Get Smart

I think I remember this movie being a bigger deal than it actually was. Back in 2008, I guess I thought that this movie was hilarious and would only get better with time. That was well before I became so cynical and probably over-analyze every work of art I come across when it comes to movies. That being said, this movie is actually pretty cringy and did not have the legs I thought it would have.

No, I haven't seen a single episode of the old TV show Get Smart and I have no idea if the movie is at all true to the source material or even provides a good homage to the TV. Again, this was 2008 right at the beginning of studios believing that if something exists, it obviously needs to be remade for the current day. And I think this show might have been more popular than I'm probably giving it credit for but I can't say I remember a whole lot of people who were overly pumped back in 2008 for this movie to be remaking their favorite TV show.

Get Smart follows the story of Max Smart (played by Steve Carell). He's an analyst for a secret spy organization called Control. Controls mission is to combat the evil forces of a terrorist organization called Chaos. Max is the typical loser that Steve Carell was playing back in the early 2000s where he's socially awkward and clumsy. Also he used to be fat... that's a point they really want to drive home throughout the entire movie. Instead of having Steve Carell in a fat suit throughout the entire movie which would have been really funny, they show him a couple times and then keep reminding us that he was fat.

 Remember, this was the 2000's and studios really wanted Steve Carell to be the next Will Ferrell with comedy up until 2010(ish) where he started doing more serious work and got really good at it.

But Max has the drive to become an agent and even though he may not be as smooth as his idol Agent 23 (played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), he's still very intelligent and is very capable. Of course he struggles to make that goal and is teased by other agents (played by David Koechner and Terry Crews).

Well one day, Control is attacked and the identities of the other agents are exposed so it becomes impossible to send the typical agents out. So the Chief of Control (played by Alan Arkin) sends Max out with one of the top agents, Agent 99 (played by Anne Hathaway) to stop Chaos from carrying out a terrorist plot.

The entire movie is a buddy cop movie between socially awkward Steve Carell and overly sexualized and smooth Anne Hathaway that awkwardly buds into a romance, accompanied by spy action and comedic tones.

The truth is, this movie is pretty rough and has not aged well. The weird thing is that this movie has been done a billion times over before and has been done since a lot better in fact.

The Melissa McCarthy movie Spy does this plot A LOT better so if you're not really looking for a long explanation and analysis of this movie, the TL;DR of this all is that you should choose Spy over this movie because Spy did it better. I wrote my review of Spy back in 2016 and it has been a while since I've seen that movie so maybe that review doesn't totally match up with what I'm saying about it now but in 2018, I can say that Spy is a better movie than Get Smart.

But why doesn't Get Smart work?

I think the biggest thing is that while this Steve Carell character, that we've seen multiple times before and since, was maybe funny back in 2008 but isn't today. This is the same awkward Evan Baxter character from Bruce Almighty that works well as a side kick or supporting character but not as the main one. The point is that he's awkward but ultimately a kind hearted person.

The unfortunate result is that this is a watered down version of Michael Scott from The Office (remember, this was prime in the 2000s) but unless you have that foundation that the Office built, that character can be seen as a moron and often times an asshole.

The other important misstep from the get go is the awkward chemistry between Anne Hathaway and Steve Carell. I remember being weirded out 10 years ago about 45 year old Carell having a romantic relationship with 25 year old Anne Hathaway and 10 years ago that relationship is still really weird. And that's not to say Carell can't have a romantic interest. In a movie like Crazy, Stupid, Love or The 40 Year Old Virgin, the relationships Carell builds are A) not with women 20 years his junior, and B) are built on mutual trust and interests. Hathaway spends half the movie just being annoyed with Max. And I would understand if they had built up the mutual trust and had these two just be co workers, but they really shift the character of Agent 99 rather than creating a relationship based off their separate identities like movie relationships should be. They find a weird commonality on how he used to be fat and she had a different, still beautiful face.

And again, boy do they sexualize Anne Hathaway in this movie.

The weird thing is that there are a lot of aspects of this movie that could have made it funnier. It's got Alan Arkin, it's got The Rock, it's got Terry Crews, it's got that fat dude from Borat. I should be able to talk more about what those guys bring to the story but the truth is, its not a whole lot.

They REALLY double down on that weird relationship between Carell and Hathaway and I know that's all I've been talking about the entire movie but that's really all they focus on.

