Kingsman: The Secret Service

Word of advice... if you're a guy, don't bring your girlfriend to this movie. I'm not saying that women will not enjoy this film, but if you're thinking this might be a romantic date movie, you're probably wrong.

Kingsman: The Secret Service is an interesting movie because I don't think a lot of people expected that much from it. I think people saw another teen training movie, you know, the normal teen getting recruited into an awesome organization and becoming straight up badass in the process. This formula has been done countless times before and I think when people saw the trailer for this movie, it just seemed like another one of those movies.

The story starts out pretty straight forward, you've got this kid, Eggsy (played by Taron Egerton) and he's kind of your troublemaker. His step dad is a douche, his life just isn't that great. And then he gets recruited to join a super spy agency by Colin Firth's character, Harry Hart.

Codenamed Galahad, Harry served with Eggsy's father in the service and gives his entire career to help Eggsy.

The rest of the film is your run of the mill training movie. Its kind of an X-men: First Class for a new James Bond sort of franchise if they intend to make a sequel. Thats good because the movie is directed by the same guy who did X-men: First Class, so in many ways it was kind of rehash of that, but in my opinion, done better.

I love X-men: First Class, but I always thought that the training montage, though good and accompanied by one of the best scores I've seen in a movie in a long time, the parts with the new recruits just kind of seemed pointless at the end of the day. I never felt like the trainees ever really did anything productive in that movie.

In this movie however, the training was great, and you actually felt like it contributed to the plot. The ones left took what they learned in training and utilized it to foil the plot of the villain in the end.

Speaking of which, lets talk about the villain. Richmond Valentine (played by Samuel L Jackson) is a villain I struggle to decide whether or not he's really good or not.

He's different. His plan is all based around climate change which is not usually done, and if done, its not done very well.

Its Samuel L Jackson, so I mean some of it is really entertaining. I think the thing I'm caught up on is his lisp. I kept on going back and forth on whether or not it was funny. At first, I thought, no, its not that funny. And then he said something kind of funny and my immature mind thought, ha, that's pretty funny. And then it became unfunny again, and then he said something like the people without lisps are difficult to understand and that was kind of funny but I don't know. Its definitely not Sam Jackson's best character.

I think a lot of my reservations may be in the execution of his plan and not him as a character persay. I will talk about the ending, but until then, let's talk about something that really worked.

The relationship between Harry and Eggsy worked really well. I know its a cliche that's been done to death, of the young kid getting brought it by the veteran but sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. This time works.

Both actors are incredibly entertaining in the film. Colin Firth continues to show that he is a beast actor and he's willing to expand his range to a slew of roles and films. This is the same guy who won an Oscar for a drama like The King's Speech, now doing an R rated action spy film.

And then there's Taron Egerton. This guy is a really a newcomer and he just nails it. I at first didn't think I was going to like this guy. And truth be told, I really don't like his hat. But he's a good actor with a range. He can be charming and funny but at the same time be very serious and bring some emotion to the role. I'm really looking forward to any continuation of this franchise, especially if it means this guy will get more work.

I've actually heard people say that he would make a good spider-man in the new Marvel reboot, and after seeing this, I would be down for that one hundred percent. He has the ability to act like a tough kid but I also feel like he has the range to play Peter Parker. If they're going with a high school aged Peter Parker (which I hope they don't) I would be okay that approach if Egerton was Parker.

The unfortunate part is that the movie is for the most part, incredibly predictable. Its got all the cliches of a spy movie, its got all the cliches of a training movie, its got all the cliches of the young recruit and the veteran mentor. Everything is cliche... except for the ending... which I will get to.

Part of the reason I say this is because I began the film kind of questioning whether or not The Kingsman organization was actually a good organization. I was thinking that maybe Eggsy was being brought into a really shady organization that says its doing the right thing but in fact its not. And there were a couple moments where I think that could have worked.

However, that's not really the case and again, it fell into something that frankly, I've seen before.

HOWEVER

The movie does become a little bit different by how rated R this movie is. Like I said before, this movie seems like its a young adult set up. Something we've seen over and over and would appeal to the audiences of Hunger Games, Divergent, and Maze Runner. However, the rating of this film tells a very different story.

I see this movie as a crossover between those young adult films and the movie Wanted.

Just the over the top violence and action in this film, put together with the main character looking like he's coming right out of the Hunger Games, Kingsman has a really fun vibe to it that, while the story is a little cliched, its still entertaining and very tongue and cheek while being very violent and action filled.

And its this gritty action, but colorful vibe that makes this movie very entertaining and makes it feel new.

So for everyone reading this review who has not seen movie and you're looking for a recommendation. Here it is. Go see Kingsman. Its a lot of fun. The performances are fun, the action is fun (but very gory, so be warned) and plot overall is fun. The ending, though far fetched and a little bit obnoxious is actually the culmination of an interesting and pretty original threat. So there's your recommendation, I don't want to give anything else away. Go see Kingsman.

And if anything else tells you you should see this movie. Mark Hamill (AKA Luke Skywalker is in this film) He's in a very small role, but it definitely is fun.

Comment and Discuss below! Shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24, etc. etc. Go all the way down to the bottom if you want to see the video but spoilers are ahead.

______________________________________Spoilers Ahead______________________________________


Let's talk about the ending.

I'll clarify. The ending to Kingsman, is not bad. It builds, its suspenseful. Its everything you would expect from a spy thriller. Its also very over the top and humorous to a fun degree.

So Valentine has put a SIM card in every phone across the world. The SIM card has the ability to transmit a signal to the user, making them very aggressive and want to kill everything in this path.

Valentine's plan is to unleash the signal to the world, having everyone kill on another and decrease the world's population in order to limit humanities effect on the climate.

Valentine has gathered together all the world leaders who agree with his plan in his evil lair, implanted them with a micro chip making them impervious to the SIM cards signal, but also could blow their heads off if they go to the wrong people and tell Valentine's plan.

These complicit world leaders include, The President of the United States, the Queen of England, the Prime Minister of Sweden, etc.

Okay, so this plan is ridiculous for two reasons.

1. Valentine got to all of these people?

I mean I get it, we have some pretty corrupt people running world governments. But Valentine's plan is a global genocide!

