Netflix's Love

Love aired on Netflix a few days after Valentines Day earlier this year. It had a couple of interesting tid bits about it that made it something I was kind of interested in. First off, its written by Judd Apatow. While I'm not the biggest fan of all of Judd Apatow's work, I have enjoyed some of it and I respect him as a writer and a director. I am also a fan of Gillian Jacobs from her work on Community. I thought this could be a fun little bit about love and might be worth watching for 10 episodes.

I'm not totally sure what I eventually ended up watching.

Love is a 10 episode series about Mickey (played by Gillian Jacobs) and Gus (played by Paul Rust). These two both have gone through relationships in the past and start the show suffering some kind of heart break through the ending of a previous relationship. They go through a funk, have some weird experiences until they finally meet one another and share a fun connection.

They don't immediately start dating, in fact Mickey even tries to set Gus up with her roommate, Bertie (played by Claudia O'Doherty). But eventually this show portrays the flash of a relationship these two have and tries to give a "down to earth" representation of relationships and how they are seen from each perspective, both male and female.

Here's the issue though...

These two are just the worst kind of people.

Like Gillian Jacob's character is an addict, which is not to say that addicts are terrible people, she's just kind of unpleasant at times and pretty neurotic. She really goes from hot to cold very quickly and when Paul Rust's character tries to bring her into the things that he likes, she really just shuts him down. She's blunt, I get it, but there's times where she is just uncharacteristically mean. I get that the show is trying to point out how both these people are to blame for this relationship not being tended to correctly and that both parties need to work at the tough times in relationships. However, the times where Gillian Jacob's is mean just seems like its for the plot and not her actual character.

And then there's Paul Rust...

While Mickey has the excuse that she is an addict and she's going through a lot of things that maybe she should have disclosed to Gus from the beginning, Gus is just an awful person. And he really doesn't have that much of an excuse.

And yeah, you might be looking at him saying, oh he's a dorky, nerd looking guy, he can't be that bad. But he really is. Not only are women flocking to him for no reason whatsoever, he doesn't know anything about tending to a relationship or being a decent human being.

I was watching this show and I couldn't help but just hate everything about Gus's character. And then when I started to hate his character, I started to hate his personality. And when I started to hate his personality, I started to hate his quirks and mannerisms. And when I started to his his quirks and mannerisms, I started to hate his stupid looking face. This show made me feel like an awful person for judging his face but I really hated everything about this character. This is for both him as a character and him in the relationship.

I've already kind of mentioned that these two just make for a god awful couple. They smoke weed one time and they sort of have the same type of humor, but at the end of the day there is no reason why these two should be together. I hated them both in the relationship, I hated Gus as a character.

Mickey I didn't actually mind.

I mean yeah, Mickey in this show is pretty much a trainwreck. She's very selfish and kind of an off putting person all together. There's a part where she shows up unexpectedly at Gus's place with all his friends and she's pretty much put in direct comparison with this hotter girl.

However, with Mickey you get the feeling there is more to her character than just the relationship that is at the center of the show. You can tell she's a train wreck but you want to get to know her more to figure out why she is this way. On top of that, you see her trying to get her life back on track and even when she fails, you want her to succeed.

If there is a second season of this show, the only reason I will be watching it is because of Mickey. I like Gillian Jacobs and her portrayal of this character and I want to know more about her.

The other really interesting thing about Mickey is the fact that she is an addict and the trials she goes through with that.

Netflix is really good at creating shows that start off as comedies and have some pretty funny first few episodes, but later in the season, you really focus more on the drama and in this case, it is done really really well. I was a lot more interested in what this show had to say about addiction rather than what it had to say about Love. Again, I think if there's a second season of this show, they should drop Gus and have this just be about Mickey going through life as an addict. I think that would be a lot more interesting and a lot more powerful.

Of course that is all sullied by this guy's stupid face.

Seriously... this guy sucks

I guess another interesting part about this show is the look that it takes on working in Hollywood. As much as I hated Gus, it was because he lets this world get to him and really kind of mess him up. He works as a tutor for actors going through school on TV sets. He sees this as a means to an end where he really wants to write for TV shows. Its not an unreasonable dream and I think I actually related to him for a couple of episodes. However, he soon gets caught up in the drama of it all and he becomes just a really disgusting person by the end of the season.

And then he's got that stupid face...

One of the main problems with this show is the writing. Judd Apatow has a gift at writing really interesting characters then compromising them so much that you actually start to hate them near the end of the show and even if you still like them, you're still sitting there pretty uncomfortable throughout the entire time because you know this is going down a really awkward lane. 

And this isn't the first time this has happened. 

A movie that came out awhile ago was Funny People. I actually look back at the movie as one of Adam Sandler's last decent roles because he was focused more on the drama and tried to be genuine, but still utilized his comedy chops for the comedic relief in what ends up being a pretty sad story. 

The issue is, the first two thirds of this movie are really good and the last act is incredibly awkward. 

I wanna go back and do a proper review of this movie, but my point is that this isn't the first time that Judd Apatow has started us on a path with a decent beginning but at a certain point it kind of fumbles and puts you in a really awkwardly uncomfortable position. For a show that wants to talk about "down to earth" relationships, Apatow is really good at spicing up the drama when a lot of the issues could be solved with honesty and communication.

But of course that doesn't make for good television does it.

Is Love good and worth watching? Well... yes... sort of.

I pretty much watched the entire season in one sitting while I was sick. So I guess it has something about it that I like, I just don't think that it's the best dramedy to come out of Netflix. I think the best comparison could be if you like Bojack Horseman.

Bojack is just brilliant and really shows the quality of the content Netflix is putting out because they're able to make relatable hilarious characters and yet have a very serious look at important issues. I think Bojack does it better but I think Love is in the same vein and deserves at least a look. It takes a little bit to get into, but I think you could probably enjoy Love one way or another.

But have you seen Love? What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I don't usually get political on this blog but its somewhat related because Joss Whedon is back, alive and he did a really great video about voting. Enjoy!

