman 2, directed again by Patty Jenkins and set to come out late 2019. Apparently there is supposed to be a Shazam movie coming out in early 2019, but I will believe that when I see a trailer. 

But even if that movie is coming out, it’s still unclear on if, and to what extent it is related to the previous movies we’ve seen in the DC cinematic universe. Every other movie that has been talked about are at a point where I am skeptical on whether or not the movie will happen, and even if it does, I’m not convinced that they will be connected to the universe that we’re 5 movies into. Movies like, Gotham City Sirens, Suicide Squad 2, Man of Steel 2, the Matt Reeves Batman movies, any of the Harley Quinn spinoff movies, a Bat girl movie,  and even movies like Flashpoint that a year ago I was sure was going to happen are all big question marks. And then you have movies likes the Joker origin movie (with Joaquin Phoenix now?) that I’m still skeptical about, but if it does happen, it will exist in its own universe apart from the core franchise that has been set up already.

So yeah… that’s why it has taken me so long to talk about Justice League…

But if there was absolutely nothing to talk about, this review/rant would have ended right there. There are some pretty significant things that happened in Justice League and for the moment, I’m going to go off the assumption that they are going to continue this franchise with the same characters and where it could go based off of what we learned in Justice League.     

 Looking back on my review of justice League back in November, I feel like I gave Steppenwolf too much credit that he didn’t deserve. It’s not fair to compare Steppenwolf and Thanos because they really are two different types of villains. Steppenwolf was, or at least was originally intended to be, a harbinger for DC’s eventual Thanos in Darkseid. In reality, it’s more fair to compare Steppenwolf to Loki or Ultron, and even if you could compare him to Thanos, its still not fair because Justice League came out before Infinity War. However, the plots of Justice League and Infinity War are actually not that different so it is worth taking a look at. In both films, the villain is on a quest to gather a bunch of McGuffins. In the case of Thanos he’s collecting the Infinity Stones; in the case of Steppenwolf he’s collecting the mother boxes. Both with the goal of using those McGuffins to carry out destruction of innocent people. I don’t want to get into spoilers of Infinity War but you don’t have to have seen the movie to know that thanos is just a lot more interesting of a character and carries out that quest a lot better than Steppenwolf.

With Steppenwolf, there was nothing personal we were supposed to identify with him. He was just the obstacle for the heroes. He was just evil. If you think it’s fairer to compare him to Loki, we at least knew Loki’s motivation and while the audience thought it was evil, they could understand why he’s doing it.

It’s also worth mentioning that throughout the entire movie of Justice League, we never really get a good sense of what the motherboxes are. In Infinity War we get a sense of their power and they’re not just McGuffins, they’re complex and pose a real threat. If Steppenwolf had actually used a mother box in a creative way like destroying a city or using it against the Justice League, I would have had a better understanding of why Steppenwolf needed to be stopped. The only real exposure we get to the power of the mother boxes come in 3 places. The resurrection of Cyborg, which we didn’t even see in Justice League, we saw it in Batman v Superman, the way it changed the environment near the end when Steppenwolf gathered them together and started to form his own world, and finally in the resurrection of Superman. Beyond those three moments, these McGuffins were boring and were just a boring fetch quest for Steppenwolf.

And speaking of Superman, his resurrection in this movie may be the third and most important reason I just became tired and apathetic to writing this review as well as to the entire DC cinematic universe in general. Superman is my favorite character. I really like Henry Cavill as Superman, I think he’s a good actor and great for the role. I have gotten physically angry about the way they killed him off in Batman v Superman in his second outing. But the way they resurrected him wasn’t just bad, I just didn’t care.

If Marvel learned anything from their fans on how they govern their cinematic universe, it is that fans get really frustrated when the death of a character doesn’t mean something. The death of Superman in Batman v Superman felt like it was going to mean something. His resurrection didn’t follow through with that promise.

When Superman died, I was pissed. I’ve talked about this at length. But then the speculation came. What would the death and (obvious) resurrection of Superman mean? Would he come back evil? How much would he be in the film? What role would he eventually take in the Justice League?