For example, since the agents are at risk of being exposed, they have to stay at the office and do analyst work. There's a lot they could have done there. They could have used Terry Crews, David Koechner, and The Rock more for comedic works that I know they can do. Instead they have a weird dance scene that stops the movie in its tracks so Steve Carell can dance with a fat chick...

One of the comments I made in the Spy review is that that movie was basically rated R Get Smart. This movie kind of wants to play it both ways where its campy and silly enough that people could show their kids this movie and they would enjoy themselves, but its also trying to capitalize on the audience that enjoyed movies like Anchorman. They even have some of the same cast in Carell and David Koechner to get that same feel. The result is a really odd comedy that doesn't really work and doesn't have the energy you get from Anchorman or the movies this one is trying to recreate.

It really is a testament on how big names, especially in comedy, don't always make a movie good. Very rarely do you get an actor who, no matter the quality of the script can always give a good performance or make someone laugh. This isn't necessarily a dig on Steve Carell as I still think he's a funny guy, it just shows how he, like a lot of actors, need a good script in order to fully unlock their potential and Get Smart did not do that.

And I think the fact that Spy worked and this movie didn't is evidence that just because you adapt something, doesn't mean its going to be good or meaningful. Spy wasn't based on any preexisting property, it was just Melissa McCarthy doing something in order to make us laugh. And while Spy is no master piece, Get Smart really isn't that good because it depended too much on remaking something while not putting enough effort into making a good movie.

This movie is on Netflix so at least you're not paying anything extra if you want to see it, but there are better movies out there. You can skip this one.

But what do you think? What do you think of Get Smart? How does it hold up? Hasn't the actors involved really grown since this movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts and requests for other movies I should review on Twitter @MovieSymposium. You can also follow me and get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks, I'll see you next time!

A Wrinkle in Time

So I never read A Wrinkle In Time, but the minute I saw the trailer, I was pretty interested. I know A Wrinkle in Time more by reputation and even though everything is being turned into a movie, I have no problem with that. For every bad The Hobbit, we get a Lord of the Rings and I know there will be bad adaptations but I'm always open for writers and directors to try and put great works of art into movie form... I just don't really know if this was the best way to do it.

A Wrinkle in Time follows the story of Meg (played by Storm Reid). She is a young girl who for the past four years has been working through the disappearance of her father (played by Chris Pine). She acts out, she's getting bullied, Meg is not having a good time at school. She has a loving mother (played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who side note was really under utilized for this film) and a gifted younger brother by the name of Charles Wallace (played by Deric McCabe).

And something I will say to start off with is that the set up for this movie both has some really good things and some kind of boring things. It's a good set up of most of the characters, especially Meg. It creates the conflict that she needs to overcome, being bullied and dealing with the loss of her father. And it introduces the Misses (played by Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, and Oprah Winfery.

But at the same time, the movie does a pretty mediocre job at contextualizing these kids and making them feel realistic. Now part of that is inherent in the plot. Charles Wallace is a weird kid, that's just how he's written. But then they introduce another kid by the name of Calvin (played by Levi Miller) and not only is he thrown into the plot very randomly, he never really feels like a real kid to me. Storm Reid gives a really good performance as Meg and I'm looking forward to seeing her work in the future, but whether its the kids other kids bullying her for essentially having a dead parent, or the adults (teachers, etc) who are telling her to basically get over that dead parent, it just feels weird. I know bullying exists and kids can be cruel, but do kids really make fun of other kids because their parents are dead? That seemed overly cruel just for the sake of being hyperbolic.

And then we're introduced to the Misses, and they enter the other dimensions and things get kind of trippy and odd. However, I never feel like the worlds they go into are ever properly explained or explored to the way they really could be. I'm still not totally sure what Oprah Winfrey is and if they're really powerful beings why they depend so much on the actions of a little girl.

And Meg, while she has some moments of wonderment or confusion, never really gets to the level of confusion or wonderment that I in the audience am at so it's hard to connect with where I'm supposed to be through the main character.

But regardless, the Misses set up the plot. They know that Meg's father traveled through space to get to the other dimensions and he's in trouble. They take Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin with them to find him and save him from a dark power called The It.

Pretty straight forward plot. There's a goal, the characters need to band together to achieve that goal.