Back To The Future

Back to the Future falls into a caliber of films that I have a very hard time reviewing. It’s not like The Big Short where I watched this movie for the first time and was blown away by it so I have to write a review to let you know how I feel about it, Back To The Future is a different kind of film. It’s the kind of film I watched when I was a kid over… and over… and over again. It’s the kind of movie I can quote line for line in the exact tone and attitude given by the character. It’s the kind of movie where I know exactly what music is going to be playing and I have the soundtrack on my ITunes. The reason I’ve never reviewed Back to the Future is the same reason I can’t review the Star Wars films, they are so quintessential to my childhood that I find it very hard to be objective.  

However, I am going to try and be as objective as I can and give you the best review of Back to the Future I can. The truth is, the real subject matter to talk about is the sequels. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sequels just as much and probably watched them just as much, but there are a lot more things to talk about when it comes to the sequels then there is the first film. But if I can get this review done and give you as objective as a review as I can, maybe I can delve into other films that I’ve originally thought to be untouchables and give you my list of those films that I find absolutely quintessential to a movie going experience. We’ll see. But for now, here’s my review on Back to the Future.

The movie centers around high school student, Marty McFly (played by Michael J Fox). Marty is the high school student everybody wanted to be. He plays guitar in a rock band, he skateboards everywhere (I still think grabbing the back of cars to get around on a skateboard is awesome), he’s got a girlfriend who is crazy about him, he just has a lot going for him.

That is the first interesting thing about Back to the Future after watching it a billion times over and analyzing the story. They never suggest that Marty is unhappy with his life. Sure he has self-doubt about his music career, he’s unhappy about the car getting wrecked in the beginning but only because he was going to take it down to the lake with his girlfriend, and he thinks his parents are losers… which they are. But its never suggested that Marty would ever go out of his way to change the life he has right now. Too often movies will have the character overtly say, I WISH MY LIFE WAS DIFFERENT! Right before he has the opportunity to change it. With Back to the Future, you know the character, you know his circumstances and the rest is just an adventure in the 50s trying to fix a situation he accidentally created. That’s good writing because its not in your face and it makes the character more relatable and genuine.

Anyways, Marty has a friend named Doctor Emmett Brown (played by Christopher Lloyd) who is an aloof disgraced nuclear physicist.

Side note: There’s a great stand up bit by John Mulaney where he talks about how ridiculous of a concept Back to the Future had to have been when Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis brought this pitch to a studio. There is no way Back to the Future could have been made today because back in the 80s nobody questioned how a 17 year old boy can become friends with a disgraced nuclear physicist. There’s just no way. That was such an 80’s thing. It really makes me miss the 80s. Times were simpler.  

But Doc Brown is actually one of the most loveable and iconic character you will ever meet and these two really make one of the most iconic teams of all time. There is a reason Rick and Morty was a spoof of Doc and Marty because it’s so iconic.

But anyways, Doc calls up Marty and tells him to come and witness a breakthrough in science. And because we don’t question this relationship between this minor and a 40 to 80 year old man, Marty

obviously meets him at 1 in the morning to see this science experiment. This is where Doc reveals that he has invented Time travel and he has created a time machine out of a DeLorean car.

Doc gives a pretty brief but thorough explanation to allow the audience to understand the basic rules of time travel in this film and then the plot carries on when Doc is gunned down by Libyan terrorists he ripped plutonium off from and Marty escapes in the time machine, sending him back to 1955.

Stuck in the past, Marty must find Doc, but the Doc from 1955 who hasn’t invented time travel yet and find a way to travel back to the future. But while in awe of the world he has traveled to, he accidentally messes up his parent’s first meeting and endangers his entire existence. So it’s a race against time to make sure Marty’s parents fall in love and he gets back to 1985 before he’s stuck in the past forever.

And that’s the phenomenal thing about Back to The Future. It is such a creative and unique idea that
you would never expect from a time travel movie and yet it is so relatable and so much fun that it has really become an absolute classic.

Again, I can’t help but feel like I’m a little bit biased when I talk about this film because it was such a quintessential film to my childhood, but the truth is I don’t see much that doesn’t work with this film. The only thing I can really knock Back to the Future on is that it is a movie that only could have been made in the 80s. Like I said before, people would read too much into the fact that Marty is friends with a disgraced nuclear physicist now whereas in the 80s that was never questioned. That being said, this movie is not like others where it’s a product of the time. While there are parts that make this a quintessential 80’s film, this idea is a classic past its time and continues to be a cultural icon. It doesn’t feel dated, it has continued to be classic into the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s.

Much of that is supported by the great casting. The main five characters of the film are Marty, Doc, Marty’s mother Lorraine (played by Lea Thompson), Marty’s father (played by Crispin Glover), and Biff Tannen the school bully (played by Thomas F Wilson).

Starting with Michael J Fox. This movie really made him a household name from the start of his career. He had had some fame with Family Ties, but it was Back to the Future that made him the star that he is today and people still know him the best from this film. And its pretty common knowledge that he turned down the role and it was only because filming with Eric Stoltz didn’t mesh well with the film and they pushed hard to get Fox to play the role that it worked out so well. And I think that was one of the best decisions to push on. You always hear stories of how Tom Selleck was originally supposed to be Indiana Jones and it was only because he turned it down that we got the brilliance that was Harrison Ford in the titular role. Michael J Fox was an example of the opposite happening. It would be as if they had started Indiana Jones with Ford and it didn’t work out and they pushed for Selleck to rejoin. In 2016 we now know that that would have been a horrible choice, we know that pushing for Fox to play the role was the best choice ever.

Because I never saw Ferris Bueller’s Day Off until recently, I always saw Marty McFly as the coolest kid I could strive to be. He was Ferris Bueller to me personally and I always thought he was the coolest. Fox works so well with that role that I cannot imagine anyone else in the role.

The same goes for Christopher Lloyd. Somehow this actor was able to create the most eccentric character you’ve ever come across and yet give him such heart and make you care about him so much. And the best part about the film is that you know what happens to him. You see him die in the beginning and, especially after multiple viewings, you’re so happy to see him return in 1955. He becomes such a loveable character and his 1955 self and his 1985 self are so seamless (especially in the sequels) that there are no disconnects.

But the real gold comes when these two are together. Like I’ve said multiple times, it’s an unlikely friendship but it’s so iconic and it works so well that you can’t imagine it done any other way.

