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.
Similarly to The Great Muppet Caper, That Thing You Do! was one of those movies that I watched multiple times as a kid. Depending on what movies I find, this week may be my nostalgic week, watching movies from my childhood and recollecting on what made them entertaining as a kid and whether or not they hold up.
I literally have no idea how my parents found this film. Apparently they had heard it from a family friend but then it begs the question, where did they hear about it? Everyone I talk to has no idea that this movie exists. The main reason people know what this movie is is because I showed it to them.
Its obviously not a movie Tom Hanks to incredibly noted for, and none of the band members besides Liv Tyler really made it incredibly big, so how did we find this film?
That Thing You Do is a a film about a group of guys who start a band in Eerie Pennslyvania. It first starts out as just a local thing, playing at a high school dance. And then they get a gig playing at a restaurant, then they get recognized by a talent scout, then they start doing State Fairs, and it just keeps escalating until they're in Hollywood making it big on the national level.
The band is composed of very different personalities
The drummer Guy "Skitch" Patterson (played by Tom Everett Scott), grows up working in his father's appliance store. He's incredibly fascinated with jazz and has this cool facade about him but he's actually kind of a dork and not very popular. He's probably the most grounded of the band.
Then you have Jimmy (played by Johnathon Schaech) who is the leader of the band. He puts the music in front of everything and is skeptical of every decision they make. As a kid I always saw him as an asshole, and in a sense he is. But I've figured out that Jimmy actually is more of a purist when it comes to the band. He doesn't want to play the games of record companies, he just wants to get his music out there and reap the fame from that pure music.
Then you have Lenny (played by Steve Zahn). This is the role that made me love Steve Zahn. I really wish he was in more movies because the guy is just funny and just looks like he's having a blast. Lenny plays guitar and backup vocals. He's described as the fool of the group and he brings probably the most comic relief of the film.
And then there's the Bass player. They never disclose his name. He's just the Bass Player. As a kid I never understood that, now I think its hilarious.
Apart from the main parts of the band you have Jimmy's girlfriend, Faye (played by Liv Tyler). She's the shy soft spoken hometown girl that Liv Tyler kind of plays in everything she does. I think Tyler plays this part really well.
And then you have Tom Hanks as Mr. White.
And its no surprise. Tom Hanks rocks it in this film. Both as an actor and the director. Its surprising that this is actually one of the only movies that Tom Hanks has ever directed.
Why? I don't know. It was also one of the only films he wrote as well. Why? I don't know.
Hanks as Mr. White was just a brilliant choice because he's a brilliant agent. He's just got that class and knows what he's doing but you figure out he does actually care about these young people. He wants to see them succeed and there's no point where you ever doubt his intentions.
Its just amazing that this movie isn't more well known.
The writing is a little cheesy at times but it just seems fun most of the time. It goes through the motions of a band being a one hit wonder. Its got a lot of heart to it and its not really trying to be anything more than a good time.
The funny part is that this movie seems like it would be a true story. The characters are so likable and the way they maneuver through this seemingly fictional 1960s world seems like it would be a true story.
While Hanks probably pulled influence from a couple bands, ones even called the Wonders, this movie is fictional. But its just interesting that I thought that it was a true story as a kid and my girlfriend, who I was watching it with last night thought it was based on a true story as well.
The movie even concludes with showing each member of the band and telling what happened to them.
Its similar to the ending of The Sandlot.
We know that characters like this are not real but for some reason the Sandlot would not be the same if they hadn't mentioned at the end what happened to all the kids.
And the same goes for That Thing You Do! While the works are fictional, its focusing on how a certain activity or thing like Baseball or being in a band affected their lives in such a big way and then they just go off to do these different things than what they planned.
I'm elaborating too much on the Sandlot comparison but its just interesting when movies bring in what happened to these people as if we could look them up now and see where they are now.
Now the movie isn't infallible. Its always a good sign for a movie to hold up through the times when I can quote each line from the movie, and I did that with That Thing You Do! But there are a couple of things that they probably could have fixed with the film.
The dialogue is a little cheesy. This isn't a huge critique of the movie, especially since a lot of the cheesy dialogue adds to the humor. However, there are a couple moments that make the movie just a little bit fluffy.
Now obviously Tom Hanks didn't want this to be a really serious movie about being in a band or the perils of the music industry. I kind of imagine that's what the movie Jersey Boys may be about, I don't know.
But there is a point where Guy is talking to his music hero and he's talking about all the things that can break up a band and he says, money, women, the road. With the current knowledge I have now, you probably could add drugs, sex, and a lot of other things to that list. Things that probably would have made the movie a little grittier.
But again, let's keep this in perspective. This is a movie about a band in the 60s with a lot of humor in it. Its not trying to make a huge statement about the music industry, its just trying to tell a story. So while it would have been interesting to see how this movie could have gone, I'm really glad it worked out the way it did.
One of the other "complaints" I have with this movie is the fluidity of the story. Working with a fictional band in a world that is relatively real but a company that is full of other fictional bands can be a little bit confusing. For example, the Bass Player has a crush on the members of the band called the Chantrelines. But the way its written, we don't know what the Chantrilenes are. Until later you don't really know exactly what a Chantrilene is and why the Bass Player likes them.
This wouldn't be a huge deal if it wasn't for Guy's love for the music of Del Paxton.
If you're not paying attention, you may not know who Del Paxton is until well into the movie and you don't get what it means to Guy when he not only meets Del but gets to jam with him. To the person not paying attention, he may just be some random guy Guy meets and gets advice from.