The answer to those questions were: It really didn’t mean much at all as if his sacrifice was pointless, he would come back evil for like a minute then immediately turn good almost too good, he would only be in the second half of the film, and we don’t really know what role he’ll take in the Justice League.

And the weird thing is that I think there was a version of this script where Steppenwolf was the bad guy, but the main conflict in the movie was bringing Superman back to life and dealing with the consequences of that. The first half of the movie we got focuses on bringing together a group of people in order to stop Steppenwolf. If that’s your goal, bringing back Superman feels like an extra step that maybe you don’t include or you include it as a cliff hanger at the end. I could see a good version of this movie that centered only on the formation of the Justice League and the question of who should lead it, Batman or Wonder Woman, with the same atmosphere that we got in the first Avengers film. The first Avengers movie worked because the team wasn’t united until the very end with the final showdown in New York. That could have been the direction Justice League went and you don’t really need Superman in there. You already shoehorned in his death, why shoehorn in his resurrection?

But there’s another version of this movie that I feel could have been good too. It’s the movie where Steppenwolf takes a backseat or isn’t in the movie at all and the team comes together to bring Superman back to life, only to be at odds with him when he returns evil. This also sounds interesting. You could potentially create an Injustice route with this version, you could delve into the ultimate power of Superman and make him a really great villain if you go the Injustice route, or you create a more reflective Superman who is committed to doing good from here on out, earning the Superman we got at the end of the original movie, instead of a random change in character like we got.

Instead we got a weird mixture of both in a movie that should have been longer but was limited to a very short two hour limit. Instead of leaving us with questions to make the fans excited about what’s on the horizon, instead of taking risks, we get a bright and sunny ending that felt like the end of the franchise instead of just the beginning.

I don’t care if you bring in Deathstroke, I don’t care if you show me an actually bald Lex Luthor who suddenly isn’t crazy anymore for some reason, nothing about this movie felt like it was building up to anything impactful. It’s hard to go from the Justice League facing off with Cosmic beings to Jesse Eisenberg and his limited criminal enterprise that will be a sad excuse for the Legion of Doom.

The last Justice League specific thing is that it didn’t do any favors to characters who have been around for the longest. Superman, Batman, Lex Luthor, even Wonder Woman to a certain extent, they either didn’t grow or change in any productive way, and if they did, their shift in character didn’t make any sense. Ben Affleck’s Batman didn’t seem to be changed at all by the experience of fighting a cosmic being, he didn’t learn anything. Even Wonder Woman didn’t have a concrete arc in this movie. This movie maybe established her as the leader of the league, but I don’t think it took the risk and actually took that step at all. And both Superman and Lex Luthor changed in a certain way, but instead of making a change that makes sense, they become cartoony. Superman turned into smiley campy Superman with one liners, and Lex Luthor became your more competent but cartoon-y like supervillain without any explanation as to how they made it there. But the worst example of this is Lois Lane.

First of all, Lois Lane didn’t need to be in this movie. The only reason I bring her up is because this franchise took a character that was actually pretty well done in Man of Steel. She was independent, bright, and wanted to do the right thing. She was a badass who contributed. In BvS, she still had those traits but wasn’t utilized in a correct way to contribute anything to plot. And this movie took it to the next level where not only was she useless to the plot, they added a conflict that was only resolved when she found her man. Her whole arc of losing her confidence and drive as a reporter is not only inconsistent with her character in the comics, it’s inconsistent with the strong character that was done really well in Man of Steel and it actually kind of makes me angry because Amy Adams doesn’t phone in that character. She’s a great actress and she deserves better than the poorly written character they’ve given her.

The only other thing I can point out that happened in this movie that was kind of cool was the cameos in the flashback battle scene. We see the Greek Gods fighting against Steppenwolf which was pretty cool. I don’t know if that will relate to Shazam at all or if it was just Zeus doing cool things with lightning bolts. Also we see the Green Lantern Corp. They were in the movie, they exist in this universe…

And unfortunately, that’s it for Justice League specific spoilers. All the other thoughts, though they might be related to what happens in the movie, are more focused on the future of the franchise and what could happen. A lot of this is going to be speculation and I don’t really like that. I don’t like making predictions that aren’t based on anything. The truth is, while Ezra Miller does some cool things in this movie, I have no idea what Flashpoint is going to be like. Sure I saw a heated conversation between Aquaman and Mera, but that conversation didn’t really give me any indication of what Aquaman is going to be like this December.