The other characters are just as iconic. You’ve got Lea Thompson as the mother who is just down right hilarious. Yeah she’s a stereotypical female character and some people might say that she hasn’t exactly aged well from the 80s portrayal of women to now, but I still really enjoy that character. I think she’s funny, I think she’s relatable because everyone is somewhat interested to know what their

mothers were like in high school and the more you watch this movie and the more you grow up, you do see how people can change due to their circumstances. That’s not even a huge part of the movie, but Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover play that so well. Their younger selves are not the same as their older selves but you see where the connection is and you can imagine that kind of development going on as these characters grow up.

Crispin Glover gives one of the best performances I’ve seen from him ever and I can’t imagine anybody else in the role either. I’ll talk about this when I get into the reviews of the sequels but I’m incredibly bummed he had a falling out and didn’t appear in the second and third because of his performance in the first film. 

And then you've got Biff Tannen. Put aside the fact that Biff is definitely a rapist in this film, he's actually one of the greatest high school bullies. As a kid I was afraid of Biff because I didn't want to get bullied by him. I think Thomas F Wilson just nails it. He's not really the person you think of when you think of the Back to the Future series but he's just as quintessential to the trilogy, especially if you look at the sequels.

The fact of the matter is that Back to the Future is not just a good science fiction movie, its not just a good comedy, its just a good movie. It takes all these charming aspects about it and combines it into a really fun time that little to nobody wouldn't enjoy. I have never heard anybody come out of Back to the Future and tell me that they haven't been entertained by this movie.

There are a couple other things worth talking about the movie that I haven't talked about. One is the music. Not only do you have a fantastic soundtrack done by Alan Silvestri. And when I say fantastic I mean one of the most iconic soundtracks of all time and its not a John Williams score. But they also utilized the talent of Huey Lewis and the News to provide some of the most catchy and just down right iconic music to go along with a movie.

So overall, why is Back to the Future important?

Its something nobody was expecting, its something that is relevant today, and I think its one of, if not the best time travel story there is. While you have your Terminators and your other time travel films that are dark and gritty, Back to the Future gave us an adventure that is fun for the whole family. I've watched this film too many times to count and yet every time I watch it.

If you haven't seen Back to the Future yet, I cannot say it any more clearly, go see this movie. Put it at the top of your Netflix queue, skip work and watch this movie. I have put this movie in some of my top ten favorite movies of all time and its for a good reason.

But what do you think? What did I miss when talking about Back to the Future? Is there anything bad about it? Can someone who didn't like Back to The Future please say something, I actually want to know why you didn't like this movie. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I know I didn't say many (if any) bad things about this movie. I'll just leave that to the Honest Trailer people. Enjoy!

London has Fallen

So back in 2013 I saw Olympus has Fallen on Netflix. I thought it was incredibly over the top and basically Die Hard in the White House. I enjoyed it because it wasn't anything more than an action movie with an excessive amount of blood and violence and while it was predictable, you could at least turn off your brain and watch shit go down. The issues I had with the film were that the characters were a little bit boring, and it was a little too excessive in my opinion.

The sequel, London Has Fallen really didn't change anything from the first one except its about 20

minutes shorter and its set in London. And to be honest, I actually had more fun with London Has Fallen.

London has Fallen follows the story of Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) the head of the President's (played by Aaron Eckhart) protection detail. The movie doesn't take long to reintroduce this relationship and I'll give them credit, they evolve well. In the previous movie this was a tense relationship because Eckhart's wife died in a car crash and he blamed Banning. But in this film these two are as thick as thieves and it actually makes for an interesting duo.

They reintroduce Morgan Freeman who is now the Vice President which once again kind of lowers the stakes of this movie. I mentioned in my review of Olympus has Fallen that if the President and the Vice President ended up dying in that movie, we'd be okay because Morgan Freeman would have been the next in the line of succession. And in this movie, Morgan Freeman is even closer to the Presidency and gives a great speech about how America is great and will not be bullied by terrorists. I'm not saying I want Eckhart to die, I'm just saying I think we'd be okay.

While the movie starts with some underlying character background like Banning and his wife having a kid and him contemplating resigning from the Secret Service, not much time is wasted as the Prime Minister of Great Britain unexpectedly dies and all the world leaders are called to London to attend his funeral. Now if this sounds like a huge trap, well you're right.

Shit hits the fan very quickly. A great big shoot out occurs, lots of explosions happen and more than a couple of world leaders are actually brutally murdered, except of course the President. However, Banning and the President soon find themselves alone and on the run in the streets of London.

The funny part about this movie is just how compromised the law enforcement agencies of London are its actually kind of laughable. While there were a laughable amount of terrorists that take over the White House, there are an even more ridiculous number of terrorists posing as London Police, American Special Forces, British Intelligence agents. Like this isn't just a terrorist attack, this is a full on invasion. And I get it, they needed to up the stakes and give Gerard Butler more to shoot at. But really the amount of bad guys in this movie is really just ridiculous.

And what's more ridiculous is how many Gerard Butler is able to kill.

There is actually a scene that is out of nowhere kind of artistic in its execution. Gerard Butler is basically doing a head on assault on this building where he has been told has about a hundred terrorists in it. What does Gerard say? Well they should have brought more. Then he goes Leroy Jenkins in an actually really cool tracking shot where he's shooting guys like he's on a kill streak in Call of Duty.

In fact I realized at a certain point that this movie is just a video game. I've run across a couple of these movies. They're not overly complicated, they don't have a lot of twists and turns, they just give you a character, say he needs to go from point A to point B and you watch him shoot his way through wave upon wave of bad guys in his path until he achieves it.

And that's really all London Has Fallen is. Its not complex, it doesn't have too many, if any, great twists or turns, doesn't change up the story too much, and it doesn't expect too much of itself.

Now its still not a great film, but at the end of the day I have to ask myself, was I entertained by this movie. And the answer is, yeah I was. Its not Shakespeare, its not anything that is incredibly memorable, its just Gerard Butler building up his kill count in a round of Call of Duty multiplayer set in London instead of the White House. Its so mindless and so simple that I can't really say it was bad. Because I really don't think it was trying to be good, at least not the traditional kind of movie good.

I think they could have done more with this movie. When I first saw the trailers I obviously knew that Gerard Butler was going to be trying to protect the President but I was interested to see if they would run across any of the other world leaders. Maybe these world leaders and their protective staff would have different motives and make the landscape even more complicated. Instead all the world leaders die and its just Gerard and Eckhart trying to survive.