What follows is a really cerebral road trip movie through a much of really unexplained but nonetheless fantastical worlds, and trippy journeying. All towards the plot goal of finding the father, but it also is a personal journey for Meg to discover her self worth and love who she is.

And before I say anything else, I shouldn't need to put this disclaimer, but that is a good thing! My critique of this movie is not about the message of loving ones self and being a good person towards others. It's more the methods by which they navigate the plot and that message.

From what I can ascertain from what I've heard about the book and the story displayed through this movie is that that abstract and cerebral style is exactly the point. This is a really out of the box story with abstract ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. I think we should be encouraging different narrative styles. But the one thing I think Ava Duvernay could have done better with this movie is capture that same cerebralness but ground the movie a little more for the audience to grasp it easier. That's what happens with adaptation, it needs to be interpreted differently to fit a visual medium so it can be digested easier and provide a better experience.

And the truth is nobody is going to be truly happy with adaptation. Whatever you change is going to make the purists of the book angry and whatever you keep the same isn't going to 100% tangible for people who haven't read the book. But that shouldn't be the purpose of the movie, to please the fans or the new comers, it should be to just make a good film.

Quick run down of the things I liked about the film. Like I said, I liked Storm Reid in this role. I think she's a good actress. I like Chris Pine, especially moments where he interacts with Storm Reid and they're talking about the metaphysics of the whole thing. While it's confusing as hell, it's kind of fun, though never really mentioned again. I think while the Misses were confusing in their purpose, it seems like Winfrey, Kaling and Witherspoon had fun with the roles. The movie is visually intriguing.

Quick run down of things I didn't really like. The little kid was annoying. The kid played by Levi Miller was kind of weird. Michael Pena was under utilized in this movie. Zach Galifinakis...

Is A Wrinkle in Time a bad movie? No. I think there are things that some people will be able to pull from it. It does have a good message for young kids about accepting who you are and being the good you see in the world. There's a lot of diversity in it providing an example for women and people of color, all good things. But I also don't think it's some kind of hidden master piece that the patriarchy or the cynics are trying to hide with poor reviews and criticism.

I went into this movie knowing that it wasn't well received by critics or by the box office and I went in with low expectations. I won't say the result was better than I expected, I just don't think the movie was horrible but I also don't think it was that great. It was fine.

Overall, I think A Wrinkle in Time is a great looking movie that tried to promote a good message but gets pulled back in quality due to a pretty aimless plot and poorly developed relationships that get overshadowed by the spectacle that is the visuals and cerebral nature of the movie.

But what did you think. I tried to limit as much reference to the book as I could in this review because I haven't read it but how does it compare to the movie? Is it a good adaptation? Is the book as much of a trip as the movie? What do you think worked and what could have been done differently? 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, see you next time!

Beirut

Probably the only thing this movie and the new Ghostbusters movie have in common are that people saw the trailer, got pissed, and I get the feeling that it hurt the exposure the movie got. Yes, the only reason I really know about this movie was because I read an article a while back about how people were complaining about how the trailer to this movie gave a seemingly inaccurate representation of the Middle East and the Lebanese Civil War... before they saw the movie... Now I don't know if that really hurt the box office of the movie because it never really seemed like this was positioned to be a huge hit, but people jumping on social media to boycott a film seems pretty silly in the first place, especially if the movie isn't half bad.

Beirut follows the story of a diplomat by the name of Mason Skiles (played by Jon Hamm). Skiles is living in Beirut in 1972 right before the Lebanese civil war in 1975 that changed the landscape of the country forever. He lives with his wife, Nadia (played by Leila Bekhti) and a young boy named Karim (played as a child by Yoav Sadian and later as an adult by Idir Chender) who the couple have started to sponsor and are helping him with education and a future life. But a tragedy hits and Skiles wife is murdered by terrorists.

Ten years later, Mason is back in the states and an alcoholic. However, he is brought back to Lebanon by the CIA who say that a terrorist group claims to have an old friend of his and they will only talk to him.

What follows is a relatively entertaining spy/historical drama/ action(ish) movie.

The first thing to mention is Jon Hamm because he really drives this movie and the only reason anybody really went off to see this movie. On one hand, I really like Jon Hamm. I didn't watch all of Mad Men, but I watched about 4 seasons before there wasn't anything more on Netflix and by the time there was I lost track of where I was.

