I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
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!
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 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!
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!
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!
Yes, I do realize that I never did a spoilers review for Captain America: Civil War. This movie came out earlier this year at a time when I was traveling for work and I didn't have nearly enough time to write a full fledged review as well as a Spoilers review. I also thought at this time that I was going to try my hand at video reviews, something that I'm still trying to get into but haven't mastered it entirely. But with the release of Captain America: Civil War onto home video, I thought I'd get myself a copy and do another review to serve two purposes. The first one of course is to give you my thoughts on this film with no spoilers holding me back. The second one is to actually determine whether or not I thought this movie was really good.
Looking back at my review of the movie, I couldn't help but get the feeling that I was underwhelmed by this film. Its just strange given the fact that a lot of this movie is exactly within my wheelhouse. Its got great action, its got great characters that I'm already familiar with, and it starts out with some really good ideological struggles that Batman v Superman could only hope for. So why did I forget about this movie shortly after I watched it? Why was the Spoiler review so hard for me to dole out? This is what I'm trying to figure out today.
Here's the thing, while I'm not exactly proud of my Captain America Civil War review. I still think it puts all my thoughts in perspective and gives a pretty baseline opinion on it without giving spoilers. This is going to be a rewind review but will have spoilers. So if you haven't seen the movie (which I'm not sure why you haven't) you should check out my first review. This is going to be a rewind review for sure, but it will have spoilers.
In case you forgot the plot, Captain America Civil War centers on Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans) leading the new Avengers that consist of Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johanasson), Scarlet Witch (played by Elizabeth Olson, my entire first review I accidentally called her Elizabeth Taylor), Vision (played by Paul Bettany), Rhodey or War Machine (played by Don Cheadle) and Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie).
In the beginning, the Avengers are facing an old threat from The Winter Soldier in Crossbones (played by Frank Grillo). I thought this opening sequence was a great reintroduction to the team and was a great way to show the Avengers in action. All the other movies have been life or death outings,
it was nice to see the Avengers facing a threat that wasn't threatening to destroy the world. The encounter ends in Crossbones blowing himself up and while Scarlett Witch is able to prevent larger casualties, there are casualties, including some Wakandan global workers. Causing the Avengers to be put under scrutiny.
Quick note on Crossbones: While I think the opening sequence was good and perhaps it was better they didn't try to force Crossbones into the rest of the movie, I think it would have been good to have him as a potential villain in the future. Not a huge knock on the movie, I just think if you have the talent of Frank Grillo and an interesting character like Crossbones, why would you let that go?
The fallout of the event causes the world governments to come together and draft the Sokovia Accords. They utilize Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) to be the face of the Accords and him and Secretary of State Ross (played by William Hurt) try to convince the Avengers to sign the accords and have The Avengers be regulated by the United Nations.
And again, I still think the part of the movie where the Avengers debate the pros and cons of signing the accords is one of the better parts of the movie. A second time around, I had a little bit better of an understanding of the different sides, and I will say, Team Iron Man does make a really good point as
to why the Sokovia Accords is good for the Avengers. I even think they should have taken these arguments even further and make you question which side you would take if you were put in that position. As it is, they do a good job at describing both sides, but at the end of the day, this is a Captain America movie, you're going to be on his side.
Then Bucky Barnes or The Winter Soldier shows up (played by Sebastian Stan). He is implicated in the assassination of the King of Wakanda and the father of Black Panther. This of course leads to the government wanting to hunt down Barnes but Captain America thinks he's the better choice to bring him in. Of course Black Panther takes it upon himself to go after the Winter Soldier in what leads to a really cool chase.
It of course goes without saying, but the action in this movie is on point. I almost don't feel like I need to bring it up because it is a point that Marvel has continuously been able to knock out of the park. Its almost to the point that I feel like the action is just as formulaic as the rest of the movie is that intense action sequences that 8 years ago would be cutting edge, are now just run of the mill.