And there are shots of the situation room in the White House where all the members of the President's cabinet are waiting for everyone in their country to kill on another. This isn't just one corrupt world leader, these are corrupt world governments.

And I get it, the people who disagree are locked up by Valentine... but that's like one or two people who disagreed with this plan? That's a really, really bleak view on the people who are running our governments.

And on top of that, Valentine's argument is all about climate change. The whole crux of his argument is that we must commit genocide in order to stop the Earth from heating up. Its not even a compelling argument. Its not even me contemplating with myself, maybe he has a point. And that's the part of the film that I'm not wild about. As much as its interesting to see an evil mastermind take it to the next level of Bond villain plots for something as different as climate change, I have to just be all around confused.

2. What happens after the film?

So, there's a point in the film where Eggsy is trapped. He is surrounded by the henchmen of Valentine, it looks like he's going to die... and then he has an idea.

He tells Merlin (played by Mark Strong) to activate the micro chip bombs in all of the heads of the guards in order for him to escape.

So Merlin does it, and all the guard's heads start exploding.

Its a funny scene. Its humorous, its colorful, its actually kind of fun. So all the guards surrounding him are dead...

But wait a second, aren't those chips in all the world leaders who went along with Valentine's plan?

Yup, and every world leader, including the President, dies in one click of a button.

I mean, I get it, these guys were corrupt, these guys were willing to sanction global genocide, they're really scum of the earth... but what happens after this film.

The world has just collectively started beating each other senselessly. Hundreds, if not thousands, were murdered... and on top of that, every world leader's head has now spontaneously exploded.

But instead of flying straight to London to help with the aftermath of the entire situation, what does Eggsy do?

... goes and has butt sex with the Princess of Sweden?

So, let me get this straight.

Every world leader's head just either exploded, or they're locked up in Valentine's evil lair. The world just collectively tried to kill each other, thousands are dead... and the "hero" of it all, is getting it in... He's not releasing the rest of the world leaders so they can go, you know, help their countries.

I mean I know you gotta give that Bond edge to the ending, but that would make sense if we had any feeling as though the world was going to be okay after this insane tragedy just happened.

The Kingsman didn't save the world, they kind of fucked it over.

But hey... at least Eggsy got laid?

Its not a huge deal because I only thought of this after I was leaving the theater so the movie was pretty darn entertaining for me to forget about that for a little bit, but this is kind of a huge loose end. Its kind of like the ending of Man of Steel. Metropolis is desecrated but there was no mention of it. This might be something that comes up if there's a sequel and could potentially be a funny bit, but its kind of a big loose end here.

That was really the only part of the film that I was kind of iffy about. My girlfriend was not wild about the fact that they were told to kill their dogs at the end (despite it not actually happening) but I really liked Kingsman if I put aside the ending.

But what did you think of Kingsman? Did you like the ending? Again, Comment and Discuss below! or shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter to get updates on movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Its a fun use of Uptown Funk and action scenes from the film. Enjoy!

Batman v Superman: What's up with Aquaman?

It's been a long time since I've talked about Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

I don't know what it is. Its probably my most anticipated movie (perhaps outside of Star Wars) and because I freaking loved Man of Steel, I am over the top excited for Dawn of Justice.

But I also realize that the film is not coming out for another year. (20 days till its a year precisely). Sure, there's been news about it here and there, but nothing overly exciting. The funny thing is, I don't even want a trailer for this film. I want to go in with no expectations and be wowed like I'm expecting to be. People were rumoring around that there would be a trailer in the Jupiter Ascending trailers and I laughed at them... cause they were wrong.

Honestly, there really hasn't been anything overly exciting (for me) to comment on. Right now the focus is on Marvel cause, as usual, they're killing it, and DC still has a year before Dawn of Justice, before Suicide Squad. The truth is, it's going to be another year before anything beats Marvel right now.

Now you may be saying, but Connor, what about this?

In case you're not up to date, this is a real poster, tweeted from Zack Snyder. Its Aquaman (being played by Jason Momoa). And all I can say is... It looks cool...?

Here's the honest truth.

I don't want this to be a prequel to The Justice League. I don't need the Justice League to assemble in this movie. Maybe an inkling here and there, have everyone show up in their secret identities or something, don't have Aquaman go full Aquaman quite yet, give me a little bit of suspense for Justice League, let me get to know these characters a little bit more as people before you shove how cool they look at me.

But most importantly, this has to be a movie about Superman and Batman.

Why am I getting a picture of Aquaman in a movie about Batman and Superman?!?!

Again, it looks cool. But these are the two quintessential members of the Justice League. Everything is built off their relationship. I want characters like Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, whatever, to take a backseat... a very far back seat, to Batman and Superman. That's what I've been thinking since the beginning. Check out my Wonder Woman rant and you'll see what I mean by back seat.

Snyder and other people have said that Supes and Batman are going to fight and I get the feeling that the movie is going to be focused on them, I'm just cautious about this film. I don't want to bad mouth it because, again, its my most anticipated movie of 2016. But I think the reason I haven't written that much about Batman v Superman is because 1) There's nothing concrete we know about the story, we've only seen costumes and kind of cool posters.  2) There's nothing overtly exciting about this film yet besides what we've known for a while now, its Batman. Versus. Superman.

But then I heard something that made me interested.

So we've heard from Snyder and other news around this movie, that Wonder Woman is going to be a descendent of the Greek Gods. Zeus, Hades, all the classics.

Am I the only one who would laugh if Liam Neeson was Zeus again?

Okay, that's interesting. You've got Bruce Wayne, genius, playboy, billionaire philanthropist. Superman, an alien from Krypton, and Wonder Woman, spawn of the Greek Gods. That's an interesting combination. 

But hey, isn't one of the Greek Gods kind of like Aquaman in a way?

So get this, what if Aquaman is in a similar situation to the Greek Gods as Wonder Woman is? What if Aquaman is a descendent of Poseidon?

Well that's kind of interesting. You could throw in something like he was raised by humans but he's really an Atlantian, that's kind of interesting. 

But again, I can figure this all out in The Justice League. I mean there are going to be two parts to this film, we have time for some character development in that movie, that way we don't take away from Batman and Superman and their development. 