On the other hand though, his character set up is pretty cookie cutter and predictable. He's a guy who seems to have it all, but then tragedy brings him down to his lowest point and he needs to go back into the arena one last time. And again, it's not bad, but the way that it's shown is pretty stereotypical and unoriginal. He's putting alcohol in his coffee so he's obviously having a rough time, but his drinking problem, while mentioned to be a potential issue, never really affects the overall mission.

The other issue with Jon Hamm's character and performance is that he's basically playing Don Draper. And that's not really a bad thing per se, but the same way American Made could be a spiritual sequel where Maverick smuggles drugs for the cartel, Beirut could be a spiritual sequel to Mad Men where Don Draper becomes a diplomat. It's not bad, especially if it's worked in the past, I just wish I could see some more out of Hamm.

The rest of the cast is actually pretty good but I can't say they're written very well. Dean Norris plays a shady CIA officer and I barely noticed him with hair. And as much as I love Rosamund Pike (check out Gone Girl you'll see what I mean), but like a lot of movies she's in, she's underwritten and not very developed. In this movie, she is just essentially a female character that plays second fiddle to Jon Hamm. I watched some of the bonus features and they had a 50 second clip trying to build up who this character was and I realized, she doesn't really have a character at all. Pike gives and okay performance because I think she's a good actress, but she doesn't add much to the movie at all besides adding an active female character.

Probably the biggest issue I have with the movie is that there is the inklings of a really good movie. There's a lot of real potential drama builders in this movie like Don Draper's alcohol problem, his relationship with the young boy who he was a pseudo father to, the fact he basically loses his groove because of tragedy. But as it stands, the movie is just too predictable and lacking in real action or drama to make it memorable. The way the story progresses is pretty predictable because it's set up so predictably but it didn't have to be that way. There were a lot of potential and great actors who still gave pretty good performances but in the end we get an okay spy thriller (kinda) and I was left wondering what the whole point of it all was.

Again, this movie's trailer drew criticism for being another stereotypical white man in a foreign land saving the day film but in reality this movie wasn't good because it didn't back the story up with anything meaningful. It's not even a historically true story. It's just set in the time period of the Lebanese Civil War right before the invasion of Israel in 1982. I have to admit that that's an interesting setting, especially for a spy film as the CIA was present in Beirut dealing with the PLO and international tensions at the time. The issues people should have with this movie shouldn't be based in any racial tensions based on a trailer, it should be with the quality of the film as a whole and personally, I thought it was fine. Not great, but fine.

In many ways, this movie reminds me a lot of Bridge of Spies. I still really enjoy Bridge of Spies and both that movie and this movie had elements about it that I really enjoyed and made the watching experience entertaining. But I really haven't thought about Bridge of Spies since I saw it and I get the feeling that upon a second viewing, I would find more issues with the film that I originally thought. The difference is that I was able to notice the flaws while watching and I doubt I'll really remember this movie in a week or so. If you're like me and you like stories about spies, the 1970s and 80s, are intrigued by Middle Eastern history and international affairs, or just like Jon Hamm, you might find some enjoyment in this film like I did, but this is probably going to be barely a blip in the conversations of movies I watched in 2018 and deserves just kind of a "meh".

But did you see Beirut? Were you one of the people who complained about the trailer and watched it still? If you did I'd be interested to get your take on the film but I doubt too many people, regardless of their thoughts on the trailer saw this movie. 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.

I'll see you next time!

American Made

It's actually been a fascinating time for movies over the past 5ish years because there's a period of history that has started to become declassified and more information has come out about it and that is centered on the rise of drug cartels, the war on drugs, and the CIA, DEA, and the government involved in the whole thing. You see it in shows like Narcos, and movies like The Infiltrator, and now American Made.

And it makes sense, this is a period of time that was full of intrigue and a lot of stories that can't all be told to their fullest extent, even in a show like Narcos. The one issue is, when you watch more than one of these shows, you start remembering names and you know what happens in the end of one movie because of something you saw in another. Unfortunately, that was the case with me and this movie. Barry Seal (played by Tom Cruise) was a real person and he's a piece of the bigger puzzle that is the war on drugs and the cocaine trafficking business in Central America. But even though I knew the ending, I still can say that this movie expanded on a story that is worth telling and had a lot of fun with it along the way.