I haven't seen Jason Bourne yet but I'm pretty sure that's an industry wide thing and the reason that movie didn't do too well at the box office. Action sequences have just reach a whole new level that awesome sequences that we at one point thought were ground breaking are so run of the mill now that a franchise like the Bourne franchise can no longer just ride the action. Its something we've seen so many times that we're used to it.
Going back to Captain America. Its not like its bad fighting choreography or bad action sequences, they're just standard and don't really stand out in comparison with all the fighting we've seen in Superhero movies, not only this year, but for the past 8+ years.
Anyways, after Captain America, Falcon, and Bucky all escape, but not after a quick appearance of Zemo... and believe me, we will talk about Zemo. The two sides start to gather their teams together. Captain America gathering the likes of Scarlett Witch, Falcon, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner), and Ant-man (played by Paul Rudd) while Tony gathers Black Widow, Black Panther, Vision, War Machine, and the highly anticipated Spider-man (played by Tom Holland). And yeah, I'll talk about Spider-man more in depth. He's important to the movie, but not really important to the story.
And all this gathering leads, very quickly into a huge battle at an airport where its Team on Team and its a great show down.
I both love this scene and at the same time do not like it.
On one hand, it is a great team clash of some of the best heroes in the business. Again, the action is done very well and you're excited throughout the entire battle, especially when you get to see everyone have their own moment to shine. You get Scarlett Witch being a grade A badass. You get everyone matching up against the other, Captain America versus Black Panther. Hawkeye versus Black Panther. Ant-man versus Black Widow. The Winter Soldier against Iron Man. And then you have Spider-man. And while I'll talk more in depth about him later, we definitely don't need to worry about Spider-man's action sequences under the Marvel banner because he is just down right entertaining. And then of course you have Ant-man turning into Giant Man. And yeah its a lot of fun.
But then there are the issues.
While its very cool to have these characters taking sides and coming to blows, you can tell that this is more about the spectacle than it is about the ideology. Say what you will about the motivations behind the fight between Batman and Superman, you felt like these two were trying to kill one another. While the airport fight is a lot of fun, it feels like everyone is pulling their punches. You don't really feel any impact with this fight and you're almost certain that these guys are all going to be friends and fight side by side with one another in Infinity War.
Think about the fight between Thor and Iron Man in the Avengers.
In that fight, its funny and everything that Iron Man and Thor can't get along and therefore they come to blows. While I enjoy these fights and they do fit with the rest of the movie, you kind of get the feeling that this fight is never going to cause any kind of rift in the group and you see Thor and Iron Man fighting side by side later on in the fight in New York.
While I think that fight works in the context of The Avengers, this airport fight didn't feel like a Civil War. It feels more like a Civil Dispute.
I'll talk a little more about that in a little bit but I want to finish the other things worth mentioning in the movie.
After the large fight, the movie takes a little bit of a down turn and I'll tell you why in one word. Zemo.
First off, Can we talk about how much of a missed opportunity the other Winter Soldiers were? Bucky mentions this huge conspiracy that Hydra were developing other Winter Soldiers and they were as powerful if not more powerful than him, and what happens to them? They all die. If they wanted Zemo to be a more menacing villain, at least give him a team of super soldiers to protect him while he does his evil work.
But that's the reality of Zemo. He didn't need to be in this movie. I think that Daniel Bruhl is a very good actor and I think he could have been a more menacing villain. Instead he's just kind of this weak villain who is almost more of a victim than he is a villain.
But the larger issue I have with Zemo is that he took all the opportunity from this movie for Tony to actually be the villain.
You might be saying to yourself, but Connor, Tony can't be the villain, he's Iron Man, he's the good guy. And while that is true and in different cut of this movie Tony would not be the villain, he would be the movies main antagonist.
The best parts of this movie comes when the Avengers have differing ideals on the Sokovia Accords. Its the great arguments made for and against these accords and in a larger sense, how much control the governments of the world have over the Avengers and whether that's something that should be considered. And at the beginning of the movie, you can definitely tell who's on what side and for what reasons.