And part of this is a good thing. This movie served more as an introduction for these characters and got me excited to see more of them, even though I have no idea what more with these characters is going to entail.

But the overall spoiler thoughts on Justice League is that the same way Batman v Superman introduced conflict and cliffhangers into the DC cinematic universe in a clunky and awkward way, Justice League concisely concluded those conflicts in the laziest ways possible. And the result is a totally revamped DC cinematic universe that has a new tone that doesn’t line up with anything that we’ve been introduced to before.

While I like the mid credit scene where Superman and the Flash race, it felt out of place and definitely had the Joss Whedon finger prints all over it.

And to close out this first part, I want to talk about Joss Whedon.

For those who don’t know, there is a little bit of drama that came out of Joss Whedon’s involvement with Justice League. Originally, Zach Synder was on track to do a two part movie with Justice League. This plan was set up well before the release and unfortunate panning of Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad in 2016. Eventually the movie was cut down to one movie and there are rumors that Synder was fired well before the actual time he bowed out of the project due to family tragedy.

Regardless of whether it was family tragedy or being fired, Warner Brothers, needing to salvage their project in time for their scheduled release date decide to hire a guy who has done this before, twice, to save their team up movie, Joss Whedon.

Now before I saw the movie, I considered this a weird idea, but it thought it could be a good plan. I mean the logic is sound. If he did it for Marvel, he could do it again right?

The end result proved that that was a horrendous idea and we should have seen it coming. If you lose a director, fired or not, and you have 90% of the film done, you probably want someone who is not only a stronger director, but also someone who is going to make that transition flawless and make it feel as though there was never a change. You would think they would choose someone close to the style of Snyder.

Instead they choose a director who, I think, exemplifies the exact opposite tone and feeling, Joss Whedon.

But the rationale for this choice is obvious. Warner Brothers wanted to retreat to something that they thought has been successful in the past and will automatically be successful again. They wanted to make an Avengers film.

So I understand beef people have with DC for not “releasing the Synder cut”. There’s clearly an audience for DC movies and while a lot of them are also fans of Marvel movies, they want variety. They want something different. I don’t know if a “Synder Cut” of Justice League exists, but I understand why people want to see it. They didn’t want an Avengers movie, they wanted a Justice League movie, the way it was originally intended to be made. Not with the bathos jokes like Marvel, not with corny one liners from Batman of all people, we wanted Zach Synder’s version of the Justice League…

However…

Not only do I not believe that a Synder cut exists. Even if it does, I think you would get a movie that was not as good as the one we got.

I’ve been trashing this movie a lot and that’s because I’ve had a lot of time to rewatch it, and reexamine it, and while I probably don’t like Justice League as much as my initial reaction, I still believe that Joss Whedon had a lot of work to do on that movie and a Synder cut would not have been good.

This is coming from a guy who likes Zach Synder. I really like Man of Steel. I really like Watchmen, I really like 300. I think he’s a good director, especially with visually beautiful movies. But I don’t think he’s a good choice with the DC cinematic universe. I think when he’s addressing personal stories like Superman’s in Man of Steel, he can do a good job. But when working with the connective tissue of a cinematic universe, I don’t think Snyder is the right choice.

And the worst thing is, since DC decided to blend these polar opposites, not only did we get a mediocre film, we are now put in a situation where it’s difficult to tell where this franchise is going. If Whedon was continuing his involvement in the DC cinematic universe and they announced that he’s taking up the reigns and taking the franchise in a new Whedon-ish direction, that would be one thing (I wouldn’t like it, but I could at least get a beat on the direction they’re heading). But there is no good way to tell now. I don’t know where Superman, who at the end of Justice League is totally different than who he was in Man of Steel, will go. Since Justice League, DC has cleaned house, fired old people, brought in new producers, and are potentially setting themselves up to create a concise direction for the franchise, but I can honestly say, I have no idea what direction that is or if I can predict anything that will happen.

But I’m gonna try dammit.