Now they exploit that by making this movie almost laughably short. Again, its not complicated. I got to a point in the movie where I thought we were reaching the half way point and instead the movie was wrapping up. The movie knew what it was out to accomplish and instead of trying to do too much, they kept it simple and they kept it short.

London has Fallen is a special kind of movie that I think we need sometimes in America. I would never knock someone for getting pumped up from a movie like this and having pride in their country. I think too often we think that Patriotism is a bad thing. And this movie has those moments. Its cheesy over the top but I think that's necessary sometimes. People want to come out of movies feeling good.

The issue you could run into with London has Fallen is thinking that problems in the world should just be dealt with with guns and shooting the bad guys when things are not that black and white. Its when people take a simplistic idea like this and think that is the way the world works. It when pride in country turns to disgust at others and people that are different.

And at the end of the day you have to remember... this is just a stupid mindless action movie that allows you to turn your brain off and watch Gerard Butler shoot some terrorists. Don't read into it, its not worth that much.

Overall, London has Fallen is a simple action movie. Plain and simple. You're not going to get any intrigue, just a video of Call of Duty with some decent action and good effects. Butler and Eckhart do a decent enough so you are entertained by the characters. Its a good movie you might put on the background or watch on Cable, but don't go out of your way to see London has Fallen. Its entertaining but for the most simplistic reasons. There are better movies out there. Go watch those.

However, since this movie made a lot of money I am looking forward to seeing how they up the ante. First it was just the White House, then its all of London, what's next?

That's my review on London Has Fallen. Let me know what you think? Do you think this movie takes patriotism too far? Do you think movies like this are necessary sometimes? Let me know your thoughts. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. All I wanted was a video of the action sequences in this movie and the voice from Halo just saying "Headshot" or "Killtacular" while he goes on his kill streak. Can someone make that? Until then, here's Gerard Butler answered Google Autocomplete questions... Cause that's cool I guess. Enjoy!

American Ultra

So American Ultra is a movie I was pretty lukewarm on. On one hand you have a movie that is basically what happens when you take Pineapple Express and combine it with the Bourne movies. That's an interesting concept and I think that could be pretty funny. But on the other hand there's a lot going against this movie, mainly in its two star actors. Jesse Eisenberg is an actor who in my opinion misses more than he hits unless he is a introverted quiet geek with an slight dickish twist to him and Kirsten Stewart (or KStew as I call her) who in the past has been less interesting than a plank of wood. On top of that, while I have enjoyed Stoner comedies, they are not my favorite types of comedies. So I don't know, the concept was interesting but there's a reason I waited until this was on Hulu for me to watch it for free.

American Ultra centers around Mike Howell (played by Eisenberg) who is your pretty average stoner. He lives with his girlfriend Phoebe (played by KStew) and they're happy living their weed filled lives.

From the get go I noticed that this isn't your average stoner comedy. Mike suffers from severe anxiety and it fits with the stereotypical character Eisenberg usually plays, the quiet stuttering geek. He's been playing it for years, why quit now right?

But his anxiety isn't really a laughing matter in this film. There are some jokes in this movie but it does actually shine a light on mental disorders and especially relationships and how people deal with their partner having those issues. And while there are a lot of things in this movie that I didn't like, I did actually appreciate the honesty of the dynamic between KStew and Eisenberg. I felt like KStew was dealing with special circumstances in this relationship and it was an interesting look at that kind of dynamic. While I'm not wild about either of these actors, this relationship was genuine and I did enjoy them.

But that's why it feel just out of place. This really genuine relationship happens in the middle of this Jason Bourne rip off.

Turns out Howell is actually a sleeper agent for a failed CIA program and the agency has decided to terminate him so it is never revealed what they did to him and a bunch of other people. This initiative to take him out is directed by Topher Grace (I know he has a character name but he's really playing the same weak nerdy but overconfident character he's been playing since That 70's Show) and is being sabotaged by another agent (played by Connie Britton). Agents are sent to kill Howell but he is activated and instinctually defends himself with the speed and ruthlessness of a Jason Bourne type. So for the rest of the movie, you've got a stoner with anxiety problems kicking ass as a sleeper agent for the CIA.

Oh and Buster from Arrested Development, Bill Pullman, and John Leguizamo are also in this movie.

Right off the bat, let's talk about Jesse Eisenberg.

I don't know if its his face, or his hair, or his mannerisms, but I just can't enjoy Jesse Eisenberg. I've been trying to eventually watch a movie called Double that is supposed to be one of his greatest performances and yes I still need to see The Social Network, but while I have enjoyed movies that Eisenberg has performed in, I've never said Eisenberg was my favorite part.

This movie really doesn't help that reputation.

He's doing the same thing where he's the weak stuttering geek that society doesn't understand. He did it in Batman v Superman just with less stuttering. He did it in Zombieland. He's done it his entire career and I just don't see him changing from what works for him. If someone needs a geeky awkward smartass, let's call Jesse Eisenberg.

Again, I will point to all the parts where he's dealing with anxiety or he's going one on one with Kirsten Stewart where I'll concede, this character didn't always bother the shit out of me. But overall, I just wasn't wild about this character.

The same can really be said about KStew.

I didn't hate KStew in this movie. I didn't love her because I didn't love this movie but I felt like she was doing more than just Bella in this movie she has actually been rumored to have some acting chops. While this isn't the worlds greatest example, I felt like she gave a shit in this movie and I didn't want to punk her blank stare face.

And again, I liked her character because she's dealing with a partner with some kind of mental issue going on. But she's loyal to him, she's going to stand by him and she's going to support him.

I think I liked her character a little bit more than Jesse Eisenberg's character and at the end of the day, this is the best performance I've seen her give. I'm not familiar with her most recent work which I've heard is good but this wasn't bad.

The main thing about this movie is that it is a Stoner action comedy. Its not going to have Shakespearean method acting, its meant to be fun and give you a kick of laughter here and there.

The issue I have with this movie is that while I expect this movie to have blood, while I expect it to be graphic, and while those things didn't bother me on their own, the characters and the entire feel of this movie was just unpleasant.