Tony works perfectly as the representative of expanding government regulation because of his past, because of the things he has done. He feels regret for the events of Age of Ultron, he's seen what happens when he gets out of control and it makes sense he's in favor of the Accords. Rhodey being in favor of the accords also makes sense. Vision being in favor of the Accords also makes sense and it builds the team.
Now in the comic books you had more people passionate about registration bill to the point where it broke up The Fantastic Four, families were split, relationships were broken. And what's more, Tony and Steve fought because of what they believed in, not because Bucky killed Tony's parents.
And that's mainly where the idea of the Accords not meaning much comes from. Its supplemented by the fact there is so much switching of sides in this movie and everyone pretty much moves to Captain America's side. Again, its a Captain America movie so technically he's right, but at the end of the day, there's really only one Avenger who really believed in the Accords and that was Rhodey.
In the comics, clear lines were drawn and people only switched when they saw the lengths Tony was willing to go because this is what he believed. But at the end of this movie, even though the fight between Cap, Bucky, and Tony was really good, it wasn't about the Accords, it was about the fact that Bucky killed Tony's parents. At the end of the day, I didn't get the feeling real sides were being drawn over these accords. Hawkeye and Black Widow are making quips to one another during the fight, Vision ends the fight holding Wanda in his arms. The only person who stayed true to their character throughout the movie was Rhodey. And I think Rhodey should have died in this movie.
Civil War had a perfect opportunity for Tony to start off fighting for what he thought was right and just be pulled deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole leading us to the point where we actually thought he was going to kill Captain America at the end instead of just wanting to kill Bucky.
Throughout the entire movie, Tony is pulled more and more towards Caps side and they only fight because of a video of a brain washed Bucky.
The real tragedy would have been to see Tony's resolve in these Accords strengthened by the death of Rhodes, stating that perhaps Captain America is more dangerous than he thought. Only to be confirmed by the fact that he knew Bucky killed his parents and didn't do anything about it.
A more convincing last fight would have been these two wanting to straight up kill one another because they're standing up for what they believe.
Say what you will about Batman v Superman, at least you felt like those two wanted to kill each other. Maybe they stopped that fight for seemingly stupid reasons...
But at least it had two heroes fighting because they believed that they were right and the other was wrong.
The reason I don't put Captain America: Civil War as my favorite Superhero film of this year is because it was too safe. It had the potential to be the best comic book movie of all time, but ended up just playing it safe and everyone kind of being friends at the end. You know Tony is going to call up Captain America for Infinity War and at the end of the day, Civil War isn't going to have that much of an impact in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
If Marvel had taken the risk to make Tony the bad guy, giving him a more compelling story, I think Civil War would have been riskier and a much better movie.
Now... its still really good.
Its still got a lot of action that I love and it builds off of characters that I love as well. I just don't think its as strong as it could have been and didn't quite live up to the hype I think everyone was building it up to be.
It does leave a lot of questions though for the future. If Steve relinquished his shield and is no longer Captain America, is he going to be a different superhero in future movies? Will there be another hero to step up and take the Captain America mantle for the public's sake? Is Steve gonna become Nomad? An alter ego he took on during the 80s... and you can tell.
And what about Spider-man? How did he fair in his first outing with the Marvel cinematic universe? I will answer that question along with some other questions about his role in the MCU in my next post.
But for now, I will say, upon a second watch of Captain America Civil War, I still enjoy it. I am however able to pinpoint the issues I have with it and am able to say what they got right, and what they got wrong.
But what do you think? Do you think Captain America: Civil War is as good as you remember? Do you think Steve Rogers will become Nomad in Infinity Wars? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for future films I should review. 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. In case you were wondering why Thor wasn't in Civil War, here's a fun mockumentary explaining what he was up to during the movie. Enjoy!