So, on a second look at the Aquaman poster, we read the words on the poster that read Unite the Seven.

Okay, so Unite the Seven? What does that mean? It could mean the Seven Seas, the Seven members of the Justice League, the Seven Dwarves... something like that. 

But why Aquaman? Why show us pictures of Aquaman with a tag line that could just be a teaser for the Justice League. In fact it kind of points towards this movie just being a huge commercial for The Justice League, again, something I really don't want to happen. 

So he wants to United The Seven. Well its not quite the seven Justice League members, so while it still could make sense, I just don't know why Snyder would put something out like that for this film. If its Unite the Seven seas. I guess my question is... from what?

The villain of the film? Maybe, but that brings up a huge question of who is the villain of Batman v Superman? It hasn't really been confirmed yet. And to me, that's a huge part of the film. I know Batman and Superman are going to fight in this film, but I also know that they need to kiss and make up by the end for thing to be all put together for the Justice League in 2017. What's the best way to have two heroes kiss and make up? Joining together to fight a common villain. But who is the villain in Dawn of Justice?

Here's my three scenarios of what I think it could end up being. 

1. Lex Luthor? 

It could happen. I mean it wouldn't be the first time Luthor has been the bad guy. If done right I could really see that being a great way to truly introduce the character, introduce some kind of common goal to unite the two rivals of Superman and Batman. 

But again, I go back to the Aquaman poster. Why Aquaman? What can Luthor do to Atlantis, to the seas? Whatever? And are we really resigning ourselves to the idea that Lex Luthor is going to be the main villain in this film? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but because I'm bored and have nothing better to do but analysis any clue of this movie, I can guess that Aquaman might have a key part to this film. So does Luthor really seem like the perfect way to attack Aquaman?

Honestly, I'm not convinced. If you read my rant on Jesse Eisenberg becoming Lex Luthor, you'll know that I personally want them to develop Eisenberg as the villain gradually. I don't want him doing some kind of real estate scheme in this film, he shouldn't have an immediate evil plan. Lex Luthor should be a plotting and conniving villain, who's plans transcend one movie and require more than just one film to fulfill themselves. 

I would much rather see Lex Luthor be developed in this film. Acknowledge his presence, make him an intricate part of the plot, have him manipulate and laugh when these two heroes waste time fighting each other. He doesn't have to be the main bad guy in the end, but he should have something cooking up, so much that whoever is the villain, while great is a pawn in the grander scale of things.  

Its weird because in my thought process of this, Kevin Spacey would actually make a great Lex Luthor, especially with some form of Frank Underwood. I really liked Spacey as Luthor in Superman Returns, I think it was kind of wasted.

So let's say, in my perfect world of mine, Lex Luthor is out as the main villain. Who is the villain?

I really want Brainiac. I think we've seen Lex Luthor as the main villain countless times, even Zod got done twice, I want to see another Superman villain get realized. Brainiac, Metallo, anybody. Anybody but Doomsday, I think Doomsday is being saved for bigger and better things. So give us a villain that Batman and Superman can disagree how to deal with, fight, and then unite to defeat in the end.

Unfortunately, that seems all too easy and I don't know if they're going that way, especially if they haven't revealed any concrete villains yet... which brings me to the second option.

2. There is no villain.

Not in the traditional sense. There's no big baddy. Maybe the battle really is centered on Batman versus Superman. Maybe these two are big enough Titans that they can fill an entire movie on the conflict of these two. It would be both very big, but very personal at the same time.

Similar to how Tony Stark is technically "the villain" in Captain America 3, this movie could more be about ideals and Superman dealing with other heroes in this bigger universe. I think you cut down on a big climactic battle against good and evil in the end (but hey we got enough of that in Man of Steel) and instead its a battle you're not totally sure where its going to go. The final battle could be Superman and Batman finally duking it out as a breaking point of their feud with each other.

And honestly, the more I write on this, the more I like it. It has the potential to make Dawn of Justice a very intelligent movie. It gets rid of the notion that Superman is always going to fight the bad guy, and personally, I think they could probably find a way to out Marvel Marvel on this one. Sure Captain America and Tony Stark are going to fight and that's an iconic battle, but we're talking Batman versus Superman here. If they have these two have very stark ideologies, so much that the two need to go to blows to settle their differences, I'm totally down for that. And in this version, you have that opportunity for Lex Luthor to have a master plan behind it all and connive until the next film while these two are fighting.

While I eventually want to see them team up and fight someone in the end, setting aside their differences for a greater good, this idea might make Batman v Superman a little bit more subtle of a film, with the iconic battle and everything else thrown in. Man of Steel was not your run of the mill superhero film, which is why I think people were so torn about it. While Captain America 3 might be your run of the mill superhero clash, this movie could be going for something more, and something totally different.

3. There's a Reason the Seas are Uniting.

So then we come back to this Aquaman mystery. Why post a picture of Aquaman, gathering the Justice League, in a prequel. Why would they be gathered already... Unless he's talking about the 7 seas. But again, I need to ask, why unite the 7 seas. What for?

...unless.

Maybe Aquaman is the villain.

He obviously can't be the absolute evil villain that someone like Brainiac or Metallo would be, but why not? Why couldn't Aquaman be the villain? Maybe he's pissed. Maybe Wayne Enterprises and Lex Corp are dumping in the ocean and Aquaman is sick of it. Maybe he blames Superman for the events of Man of Steel and the effect it had on the ocean. I don't know, my point is, he as well has an ideology, a cause that clashes with that of Batman and Superman. I don't know, I'm not the writers, but there has to be a smart reason as to why Aquaman is the villain. It has to be smart so Aquaman can eventually become a part of the Justice League at the end of the film.

Or maybe, there's something else going on.

 Remember how I said Wonder Woman was a descendent of the Greek Gods? Remember how there's a chance that Aquaman is also connected to the Greek Gods?

Well maybe the gods are pissed. Maybe its not just Aquaman as "the villain" but all of the demi gods. Meaning Wonder Woman as well.

This is going well off track of any kind of prediction I've ever had about Batman v Superman, but maybe this conflict is a conflict between man and god, with Superman right in the middle. He's got to choose between joining the leagues of demi gods, or defending the mortals who Bruce Wayne now comes out of retirement to protect but will stop at nothing to protect humanity, even if that means destroying Superman.