I didn't have fun watching this movie, it felt like a really unpleasant chore with characters that only had a few redeeming qualities and a story that was basically a video game.

The visuals and the characters in this movie I don't think make for a very pleasant journey. And hey I didn't watch this stoned, but I can only imagine if someone did how unpleasant of a movie this might be for someone high.

Maybe I just don't get the humor and maybe I wasn't as invested in this movie as I was in The Big Short, but I did not really enjoy American Ultra. I thought it had some good ideas but the majority of this movie you can really pick up from the trailer and for me, if the movie doesn't do more than the trailer and it has some uneven tones, I can't really recommend it.

Its a pretty short and sweet review because there's really not much to else to say.

But what did you think? Am I missing some kind of greatness from this movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Like I said, you can get a lot of the plot from the trailer and its almost more fun. Here's that trailer. Enjoy!

The Big Short

The big short is a hard movie to sell to people because its talking about a subject matter that is incredibly convoluted and incredibly hard to explain. They even address this in the movie (Best Margot Robbie Cameo EVER!). I even had to push myself to watch this movie when it was on Netflix because I knew that it was going to be a very convoluted movie that I would have to actually stay focused and pay attention to.

But good lord, this is an important movie. I don't say that very much but this is a movie that is relevant and important to the world we live in today.

The Big Short is a film all focused on the 2007 and 2008 financial crisis triggered by the United States Housing Bubble. The story is told from the perspective of some of the very few people that saw this coming before hand and what they did in reaction to it.

The movie follows a couple of characters, namely two Hedge fund managers named Michael Burry (played by Christian Bale) and Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), a Wallstreet Salesman named Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling) and two up and coming investors named Charlie Gellar (played by John Magaro) and Jaime Shipley (played by Finn Wittrock) assisted by their mentor, Ben Rickert (played by Brad Pitt).

As you can see, there are a lot of players in this movie and they all have the foreknowledge to see the impending burst of the housing bubble. They all have their own motivations for wanting to bet against a market that has never lost in the past and it doesn't take long for them to realize how big of a shorting of the market this has the potential to be.

The first thing to say about this movie is that yes, this is a very convoluted subject. It is confusing, there is going to be parts in this movie that you do not understand because they really don't Barney-fy this movie's subject matter.

But like I said, the movie is very aware that you're probably not going to understand the subject matter and they do whatever they can to make this movie digestible enough that you can understand what the hell they are talking about. They have cut aways explaining the situation as it comes up and puts it in a context that is understandable and makes you feel like you're at least getting a little bit of it. These cutaways are humorous with some funny cameos but at the same time they keep you up to speed and actually make you learn something.

And that's the other thing about this movie. I learned a lot from it. Yeah there was a lot I still don't know about the Housing Crisis of 2008 and there's a lot of this movie I'm completely clueless about, but this movie filled me in and that's why this movie is incredibly important. This is not just something that happened, this is something that happened less than a decade ago and its still happening today.

It's the kind of movie that knocks down what you think you believe and makes you want to research more into this incident. At the very least, this movie should be able to give enough context to make some informed decisions and make you feel pissed off over a situation that was just down right wrong and affected a lot of people.

So overall, the true star of this movie is the message. It is backed up by a lot of good performances which I will talk about but the main thing that you get out of this movie is a lesson on the 2008 Financial Crisis and everything leading up to it. I'm slowly realizing it, but the quality of movies from 2015 was really high caliber. With this movie and then Spotlight, it makes me want to finally come around and check out all the Best Picture Nominees of last year. (I guess its about time right?)

And when I say a lot of good performances, I'm not joking. They really didn't pull any punches with the talent they were bringing out. Of course you have the top billing names like Gosling, Carrell, Pitt, and Bale, all who are actors who don't usually phone it in and are a lot of fun. But then you have the less known actors like your Magaro and Wittrock and they really bring a lot to this film. And while these characters are not as connected as I originally thought they were when this movie first came out, when they do play off one another they're really great.

I also love how the reasons one person is exploiting this bubble is different than the next. Some of them are doing it because they see an opportunity to make a lot of money. Others are doing it to stick it to the institutions and banks that think they are too big to fail. Regardless of the reason, there is an underlying theme throughout the film that points out the hypocrisy in the entire thing. While they are able to profit from a corrupt system and they are not the bad guys, that doesn't necessarily make them good.

There are moments throughout the film where they point to the real victims of the 2008 Financial crisis and it actually is pretty heartbreaking.

Adam Mckay is the director of this film and besides the message, which I still think is at the forefront of this film, he is the true star here.

In case you don't know, McKay up until now was mainly known for his work in comedies like Anchorman, Step Brothers, Talladega Nights and The Other Guys. But suddenly he's put in charge of a film about the 2008 financial crisis?

On top of that, he freaking nails it?
f
At the end of the day, Alejandro whats his face who directed the Revenant used all this natural light and what have you but McKay was able to tell a fascinating story and educate me more than any movie has in the past few years. That is quite a feat. I don't quite know who I would have chosen to take the Best Director award but McKay is higher on that list than I originally thought he was.

So of all the movies from the Oscar's Best Picture nominees, I still have yet to see Room and Brooklyn. But The Big Short is the one that fired me up the most because it felt the most relevant. I don't know if I would have named it Best Picture over Spotlight, but it just reminds me that most, if not all of these Oscar nominated pictures are nominated for a reason. They're really good movies that make you think and mean something. I hope that 2016 can move past the sub par summer its had and produce some amazing Oscar contending movies in the future.

But for now, The Big Short was a lot of fun, very educational, and supplemented by a great cast, a great director, and a great message. Its on Netflix now so don't waste any time, see this movie!

But those are my thoughts on The Big Short. What did you think of it? Did you pull as much from it as I did? Am I just late to the party and everyone has already seen this movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. This is a pretty simple explanation of this movie. Now keep in mind, its an 8 minute YouTube video so don't cite this on any thesis papers. But it might give you a little bit of an idea into what this movie is about and how it all goes down. Enjoy!

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Back in high school I was actually apart of a production of Sweeney Todd. It was a play that had a short revival in the late 2000s and because of my involvement with the show and the increased interest among my friends, I saw this film back then. Before I looked deeper into the show, I honestly was not a fan of it. 