American Made is a "biopic" on the life story of Barry Seal, an airline pilot bored with his life that is recruited by the CIA to perform intelligence operations in Nicaragua during the Cold War. While he's doing work for the CIA, he is recruited by Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel to smuggle drugs into the United States.

I use quotes because in interviews, the director Doug Liman, has stated pretty clearly that this is not meant to be the most accurate of telling. There are events in the overall manner that for sure happened but the truth is that Tom Cruise didn't match the build or characteristics of Barry Seal. There is a lot of embellishment in this movie and it wasn't made for the purposes of a movie like The Darkest Hour that same year. It was made to be an entertaining crime thriller set in a historical setting with historical characters. Don't take this movie as historical truth is all I'm saying.

What is important to do is to enjoy the crazy stories about this character of history because I get the feeling that a lot of the stories are more true than it would seem and there are probably stories that didn't make it into this movie.

Another aspect of this film that was done really well was the casting.

Again, historical accuracy not considered, everyone gives a pretty good performance in this film. Domnhall Gleason, who I'm seeing in almost everything these days and really enjoying as well, does a great job as a CIA officer who recruits and oversees Seals jobs. Seal's wife Lucy isn't that well written of a character but Sarah Wright gives a pretty decent performance. Jesse Plemons (or as I call him budget Matt Damon) does a good job and Caleb Landry Jones plays Lucy's younger brother JB and does a really good job at playing a twerp kid who you really don't like from the get go but provides some conflict at the peak of Seal's rags to riches story.

But as per usual, the main focus is Tom Cruise.

Honestly, I know the timeline doesn't work out, but I don't really know why they're making a sequel to Top Gun when this movie really could serve as a the spiritual sequel we all need. The way they build the character and the way Tom Cruise plays him, he might as well be Maverick. And at the end of the day, would anybody be really surprised if Maverick ended up burning out of Top Gun, getting hired by the CIA, and smuggling drugs for the cartel? Sounds like the best Top Gun sequel ever!

And despite the light black comedy tone of the movie, Cruise really does give a pretty good performance. Despite all the jokes about him and how much of an eccentric person he is in real life, with very few exceptions, he doesn't really ever give a bad performance. Seeing him on screen and the way he performs at the very least keeps you entertained.

Like I said, there are exceptions (the Mummy), but Tom Cruise and Doug Liman have a two for two record of good movies in my book.

Are there problems with the movie? Yeah and I think it's a few missteps with the tone. This movie isn't totally sure if it wants to be a comedy, an action movie, a historical drama and it kind of goes for all three without really championing one or the other. Don't get me wrong, it does it right at certain times. The ending where the movie explained the historical basis for the story felt more like the ending of Animal House than it did a biopic and I felt like that really worked. But at the same time I feel like the movie could have benefited from a little more development of the relationship between Seals and his wife. There's a point near the end where the two are talking about the future and it doesn't really have the impact it was meant to have because the relationship isn't as strong as it could be. They have one funny line that connects the two of them and the rest you really have to just deduce from assumptions.

I don't like comparing movies but I would put American Made in a very similar category as The Infiltrator. It's a film with a lot of good actors doing good performances, but the story just doesn't have that oompf to really push it towards something you'll really remember. Now if I ever see this on TV, I'll probably stop and watch it and I do think it is worth checking out, I just think it's a very fine entertaining movie, but not a whole lot more.

But those are my thoughts on American Made. What did you think? What do you think is the best Tom Cruise performance? 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, I'll see you next time.

The Incredibles 2

So I'm going to put a disclaimer on this review from the get go. I went into this movie after a long weekend of not getting a lot of sleep due to spending time with family and friends. I knew from the get go that it was very possible that I was going to fall asleep to this movie, no matter how good it was. And there were a couple of moments that I did fall asleep very briefly and even if I wasn't, I was just down right tired. I'm going to try and take a lot of those external factors out of my analysis of this movie because I was very, very excited for this movie.

The Incredible came out in 2006, just about the time that I was starting to get into more adult movies and I was trying to move away from the Disney animated films. However, that didn't really seem to matter because at every step of the way, Pixar has managed to create quality films that appeal to both adults and kids so going into The Incredibles never felt like I was watching a kids movie, it just felt like I was watching another movie. So while I don't think I hold The Incredible up in such a heartfelt nostalgia manner the way I know a lot of people do, I was still excited because this seemed to be a continuation of one of the films that solidified Pixar's already stellar record of creating just quality movies, not just kids movies.