It would be a shift for Batman. He's spent his entire career fighting street crime and protecting Gotham, suddenly he's called into action to fight demi-gods. Wouldn't that be crazy?

I don't know if it means there's a modern war against the gods and humanity, but wouldn't that be awesome though? Its a retelling of Greek myth with superheroes who transcend the norms of superheroes like the ones at Marvel and instead are gods. I think there's something here. Again, I'm not a screen writer, but this could escalate things to a whole new level, and it would definitely require the assembly of the Justice League.

This is all based off conjecture and one poster that was maybe just Zack Snyder showing off Jason Momoa. It just gets me curious, that's all.

I just have no clue as to what this movie is going to be about, and honestly, I think my mind would be put to rest just a little bit with some kind of inclining as to who the villain is going to be. Its driving me nuts!

2015 was suppose to be the biggest year in movies. It was suppose to be Batman v Superman, Age of Ultron, Ted 2, Star Wars, the list goes on. Now, a lot of those films are still coming out and I'm sure its still going to be an incredible year. But for some reason, I'm more excited for 2016 than I am for 2015 right now.

I in fact am going to be doing a review of the new Age of Ultron trailer, because there's a lot to say there. But for now, I'll leave with all that to chew on regarding Batman v Superman.

But what do you think? Am I just spinning my wheels until more news comes out about Dawn of Justice or do you think there's some validity to these theories? What do you think of the Aquaman poster? Who do you think the villain is going to be in Dawn of Justice? How do you think this movie is going to come together? Comment and Discuss below! Or shoot me a Tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter to get updates on movie news and more movie reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Now, I am one of the few who believe that Man of Steel was just a pile of goodness and not much was wrong with it... I stand by that. But its kind of fun to hear some of the criticism of the movie. Also, its fun to theorize how Man of Steel is actually going to influence the next movie. Here's what a cartoon of Man of Steel might look like. Enjoy!

RoboCop

If you're thinking to yourself, Wow, RoboCop sounds like a pretty silly movie. I mean Half man, half robot, all cop? How ridiculous can it get?

Well... it can get pretty damn ridiculous. 

RoboCop is the epitome of a cheesy 80s action flick. The truth is, they just don't make movies like this anymore. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing but there's no doubt that there is something special about a movie like RoboCop... or Total Recall... Or other action movies I'll hopefully be reviewing in the future. 

RoboCop is... well... exactly what you would expect from a movie called RoboCop. The movie

follows the story of Officer Alex Murphy (played by Peter Weller) as he is transferred to Detroit PD. Its the future and a bleak one at that.

The streets are run by gangs, led by Clarrence Broddicker (played by Kurtwood Smith). The police department is being taken over by private companies. Also.. I mean, its Detroit. Even in the future its still kind of fucked up.

On one of his first jobs, Murphy and his partner Anne Lewis (played by Nancy Allen) find Clarence's hide out and intend to bring him to justice. Instead of that, they end up outnumbered and out matched. Murphy is captured and brutally shot to death by Clarence and his gang.

After everyone believes that he is dead, which he basically is, Murphy is transformed into RoboCop. A half man, half robot, bred to be a perfect crime fighting machine.

I probably could explain to you about the corporate espionage involved with the plot... but honestly, its a movie about a guy who gets turned into a robot to fight crime... set in the 80s. If you expect something more to come out of this film, you don't really know 80's action films that well.

Its a lot of shooting, a lot of action, and a lot of blood squibs.

Don't know what blood squibs are? Here's a decent explanation.

The great part about this movie is that it doesn't try to tell a complex story, it doesn't try to be anything but a bloody action flick. Sure, it has a little bit of satire in there.

Within the main plot line are sprinkled a series of TV ads, news clips, and what is apparently suppose to be TV from the future.

I suppose the argument could be made that the film kind of takes a harsh look at corporations and their true interests when they say they want to help society. But are you really going to take moral philosophy from a movie called RoboCop?

The movie has some satire in it, it does poke fun at our desensitization to violence and corporations, but this movie is not Requiem for A Dream, this movie is not a Wachowski film where the message is being forced down your throat.

Again, the movie is called RoboCop. You shouldn't be expecting too much from this movie besides over the top 80's action cheese, lots of blood and gore, and lots of people dying horrible and gruesome deaths in what probably should have been a goofy movie about a robot police officer, but instead was this really gritty action film.

All that being said, I didn't really come out of RoboCop with anything incredibly memorable that wasn't already pop culture references. I think I now get some of the background on pop culture and I know what people mean when they refer to RoboCop, but I can't say its a fantastic movie. Its over the top violence in return for very little character development, mediocre acting, and visual effects that probably don't hold up.

That being said, IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT A ROBOT POLICE OFFICER! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT THIS MOVIE TO BE ABOUT?!?!?

I appreciate this movie for the cultural icon it is, I'll pop it in if I want an 80s action fest going on, but beyond laughing at how the 80s are growing more and more dated, this movie doesn't do much for me.

But what do you think of RoboCop? Am I missing something extraordinary about the film? What are your thoughts? Comment and Discuss below! Or shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter to get movie updates and news. 

I'll leave you with this. I'm not sure whether or not I want to watch RoboCop 2 or the new RoboCop next. We'll see. I'm also watching The BlackList so I'm hoping I can get a review of the first season up here quick cause I have a lot to say about that show. I'll give you the trailer for RoboCop the new one for now as I think that's probably where I'll be headed next, but don't quote me on that quite yet. Enjoy!

The Incredible Hulk

Ahh The Incredible Hulk, the Marvel film that time, and Marvel just want to forget. But why? Was it really that bad?

Here's a little bit of context.

In 2003, a film simple titled, Hulk, was released. It starred Eric Bana directed by Ang Lee and... I never watched it. Hulk was never really interesting to me, I didn't think it looked appealing, so I can't say whether or not it was good or not. But the rest of the world can as the movie tanked and was a commercial and critical failure.

