Annihilation

So I've been mulling over Annhilation for a couple hours and I think I've come to the conclusion that I wish that this was the second time I had seen the film and I had went to go see this in theaters last February.

Annihilation is a film directed by Alex Garland. Garland directed Ex Machina and has become a pretty big name when it comes to science fiction movies because of it. I had forgotten this until I watched the movie and I'm glad because I wouldn't want to compare this movie to Ex Machina. Firstly, because it's really hard to compare anything to Ex Machina, that movie was amazing, but more importantly, this movie is very, VERY different than Ex Machina. They're both very cerebral and boundaries breaking science fiction films, but they cover very different subject matter and I think that's contributing to me becoming a really big fan of Alex Garland.

Annihilation centers on the character of Lena (played by Natalie Portman), a former Soldier, now biologist. One day, Lena's husband Kane (played by Oscar Isaacs), a Soldier who was believed to be killed in action, returns home but is very sick.

Lena is taken to a special facility and told that Kane was the only survivor of a team that went into an area they called "The Shimmer". It's kind of hard to explain this area, partly because I don't want to spoil the film, but also because it's just hard to explain by the nature of the movie. Essentially, it's this gorgeous visual effect that covers a large area that seems to just be an anomaly and unexplainable by science.

Lena decides to join a team of female scientists to go into The Shimmer, figure out what's causing it, get more information on it, and figure out the mystery behind Kane's illness.

So the number one thing you will hear about this movie is that it is visually stunning. That is true. Garland was able to do a lot of unique and gorgeous things with the visuals in this movie and it really, REALLY makes me bummed that I didn't see this movie in theaters. My recommendation is to watch this movie on the biggest clearest screen you can because the visuals are something to behold. I think with Garland's unique look on science fiction, it makes the movie very pleasing to look at. Regardless of whether or not you like the movie or not, I think we can all agree that this movie is freaking gorgeous.

But the contentious parts of the film is definitely in its story and its characters. For me, I think the level of enjoyment depends on your level of expectations when it comes to what you think this movie is. If you think it's going to be as cerebral and thought provoking as Ex Machina, I can't say that's one hundred percent true. But on the other hand, this is not an action heavy science fiction thriller, it does drag a little.

Like I said, I've had some time to mull this movie over and I think it is more thought provoking than I originally thought. I don't think it's as hard hitting as Ex Machina, but it's a little more cerebral and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. By way of the bigger picture and themes of the movie, I think that's a good thing.

But by way of story structure and character development, this movie has a little bit to be desired, in certain areas.

The truth is, again, I wish this was the second time I was watching the film or I had bought it to watch it again. I get the feeling I'm going to get more out of the film if I watch it a second time because it has a little bit of a delayed effect, at least on me. Very, VERY interesting concept, good execution, just not as good as I think most audiences will need for a single viewing.

The other issue is the cast.

Now to be clear, the cast is great. I love a lot of these actors and actresses and I don't think anybody turns in a bad performance. It all just depends on where the focus of the movie is.

The themes and main story is centered on Natalie Portman's character. So her and Oscar Isaac, on top of giving a good performance, are just written better and therefore are great characters.

I just think the movie doesn't flesh out the character or arcs of the others for me to really care as much as I wish I did. I love Tessa Thompson, I think her, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Gina Rodriguez give good performances. But their characters are really paper thin and any arc that is given to them is never really followed through with. Ultimately they add to the struggle that Lena is going through and it wouldn't be a huge deal if the movie didn't suggest that their arcs were importance or thought provoking as well.

But while I tend to think of things like that, it didn't take away from the fact that I really enjoyed this movie. It felt like a very unique movie. It made me think, there were science fiction elements of it that I really enjoyed. There was a little bit of horror to it as well, though not as much as I think I would have maybe wanted. I just really enjoyed it.

There is a moment or two in the film that feel a little bit self indulgent and maybe drag on a minute or so longer than it should, but overall, I think it is worth checking out. The very fact that I'm actually thinking a lot about this movie and I might end up buying it sometime soon makes me think that this is a movie I'm going to be thinking about for a little while.

I don't think a whole lot of people know that this is based off a book trilogy. I didn't know until I started doing research into the background of the film. I actually just bought the audio book and will hopefully be reading it soon. Maybe I'll do an addition to this review to talk about the book and what else I got out of it, because I do think there is more to this world than this movie delves into. Maybe more to come on that.

But overall, I recommend Annihilation. I don't think it's a perfect movie, but I did like the ideas, the action, the drama, and especially the science fiction elements that just made me think while watching it. Like I said, the visuals are stunning and I would recommend watching it on the biggest HD TV you have, but nonetheless, I think you should check it out.

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

Thanks for reading.

Venom

This was a movie, a superhero story, and Intellectual property that I never really had an interest in seeing. I'm not saying it couldn't have been a good movie, I just don't know enough about Venom to say what that looks like or why I would relate to it. My only exposure to Venom prior to this movie was this guy...

That was a flaming pile of hot garbage and there was nothing about the lead up to this film (trailers, marketing, press releases) that suggested that this iteration of Venom was going to be much better. I mean I love Tom Hardy, but when he and the director both say that there is a cut of this movie that they're very excited about, that almost certainly translates to this movie is going to be bad.

So I went in with low expectations and boy was that the right choice....

Venom follows the story of Eddie Brock (played by Tom Hardy). He is a reporter who loses everything, his job, his fiance (played by Michelle Williams) breaks up with him, and his reputation is in tatters when he reports on a billionaire scientist named Carlton Drake (played by Riz Ahmed).