The Incredibles 2 follows the story of the Parr family right where the previous movie left off. Bob Parr or Mr. Incredible (voiced by Craig T Nelson), his wife Helen or Elastigirl (voiced by Holly Hunter) and their two kids Dash and Violet (voiced by Huck Hilner (a change from the first film) and Sarah Vowell) are struggling with the fact that super heroes are still illegal. Bob wants to give his kids the chance to make the choice on whether or not they want to crime fight, but he also really just wants to get back to crime fighting, very similarly to the way he was in the first movie. After a botched hero intervention with the Underminer (voiced by John Ratzenberger), the Incredibles are approached by a brother sister duo who work at a tech company who are interested in promoting the image of superheroes to get them legalized again.

Winston and Evelyn Deavor (voiced by Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener) want to build up the image of supers but they believe that the best way to do that is to have Elastigirl spearhead the campaign. This leave Bob alone with the kids as Violet is having trouble with boys at school, Dash is

having difficulty with math, and the baby Jack-Jack is developing his first powers. Overall it makes for a great adventure that I actually was almost preferring the parts where Mr. Incredible is at home with the kids over the action. Maybe I was tired and not able to appreciate the action as much as I wanted to, but it was fun seeing the tables turned. The previous movie was Bob going off and adventuring on his own while Helen was home with the kids but this movie was the opposite. I would love to re-watch the first movie and watch the second movie right after it because it does feel like the continuation of the first film as it does happen right after. Maybe I'll do another review down the road where I do that and can give a better impression of how it fits as a larger story.

That's not to say that Helen's part of the movie wasn't good. They even expanded a little bit in a fun way.

At a certain point, Helen is introduced to a group of new superheroes that are inspired by what she does and they have a really fun set of powers. Later in the film they have representatives from other countries and their superheroes. I think they managed to do a really good job at expanding the lore of the universe while not feeling too gimick-y or in the trends of today. That was something that they recognized in the production of this movie and they instead wanted to center on the family and their growing journey.

And that's another really interesting thing about this movie, the production story. The first movie came out 14 years ago. I think people were a little nervous about that. So much that they even added a little disclaimer at the beginning with Craig T Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L Jackson, and Brad Bird about how much work goes into these movies and why it took so long. If you have time, go over to the production notes on the Wikipedia page and read a little bit into how long it took this movie to get green lit and some of the stories behind it because it is interesting.

I do feel like the movie was able to keep the same tone from the first movie and expand the story a bit, however I wonder if it's just the way sequels are that it never can really capture the magic of the first film. The villain of the movie never felt as sinister and personal as Synestro. The family dynamic at times felt like it was retreading on old territory that had already been covered in the first movie at times. There are a couple things in the movie that I could nit pick but I don't really want to. Maybe that's not being objective, but the truth is this movie was just fun.

The one big complaint I might have is that there wasn't enough Edna Mode (voiced by Brad Bird) in my opinion. In the parts she is in she almost steals the show, but I do think there wasn't enough of her in this film.

Whether it's just seeing these superheroes trying to live a normal life, Frozone (voiced by Samuel L Jackson) and the rest of them doing more action, or Jack-Jack developing his powers while tormenting a raccoon, this movie is just down right entertaining. Especially if you were a fan of the first one, go check it out, you will not be disappointed.

I probably have missed some criticisms and some praised of this movie due to being tired, so I want to hear your thoughts. What did you think of The Incredible 2? How did it match up to the first one? 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, I'll see you next time.

Con Air

There are movies out there that will never win Oscars or be remembered as the classics, but they still go down as legendary. And that is exactly what Con Air is. This movie is all together terrible and at the same time all together brilliant. There are other great 90's action films, other 90's action movies have as great of cast, and have similar insane and overboard action. But for some reason, I think this movie flies under the radar from time to time and should be recognized as one of the greats, even if John Cusack doesn't think so and only did it for the money.

Con Air follows the story of Cameron Poe (played by Nicholas Cage). Poe is a former Army ranger coming home from military service to his pregnant wife Tricia (played by Monica Potter). Unfortunately, the reunion is cut short when Poe is arrested for killing one of the men who tries to attack him and his wife outside of the bar where they had their reunion. He is sentenced to 7 years for ridiculous and movie plot exaggerated charges. When his sentence is done and he's put on parole, he is on his way home, hitching a ride on a plane full of deadly prisoners.