Enter 2008, only a month after the critically successful Iron Man, Hulk is rebooted after only 5 years and its the next installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Now I should be fair and say its not exactly a movie that everyone has forgotten about. The movie did well at the box office and for the most part the reviews were not incredibly positive, but also not incredibly horrible. To me, the reception of this film, especially in the years since, have been lukewarm. Don't quote me on this but I believe that while it did well at the box office, its the lowest grossing Marvel film to date.

But is it as lukewarm as people often say that it is? Well...

The Incredible Hulk follows the story of Bruce Banner (played by Edward Norton). The film starts out showing the origin story in the credits, of a science experiment with Gamma Radiation gone wrong and Bruce Banner being given the curse of turning into a giant green hulk who goes on murderous rampages when he gets too excited or angry.

It was really interesting how the film did this. This movie was by no means an origin story. The origin is quickly passed over, probably because this was a reboot and they didn't want to waste time telling you the same thing Ang Lee did.

The story is essentially Bruce Banner searching for a cure to his Hulk inducing gamma radiation.

Throughout the film he's communicating with an anonymous source online code named "Mr. Blue" as to how to find a cure for his condition. All the while, the military, headed up by General Ross (played by William Hurt), are trying to hunt him down. Ross recruited the help of a British Special Forces officer (played by Tim Roth) and eventually injects him with the same stuff they injected into Banner.

Roth's character is in awe of the power of The Hulk when he finally sees him, and he becomes mad with power, wanting to become more and more powerful, and is always looking for a fight.

The main problem right off the bat is that, there's not really that much of a story in The Incredible Hulk. Iron Man's story is thin but at least its corporate jargon, The Incredible Hulk is essentially Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde and isn't exactly a superhero story at all. Which is okay, I think Marvel has shown us that they don't need to follow the typical superhero story. However, the redeeming part of Iron Man's thin story is that Tony Stark is a likable character and has his own internal struggle that we can relate to, and cheer him on as he faces the external threat.

Bruce Banner is just not that interesting. And I don't blame Edward Norton, he's actually the part of the movie that I really like. No, I blame the writers for this mess, because while looking for a cure I guess could be considered a story, its so bare bones that its essentially Bruce Banner just running from place to place. I wouldn't say there isn't a story at all, I would just say its not executed entirely correct.

Furthermore, I don't think Bruce Banner is written like an incredibly unique person. You figure out in The Avengers, that Bruce Banner is in fact a brilliant scientist, but in this movie, he's just a guy who needs to learn to control his anger. There's not a lot of parts that really show off that Bruce Banner is a genius of any kind. The way you could see The Incredible Hulk is like a not so great Bourne movie where if Jason Bourne gets too angry, he turns into a giant green Hulk. The science and discovery is mainly done by others and for the majority of the film, Bruce Banner is just running.

What was great about Mark Ruffalo's incarnation of The Hulk in The Avengers was the fact that he was a scientist. He was brought aboard for his scientific knowledge on Gamma radiation (or at least that's what he was told). Bruce Banner was just as interesting as The Hulk was. The reason his and Tony Stark's bromance is so interesting is because they share that intellect.

Then you've got your main villain in Tim Roth.

Now I think Tim Roth was actually one of the better parts of the movie and with a little bit of tweaking, his incarnation of Abomination could have been (and hell even still could be) a really great Marvel villain, and god knows they need one of those.

Roth's character is interesting because instead of running in fear of the Hulk, he thinks its a magnificent example of strength and power and he's jealous. So much that he willfully volunteers and forces Tim Blake Nelson's character to induce a Hulk rampage into him at the end.

The problem with Roth's character is that the whole idea of injecting him with the same thing Banner was injected with, seeing Banner, doesn't make much sense. The military knows that the Hulk is uncontrollable... so they give Roth's character the same thing? I don't care if its in smaller doses, does that at all seem like a horrible idea... at all?

Furthermore, at the end when Roth does turn into Abomination, suddenly all the interesting parts about him being a villain go away and turn into just an excuse to get The Hulk to face off against another Hulk in Abomination. They needed that one last huge fight to make this movie a true action flick.

And why do they fight? Cause Abomination is going rampage. Why? ...Cause he wants... a good fight? I don't know, you could possibly mock it up to, he's just as disoriented as Banner is when he becomes the Hulk but because Roth's character talks while he's Abomination, I somehow get that he's very conscience of what he's doing. So why is he going and running a much in New York.... because that's why.

I definitely don't think Abomination is the worst Marvel villain to date, in fact I think there are parts of him that are actually really interesting. However, his final scene and lack of motivation to just go on a rampage, kind of makes this villain not that great.

On the other end of the villain role in this movie is William Hurt playing General Ross. While I don't think he's awful, Ross is your typical military general type who cares more about creating weapons than scientific research of whatever Banner's research could be used for. Its been done better and in the end, General Ross is one of those characters that just kind of disappears into obscurity in the superhero film realm.

The truth is, I like William Hurt. I know he hasn't been in great films but I still for some reason kind of like him. I think General Ross could have had a bigger role in the Marvel Universe had this movie been better and his character been more interesting. But for what it is, the best purpose General Ross will serve is to create that end credit scene. I'll get to that near the end of the review.

And then we have Betty.

While not the worst performance Liv Tyler has ever given, you have to go into this knowing that this is a Liv Tyler performance. She's very good at whisper acting... if that were a thing, and when she's screaming, it just seems strange. On top of all of that, she's just not a very good actor. I think she has roles that work for her, like That Thing You Do and Lord of the Rings, but those roles didn't really require too much of her. Here she's expected to be the female lead and carry the movie. In reality, she's just not a strong enough actor to really make me care.

The relationship between her and Banner is just down right strange as she is engaged to Ty Burrell, but hey, its Edward Norton, who wouldn't say screw it to every vow you intended to make and try to get with that?

The fact of the matter is, their relationship is made up of nothing. That was the one downfall of the credit montage of the origin story, we assume there was something there but we don't know what their relationship was like so when she's making out with Bruce Banner, it doesn't look too great for her when we know she's engaged.

But on top of all of that, the major downside of this film is the romance. Not only do the two of them have almost no chemistry, the romance really takes away time that could have been spent developing Bruce as a character, or adding a little bit more to this pretty thin story. Bruce could have been gathering resources to make a cure, dealing with sporadic Hulk occurrences, something that would have put a little bit more tension into the film beyond "Don't let the Army get me". But instead the movie is bogged down by this romance, and another element, in jokes.