But then he is given the opportunity to blow the story wide open again and goes into the lab of Drake. There he finds that Drake is experimenting on human subjects to fuse them with an alien substances called a symbiote.

Of course, something goes wrong and Eddie ends up with the symbiote inside him. After that he starts hearing voices, gets incredibly hungry, and has the urge to bite people's heads off. He discovers that the symbiote is sentient and calls itself Venom.

The rest of the movie is a hot mess of Eddie forming a relationship with Venom, trying to figure out if this symbiote is something he wants in his body at all, and ultimately to stop the devious plot of Carlton Drake.

And oh boy is this movie the definition of a good bad movie. If you want coherent story arcs, characters, and serious acting, I hear A Star is Born is pretty good. But if you want quite simply a weird ass movie, Venom is almost worth the price of admission... almost.

By far the best part of the movie is the relationship between Venom and Eddie. Venom is more of a character than I really thought he was gonna be and him and Eddie do create a bit of a bond by the end of the film. It's often rushed and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially as they transition into the third act, but there are surprisingly more jokes and comedic banter between these two then I originally thought. I can't be sure if its the dynamic that fans of the comic were expecting between these two, but I had fun  with it and it was surprising to see a buddy-cop relationship come from an oddball like Eddie Brock and demon voice Venom. I chuckled a lot and while some of it really wasn't done that well, I enjoyed it.

I feel like they could have gone a little more over the top with some of the ways  they could have used the symbiotes. For example, there's a point where the Venom symbiote enters a small little purse dog, that could have been a really great moment. I'll talk more about the tone that was set up and how it almost felt unintentional, but I think if they knew they were striking that tone, the symbiote would have been used in much cleverer ways and it could have been a lot more fun than I think it accidentally was.

I was really disappointed with the under utilization and poor writing of the other performers, especially Riz Ahmed and Michelle Williams. I've really enjoyed both of these actors, especially Ahmed recently, and this movie gave them really nothing to work with. Michelle Williams was the stereotypical love interest. I think we've gotten to the point where characters like that aren't automatically the damsels in distress which is good, but they haven't really mastered what to replace the damsel in distress tropes with yet so instead we get a really boring potential love interest. To be honest, her and Brock's chemistry isn't really there.

And Riz Ahmed is a stereotypical one dimensional villain. His plans are so muddled and confusing that he really lost me before the second half of the film. They state in the trailer but eventually he gets a symbiote and the two of them and Venom and Brock get into a fight near the end... and oh boy does it look like garbage.

Not only is the third act so rushed and incoherent that it's hard to really care, but for the most part its just a CGI fest where nothing seems real and it doesn't feel like real stakes.

With how much money this movie has made, I would be very surprised if it didn't get a sequel, but I'm worried that the conclusion is just going to be another CGI symbiote fight and the truth is, it was ridiculous in this movie, but only ridiculous enough for this individual movie. I can't imagine them doing it again and getting away with it. That is something I think they could have fixed in this movie and probably will need to fix in the sequel if it happens, the CGI.

To be fair to the movie, I can't imagine this is a very easy character to make look serious. Venom might be a cool character in the comic books, but that's because its a visual medium that lends itself to more wacky looking characters.

And while I think they probably did the best they can, I think I just have a hard time taking a character that looks like this seriously in general. The first time that Venom shows up in his entirety, I just had to laugh because it looked kind of silly. I think I described the CGI to a friend in this way. If at one end of the spectrum you have Thanos being an example of great CGI, and Steppenwolf from Justice League as the other end of the spectrum as an example of bad CGI, I think Venom is right in the middle for me.

I honestly don't think it's any better than the CGI used in Spider-man 3 when Venom last appeared on the big screen, and that was over 10 years ago. Again, I think it's a challenge, but it kind of brings me to the next point that I think this movie didn't succeed in and that's exactly what tone it was going for.

Honestly, I think while he wasn't written very well, Venom worked perfectly in the Sam Raimi Spider-man universe because that was just a campy movie and anything went in that series. But the trailers and I think at least certain shots of this movie wanted this movie to be a horror action movie. And I think I see those moments in the movie and there's probably an edit of this movie that was a lot darker (and probably rated R), and yet the movie feels like it got torn to pieces in the editing room.

The upside of that is that we get a ridiculous movie that I had far too much fun than I really should have because the edits make it this over the top ridiculous film. The downside is that the story is a mess, most characters don't have coherent arcs, and I just feel like the movie got really lucky that people didn't really adhere to any kind of critical response to this film. The movie has a 30% on Rotten Tomatoes and yet it's making a lot of money. There will be a sequel and I don't see them really learning any lessons and that movie being any good at all. Will I see it though? Well of course I am, this movie was a fun wild ride, and I think that's the bottom line throughout this all.

Venom is a flaming pile of garbage. It's not good. But its actually pretty funny how bad that it is in just the right ways that I will recommend it. If you're on the fence about it, I'd say wait till it's out of theaters and rent it because it might not be the film for you, but regardless, just make sure your expectations are low and get ready to see a weird film.

But those are my thoughts on Venom, I might do a spoiler review but more than likely not. Venom doesn't speak to me as much as other films and I don't know if I'm up for dedicating that time to a spoilers review. However, because this movie made a lot of money for Sony, I do potentially see a larger future for Venom and that does kind of excite me, so we'll see. Maybe. But what did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.

Mascots

So I'm going to be totally up front, I am not very familiar with Christopher Guest's work. I watched about half of Waiting For Guffman when I was in Middle School and I can't remember one bit of it. I just know that Guest has a particular style of comedic writing.