But then I saw the stage version, and I got more engrossed in the music and I was able to analyze the kind of music Stephen Sondheim composed for this dark comedy. So now I come back to the film when it gets put on Netflix and I want to give a review. 

The movie takes place in 1846 and a former barber named Benjamin Barker (played by Johnny

Depp) from London is returning after escaping a prison sentence for a crime that he did not commit. He returns to London looking for his wife and daughter, only to figure out they were taken advantage of by a corrupt judge (played by Alan Rickman) and his henchman (played by Timothy Spall). He figures out his wife has died and his daughter is now the coveted ward of Judge Turpine. Barker takes up the alias of Sweeney Todd and swears his revenge on those who ruined his life.

He teams up with the owner of a pie shop in London by the name of Mrs. Lovett (played by Helena Bohnam Carter) who happens to live under the loft Todd used to live back in the day. the two of them team up to create a credible reputation for Sweeney to lure the Judge and his henchman Beadle Bailey to be murdered with his shaving blades. 

Oh and then there's these two blocks of wood with pretty hair that are also in the show. 

Adapting a musical, like adapting anything that didn't start off as a movie is a difficult thing to do just because different mediums play differently. You can tell different stories in a comic book than you can in a movie and its supplemented by the medium. The same goes for musicals. 

What's more, Stephen Sondheim had a gift for utilizing the stage in ways that make it very difficult for those plays to be adapted into movies. I reviewed Into the Woods and then I went back and realized that there was a lot of the play cut because for example, there was no way they could have a narrator in the movie and feed him to the giant without breaking the tone of a fairy tale that they had already set up. 

A similar situation happened with Sweeney Todd. If you're familiar with the stage play, you'd know

that the musical begins and is injected with interludes that is actually some of the musicals best known songs. I love the opening song of the musical basically telling me to "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd". I just thought it was a good way to start the musical and I was bummed upon my second watch to realize that that song is not in the movie. There is a orchestrate interlude during the opening credits but its not the cast singing it.

But beyond cutting the opening number, I thought the adaptation of the musical into a movie form was actually done pretty well. I thought they kept the correct songs and cut the ones that weren't as sexy or important to the musical. Now I think it shapes the story in a way that really diminishes certain characters, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It just leaves certain characters with little to no story and just there because they were in the original play. 

So overall, while it may not seem like I enjoyed the adaptation of the musical, I actually thought it was done pretty well. 

But the adaptation is one thing, the approach is a totally different thing and the best way to describe it

is pure 2000's and beyond Tim Burton. And what do I mean by that?

Tim Burton is a director I've both really enjoyed and really can't stand. On one hand he does something like Big Fish or Batman, which utilizes great visuals and infuses them with a great story as well. And yeah sometimes that relied heavily on the Hot Topic looking visuals with his movies like Edward Scissorhands, and Beetlejuice (and Nightmare Before Christmas but remember, he didn't direct that), but those movies still had creative stories and creative characters that worked organically with the style Tim Burton could produce.

After Big Fish, Burton started to take on projects that were a little bit more mainstream and were more him bringing his style onto existing properties. But what's more, that style which had started as an alternative style is now a very familiar and almost mainstream style we've come to expect from Tim Burton. 

So how does this apply to Sweeney Todd? 

If you look at the original stage play, Sweeney Todd was a dark play but it didn't feel like the world

was in black and white. The movie is so devoid of color, with the exception of certain scenes, and this makes it is basically a Hot Topic wet dream for how dark and how steam punk it is.

On top of that, the movie decided to cast a star studded cast, most of them credited from Harry Potter. So don't try and tell me this movie wasn't trying to bank on a certain market of angsty emo teenagers who also loved Harry Potter.

And then there is the casting. Like I said, a lot of the cast is your dark emo carry overs from Harry Potter like Alan Rickman, Helena Bohnam Carter, and Timothy Spall. On top of that there's Johnny Depp who of course we more than popular with his involvement in Pirates of the Carribean. The problem came when you look at their individual characters and I think with the exception of Timothy Spall and... maybe Depp (?) the casting in this movie is just wrong. 

Let's start with Depp. 

Now the character of Sweeney Todd is pretty ambigious to the point that pretty much anybody could

play him. If you look at the Broadway versions, the character has been played by older men, younger men, white men, black men. There's nothing incredibly distinct about the character of Sweeney Todd that requires a certain look. The only requirements are that the actor must be able to portray that loss of his family, the ability to be a little bit unhinged, and he needs to be able to sing those feelings.

Depp does all three... sort of.

On one hand he is able to show the loss and how that loss has fueled his desire for vengeance and how he's slightly gone mad. On top of that, the lyrics are able to portray that loss and I will say Depp is able to shape those lyrics in a way that I do feel for his loss. The issues come when Depp goes into screensaver mode. He has moments where he just holds the same face and sure its a gloomy face like he's dealing with some shit, but with how muted and whispery this entire movie is, it looks more like Depp is a screensaver and when he's required to act he suddenly jumps on only to shut down again when he's not being engaged. Furthermore, there's a reason Depp had such a small role in Into the Woods and that's because, while he's not Russel Crowe bad, he's just not that great of a singer. You can tell he is not totally comfortable with the range and he just looks pained singing. Other interpretations of Sweeney Todd have given him a grandiose baritone voice and Depp just doesn't have that range and it feels like he's whispering his lines more than actually singing them.

And that's an issue with the entire film. Stephen Sondheim's music is not really something to be whispered. A lot of it is really obnoxious and plays with notes. Its really hard to grasp a lot of that music when everyone in this movie doesn't want to sing louder and definitely do not want to ham it up at all. 

And speaking of which, let's talk about Helena Bohnam Carter. 

I get it, Carter and Burton were married for a time. You're going to try and give your wife as much of

an opportunity to get work that you can. The issue is that Helena Bohnam Carter was not a horrible actress before she started to become the poster girl for Hot Topic and she married Tim Burton. Since then, she's been typecasted as the quirky and honestly kind of annoying woman who will play any role like that. And when it works for her I guess I can't fault her for finding her niche. But I really don't understand how you go from the great Angela Lansbury in the stage production to Helena Bohnam Carter. Lansbury was flamboyant and loud, Carter is reserved and whispers everything. Lansbury was jovial and very much the comic relief in this very dark play. Carter is dower and is honestly just Bellatrix Lestrange if she was the owner of a pie shop where they baked people into the pies.