That being said, there's so many good things they did with this film. You can tell Tom Hanks told all his friends he was directing a movie and they all wanted to get in on it, one way or another. The movie is littered with cameos and performances from a wide range of people. From actors Hanks starred in movies with, to his wife playing a cocktail waitress.
Overall, the movie is very funny and its got a lot of heart to it. I still don't know why its not a more popular movie and more people don't know about it but who knows there's probably going to be a lot of movies that I see in this day and age that I'll think are really funny but forget and they're go into obscurity the same way this movie did. That being said, its a movie you should really check out.
But those are my thoughts on That Thing You Do! What do you think about it? Is it a 90s classic or is it overrated and Tom Hanks should never direct and write a movie again. Comment and discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. It would be silly of me not to leave you with the song that is just so catchy from this film. Here's That Thing You Do! Enjoy!
I'm a huge fan of Michael J Fox. Mainly due to Back to The Future. To be honest, looking at this filmography, the guy didn't do anything beyond Back to the Future that has really beckoned huge recognition. I however do think he is a notable celebrity mainly because of the work he's done since he retired from acting to focus on raising awareness and trying to find a cure for Parkinson's.
But strangely enough, Fox did a film a few years before his retirement called, The Frighteners. A movie directed by Peter Jackson and produced by Robert Zemeckis, The Frighteners is one of those movies I've heard about via the internet. Not really well known by the general public but every once in a while an internet browser like myself makes me aware movies like this exist. I've been meaning to watch it for a while.
So what's it about?
The Frighteners follows the story of a Psychic Detective named Frank Bannister (played by Fox).
Bannister lives in a small town that is littered with the souls of the dead who didn't take the "corridor to the afterlife" and following a near death experience, Bannister has the ability to see the souls that haven't moved on to the afterlife yet.
However, Bannister instead of being a regular medium, advertising that he'll help the spirits of the dead find their way to the afterlife, makes his living recruiting ghosts to haunt a house so that the owner calls Bannister. Bannister does his pretend deal to "get the ghost out of the house" and he reaps the reward.
But when a shadowy spirit, appearing to be death himself comes to town, people start dying from extreme strain to their hearts, even though they were very healthy people. Being the only one that can see these spirits, Bannister becomes the only one who can stop this spirit.
This movie has a lot of elements that work... and a lot of elements that don't work.
The first thing I think works is Fox himself. Like I said before, Fox's filmography really isn't that huge
because his career was cut short.
With that, its fun to see Fox is a different role. He's so well known for Marty McFly and random 80s movie roles that its refreshing to see something different. This is different.
Frank Bannister isn't really an ideal hero. He can see the spirits of the dead but he doesn't really use it for good. A stereotypical psychic would lend his services to communicate between the dead and their loved ones, serve as a shepherd to help them to the other side. Instead Bannister recruits the spirits to help him con people out of their money. He's haunted by the death of his wife and the mysterious circumstances in which she was killed.
Furthermore, it actually does get interesting, the way that Bannister interacts with these different spirits. Some of them are his friends, some of them resent him for using spirits to con people. And when he can see dead people and other people can't, its actually really interesting, especially when they don't know exactly how the world works yet.
There's one person who is killed and finds Bannister. He tries working with Bannister and tries to get him to comfort his widowed wife who was left alone after he was killed.
But when Bannister tries, he sees the way things can go wrong and awkward. There's several moments in the part where he's communicating between the two and the woman says some things, not knowing that her dead husband can hear her. Its actually an interesting take on the ghost whisperer storyline and you somewhat understand why Bannister chooses a little bit of a different path. Its not elaborated on enough and its not totally clear what motivates him to con people, but he's the best character of the film so we'll let it slide.
Another part I guess that works is the villain.
For the majority of the movie, the villain is recognized as a shrouded spectre, possibly the Grim Reaper. putting glowing numbers on the foreheads of his victims.
Its later revealed to be a serial killer continuing his spree of murders from beyond the grave. And when the shrouded persona leaves and its just the killer and he's not in the cloak, it gets a little bit convoluted. Its an interesting story but I'm not wild about the villains when they're finally revealed. Also, its not really clear how this killer has more spiritual powers than the other spirits, and that leads into one of the first things that didn't really work for this movie.
The rules of the universe aren't really laid down. Fox does explain that these spirits are roaming the earth because they didn't take the corridor to the afterlife. They instead had unfinished business and continued in the world as ectoplasm dripping... spectres.
Then its revealed that this Grim Reaper-like is able to kill those spirits... I guess. And Bannister is able to see ghosts because of his near death experience... I guess. A lot of things are really unexplained.
And then there's the element of who is murdered and how the killer is able to kill these people. I know there's sometimes that serial killers do kill without discretion but this was somewhat ridiculous.
However, the conflict Bannister finds himself in actually is an interesting one. He's trying to fight a spirit he can't physically fight as a mortal human. There's parts of jumping between the mortal world and the spectre world and its actually done pretty well. Not only that, but it has an effect on Bannister after it happens.
Which leads me to one of my favorite parts of the film.
Near the end, there's a part where Bannister's consciousness is floating between the present and the past in a building where a lot of people were killed.