The other thing I have to admit is the fact that I have become interested in Guest's work because I recently started watching Schitt's Creek which was created and stars Guest's writing partner Eugene Levy. I honestly got the urge to watch this movie because I thought that contributed to the writing in the same way he did for Waiting For Guffman and Best in Show... turns out Levy had absolutely nothing to do with Mascots and I didn't figure that out until about 10 minutes into the film. Regardless, I wanted to explore a little bit into the writing of Guest which isn't too far off from Levy's and I decided to follow through and finish Mascots... And I realized that this might not be the best introduction to Christopher Guest's work.

Mascots is a mockumentary surrounding the Mascot award show called The Fluffies. A kooky cast of characters from around the world come to California for the competition in the hope of taking home the Gold Fluffy award. The cast includes an unhappily married couple who dress up like an octopus and a turtle played by Zach Woods and Sarah Baker, a single man looking for love while dressing up like a plummer played by Christopher Moynihan, a sister duo who dress up like an armadillo played by Parker Posey and Susan Yeagley, a British man who dresses up like a hedgehog to fulfill a family tradition of mascotting played by Tom Bennett, and a violent Irish Canadian whose mascot is a giant fist played by Chris O'Dowd.

You may notice that I didn't use any of their character names and the truth is, I don't know if I can remember any of them. You'd think with the mockumentary style film that I'd learn the names pretty quickly when they display it at the beginning but the truth was, none of these characters were really that compelling that I felt the need to learn their name. Jane Lynch is in the film and I just called her the judge played by Jane Lynch.

On top of that, the story didn't grab me in the way I think it should have. The reoccurring joke is that these people are overly excited for a competition that really doesn't matter that much. While in theory it sounds interesting, the pacing and execution of that story felt very odd and almost scotch taped together with all these individual narratives weaving in and out of one another.

Now I'll give credit where its due, this is in the spirit of Christopher Guest and his writing. What I've found from watching Schitt's Creek, Mascots, and from what I remember of Waiting For Guffman is that these shows are filled with absurd characters interacting with other absurd characters in what amounts to an absurd off.

Furthermore, Guest's writing is very, VERY dry. The comedy comes more out of the scenarios and the delivery rather than having a punchline. The unique factor about that is that you need to be paying attention to the film to pick up on the comedic dense dialogue. Unfortunately, the characters and story didn't draw me in enough to want to pay attention to them and in part the jokes and funny dialogue.

And its undoubtedly there in Mascots. The overall premise is very comedic, but my biggest complaint is when there are long drawn out conversations that I know are supposed to be funny, but I just don't care.

Furthermore there are a couple parts in the movie that seemed unnecessarily mean spirited. Another aspect of the characters in this movie is that they are so absurd that they become obtuse and don't really pick up that they're being absurd. And a lot of the times that works, but then you have a scene where the movie takes a really odd pause about 40 minutes in where Fred Willard stops and chats with Brad Williams and makes far too many jokes about how Williams is a little person and he doesn't really understand how that works.

 Honestly, Willard rarely does a whole lot for me in other movies anyway but in this movie he contributed absolutely nothing. I get that the dialogue is absurd, but for me there are limits to how obtuse someone can be before it just gets offensive.

And this wasn't the only moment that seemed out of place and mean spirited. For example they spend a whole 5 minutes talking about how someone used to be the mascot for a team called the Squaws and questioning whether or not that's offensive. Or when Christopher Moynihan is recruited to perform his mascot routine to a school full of blind kids.

I'm not saying these jokes couldn't have been funny or that they're off limits, but the way they're incorporated into this movie isn't really done in a smart or funny way. They more seem to be thrown in there just for the sake of being shock humor and that doesn't really do it for me.

The last real issue I had with the film was how little and late the actual use of mascots were used in this film.

I should clarify real quick because the truth is, I think Mascots are actually really funny. I'm from Minnesota and we happen to have a lot of really good mascots. During our sporting events the mascots do manage to do some really fun routines to make people laugh.

Again, on paper, this sounds like a really funny concept for a movie like this. But while we see some of the characters in their mascot costumes prior to the hour mark, it's not till half way through the film that we actually start to seem some physical comedy from the characters and with the exception of a few of the performances that are given, the actual competition didn't do a whole lot for me.

Now I understand that that's kind of part of the point of the movie, that these characters are devoting so much time to a "craft" that is a novelty that is fun in small doses, but I just came out of the film wondering what was the point of dedicating an hour and a half to this movie.

At the end of the movie they do a brief epilogue talking about where these characters are a year later and I realized that I just didn't care about any of them. Which is a shame because there are some pretty funny actors in this movie.

I think Zach Woods is a really funny actor whose dry delivery works perfectly for a Christopher Guest film. I've always really enjoyed Chris O'Dowd, Jane Lynch, Parker Posey, and Ed Begley Jr. But I think with such a large cast with so many different narratives, I felt like certainly a lot of characters and certain plot points were never given the chance to develop and were under utilized.

Are there funny moments in Mascots? Yes.

Personally, while I think they could have done more with it, there's a reoccurring joke about a Furry who goes to the competition and continuously wants to make it a sexual thing, that was pretty funny and got me laughing. But examples like that were so sparsely spaced and inhibited by the poor pacing and failed, often mean spirited jokes, that I must say overall the film didn't do a whole lot for me.

Now I shouldn't be surprised as Netflix's original movies have ultimately been pretty hit or miss with more of an emphasis on the misses, but I have to give them credit for seeking out talent like Christopher Guest to allow the platform to appeal to as many people as they can.

However, Netflix needs to start emphasizing quality over quantity sometime soon. There's a new Disney streaming service coming out soon and with competing services like Hulu and Amazon Prime starting to step up their game, Netflix might start losing the recognition they've done a really good job building up over the past few years.