Ha! Get it? Cause the Hulk had purple pants in the comic, the TV and other interpretations of the comic! I like a few references to the source material here and there, but this movie just seemed to be poking fun at itself left and right. The Pants, The Lou Ferrigno cameo, it goes on and on.

I did think Banner struggling with Portugese and saying you wouldn't like it when I'm hungry was kind of funny, but when the movie just keeps on poking fun at itself, it breaches the point of not taking itself seriously enough and suddenly I lose interest. A clever nod here and there to the source material is good, but when the cameos and nods are so obvious, it just get obnoxious.

I've been shitting on this movie a lot, and rightfully so, but the truth is, I actually really like this movie. A lot of people complain about the final fight scene but despite the circumstances leading up to Abomination's rampage, I thought it was a really cool fight scene and a great way to show off The Hulk's power against someone his own size. While I don't think Bruce Banner is by any means a Bourne like character, I did kind of like the evading the military element of the story. Again, I think he'd have to be tweaked a little bit, but I would actually love to see Tim Roth return as Abomination in future movies.

And in a strange way, a good thing to come out of this movie was that it really didn't create any hurdles for Mark Ruffalo when he took over.

Maybe that's an insult to the movie, but the fact of the matter is, it was so thin, especially when it came to Bruce Banner as a character, that Mark Ruffalo could really come in and could have played any type of character and it probably would have fit in pretty well with continuity.

Again, I don't think the movie was Edward Norton's fault and I think Norton actually tried to edit the script a little bit to give him some more character, something I believe Marvel shut down pretty quickly, but there wasn't much to have to build around for Mark Ruffalo when he came into the Hulk. I don't know the whole story of Norton's departure from the project so I won't cast blame or point fingers, but I think, in the end, Ruffalo will make a better Hulk. I would say has made a better Hulk but to be honest, we've only seen him in one film, a film he had to share screen time with. I'll say he did a good job, but let's not claim Ruffalo is the Bruce Banner we've been waiting for quite yet, at least not until we see Age of Ultron.

The other thing worth mentioning is that post credit scene.

It served a purpose. It wasn't necessarily good, it wasn't necessarily bad, it just served a purpose. Looking at things now, the scene doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Tony Stark during Iron Man 2 is still kind of in the dark about The Avenger Initiative. In the Avengers, Banner is brought in more for his scientific knowledge, not the fact that he turns into the Hulk. I'm really glad it didn't turn out the way it kind of sounds like it was going to turn out by this post credit scene.

But again, this scene served a purpose. They could have had Samuel L. Jackson come in, do the same thing. But instead they choose Tony Stark. Why? To show that these characters exist in the same universe. Its one thing to have SHIELD pop up here and there (references that were actually really subtle, so way to go Marvel) but its another thing to show Tony Stark, coming right off his huge success not a month earlier, and say we're forming a team. Again... it served a purpose.

So where does that leave us now? What is the future for The Hulk and where is his place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Well we know now that Mark Ruffalo is going to be the Hulk for quite a while. We know that he kicks ass, we know that he, for the most part, has control over his Hulk abilities, he's now a full fledged member of The Avengers.

We also know that something is going to go terribly wrong with him in Age of Ultron.

There's a lot of theories, one that he's being possessed by Scarlet Witch, another that the start of Civil War is already happening in Age of Ultron.

Here's my theory. There's hints of Bruce Banner and Black Widow having somewhat of a relationship that is first shown in Age of Ultron. At first I didn't really think that much of it, but then I think back to the images shown in the Age of Ultron trailer.

Images of Bruce in the middle of the woods looking like he's in pain and looking like he's going to turn into the Hulk again. Sequences of him fighting Tony Stark clad in the Hulk buster armor.

My theory is that Tony Stark creates Ultron in an attempt to relieve some of the pressure off the Avengers and their superheroing around the world. Banner sees this as an opportunity to try and get rid of the Hulk and live a normal life, possibly with Natasha. His experiments go wrong and suddenly he starts losing control of his ability to change in and out of the Hulk.

Maybe its rage induced rampages, maybe its Tony Stark thinking that he needs to control the Hulk suddenly that makes Bruce Banner snap, but eventually, Banner is going to lose his temper and go off the handle causing the battle between him and the Hulk Buster.

Add a couple details in there, shift it around to fit with the larger story, but I am putting money on the theory that Bruce Banner is going to have a huge part in Avengers Age of Ultron. And the consequences of his actions in this film, are going to spark events like the Civil War and later events.

Nothing has been mentioned and I'm not totally sure I want this to totally happen, but I'm convinced that down the road, Bruce Banner is getting a one way ticket into space, courtesy of Tony Stark.

 A lot of people are speculating that eventually we're going to get a planet Hulk movie.

I don't want to see that.

I don't know the entirety of the storyline, but the way I understand it is that Hulk is sent off into space, he lands on a planet and becomes king of the planet.

Honestly, I could care less about Hulk becoming king of a planet but hey I've seen a Racoon and a Tree entertain the hell out of me, and hey maybe that's where there could be a cross over of the two. What if the Hulk shows up in Guardians 2? Huh? Maybe Hulk will be sent up into space at the end of Ultron, he crosses over with the Guardians. I would actually be kind of cool with that. But from what I understand of the Planet Hulk storyline, I don't really have much of an interest in a Planet Hulk movie.

However...

Hulk coming back and swearing revenge on whoever sent him up to space, whether that's Tony Stark, the US government, whoever, I would be interested in Mark Ruffalo playing the Hulk, as the villain of a Marvel film. That, I think, could be a lot of fun.

Maybe while he's doing his crossover with the Guardians, he meets Thanos, Thanos persuades him to help him find the rest of the Infinity Stones, Part one of Infinity Wars is Avengers vs Hulk, then Part two is when Thanos double crosses Hulk and then its all the Avengers vs Thanos in Part 2. I don't know, I'm just spitballing at this point.

Marvel is saying that Hulk is going to have a big role coming up in the next phase but that's kind of hard to believe when there's no sequel to this film, no movie just focusing on The Hulk.

But I'm gonna wrap this up.