He'll be walking through a run down building and then flash to its past watching as they're gunned down. Its a really interesting way of showing that connection to the afterlife. Unfortunately, its only one sequence and at the end of the film. Its a "perspective" that Bannister acquires by experiencing an out of body experience. But I won't give anything more away from the plot. The point is, I think this should have been a bigger part of the film and unfortunately it was substituted for the majority of the movie with effects of the spirits that, I'm sure at the time was really great but now just remind me of a mixture of Casper and Flubber.
I'll give them credit where its due, the ghosts do look like, well ghosts. And again, I'm sure at the time it was really great special effects. Unfortunately, by today's standards they look very shotty and don't really hold up. I hate to be a snob but they're not that great.
I'd be really interested in seeing a remake of this movie with updated effects and a little bit more of a fluid story. I think this could have been a really quirky but awesome film if it had had a little bit better script and better effects. That's strange to say especially since Peter Jackson wrote it. But its not the most ground breaking
It actually kind of makes me wonder if Peter Jackson is that great of a writer. I have no doubt of his directing skills, but take Lord of the Rings for example.
The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy with an incredibly rich and full mythology. There's so much to draw from. Not to mention the epicness of the three books by themselves, there is no doubt that Peter Jackson was an incredible fan of Tolkien and took from his world. Not to mention, the books themselves have a lot of content to put in. And there was a lot of content Jackson had to leave out in order to make the movies 3 hours long.
So he finishes up with the trilogy and then almost a decade later he brings The Hobbit to the screen. Now don't get me wrong, I like the new Hobbit movies. However, they're a totally different story then the trilogy. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson had to leave parts of the book out for time. With the Hobbit, he's making stuff up to make three movies. He's got all the time in the world and not enough material to fill it up. Therefore, the Hobbit movies have not been as good as The Lord of the Rings. When Jackson brings in his own touch to it, the movie starts to suffer.
And I still think Jackson is a good writer. I don't think this movie has made me turn away from the man. I'm just a little bit skeptical, because the script could have been a lot better.
The last thing I will mention is...
This guy...
Now I've done a pretty good job at describing this movie without the presence of Jeffery Combs just strange addition to this movie.
Combs plays a very strange FBI agent. They actually say he's the guy that gets all the weird cases. And the series of murders that happen in this town are nothing but strange. But instead of being the X-Files like FBI agent, used to dealing with this stuff but a normal guy, Combs is actually incredibly strange. He's got a phobia of sorts to women screaming at him, he's been involved with cultists. Overall, this guy was just weird. And it wasn't like he was likeable, or the kind of villain you just love to hate. No, he was just a nuisance. And obstacle for Bannister to overcome and solve the mystery. And he didn't listen to reason, he didn't even really make that much sense most of the time. He pulls out an Uzi for pretty much no reason whatsoever.
And this is the part that I have to kind of doubt Jackson. Its things like this, and the random love story between the chick from lost Elf and dwarf #5 in The Hobbit. It doesn't really add to the story, its just there. Now I don't know if that's totally Jackson who is the blame for that but its just strange.
And that's really what this movie is. Strange. In some ways its really good that its this strange. Its a very out of the norm movie and I think if it had come out in a different time and a few different actions had been taken, I think it would have been a really good psychological horror comedy.
But as it is, its just a little sloppy. Its a mediocre script with mediocre effects with a big name like Michael J Fox and it expects to be good.
Like I said before, we live in a world of reboots and new adaptations. I would love someone to take this and actually do it right. Maybe Jackson could take another crack at it, maybe we'll see a new version in a couple years, but for now, its alright. It has some promise to it but its nothing really worth seeing.
But that's what I thought of the Frighteners. What did you think? What do you think of Peter Jackson as a writer, as a director? Comment and Discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. This is a WatchMojo of the best Michael J Fox performances, its a list I might actually be looking up and watching soon. Enjoy!
The Great Muppet Caper is one of those movies I watched as a child... Over... and Over.. and Over again.
Its not really fair of me to review this movie and expect myself to be objective. I know this movie inside and out and if anything was going to cloud my judgment or sway my opinion in this review, its the childhood nostalgia I have for this movie.
Just a warning, however, I will try to give my honest opinion on the film and how it holds up over the years. Was it just a childhood classic or film that holds up over the years?
The Great Muppet Caper follows the suit of a lot of Muppet Movies have, where the Muppets are very aware that they are in a movie. In fact, the first song is called, "Hey, A Movie!" where they sing about how excited they are that they're making a movie.
Kermit, Fozzie, and Gonzo play reporters for a news paper. When they miss a public robbery of a fashion guru, they're fired from the Daily Chronicle.
They decide that the only way to get their jobs back is to go to London, interview the woman who was robbed, and catch the jewel thief.
Meanwhile, the woman who was robbed, named Lady Holiday (played by Diana Rigg) is confronted by Miss Piggy who wishes to become a model who works for Lady Holiday. Holiday instead hires her as a receptionist but Miss Piggy takes it anyway. While day dreaming about becoming a model, Miss Piggy's identity is mistaken for that of Lady Holiday's by Kermit who of course is smitten with Miss Piggy from the beginning.
Along the way, Kermit is helped by the tenants of the Happiness Hotel to stop Lady Holiday's brother, Nicky Holiday (played by Charles Grodin), who is secretly trying to steal Lady Holiday's infamous Baseball diamond but finds himself smitten with Miss Piggy as well.
I've read reviews of this film that bring forth a few criticisms, that the film is "overplotted" "Uneven" and not edgy enough for a caper film.
Now this is one of those situations where I just can't see past my childhood nostalgia. And even those reviews say that despite those comments, seeing the Muppet cast and the performances given make the film easy to just enjoy and just down right fun.