But Netflix has had these ups and downs in the past and it continues to evolve. I just hope it can evolve sooner rather than later.

But those are my thoughts on the Netflix Original Mascots. What did you think? What's your preferred streaming service? What would you like to see Netflix change? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Familiar disclaimer: I've never read the Scott Pilgrim comics. I don't know anything about them or how close to them the movie gets. I'm basing this only off of the movie.

Back in 2010, when Michael Cera still looked like a teenager and was popular enough to pull off the quirky teen or twenty something, he and a bunch of actors who have seen become way more popular than this movie ever expected them to be, came together and made a little comic book movie called Scott Pilgrim vs The World... and it bombed at the box office. I barely remember this movie and while I haven't seen Nick and Norah's infinite playlist, the titles sound oddly similar but couldn't be any more different.

The movie follows the story of Scott Pilgrim (played by Cera), a musician Michael Cera type who is gets more women than anybody with the demeanor and mannerisms of Michael Cera would ever get in real life. He begins a relationship with a mysterious girl by the name of Romona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) but figures out that the only way to date her is by defeating seven of her exes. Scott engages in highly stylized video game-like battle with her ex while learning a lot about relationships and interactions that I think a lot of people can relate to.

First and foremost, the most remarkable thing about this film is Edgar Wright's direction. Edgar Wright has a long history of really stylized directing but he takes that and gives a comic book/ video game feel to refine the story. Lot of times when I watch these movies I try to multitask and do other things while I watch it, but I figured out pretty quickly that this is not the kind of movie you multitask during, or you're going to miss some really great visual storytelling.

Another great part of the movie is the cast. Now I do have some particular thoughts on certain performances that I think hurt the film, but it is definitely worth mentioning that this film has a lot of talented people attached to it at a time when they were less known. Michael Cera was at the height of his powers at the time, but actresses like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Brie Larson, Anna Kendrick, Allison Pill, and Aubrey Plaza were relatively unknown at the time and it's fun seeing them do a great job at the start of their careers. I won't say this jump started their careers but it's fun seeing them in their humble beginnings.

The other funny aspect of the film was how they utilized actors who were somewhat known but revitalized them a little bit. 2010 was four years after Brandon Routh's go as Superman and I think it was always funny seeing him in different roles after that. Chris Evans as a small role where he does a weird Ben Stiller impression which is kind of fun, and that's just to name a few of the actors that contributed to a movie that nobody really saw back when it came out.

The main reason I think that was the case is because I'm not sure people really knew what to make of this film back in 2010. I'm not totally sure people know what to make of it now either because it does command a bit of a niche audience. I don't know anybody who would say this is Edgar Wright's best film and it seems to be so specifically made for fans of the comic and specific video game/anime cliches that I could see someone not being interested.

There were parts of this movie I really dug. I love the style and the references but there were some things about the story that I wasn't really wild about and unfortunately it mainly surrounds Michael Cera, both in the way his character was written and the performance.

The 2000's were a great decade for Michael Cera. We accepted that all his characters were gonna be the awkward nerdy thin kid who we all could relate to and we ate it up! From Arrested Development to Superbad and Juno, Michael Cera was always gonna be that quirky dude who always had the dry retort and was just so much of a sad sack that you had to root for him.

Scott Pilgrim is a great representation of how that generic Michael Cera-type character eventually evolved. As he grew older, his characters kept the same innocence and awkwardness, but developed an undeserving arrogance and asshole tendencies that we kind of forgave because he was so awkward and seemingly innocent.

Scott Pilgrim is an asshole in this movie.

One of the main plot lines is that he initially has a relationship with a high school girl named Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong). Beyond the fact that a 22 year old dating a 17 year old is kind of weird, Knives only adores Scott and he treats her like shit to go after a girl he barely knows anything about.

Part of the evolution of this character is that she goes from this sweet girl to an obsessive fan who kind of stalks Scott and I don't think it's a great character arc especially since it kind of sweeps the fact that Scott is an asshole under the rug. Now the way he deals with his relationship is kind of the moral of the movie, but everything wraps itself up somewhat too perfectly and there's two different endings where Scott gets the girl in both when reality would dictate that both of them should tell him to F right off.

Granted I'm arguing reality in a movie that has Michael Cera fighting Chris Evans in a mortal combat style duel, but I'm just saying it makes the morals lose their edge when Michael Cera only sort of learns his lesson.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World is not a masterpiece. There are definitely flaws in the movie (one of which is not having nearly enough Anna Kendrick, but that's a personal preference). However, I do think it is a really fun and unique experience. This is not a regular run of the mill comic book movie experience and I do think it is a sort of hidden gem in what is available on Netflix these days.

I do recommend checking it out for, at the very least, getting a feel for Edgar Wright's fantastic direction and cinematography and a fun cast at the beginning of their illustrious careers.

But those are my thoughts on Scott Pilgrim vs The World. What do you think of it? How does it compare to the comic if you've read it? I feel like that was an aspect of the film I couldn't speak to. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

So I need to say that there are better title posters that I probably could have used for this review but the poster you see above is a 100% genuine poster that they created to promote the film and I think that's hilarious and they need to own up to it.

That being said, I did not dislike this movie nearly as much as I thought I was going to.

I was proudly one of the movie goers that contributed to Jurassic World making a crazy ton of money in 2015. While I have since become more aware of the flaws with that movie, I thoroughly enjoyed my theater going experience back then. It is not a perfect movie nor is it anywhere near the quality of the original Jurassic Park, but it is a fun popcorn movie and I still stand behind it.