And yeah, I know, I've been comparing the stage version to this movie a lot and that's not exactly a fair comparison due to my original point about how different mediums play. But somehow the play was able to put off this very dark tone but still manage to have your funny moments and your dark humor. I just think that the tone of this movie is all wrong. There is little to no humor in the film and its just a downer. I almost feel like they were trying to make it a horror movie and that's really hard to do with a musical, especially a Stephen Sondheim musical. 

I think the world of Alan Rickman but Judge Turpine is supposed to be this creepy old man who

intends on marrying his much younger ward in Johanna. I don't think Rickman turned off his Snape acting and instead it really just came down to Snape being an evil judge and wanting to marry his younger ward. Furthermore, Rickman is not the strongest singer either. Now I don't know if that's really the most important thing when it comes to the character but the main issue I have with Rickman, Carter, and even Spall in this movie is that they didn't really seem to turn off their Harry Potter persona and what we get is just Sweeney Todd: Harry Potter edition. Like there is actually a scene with Timothy Spall where he extends his cane to hit someone and with the shape of the cane and the way he looks in the film, I thought he was going to cast Avada Kadavra. Though I can't help but compare Spall to my "amazing performance" from highschool. ;) I mean look at this side by side and you tell me who wore it better?

And again, you have these two blocks of wood that are supposed to be playing Anthony and Johanna. In case you're wondering that Jayne Wisener playing Johanna and Jaime Campbell Bower playing

Anthony. Never heard of them? Yeah you probably won't hear about them every again. Now if I was jumping on the bang wagon of comparing it to the stage production, I would complain about how all their songs were cut and they didn't have any kind of character to develop. But the truth is, this is how the musical was adapted and how it worked well. The movie instead focuses directly on Sweeney Todd instead of a half assed love story between block of wood number one and block of wood number 2. While these two are "important" aspects of the story, everything that happens to them can be summarized down to a scene or two and at the end of the day, the story is focused on Sweeney Todd and his quest for revenge.

The other two performances worth mentioning are Sacha Baron Cohen who plays Pirelli and the boy who works for him and eventually works for Todd and Mrs. Lovett, Toby (played by Ed Sanders). You'd expect Cohen to give an over the top performance and breath some life into this dark and

gloom fest. But instead we get a really bored Cohen who I'm convinced was phoning this one in. The only person I felt was actually a really competent singer who actually mattered to the play was the kid who played Toby. He could actually belt out his music and I never felt like he was whisper singing. I felt like he was really the only one who gave a crap and didn't look like he was on screensaver gloom mode until he was interacted with.

As far as music goes, I am lucky enough to know the intricacies of Sondheim's music and that it is a hot mess. This is not just a criticism of the movie but of the musical itself. I do think there are a couple of good songs from this musical and I will say that the music is very creative. The way that I see it is that Stephen Sondheim is like the Quentin Tarantino of musicals. He's going to do whatever the hell he wants and he's going to play by his own rules. There is nothing you can do to stop him from doing these crazy ass melodies that are a pain in the ass to sing. I thought that while the music was mainly whisper sung, I thought the actors were at least able to clearly put across the melody and it made me go back and really admire the uniqueness of his music.

Does that mean its a good musical? In my opinion, I don't love it. I don't think there are enough songs in the musical that are memorable enough and nothing I have a whole lot of fun with. Like a lot of musicals, the first act blows the second act out of the water. The one good part is that while most musicals have one or two songs in the second act that make the musical feel like its going on one or two songs too long, at a certain point they just stop singing and its more focused on the horror bloody soaked ending. 

Speaking of blood and gore, this movie is not for the squeamish. 

Is this movie as bad as I remember it being? No I don't think so. It holds a structure and it holds true

to the musical while adapting it to the needs of the film. I don't love the casting because I don't think any of it was right and was more the casting of the popular names of the day. I wasn't a fan of the story to begin with but I thought the movie does a decent enough job telling that story. Now of course this is all just my opinion. If you have nothing else to do and don't care that the original music is now turned into Emo Johnny Depp: The Demon Barber of Diagon Alley, it might be worth checking out on Netflix. But I personally think there are better movies out there. Movies I hope to reviewing this month.

But those are my thoughts on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Have you seen the Stage production? Which do you think works better? Do you think Johnny Depp should ever sing again? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. I mentioned there was an opening prologue to the musical that was left out of the film version. Take a look and let me know if something like this could have worked in the film adaptation or were they right to take it out? Enjoy!

Why Spider-man Might Still Succeed at Marvel

Over a year ago, I did a post on Why Spider-man might Still Fail at Marvel.

In this article, I made the case that Civil War was going to be a success regardless of whether or not Spider-man was in it or not (this was before it was confirmed that Spider-man was in the film). The real test comes when Spider-man has his own standalone film under the Marvel brand and we see if being apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is really enough to give the web slinger a successful movie like the Sam Raimi movies were.

Since then, there has been a lot of news that has surrounded Spider-man. First an foremost, Tom Holland was casted and he appeared in Civil War. It was the first time that Spider-man has ever interacted with the Avengers and I will say, it was a lot of fun.

And my favorite part was the fact that he fit so well fighting among the much older heroes we've known before.

My biggest concern when they said Spider-man was going to be young high school aged and played by Tom Holland who will probably look 14 for the rest of his life, I was worried that they weren't going to be able to have Spider-man look authentic to the rest of the group.

Now, Spider-man has a pretty small role in this movie and its not enough to really tell if Tom Holland has what it takes to take his own standalone movie. But the part that I knew this was going to work out was when Spider-man was in line with the rest of Team Iron Man and he's running into Battle the same as everyone else. It was at that moment, regardless of whether or not the standalone movie works, I felt Spider-man was finally home.

Again, its really too early to tell if he can hold his own standalone film, but Tom Holland shows a lot of promise with his portrayal of Spider-man in Civil War.