I have to agree. Being as I've seen this movie multiple times, I thought I'd only see it through my nostalgic childhood eyes. But instead, watching the film, I caught so many jokes that I either didn't catch as a kid, or were too over my head to understand.
And I think that's a great example of a movie staying great even as its time as passed.
And this really seems to be true for all of the Muppet movies. Yes the cameos are out dated and there are a lot of them I still don't quite know, but the in jokes of the character's knowing its a movie, playfulness, and just a fun script make this movie entertaining a decade later.
Its a question that must be posed for the new Muppet movies that have come out in the last few years. I have seen both and surprised that I never got around to writing a review for either of them. But those movies need to ask themselves, are they going to be funny just because Lady Gaga made a cameo, or are they going to be funny because it was fun for kids and adults. Is it going to be fun for kids who watched the Muppet Movie in 2011 to watch it again in 2021 and still enjoy it in a new way, cherishing the memories the movie gave them as a child, and enjoying the smarter jokes as an adult? Or is the film just going to be a notion of its time? Nothing more than that?
I really hope its the first one.
The humor and storytelling in The Great Muppet Caper is just rich and has Jim Henson written all over it.
Is it a little bit weird that Charles Grodin had a thing for Miss Piggy in this movie? Yes, its a little weird. I remember that being weird when I was younger. However, it creates for some funny moments, over the top acting as he is the villain of the film, and some funny quotable lines.
Is the story totally fluid? No. They could have focused a little bit more on Kermit, Fozzie and Gonzo investigating like they said they were going to instead of dabbling in the love triangle and modeling dreams of Miss Piggy, but the performance of the live actors and the performance of the puppeteers is just something that is incredibly hard to top.
There was a video I watched a while ago where someone was interviewing Kermit the Frog. The question was asked, what is the difference between a muppet and a puppet. Kermit plainly answers, well a puppet is something that a person can control, whereas I am an actual talking frog. And that's the funny thing about these muppet movies. Yes, its very obvious that Kermit, Fozzie, Miss Piggy are all muppets and its very strange for humans to not question why they're treating this puppet pig as a real person.
However, next time you watch a Muppet movie, watch the gestures and actions of the muppets, watch how each person interacts with them and suddenly the illusion of these muppets actually interacting individually on their own becomes second nature and you don't question it.
If you don't find the muppets believable or you're going to get distracted by muppets, you're probably not going to like this film. But if you like the Muppet movies, and let's be honest, who doesn't like the Muppets, you're going to feel right at home with The Great Muppet Caper.
The music, while not music you're going to recognize as classics immediately, are just another great element of the film. They're enjoyable and funny. While there are times where it seems they're a little top heavy on how many songs they are playing, the music is done by the same guy who wrote C is for Cookie... so they're catchy enough songs.
If you can't tell, I'm a little bias when it comes to this movie. Like I said before, the humor is very clever and the kind that both kids and adults will enjoy.
Its really a shame because this was actually the first Muppet movie that Jim Henson directed. Henson always was the creative mind behind the muppets but this was the first movie he directed.
It really puts Henson as one of those artists that just was taken from the world too early. I think Henson goes down as one of those great creative minds. Something is so clever about the Muppets. Of course it isn't just him, and movies have come and gone since The Great Muppet Caper and the movies Henson was involved with before he passed.
Hopefully I can get a review of the new Muppet movies up soon and compare the old and the new, see how things have changed since.
Overall, The Great Muppet Caper is a fun movie that, despite a few problems, they're very hard to see behind the brilliance of the Muppets and the fun humor and song that goes along with it.
But what do you think? Is my nostalgia clouding my judgement? Let me know, comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. Here's Bohemian Rhapsody with the Muppets. Enjoy!
I don't know why I have a Netflix List. I have all these award winning films on queue, just waiting for me to click on them. And then a film like this comes around and I forgo everything I should be watching and go immediately onto this. I hilariously put this on my Netflix List. I think it maybe was there for 12 hours before I watched it and took it off immediately.
The Recruit stars Colin Farrell. He is a brilliant MIT graduate who is recruited into the CIA by none other than Al Pacino. He is seduced by the fact that Al Pacino knows a lot about his father and so he leaves a sure fire job because Al Pacino says he'd do a good job.
The next act of the film is him training in a CIA training facility called, "The Farm". The Farm is a training ground where nothing is as it seems and everything is a test.
Everything is crowded in twists and turns, all in an attempt to make this group of candidates ready to be CIA agents.
The act of the movie where they are training, is very, very good. This film is actually a rare look into the early acting career of Colin Farrell and the guy is a good actor. Put aside the hokey films he's been in like Dare Devil, and Minority Report, the guy is a very talented actor with films like Saving Mr. Banks, and this one.
At least his performance was good.
Pacino is... well, Pacino.
Regardless of what you think of him, the guy is fun to watch and he brings it in this film. He's just a character clouded in mystery and it really is very up in the air on whether or not he's to be trusted or not.
Bridget Moynahan plays a rival agent and the romantic interest. I'm not totally familiar with her work but her role in the film was unfortunately underwhelming. In many ways, she becomes the intellectual rival to Farrell, much of the movie becomes a Spy vs. Spy back and forth between the two.
However, she is an incredibly flawed female lead. Easily manipulated, her emotions are her weakness and despite having the desire to succeed in a man's world like every other female agent character in a lot of other movies, she quickly falls whim to Colin Farrell's bad boy charm.