But the three years since that movie have been a little sobering for everyone for the Jurassic World movies and while I think people were excited for the sequel, I don't know anybody who was rushing to the theaters or increasingly hyped when the trailer dropped. I think people had come to the realization that the first Jurassic World movie was just a dumb Transformers-like popcorn flick, why would the sequel be any different?

Fallen Kingdom takes place a couple years after the events of the first Jurassic World. The main conflict is that an inactive volcano on Isla Nublar where the parks were has recently become active and could blow at any minute.

Claire (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) is now apart of an activist group that is trying to prompt the government to save these dinosaurs while Owen (played by Chris Pratt) has fled into seclusion and would rather forget about the dinosaurs they left behind.

Claire is contacted by a colleague of John Hammond, Benjamin Lockwood (played by James Cromwell) and recruited to help gather up some of the dinosaurs and bring them to a new island sanctuary. They ask her to recruit Owen to help as well, mainly to help in the recovery of the velocirapter Blue that Owen had a close relationship with in the previous movie.

The weird thing is, that's really only the plot for half of the movie. I don't want to go too into spoilers, but the movie turns into a low key slasher film set in a guys house.

So here's the thing. This movie actually isn't the worst thing I've seen all year. Is it good? Oh god no. But I think because my expectations were so low, I ended up really enjoying this film. I knew exactly what I was watching.

As much as I want to believe that these movies are trying to recapture the thought provoking nature of the first film, that illusion is long gone and this franchise is now about how they can pack in a fun adventure where Chris Pratt gets to be an action hero, and dinosaurs get to roam around eating people.

It hits a lot of the same beats, there's a forced romance between Owen and Claire again that goes no where. There's a new hybrid that the old dinosaurs need to help the humans fight, they watch a lot of people get eaten by dinosaurs while they fight off that hybrid, it's rinse and repeat. And for the most part they succeed in making something that was somewhat entertaining as long as that's all you're looking for.

The characters are probably the biggest hurdle you'll have to jump over if you just want to turn off your brain and not care one bit about this movie.

Let's be real. Owen and Claire were super boring characters in the first movie and they're still super boring, still having less chemistry than the couple in the Fifty Shades of Grey films.

But they're totally serviceable. Not good, serviceable. Chris Pratt is your typical handsome, somewhat comedic action hero lead, and Bryce Dallas Howard is pretty. Do not expect anything beyond that.

And I honestly could not tell you the names of any of the new characters. There's a really annoying nerdy dude (played by Justice Smith), a spunky dinosaur vet who has never seen a dinosaur before, making her role confusing (played by Daniella Pineda), and random kid (played by Isabella Sermon). Everyone else does an okay job, but nothing really stood out to me.

Oh and if you thought that Jeff Goldblum was in this movie, that's really cute...

He is in the movie for probably about 2 minutes, MAX. I said in a tweet or something a couple days ago that Jeff Goldblum deserves better than your fan service cameos, he deserves more fun projects and to say that he was criminally under utilized in this film is probably the biggest understatement of 2018.

Seriously, 2 minutes to probably one of the most interesting and iconic characters in this franchise. Was that all they could get from him? The cameo felt really cheap and if it hadn't bookended the film, I would have forgotten about it completely.

And that's been the lasting effect of Jurassic World 2 for me. I accept what it is, but I can't totally get over what it could have been.

The surprising thing is that these new movies do lend themselves to some cool ideas and scenarios with dinosaurs being brought back that could be explored. An activist group supporting the rights of dinosaurs like other endangered species is kind of interesting, dinosaur veterinarians is also interesting, and Russian mercenaries buying dinosaurs on the black market to use as weapons is actually an interesting concept.

The first movie did this too. I bet you forgot that Vincent D'Onofrio was in Jurassic World but he was and he brought up the idea of the military using raptors to fight terrorists in the Middle East. Since then Raptors in Afghanistan has been on my mind for 3 years. Why would you not explore that?

But even the interesting ideas they do include get muffed up to return to what is comfortable and done before. The two character arcs of Claire being apart of a dinosaur rescue activist group and Owen being secluded not caring about Blue in the beginning should have been reversed. Does it fix the script? Hell no, but I think that would have been at least a start to make these characters a little bit layered and interesting as opposed to what they are now. Owen is a generic action hero. Claire is a generic action hero arm candy. The nerdy guy is your generic nerdy guy. The kid is your generic kid. The paramilitary guy played by Buffalo Bill is your generic paramilitary we've seen in bad Jurassic Park sequels in the past.

I'm not saying throwing Jeff Goldblum in there for no reason would have saved the movie because this movie itself is a testament to how that doesn't work. But I just want the writers to treat this movie and this franchise as more than just a regular old action movie.

I love action movies and there's nothing wrong with Jurassic Park being an action movie. But there's two types of action movie: there's the new Planet of the Apes action movie and there's Michael Bay Transformers. The ideas, the foundation, and even the set up they have for future films make Jurassic World ripe for a thought provoking but bad ass action movie in the vein of Planet of the Apes. But we have to accept that Jurassic World has decided to be a Michael Bay style action franchise and probably will continue to be until we get bored of it the same way we got bored of Transformers movies. I think the heart burn is that we all see the potential for Jurassic World to be in that former category, but for a second time we've had those hopes dashed.

But hey... at least there aren't racist stereotypes and jokes in Jurassic World movies like there are in the Transformers films...

Overall, Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom is not a very good movie. The characters are paper thin, the story isn't very good, and ultimately it's just an opportunity to sap the remaining nostalgia we have for Jurassic Park to make a bank load of money. However, if your just looking for a popcorn action flick to turn your brain off the same way you would for a Transformers film, Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom isn't the worst choice for that. Bottom line, I enjoyed it. I just know it could have been better.