The Incredible Hulk has a lot of things going for it. The Hulk is an interesting and nonconventional superhero (if you can even call him one) and I think in comparison with Ang Lee's Hulk, this movie was great. But the story is really thin, there's little to no character development, and the movie is just bogged down with romance and the fact that it doesn't take itself seriously enough.

I think Marvel knew this movie wasn't great but by the time the movie was released, they didn't really care because Iron Man had done so well. Their cinematic universe had at least lifted off and as long as the movie was better than the previous Hulk film, it didn't matter that its still the lowest grossing Marvel movie.

And Marvel has gotten to the point where they don't need to do another sequel. If fans are calling for more Hulk, they can tag him onto another property just to give that lesser known property a little bit of a boost and they don't need to go through the process of writing another standalone Hulk film.

As much as I would have liked to see a sequel to this film, I think its probably best if Hulk remains an essential side character, as opposed to carrying his own film. Could I see Mark Ruffalo carrying his own film as Hulk? Well... I'll have to see what they do with him in Age of Ultron, if my theories are even half of what they end up doing, I think I'll be pretty happy. And you know what, it doesn't matter because Hulk gave us this scene.

So what do you think of The Incredible Hulk? Is it right to say that its the movie Marvel forgot? Which Hulk do you prefer? Ruffalo or Norton? And what place do you think the Hulk is going to have in the MCU moving forward. Comment and Discuss below! Also shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter to get updates on movie news and reviews.

American Beauty

American Beauty is a very strange movie. It was recommended by my friend. He gave me a pile of movies about a year ago and I think that I have gotten to maybe one other one than American Beauty. It was Blow, and it was about a year ago. But American Beauty, he swore by. 

I have no finally gotten to this film and... well...

American Beauty is a film that came out in 1999 that follows the story of Lester Burnham (played by

Kevin Spacey. He's a loser, his wife despises him, his daughter despises him and the weird thing is, its not exactly warranted. We're introduced to these characters and immediately they hate each other. Yeah Burnham isn't exactly the most conscience person, he could probably pay more attention to his wife and daughter but nothing really says that he's a bad person... yet. His wife (played by Annette Benning) is a real estate agent who is very materialistic. At the beginning of the film she begins an infatuation with a rival real estate agent... that'll come in later.

Their daughter (played by Thora Birch) is your typical 90s angsty teenager. Nobody understands her, she's unsatisfied with her body. And she really has some bitchy friends. The nucleus of all the conflict in this film really comes from her friend Angela (played by Mena Suvari). The first time Lester sees her, he becomes infatuated with her and just wants to get with her. Basically his quest to sleep with his daughter's friend sends him on a crash course of a midlife crisis where he quits his job, starts working out, starts buying weed from the creepy stalker kid next door (played by Wes Bentley, or that guy from the Hunger Games), and just goes off the deep end. 

All the while you've got his wife having an affair with the rival real estate agent, Wes Bentley getting abused by his marine father (played by Chris Cooper) and just a lot of shit that lies underneath the illusion that this middle class family has everything perfect. 

To start off, I understand why this movie is popular. I understand why it was highly praised by critics,

I understand the artistic vision taken with this film, I understand the themes and arcs that take place in this movie.

What I don't understand however is how people can think this was the best movie of 1999. I was 7 at the time and honestly the best thing I remember from 1999 was Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, so I know I was no consosiuer of film at that age, but the best film of 1999? Winner of Best Picture, Best Actor AND Best Director (and others)?!?!

What the hell?

This movie was given five Oscars for being American Psycho meets Office Space. Cause that's essentially what this movie is. I mean I know this movie came out the same year if not before both those films, but was that the missing part of the recipe for American Psycho? Add just a splash of Office Space and a sexy teenager that Christian Bale could creep on?

I have to give the movie credit for its very apparent symbolism and its ability to make you wonder, what could this symbolize and what could this mean. But I think it gets to a point where the movie stops being deep and starts being pretentious.

I'm talking of course, about the bag scene. You've got this kid who lives across the street who falls in love with Spacey's daughter and he spent a long time in a mental hospital. So of course, Thora Birch finds that deep. His thing is that he really likes film and finds art in it. So much that he filmed a bag floating in the wind. 

AND THIS IS THE MOST INSPIRING THING HE HAS EVER SEEN IN THE HISTORY OF EVER!

I don't mean to be a dick, I know art is totally subjective, but what the hell is this?

Its scenes like this that kind of make me grown and say, Okay, okay, we get it, you're trying to make a point. The movie stops being subtle and instead becomes incredibly pretentious. There's symbolism that is up for interpretation, like the roses everywhere, or the color red. What could it mean? Who knows, thats really up to what you pull out of the movie. These are things that happen in the background and don't take away from the film. But when we spend an entire five minutes on watching a bag float in the wind, suddenly I feel like my time is being wasted. 

The other part of the movie that kind of bothered me was the fact that we all knew Kevin Spacey was going to die at the end. Telling you who kills him would be the spoiler but the fact that he dies is not a spoiler as he says, I'm going to die at the beginning. The movie wants to make you think its going to be one direct person who kills him and then it kind of switches that up and makes it a who dunnit kind of out of no where and the person who killed him really was not my choice as to who would have killed him and who it would have made sense, but hey, I'm not the writer. 

What I did really like about this movie was the ending. 

Honestly, there's a point in the movie where Kevin Spacey has been working tirelessly to become a better person. He's quit his mundane job, he's been working out, he's happy, he's free from the social constrains of the suburban lifestyle (bleh puke) and he's about to get everything he wants.

And then there's a moment where he snaps out of it. Its almost like a curse had been over him this entire time of his midlife crisis and suddenly someone who's not a douchebag appears. That scene was done very well and actually kind of made me like this asshole a little bit.

The last interaction with Spacey and his daughters friend is very, very good.

However, its a very strange transition because honestly, Spacey's awakening is a character we've honestly never met before.

Everyone is a total asshole in this movie. Say its all about the symbolism, say its all about the themes, or that this movie is more of a satire. Whatever, my point is, I don't like any of these characters. They're all kind of assholes. So its kind of hard to enjoy their transitions, their development if they're all satire, or in other words, the movie is too pretentious for its own good.