There are a couple more characters, but in the end it really comes down to the relationship between Farrell, Pacino, and Moynahan. Pacino obviously brings the most entertaining performance, followed by Farrell, and followed a ways away by Moynahan.
While campy at times, the movie actually does do a pretty good job at keeping the audience guessing. Who is lying, who is telling the truth. Is this a test? Is this real? Who is the bad guy? Who is the good guy?
Its almost a little too twisty.
There's so many turns and twists to this movie that its almost laughable by the end. One thing turns another thing on its head and then fifteen minutes later, that thing is turned on its head.
Was the movie absolutely stellar? No. There are a lot of other movies that do the espionage, twisted thriller genre better. But The Recruit is a fun movie nonetheless. I personally love movies that remind me of old 80s action films.
While this movie is in no way iconic as The Fugitive, or Die Hard, the thing that I love about those movies is that they're the kinds of movies you can just sit down and watch. It doesn't have to be an event because its not a thought compelling movie. Its just fun, simple action, thriller movie with some twists in it and is just darn entertaining.
I am in no way comparing this to Die Hard or The Fugitive, instead I'm saying this movie is a fun film to just sit down and watch. You don't need to prepare for it, or need to be in a certain mood like a lot of the films I have on my Netflix list are.
Its just a movie that you may see on a Friday night when you're not looking for anything to complex or though provoking, just a movie filled with some hokey twists and mediocre acting.
Its not quite a B-list action film due to the names in this film, its just more fun.
I hope I'm explaining that clearly enough that I think this movie is worth checking out. Don't expect something as mind blowing as the Bourne films, but don't disregard is as a horrible movie either.
But those are my thoughts on The Recruit. Have you seen it? What did you think? Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. I love Pacino's work. I also love impressions of him. Here's a video of Frank Caliendo, a comedian with great impressions. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen this video but its mainly to show his Al Pacino impression... and to put up a new video I guess. Enjoy!
Let me preface this review by saying, I was super excited about 22 Jump Street. I loved 21 Jump Street and I thought it was really a movie that not only deserved a sequel but if a sequel were to be released, I would accept it with open arms.
And I really do accept 22 with open arms. It was a really well made sequel.
The movie starts off basically stream lining our heroes, (Tatum and Hill) to where we expected them to be in the last film, College.
We all knew, from trailers, from the last words of Ice Cube, that the sequel would be these two in college.
They are returned to Jump Street but instead have to move across the street to 22 Jump Street. As they're walking across the street, there's actually a line where they say, before you know it, we'll be back across the street at 23 Jump Street, as some condominiums are being built. They then say, let's not get a head of ourselves.
From the beginning, the movie had a plan to where it wanted to go and they didn't want to waste time, they just wanted to get us there so we could enjoy the funny times of these guys at college.
Its a very similar set up. They go undercover as students in college to investigate a drug that killed a student.
Being very different and having different skills, Tatum and Hill fall into different social groups and hilarity ensues as they try to figure out who is selling the drugs.
However, the movie does a really good job at making the film seem different, familiar with the characters, throwing them into pretty much the same circumstances but making it seem different.
The different characters, though similar to the characters in the first film, have their own personalities. Its not like Amber Stevens was Brie Larsen's exact character. They serve somewhat similar purposes in the movie but they are different characters. Different characters that actually served the same purpose.
And dear lord, Amber Stevens is just ridonculously gorgeous in this film.
Probably the biggest problem I have with this film is that, in essence, it is the exact same film as 21 Jump Street. They're doing something other than undercover stuff in the beginning. They're not good at it, then they go do Jump Street, they're still not good at it. They try the drug, they meet new people, assimilate into different social groups. They get mad because one is getting swept up in their own social group and lose touch of the friendship. They have a "break up" montage, come together for one last battle. stop the bad guy, and reconcile their differences.
Let me be clear, they do it well. Not only that but they address the fact that its the same movie. Going back to the thing I said before, this movie is almost very aware that it is a sequel and a lot of the jokes are very tongue and cheek, almost winking to the audience that yes, this is the exact same movie, just tweeked a little bit to make it seem different.
You know what other movie did that?
Yeah, Remember the Hangover part 2?
That movie did this exact same thing, tried to tell us it wasn't the same movie and robbed me of a 9 dollar ticket.
22 Jump Street ultimately does the same thing but they address it. There are several jokes stating that this movie is in essence the same thing you watched before called 21 Jump Street. But by stating that its the same thing and making a joke out of it, the movie actually gets really funny and a lot of jokes are made.
My problem is less the fact that its the same movie but more about how much they harp on the fact that they know its the same movie.
In 21 Jump Street, the police chief, played by Ron Swanson (Nick Offerman) does that similar joke by pointing out to the audience that 21 Jump Street is a reboot of a TV show. He basically says writer's cant think of anything original so they just rehash old shit. But the movie didn't play off that joke throughout the entire movie. Ron Swanson makes his joke, its funny, I laugh at it everytime, but then the movie starts to branch off and give us the awesome humor that made 21 Jump Street awesome.
I almost think 22 Jump Street really banked on that joke being really really funny. And it was. But the more they made that joke, the less I laughed at it. And unfortunately, the end credits, while incredibly funny still, weren't as funny to me because they had told this joke multiple times and it took away from the climax those end credits were suppose to be.