Looking back at the other actors who played Spider-man, they both brought great things to different aspects of the role. Tobey McGuire was good at playing the nerdy Peter Parker but wasn't as strong in the cocky antics of Spider-man. The opposite was true for Andrew Garfield. While we've only had one scene with Tom Holland playing Peter Parker, and one great battle scene with him playing Spider-man, its still hard to determine if he's the good balance we need for someone to play Spider-man. But what I do know is that he has made me rethink my stance that Spider-man doesn't have to be in highschool to be a successful character. I still would have liked to see an older Peter Parker, but if they were going to go down the route of a younger, still in high school Peter Parker, I think Tom Holland is on a very good path to doing that in Spider-man: Homecoming.

And while we're on that topic, let's talk about the upcoming standalone Spider-man coming in 2017, Spider-man: Homecoming.

There has been a lot of information that has come out about Spider-man: Homecoming that I haven't really talked about because the information by itself doesn't give me enough material to do a whole post on. But all the news about this movie together, and me reanalyzing Civil War and Spider-man's role in it does make for a pretty hefty post.

So what're the highlights?

Well as far as casting goes, Robert Downey Jr is going to be have a part in the movie that I actually think is pretty substantive which I am all for.

The reason Tom Holland worked in Civil War was because of his relationship with Tony Stark, which plays back into the way Holland interacts with the rest of the Avengers and how that's exciting. It makes sense that Tony Stark is going to be in Spider-man Homecoming because this could be a really great pair up and Stark Industries could be playing the same kind of role Oscorp was playing in The Amazing Spider-man where a lot of super villains come from its jaded history. And one of those villains is The Vulture.

The Vulture apparently is going to be the main villain in the movie and its also been stated that Michael Keaton is going to be one of the movies main villains... so its more than likely that Michael Keaton will be playing The Vulture.

Its also rumored that The Vulture will be a formed Stark Enterprises employee with a personal

vendetta against Tony Stark but all of that is really put to the wayside when you put in perspective the fact that Michael Keaton is in a superhero movie again. Its been quite a long time since he was Batman and with his career only becoming more and more interesting these days with excellent performances like the one he had in Spotlight, the potential of him being the Vulture is very exciting.

Now, I am worried that the movie will fall under the same formulas that other Marvel superhero films have fallen under where the villain is underdeveloped and only has this one outing and then you never see him again. But the thing that makes me think otherwise is going back to Sony's original plan to bring in the Sinister Six. Like I said in my original article on Spider-man, the Sinister Six won't be a thing for another five years at least, but if they do Michael Keaton's Vulture right and make him an intricate part of the future Sinister Six and perhaps the leader, this brings  a lot of promise for the future of the Spider-man franchise under the Marvel flag.

The final biggest piece of casting news worth mentioning is the casting of Zendaya.

Now originally, when Zendaya was casted, it was announced that she was going to be playing a character by the name of Michelle and she would be a friend of Peter's.

Recent reports however have all but confirmed that Zendaya will be playing Mary Jane, the iconic love interest of Peter Parker.

Now, if you know anything about Spider-man, you will know that Mary Jane has traditionally been a white female character. Zendaya is not white. An of course, because we live in a world where everything is a story before we even see how it will work, everyone flipped out due to this casting news. There were people freaking out in support, people freaking out against the casting and I guess the world is wondering what I think of the casting.

The first thing I will say is, nothing has been confirmed so there is no reason to freak the hell out about this yet. Wikipedia and IMDB still have Zendaya listed as Michelle, not Mary Jane. Everything is rumor and speculation and who knows what it could actually turn out being.

Secondly, I have a hard time really caring if it is true. I adopted a mindset with casting where I don't care if the race or ethnicity of a character changes as long as that person is the best person to play the role, its the best for the story they are in and not a publicity stunt to change things up for a political stance, and finally if it doesn't get in the way of the true nature of the character.

Was there anything written about Nick Fury that required him to be a white male? Did making him black change the nature of the character? No? Okay then I don't care if Samuel L Jackson played him. Same for Johnny Storm. And I'm sort of the same way for Mary Jane Watson.

There is a thin argument that Mary Jane was always written as a natural red head but is that really something we should be freaking out about if she doesn't have natural red hair? As long as it doesn't look stupid, it makes sense to the character, who cares if he hair isn't naturally red?

I might do another post on that because I do have some interesting opinions on recent(ish) castings for big blockbuster movies like this one, but for now, I'll just leave it at this. Regardless of whether or not Zendaya is Mary Jane or not, I'm going to be looking at her performance and how true she remains to the character. Everything else, I don't think will be an issue.

But all this news about the movie, does this mean that Spider-man: Homecoming is going to break the downward trend Spider-man movies have been on and actually be successful under Marvel?

I still have my doubts.

I think Civil War showed us that Spider-man will work as a member of a team and could add a lot to movies like Infinity War and other MCU films. But I don't feel like Civil War alone makes Spider-man more of a captivating character enough to have his own unique standalone films again this soon.

Reports have said that this Spider-man will have a little more of John Hughes, high school drama feel to it with Spider-man going through highschool like Harry Potter going through Hogwarts. My question is, how much is that going to make a difference with an audience that has probably sat through both Spider-man franchises that came before this one, each one pushing out more and more diminishing returns.

Spider-man definitely made a splash in Civil War, and having Iron Man and a black Mary Jane are ways to shake up the franchise in the way that its never been done before. But The Amazing Spider-man franchise looked like something different than the Sam Raimi films. They had Gwen Stacey, they had the Lizard and Electro and The Rhino... sort of, and it ended up being a wasted reboot. Until I sit down in the theaters and see something different and something riskier than the same formulaic superhero film that I've seen from both the previous Spider-man films and the recent Marvel films, I still remain skeptical.

I of course will be first in line to see Spider-man: Homecoming and I want it to succeed. I did really enjoy Spider-man in Civil War and even if they said that we're not doing a Spider-man standalone film tomorrow, I would be crushed if they staid that Spider-man wasn't showing up in later installments of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think it was a good idea to bring him over, I would just like to see more risks taken with the character and see some things that we've never seen before. Otherwise I might as well pop in the Sam Raimi films and just call it a day.

But those are my thoughts on Spider-man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. What do you think? Do you think Spider-man: Homecoming is going to be a good film or follow in the footsteps of the other Spider-man movies that have come before it? Is being apart of Marvel really going to rejuvenate the character? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I mean even if you don't like Tom Holland as the new Spider-man, you have to admit, going to a hospital dressed as Spider-man is pretty cool. Enjoy!