But those are my thoughts, what did you think of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom? Has anybody seen it? I saw it only because I was watching it with some kids I was babysitting but I am not convinced anybody else has actually seen this movie. Nobody I know has talked about it whatsoever so I want to hear your thoughts. Are you excited for Jurassic World 3 when they make it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The Night Manager (And a rant about James Bond)

I think I heard about The Night Manager when it first aired. I don't have regular cable so I wasn't able to check it out then. But I did say that I wanted to check it out because it had two actors that while I'm not totally familiar with a lot of their work, I've loved everything they're in, Tom Hiddleston and Hugh Laurie.

I also had a short time frame where I told myself I wanted to read the book before I watched the show but I had a hard time doing that. So when it came on Amazon Prime, I decided to check it out.

The first thing to note is that the first episode, while pretty good, isn't as suspenseful or I would argue interesting as the rest of the season. It mainly sets the stage for Jonathan Pine (played by Tom Hiddleston), a British veteran from the Iraq war who is now a night manager for a luxurious hotel in Cairo in the midst of the Arab Spring.

He becomes aware of a woman staying at his hotel as well as the illegal business she and her boyfriend are involved in. He also starts hearing the name Richard Roper.

Eventually, tragedy strikes and Jonathan leaves the hotel in Cairo for another position, but not before he sends on some information about the dealings of Richard Roper (played by Hugh Laurie, a philanthropist who secretly is a notorious arms dealer.

Eventually, Pine crosses paths with an officer in British intelligence (played by Olivia Coleman) and they devise a plan to implant Pine into Roper's inner circle and bring the weapons dealing racket to a halt one way or another.

The rest of the series is a tense undercover story as Pine infiltrates Roper's business, becomes closer with not only him but his girlfriend Jed (played by Elizabeth Debicki). He also has to put his life at risk by winning the trust of everyone in Roper's circle, including his right hand man (played by Tom Hollander).

Strangely enough, this series focuses less on the international intrigue action that you might see in a James Bond film and more on the trade craft and relationship building as Pine shows his worth, his Tom Hiddleston-like charisma, and the romance that builds between him and Jed as she becomes more trusting of him and less of Roper.

The Night Manager is a very slow burn. For a series that felt like an audition tape Tom Hiddleston was putting forward to convince people he could play James Bond (which I'll talk more about later) the series is a lot of talking and deception rather than gun play. Don't get me wrong, I still really enjoyed it. It's one of those situations where I think I was expecting something different and when I realized it wasn't that I probably enjoyed the show more because I knew what it actually was. Just don't go into it thinking this is going to be James Bond or Jason Bourne-style action because it's not.

 The show is really propelled further by the solid actors that give great performances. It's a mini-series so episodes were sometimes longer than an hour, giving the cinematic vibe multiple times over the course of 6 episodes.

Hiddleston and Laurie of course are going to give great performances because they produced the show and they're A-List actors. They're going to give their best performances no matter what. But the lesser known actors, Debicki, Coleman, David Harewood (it was fun thinking that David Estes from Homeland was working on a joint operation with MI6 the entire show), and Tom Hollander give really good performances as well.

The cinematography and music were also really great. I think they wanted to draw people in by giving it the music and somewhat of a feel of a Bond style spy thriller, but then the acting and story hits you with a slow burn espionage drama thriller.

One thing I will say is a strike against the show is that I keep on mentioning that it felt like a James Bond audition tape for Tom Hiddleston. I think that the story and performances do stand on their own and yes the Bond feeling does go away a little bit later in the series, but it was a little bit distracting. I don't know if its going to feel that way in 5 years when all the external context of Hiddleston seemingly wanting to play Bond is old news, but it was kind of apparent in the cinematography, the music, and the way they they built Hiddleston as this debonair, suave, very Bond-like spy.

Some other issues came with the relationships that Hiddleston had in the show.

The big relationship is that between Jonathan and Jed but I didn't feel like any of the relationships/hook ups Jonathan has throughout the series felt very genuine at all. Maybe that's the point that Jonathan isn't really a guy to be hung up on attachments, but they feel so quick that they fail to really create stakes that I buy him making some of his decisions over. Especially with the weird sense of time this show has, these hookups feel very rushed and they don't have the impact they need to have.

And the relationship that is supposed to be the most important is that between Jed and Jonathan and there doesn't seem to be a real sense of chemistry between them. Again, both give a good performance, but I didn't buy them getting together in the first place. On top of that, there doesn't seem to be a real tactical purpose to it when they finally do hook up. I was wondering to myself, why are you doing this? You're playing with fire by sleeping with the targets girlfriend. If it was like I mentioned before that he doesn't really do attachments I would have understood because it was a means to an end, but when they attempt an actual meaningful relationship, it just seems odd.

Another small, kind of nit picky thing I noticed was the shows sense of time. First off, you need to be paying attention quite a bit throughout the series. Because it's a show that relies on talking, there are some things that are mentioned in conversation, not in action. But furthermore, a lot of stuff happens in what I guess is a long period of time. But on the other hand Olivia Coleman's character is pregnant the entire time and if it was the amount of time you'd think it would be, she probably would have had the baby by that point.

I get it, it's a mini series so they only have so much time to actually execute necessary parts of the story so accurate passage of time probably wasn't the biggest priority, but it was kind of noticeable especially with Coleman being pregnant and Jonathan Pine being injured but getting better and gaining Roper's trust in a weirdly fast amount of time.  