The bright side: That's probably the biggest problem I had with the movie. While the story didn't feel as fluid to me as the first movie did, it was really freaking funny. I can't imagine anybody going into this movie and not laughing at some parts of the movie. Every comedy movie I review I give my bullshit schpeel about comedy movies being so subjective and I can't say a movie is good because I thought it was funny cause you might not.
The truth is, this movie has a mix bag of great humor. Its got slapstick, its got ironic, satirical jokes, it has raunchy humor, its got dumb humor. I can't imagine at least some of this stuff won't make you laugh.
The duo between Tatum and Hill is great. The interactions between them and other characters is hilarious.
Ice-Cube... my god. Was hilarious. Instead of just being the stereotypical police captain, he actually gets into it and some of his funny parts in this movie were the parts where I was laughing the hardest.
The minute you see the movie you will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Again, the biggest problems I have with the film is the overuse of the self-awareness it had that it was a sequel, I thought that joke was overused, and the story just wasn't as fluid as 21. I don't mean that I wasn't laughing still at the parts that really weren't needed but 21 Jump Street, to this day, just feels so right and so put together perfectly.
22 Jump Street had a couple moments that either didn't add up to anything, or was them just dicking around. Again, them dicking around is hilarious, but it would be nice to have it move to a point instead of them just dicking around.
Kind of going off of that, one other thing I would have wanted them to improve on is actually putting these guys in a classroom.
Swear to god, when they go to college, they go to their classes and then they never go back again.
In 21, you saw them trying to maintain their cover in classes. I know college is a different ball game but the scene that makes me regret the fact that there wasn't much time spent in the classroom is a scene with the comedian Patton Oswalt.
Oswalt has a brief performance as a tenured college professor. He gives a whole speech on how college is the time to find yourself. It really makes fun of the way college is done because he states Tatum is doing the right thing by questioning him. I think there was a lot of things to build great humor with that they just missed out on.
At one point, Tatum does mention the effect his human sexuality class is having on him. It's a quick joke but it would have been hilarious to actually see these two in college classes and watch them struggle with it the way they did in the first film.
But as many things as I can point out of what they could have done in this movie, I can do a thousand other things that they did right in this film. Getting mini performances or cameos from big name actors, awesome, but also giving opportunities for people like Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Tatro from Youtube (a role he was made for) means 22 Jump Street knows exactly what they are doing, and they do it really, really well.
I go back and forth on whether or not I like this movie more than 21 Jump Street and when I watch the two back to back I'll be sure to let you know. But for now, 22 Jump Street was hilarious. Great performances, not only from Tatum and Hill but the entire cast.
Its a fun movie and probably the best comedy of the summer.
But what did you think of 22 Jump Street? How does it compare to the first film? Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. Speaking of Jimmy Tatro, here's a promo I think they had him do on his YouTube Channel. It wasn't that big prior to the movie because... I never saw this prior to the movie. But here it is. Enjoy!
So there's been some rumors about what DC is going to announce in the next month at Comic-Con. I unfortunately will not be able to write anything about those announcements, even if I do get wind of them in the next few months.
I reminisce back to last year when such brilliant announcements came out during comic-con, and being so excited the minute I saw the announcement that they were making a Batman and Superman film.
And so much freaking stuff has come out since. We've got a title, we've got a shit load of casting announcements from Batfleck, to Gal Gadot, Cyborg, and Lex Luthor.
It makes me really bummed that I'm not going to be able to give you my thoughts on the announcements because I'm sure they are going to be fantastic.
The rumor mill has been running already and some of the surprises of Comic-con have been "spoiled" as it were, especially on the DC side of things. Now all the pieces of information I'm putting out now is, as I understand it, still rumors and it won't be confirmed until comic-con. Usually I don't like to write on rumors, as I did get burned by the Bryan Cranston/ Lex Luthor rumor.
So before I get going, just remember that these are all rumors. They've come from a decently reliable source but they are still subject to change and I could be totally wrong.
So what has been said?
Well the whole line up for the next 7 movies have been "announced", no big deal. If this turns out true, regardless of my thoughts of the movies they have lined up, its good to see that DC has a plan instead of putting out a movie and seeing how it goes over in audiences. It was allowed for Man of Steel but if they're going to compete with Marvel, they need to start having faith in their projects.
The first project after Batman v. Superman will allegedly be a Shazam movie. Now I'm a little skeptical of this because this movie is suppose to come out the same year as Batman v. Superman. I understand that its about 2 years out but by the same token, its 2 years out. Hopefully they've had this in the works, they have a director, they just need to start filming. I'm not saying its not possible, I'm just saying they've got to get going quick if they want to launch this movie.
I'm more concerned if Shazam is the right way to go. For those who don't know, Shazam is a superhero who becomes the hero when he says the word Shazam. In many incarnations of the story, he's been a child. So this strong, superman-like guy is actually a transformed kid who made a wish to a magic wizard. I'm exaggerating but you can see why I'm not really excited about this being the first movie after Batman v. Superman. I don't want the next DC Superhero to be a magic wish right out of Ted.
Now there's a caveat to that. Rumors have it that Dwayne Johnson will be taking on a role in the DC universe and the buzz has it pointing towards this role.
I'm still not totally convinced that Dwayne Johnson has the acting chops to pull off a superhero role in the DC universe. Especially after watching Pain & Gain and other movies, I think him in a superhero role is long overdue, however, I'm wondering if this will actually work.
I think the deciding factor for me is how Johnson does in the upcoming Hercules.
If Johnson can give a serious performance of a hero as legendary as Hercules. I think it will give me hope and make me okay with a Shazam film.