There are a lot of good messages, themes, whatever you wanna call them in American Beauty. But there's not really that great of characters. The movie, to me, just seems like it loves the smells of its own farts and it doesn't really spell out a perfect movie to me.

Again, I can see how this movie is good. Its a very smart movie and the direction of it was actually really good. However, when actual storytelling is sacrificed for beat you over the head messages, I just kind of lose interest. I do think American Beauty is a good film, I just don't think its a great film. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and see it just to be on the in of something. But go into it with an open mind. Forget all the accolades, forget the critical praise, even forget this review and just enjoy a well directed movie and a pretty good performance by Spacey.

Those are my thoughts on American Beauty. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below, especially if you watch it with a clear mind and have an unbiased opinion on it. I would like to hear the big appeal of this movie. Shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter to get updates on movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Family Guy just gets me sometimes. Enjoy! (sorry about the quality)

Life With Mikey

Honestly, there's a pretty good chance that you've never heard of this film. I'm pretty surprised that i know about it myself. However, my parents were big fans of Michael J Fox and therefore I got the pleasure of watching some of his work prior to him retiring from acting. Outside of Back to the Future, Life with Mikey was actually one of my favorite movies growing up.

So why am I not only watching it as an adult and critiquing it like an adult? Cause my childhood died many years ago that's why.

Life With Mikey stars Michael J Fox as a former child star who is now a talent agent with his brother (played by Nathan Lane). Now part of this movie always confused me. There are parts here and there in the movie where they're watching kids perform. Its cheesy, its for kids, whatever. I'm not totally sure if they're representing these kids or just watching a lot of auditions but if they're not representing them, why do these kids keep showing up?

But that's not the main story. Michael Chapman (Fox) is basically a hasbeen who is not serious about his job, lives off the fame his childhood job gave him, and overall isn't an incredibly straight and narrow person. Think BoJack Horseman. His brother puts up with him, for some reason, but is seriously considering closing the business if their luck doesn't turn around. They have one big client, a pretentious kid named Barry (played by the head elf from the Santa Claus movies for all you 90s people out there, David Krumholtz) but beyond that they have a bunch of kids who, to put it bluntly, have no talent.

Then Michael meets a young girl on the street who steals his wallet. Through a series of events, he sees her acting and decides that she has the chops to be represented and could make him and his brother a lot of money.

From this sprouts an unconventional relationship between Michael and this tom boy, Angie (played by Christina Vidal). You can tell from the beginning that she has a bad upbringing and she is something of a problem child. But Michael isn't a father and he makes that very clear to Angie and those around him.

They get her to audition for a cookie commercial, a gig that she actually gets and things go pretty well.

The problem with this film unfortunately lies in the relationship between Michael and Angie. Now I personally really like these two. They don't get along at the beginning, but more and more he breaks through her shell and the two become good friends. However, it doesn't quite reach the level that I think its suppose to, and there's also the whole deal of how its a little strange for a thirty year old man to house a ten year old girl just because he's her "agent". Probably wouldn't fly in this day and age.

But hey, the 90's were a different time.

Also, its Michael J Fox.

Something about the guy just makes you forget all the bad things you could ever hear about the man and just find him lovable. The interesting thing about his character is that he's still caught up in the fact that he was a celebrity when he was a child. That's his angle many times when he tries to get these kids jobs, he'll play off the fact that people really enjoyed him in the sitcom he was apart of.

Its an interesting take, especially with what I've seen actual child hood stars think about their careers. Usually they get agitated when people bring up their past work. Its movies like this that actually make me appreciate BoJack Horseman a little bit more because there are actually scenes where Michael is watching reruns of Life with Mikey, the TV show he was in.

I wish there had been a little bit more development on his part, of him kind of getting off his so called fame, and realizing he's something more, especially if its a role model to Angie. But hey, its a family flick, I didn't write it, I still love it, if not for nostalgia's sake.

Christina Vidal plays Angie. To be honest, this kid is a little bit of a snot. Its one thing that she actually kind of lifts a mirror on Michael and tries to make him a better person once they become friends.

But throughout the movie, her problems just seemed like angsty kid problems and were just her being a snot. Eventually there is kind of a breaking down of the tough girl persona and her and Michael really do get along. I can't say, looking back at it, that its a great dynamic between the two of them, however, there are some fun moments and I think its the fact that Michael cares for her, that you have no choice but to kind of care for her yourself. Maybe I'm being too nice because its more of a nostalgia thing with this movie, but I'm trying to be a little bit objective.

Some of the supporting characters are kind of funny. I never really understood why Nathan Lane's character really puts up with Fox's character. There's a lot of set up to Michael being this irresponsible guy and yet Lane's character doesn't really do anything about it. Their secretary is kind of funny, but not very memorable. And the rest of the cast is not really important to mention, beyond the kids at the talent agency who are kind of funny, but in the end you get kind of sick of the audition montage.

I like this movie mainly for the nostalgia sake of it. This is a movie that I watched with my family over and over and over again because Michael J Fox was entertaining. It was a fun little ride and highlighted a cute relationship between Fox and Vidal's characters.

Is it going to blow your mind? Unless you grew up with it like I did, probably not. But the movie has some funny lines, some memorable scenes, and just kind of gives you a fuzzy feeling at the, slightly over the top, and improbable ending.

Honestly, that's probably the biggest problem of the film. Nathan Lane is set on closing down the building and they listen to one last audition that needs to be their next big client. Now, I don't mean to be cruel, but the girl that they bring in is not bad, but she's also not incredible. She's a little bit better than most of the kids in the agency, but not by much. And the kids they have at the agency aren't suppose to be good. How this last ditch effort convinces Nathan Lane's character to keep the business open, is still beyond me. However, I still find this movie incredibly entertaining, I can still quote lines from it, and if you need a family film, its not a bad one to watch with young kids or just get a nostalgia trip of the 90s.

So those are my thoughts on Life With Mikey. Am I the only one who watched this movie as a kid? There has to be someone else who gets as much nostalgia as I do from this film. Comment and Discuss below! Also, shoot me a tweet @cmhaugen24 and follow me on Twitter for news updates and movie reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Hopefully I gave a good enough description. Here's the actual trailer of the film. Enjoy!