The last thing I will mention is somewhat related to the timing of the show and the limited amount of episodes they could furnish. I understand the circumstances but I did notice that there were seldom any moments where you felt like the bad guys were going to get away with what they're doing.

Maybe I am characterizing the show wrong but I originally thought, especially if you get big names like Laurie and Hiddleston that this was going to be a game of wits between Roper and Pine.

However, there's really only one moment where the bad guys outsmart good guys and it's a very short lived moment. The fact that throughout the mini series I felt as though the good guys were going to win no matter what kind of threw off the balance of tension. They do a good job at showing Roper as a vicious person but on the other end of things, Jonathan Pine is a really smart (almost super human-like) character and I never really felt like his life was really at any risk.

So what we end up with is Pine being really smart and outsmarting Roper almost at every turn and while Roper seems competent, the entire series culminates with him just seeming like he got duped. I never really got that game of wits that I thought was going to happen. And unfortunately, the more I think about it, that's kind of a big deal as that's kind of the dynamic that was expected for the show.

I still really enjoyed the show and maybe that's just my observation. I still recommend you check it out and see what you think for yourself. 

So this show came out in 2015. To give a little bit of context, this was the same year that Spectre came out and Daniel Craig was looking like he was on his way out of his position as James Bond. I don't really remember if Hiddleston said he wanted to play Bond but I think I remember it being rumored. So while I didn't love the subtext behind this show, it did feel like an audition tape for Bond. Bond 25 is coming out in a year staring Daniel Craig again so this conversation doesn't feel timely but I think it is worth commenting on at least.

Would Tom Hiddleston be a good James Bond? Given the evidence from this show I’m still a little bit on the fence. The great thing about this show is that it shows that Tom Hiddleston can do more than Loki. He’s a really talented actor and I believe he can pull off the suaveness of James Bond as well as the action. He’s oddly lanky but the truth is, if you read into the description of James Bond from the original books, he actually fits the description of Bond pretty well as a lanky, homely looking guy.

I think the biggest thing hurting Hiddleston’s chances of becoming James Bond are the timing, who he’d be taking over from, and the roles he’s played in the past. Too many people see Hiddleston as Loki, and while I feel this series changed that perspective for me, not everyone is going to watch this show or any other movie Hiddleston is in to get a better idea of his range.

Personally, I feel as thought Daniel Craig is tired of Bond and frankly I'm a little tired of his Bond as well. I feel like Daniel Craig perfectly personified what Bond needed to be in a post 9/11 world but 12 years after Casino Royale I kind of feel like it might be time for a change. Now that might change with Bond 25, but if it were up to me I would have changed actors after Spectre which seemed like a decent send off for Craig.

Whoever takes over from Craig is going to have a difficult time. I think Daniel Craig's Bond films have overall been pretty great (with only a few missteps with Quantum of Solace and some of Spectre). But I think whether it's Hiddleston, Elba, or whoever, I think James Bond needs a revitalization beyond just a character change. I think that's why people are pushing for Idris Elba because they feel like that would be enough of a change whereas Hiddleston might look and feel like a lot of the same thing. I have no issue with Idris Elba being Bond, I think it'd be cool. But I feel like the change that needs to occur is more than skin deep (pun intended). Bond needs to go through a change the same way Brosnan's Bond needed to change. Craig's Bond seemed to be a reboot of the series and somewhat of a response to the Bourne series but at this point we've seen so many Bourne-like spy movies that it might be time for something else. Now I don't think people know what that change is yet. A post 9/11 spy thriller seemed like the obvious step for Bond and now it's hard to tell what direction it should head. And I don't know the answer to that.

Honestly, I'm not really that excited for Bond 25 for a lot of reasons. I wish I was. Again, maybe that will change when I see a trailer but I'm looking for a change. Maybe a more subdued Night Manager-like feel is what is needed. Double down on the realism. But I don't really think that's what is needed. I'll leave that to the people who get paid for this stuff.

Well that was a much longer rant about James Bond than I intended for a review about a miniseries that in reality has nothing to do with James Bond. I hope you get the picture that I really liked The Night Manager. I also hope you get the sense that I'm looking to the future for what a post-Daniel Craig Bond/spy thriller world is gonna look like. It's going to be interesting.

But those are my thoughts? What are yours? Did you like The Night Manager? Who do you want to see replace James Bond? Where do you see the franchise going? Do you think it relates? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films, miniseries, or shows I should watch in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading. 

Terminator 2: Judgement Day

Often times when we hear that a movie is so terrible, it's often hard to go into that movie and not expect something terrible. In the same way though, it's often hard to go into a movie that we hear is amazing and keep expectations neutral and not be swayed by those reviews. That's exactly the problem that I have with Terminator 2. When a new Marvel movie comes out, it's easier for me to take people's review with a grain of salt and see things as neutral. It's harder when a movie like Terminator 2 has been out for 27 years and has been raved about since and not think that this movie is going to be super rad. All I can say is I tried to be neutral... I tried.

The other aspect of this review is that it has been a while since I reviewed the first Terminator film. I reread my review and I remembered that overall, I was generally underwhelmed by that movie and had a hard time understanding how the movie became such a staple in cinematic history... nd then I watched Judgement Day and it was like that final puzzle piece fell into place.

The beginning of the movie recaps the set up for the story. John Conner in the year 2029 sends Kyle Reese back to protect Sarah Connor from a terminator. But then they add that Skynet sends back ANOTHER Terminator to kill John Connor as a child but humanity sent back yet ANOTHER terminator, but one that is reprogrammed to protect a young John Connor. It's a plot that is explained well, but could be very, VERY  confusing if you think about it too much.