Again, we don't know if the Rock is going to Shazam or even going to be in the film. He was set to play Black Adam (Shazam's rival) but even that isn't confirmed.
But everything I said above applies to any Superhero he ends up playing. I would like to see a little bit of humor set into these DC movies but they need to be a different tone than Marvel. Especially with Man of Steel setting that serious tone.
Overall, I'm hesitant about a Shazam film unless Dwayne Johnson is in it, then I'm optimistically hesitant.
And then there's Sandman...
I don't know anything about DC's Sandman...
All I know is that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is going to be involved. Acting in it, maybe. Producing and adding directorial guidance to it. I hope so.
After watching Don Jon, I really want to see what Levitt has to offer and why not see it in a comic book movie.
Still don't know how Sandman is going to connect to the Justice League universe being set up but I'll go see it... that's pretty much all I have to say about that.
And then we have the Justice League movie. Rumor has it that they will be filming Batman v. Superman back to back with the Justice League and Batman v Superman will be less of a Man of Steel sequel and more of a set up for the Justice League movie.
The movie of course is going to feature Batman and Superman. Wonder Woman is going to have a role in it, I hope a supporting role but nothing that reveals that she is Wonder Woman.
And finally, there will be a Cyborg cameo for sure played by Ray Fisher, a Broadway actor. I didn't do a review about that because it seems like such a small role and it feeds better into this review.
All of which I have to say, tread freaking carefully Zack Snyder.
Every time Snyder you make me bring out Kenny Powers. I'm okay with the fact that you finally came out and said, this is not a sequel to Man of Steel. It will not focus solely on Superman. Instead this will be a movie about Batman and Superman that will lead into the Justice League.
Or that is how I understand you.
I understand you're trying something different than Marvel, and I love it. I love that you're not doing separate movies for each member and making wait a billion years for a Justice League movie. Yes it worked really well for Marvel but you're DC, you're a company that takes risks... well sorta but you gotta do this in a different way.
That being said, don't lose focus on what you need to do in the Batman v Superman movie.
Make your Batman and Superman film about Batman and Superman. Give your future team a fantastic set of anchors to build off of.
Make the relationship between Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck something to go down in history. And give the two most iconic superheroes in history the face off they deserve. Is that too much to ask for?
I'll talk more about the Justice League movie towards the end as I talk about the other films.
The following film apparently will be a Wonder Woman standalone.
Believe it or not, aside from Batman v Superman, which I have been raving about since the day it was announced, a Wonder Woman standalone film is the movie I am looking forward to the most.
I'm actually kind of disappointed that they didn't switch Wonder Woman and Shazam. I really think they need to do a standalone Wonder Woman movie before the Justice League, but oddly enough, the Wonder Woman movie is going to follow the Justice League movie two months later in July of 2017.
Now I personally think this is DC's biggest wager. Because if this is in fact confirmed, they must have big hopes for Gal Gadot.
They must see something in her that the rest of the world does not because I'm not gonna lie, aside from Jesse Eisenburg, I'm still kind of confused on this particular casting.
Ideally this could launch Gal Gadot's career, but only if she's good.
She could be rocketed to the top of not just the comic book action movie world but the action movie world in general. But only if she's good.
Gal Gadot could be a huge symbol of how far women have come in the past few years, show a side of movies that we have never seen before, that there can be a good female Superhero film. But only if she's good.
I'm going to go back to my thoughts when the casting of Gal Gadot was announced.
Physically, I'm sure she can bulk up for the role. But its her acting that I am not convinced about. Granted, since writing that review, I still haven't seen any of the movies Gal Gadot is in. Its something that is on my long laundry list of things to do for this blog but I've picked up every Fast and Furious clip I can, and its not really impressive.
Again, I really hope she can do it, and I'm waiting till the film comes out to pass judgement, but dear lord, I really hope this works out. Because this is actually the best piece of news to come out of these rumors. I've been waiting on "confirmation" of a Wonder Woman standalone film, here it is. Thank you.
Just... Kenny Powers... okay?
Then that Christmas, there will be a team up film with the Flash and Green Lantern. 2017 is going to be a crazy year for DC. It could have been a crazy year for all comic book movies in 2015 but apparently DC wanted to further the connectivity of these films... I'll get to that later...
But Flash and Green Lantern.
Things to pull from this, confirms some of the members they're bringing into the Justice League movie. I was pretty sure that Green Lantern was going to be in there. The big surprise I guess is that the Flash is going to be in it.
Now its unclear on whether or not its going to be a whole new Flash or its going to be the Flash, or connected to the Flash television show.
In short I think they're going to create their own Flash separate from the TV show in order to get things straight not confusing.
I'll get back to that in a sec though.
The big thing I pulled from this is that Ryan Reynolds is not going to be reprising his role as Hal Jordan from the other Green Lantern film from 2011.
While I'm in no way surprised by this news, I am a little bit bummed. I think Ryan Reynolds gets too much crap from that movie.
Yes it had its problems and looking back at the review, I don't say too many good things about it. But still, I didn't hate the movie, its not my favorite superhero film but I thought it gave an alright effort.
Needless to say, it needed a facelift and reboot. While I'm sad to see Ryan Reynolds not returning, I'm looking forward to the casting. Maybe they're announce it at Comic-Con and I'll be able to give my thoughts probably in late August?
What I imagine them doing is taking the Green Lantern in the direction of John Stewart instead of Hal Jordan. While I think they could do a Hal Jordan Green Lantern reboot, I think they're probably going to try and give the Justice League some diversity and go with a John Stewart.