Now usually I'd keep the reveal that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who played the T-800 and antagonist in the first movie, is now a good guy and the terminator sent to protect John Connor a surprise, but apparently the trailers didn't keep that secret either so I'm not gonna worry about it. The T-800 comes back to protect a young John Connor (played by Edward Furlong) from a more advanced T-1000 (played by Robert Patrick). As the movie takes place years after the first one, young John Connor has been raised by a newly militant Sarah Connor (played again by Linda Hamilton) to believing that he's the "savior of the human race".

 It's important to note that Sarah Connor has done a 180 change in this film. She is no longer a damsel in distress or horror movie survivor, she instead is a guerilla warfare badass who begins the movie in a psych ward because nobody believes her ramblings. And while we know that she's right and these things did happen to her, there's  a part of the audience that should think that Sarah Connor needs some help because there is some psychological issues there. I now understand why people love this character because she is so different from her previous character and at times she's not always the good guy that she's ten times more interesting. Our natural desire is for the relationship with her and John Connor to be perfect, but you can tell that while she wants the best for him and to keep him safe, she's also torn with the desire to save the human race from the monstrosity that haunted her in the first movie.

And that brings me to John Connor.

So as a character, I love John Connor. He's been through a lot with his mother's militant training and he deep down just wants the opportunity to be a kid. He also wants a father figure and that is developed throughout the film. He's also pretty innocent and kind of funny at times. I think given that this was Edward Furlong's first real role as an actor there is credit that has to be given for a pretty good performance.

I will say though that he is kind of annoying at times. He has a very high pitch voice and his acting and dialogue can be a little too stereotypical 90's kid. To give him credit this was 1991 and Furlong basically set the bar for stereotypical 90's kid as everyone was trying to recreate his grunge hair cut and attitude, but it doesn't really make it less annoying. He's not the worst kid actor in the world and its not so annoying it ruins the film, it's just there.

They spend the movie avoiding the murderous rampage of the T-1000, a Terminator that consists of morphing liquid metal.

There are actually a lot of really creepy scenes with this character and he's clearly the best and probably the only way you could up the ante from Arnold being the villain of the previous film. But, like a lot of this film, it's hard to top what already topped a really good villain and that seemed very prevalent with later films. (I'll get into that later).

So Sarah Connor, John Connor, and the T-800 must survive the assassination attempts of this new Terminator, but more importantly investigate the source of Skynet's creation and prevent Judgement Day.

Along the way, John develops a relationship with the reprogrammed Terminator and teaches him how to be human while also developing a struggling relationship with his mother.

I don't feel like I summarized the plot of the movie nearly as well as I should have but the truth is, it's hard to really pin down what exactly made this movie work so well. In a way it's rehashing similar plot points and vibes from the first movie, but at the same time it feels like a completely different movie that you don't really need to see the first one to appreciate. Instead of a science fiction horror movie like the first one, Judgement Day is a straight up action flick with amazing gun fights, car chases, and visual effects that honestly hold up a lot better than movies that came after this one.

I know in the first movie I said that Arnold is really not that great of an actor, and I stand by that, but in this movie he's actually able to give a meaningful performance that adds a lot to what's already there.

Somehow, they are able to form this relationship between John Connor and the T-800 that I wasn't expecting. Some how they're able to turn around a character like Sarah Connor to be someone totally different from the first movie but at the same time not only better but formed as a believable stepping stone from where she was. It not only focuses on science fiction action, but it develops characters and relationships better and it's an execution of a Terminator story probably will never happen again. At least based on what we've seen and what Hollywood tends to do with old properties that they're remaking, not because they have a real interesting story to tell, but rather to reap every single idea out of existing IP that they can to make as much money as they can.

There are now less Terminator movies that I haven't seen than Terminator movies that I have seen and I never really thought I'd be at this point. Because with the exception of this movie, I've been pretty indifferent if not a little indignant of the Terminator franchise.

I don't really understand why so many creative ideas are being thrown into a franchise that has had one good movie. Albeit a really great movie, but one good movie.

Terminator 1 is okay. Terminator 2 is amazing. Terminator Genisys is a hot pile of garbage and I haven't heard anything but apathy and critique of Terminator 3 and Salvation. So why are we putting so much effort into these movies?

The other thing that blows my mind is that while this movie is good, it doesn't really lend itself to a sequel. Honestly, if Hollywood wasn't obsessed with trilogies and sequels, I'd say they should have just ended it with this movie and have a decent horror movie followed up by a great sequel. Hindsight is of course 20/20 and no one is going to stop while they're ahead, especially as ahead as this movie brought them but again I have to say, why are we continuing down this road when every movie since Terminator 2 has been a bigger and bigger disappointment?

If I saw a picture like this for a new Terminator movie almost 30 years after T2 and I didn't know it was a picture for Terminator 6 I'd be super pumped and excited to see Linda Hamilton, especially after I watched this movie and saw how great of a character she is and how much of a badass she was.

But instead I look at this and I just shrug.

Overall, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a really, REALLY solid movie. When you start 90's action movies off on such a high bar, with few exceptions its really hard to compete with it. I'm glad I watched it, I just think I'm just bummed now because I at least understand (still don't agree) the desire to continue this franchise. I also know that if I decide to watch Terminator 3 and Salvation in its entirety, I'm just going to get even more bummed out.

Are there issues with this movie? Yes, but they're very small and the truth is, it's just a really solid movie. Do yourself a favor and check it out if you haven't.

But those are my thoughts on Terminator 2: Judgement Day. What did you think of it? Do we need more Terminator films? Are you excited for Terminator 6... if you are I am actually interested in hearing why because I don't know anybody who is. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.