Personally, if I could have anybody play John Stewart, it would be Idris Elba.
Its a casting that I know will never happen, but it just gets me excited to know that we have another character that will have to be casted which we will have another announcement coming, hopefully soon.
If they were going to go with a Hal Jordan, I think they need to swipe up Nathan Fillion before Marvel can put him in one of their movies. Its only a matter of time.
My bet is that I am very, very wrong either way they go. And perhaps if this report is wrong, maybe the whole deal of Ryan Reynolds not reprising the role is wrong as well.
What I will say however is that its probably a good choice and its probably true. I'm still skeptical on whether or not they're going to have a Flash and Green Lantern movie, but I'm almost certain they're not bringing Reynolds back. Its a shame, but its probably true.
Now as far as The Flash goes, I really hope they keep the show and the movies separate. I think it allows for the shows to have their own freedom and will to do whatever they want and neither the movie or the show needs to be tied down.
The one thing I could possibly see them doing is having the TV shows be a younger version of the Flash, and everything that happened in Arrow and The Flash happened well before the events of Man of Steel.
Now there's a little bit of an inconsistency there due to the fact that the shows take place in current day but I would approve if Grant Gustin was a younger incarnation of the Flash that shows up in the Justice League and this team up film.
That way the shows don't really mess with the films and the films don't mess with the shows.
Again, there's a time consistency there but I will not accept Grant Gustin playing The Flash in the films. I refuse.
In a post a long time ago, I half-jokingly made the argument that Neil Patrick Harris should play the Flash.
Again, its a choice that I'm certain will never happen but I have the feeling they have to vary up the kinds of movies they're making. Similarly to Marvel making an Ant-Man starring Paul Rudd, why shouldn't they throw a little bit more humor into his series with a casting like Neil Patrick Harris as Flash.
I know its a little bit different because Marvel has opened it up to make the universe a little bit more of a fun one than DC has with Man of Steel but lets vary it up a little bit.
Moving on.
Allegedly after the Green Lantern and Flash Team up, there's suppose to be an official Man of Steel sequel.
Now with the exception of when Batman v Superman and The Justice League were suppose to be released, all information we had heard before, this is the news that I think is probably the most accurate.
The more and more I'm hearing about Batman v Superman, with casting news, and the very little I know about the story so far, it just seems as though this is a precursor to the Justice League.
Now Dawn of Justice can go one of two ways. It can be an awesome epic, pitting two of the world's most recognizable superheroes against each other in a battle of wits and strength that ultimately leads them to reconcile their differences and realize the hope in creating the world's newest superhero team bent on saving the world from unknown evil... or it could be an Iron Man 2 and just a prequel to the Justice League.
Please God! Let it be the former.
If you remember anything about what I thought of Man of Steel. I saw it as a great introduction and recreation of the origins of Superman. It gave him a more serious tone but stayed true to the bare bones of the story we know and love.
However, the movie never really gave Henry Cavill a chance to really develop Clark Kent/ Kal-El, his relationship to Lois Lane. He never got to actually BE Superman. He got his introduction, he's been introduced to the world, lets get him a chance to become Superman.
I'm realizing that while Batman v Superman will be a nice chance to show Kal-El BEING Superman, this movie isn't going to be a movie about Superman that pits him against Batman, instead this is going to be about both of them.
And that's a lot better than a prequel to the Justice League... as long as its not a prequel to the Justice League and actually a movie about Batman and Superman.
In short, the actual sequel needs to happen for sure. Whether its 2016 or 2018.
I've been rambling for a while but there's one more thing worth mentioning. Its not confirmed yet but hell, none of this stuff is. So why not speculate on it.
Apparently Jason Momoa has been set to play Aquaman in Batman v Superman. I'm happy and cautious at the same time.
I'm happy because Aquaman is finally coming to the big screen and I hope he can be turned into a badass. I have made fun of Aquaman as much as the next guy but I hope they can bring him into the movies and make him something really special.
I'm cautious for two reasons. 1. Its Jason Momoa. I saw Conan the Barbarian and it was a piece of garbage. Not totally Momoa's fault but it gets me cautious about the casting. 2. I want his exposure in the movie to be the same as the exposure I want for Wonder Woman. I want him to be in the movie but not as Aquaman. I them to allude to the fact he's Aquaman but never have him fight.
Like I said before, Batman v Superman needs to be about those two. Not a prequel to the Justice league. I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't really want it to just be a cameo because I won't know how the performance is until the Justice League and then its just out there and there's nothing we can do about it.
So if Jason Momoa actually is Aquaman, I am cautiously optimistic.
However, I'm really getting into speculation territory. Almost none of what I have talked about has been confirmed and in the next few months, chances are half of this will be wrong. Now that I've had a couple days to think about it, I'm realizing that this is a hefty lineup. I realize that DC has to do something drastic to get back in competition with Marvel but it is going to be ridiculous if they are busting out 3 movies a year. Totally impossible? Not really. Improbable. Yes. So do I want to see this lineup? Yes. Do I expect to see this lineup? No. I do think DC is planning something ambitious but this may just be a lot of truths mixed up in the rumor wheel.
But I want to know you're thoughts. On anything. Momoa possibly being Aquaman? The line up? How probable you think this news is? What movies from DC do you want to see? Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. I went over a lot, my brain hurts. Lets go to some good old Robot Chicken. Enjoy!