Now there are a couple of strings on this story. You've got Poe just wanting to get home, but then you've got a slew of introductions of the most vicious criminals a 90's movie can make up. You've got Cyrus "the virus" (played by John Malkovich) who is this self taught genius. You've got Diamond Dog (played by Ving Rhames) who is a black nationalist, you've got Steve Buscemi playing a Hannibal Lector style mass murderer.

But then you've got other side stories like Poe's cell mate Mike (played by Mykelti Williamson) who needs his insulin shot. You've got an undercover DEA agent with a very vague agenda. Even Dave Chapelle is thrown in there for good measure. All so serving as tinder for the explosion that is when Cyrus and his gang of prisoners orchestrate a plan to hijack the plane. But I can tell you that's only the beginning of this wild ride.

I won't go too in depth with Cyrus's plot because I highly recommend people check out this movie, but basically it's your typical 80's or 90's villain plot. The villain and his gang are irredeemably evil but undeniably entertaining. And then you've got a few good guys who are trying their best to stop him from getting away with his plot. One of them is Poe who begrudgingly takes on the role of amazing action hero when all he wants to do is get home to the daughter that he hasn't gotten a chance to meet yet. The other heroes are the ones on the ground and for a movie called Con Air, a lot of great action happens both in the air, and on the ground throughout the entire movie.

The side of the good guys is complete with John Cusack playing US Marshall Vince Larkin. He's the one in charge of tranportation of these prisoners and the entire movie, he's trying to find a way to bring the plane down and bring these criminals to justice.

Now it's pretty well documented that John Cusack hated this movie and only took the job for the money, but I don't think I've seen a better performance from him since. Maybe he didn't care so much that he just ended up having too much fun with the film but I loved every minute of him on screen and I thought that he and Nic Cage, along with everyone in the cast, just brought this movie legitimacy by taking a premise so ridiculous to life and doing it in a way that doesn't take itself too seriously, but never feels like a joke. Everyone is playing this movie just serious enough that the audience buys it and has a fun time, at least I did.

Con Air is the epitome of a 90's movie because it could never be made today. Like I've mentioned, you have just a wacky cast of characters from the stereotypical gay characters from the 90's which is frankly just offensive now, the typical Dave Chapelle role, and everything in between from Steve Buscemi playing Steve Buscemi if he was in the Silence of the Lambs, and John Malkovich being probably the best action villain since Hans Gruber in Die Hard in my opinion.

But the crowning jewel of course is Nicolas Cage.

Saying Nic Cage is hard to pin down is the understatement of the century. One minute he'll be playing a super boring character, more in his most recent films, then he'll do something like Leaving Las Vegas and win an Oscar. But I think where he's at his best is when he plays the very unique characters that if it was any other actor, you'd maybe see this kind of entertainment in a side character. But Cage is able to use his Cageisms to both create a really weird character and yet make him very likable and throw in some awesome 90's action poses in there as well. He did it in The Rock, National Treasure, (and other films) and he does it perfectly as Cameron Poe. Poe is a hillbilly from Alabama who is undoubtedly good. The whole premise is that he has multiple chances to get off the plane to go see his daughter, but he doesn't, not necessarily to stop Cyrus and his gang, but to save his friend and a female guard that Danny Trejo in no uncertain terms says he's going to rape if Poe isn't there (again, it was the 90's, there's no way this movie could be made now, and some of it really doesn't age well).

At the end of it all, you get a wild ride of action set piece after action set piece. Is it well acted? No. Is it uneven in it's execution? Yes. Is it still really awesome? Hell yeah! It's a Nicolas Cage movie, what did you expect?

It's kind of hard to point out the issues with this movie for two reasons. The first is, there are almost too many to count. The reality of it is, this is not that great of a movie if you're thinking about it critically. The characters are paper thin and really only based on stereotypes and cliches.

But at the same time, it's really kind of an amazing premise, an amazing cast that we'll never really get to see in this capacity ever again. John Cusack or John Malkovich will never be this cool again because they're more established actors and they are going off to do their art house films. We'll probably never see this Nic Cage again because he's really mellowed out in his older age. And yeah, there are parts of this movie that we'll never see again for good reasons, but it just feels like a really surreal ride that is constant action and just a mountain of fun.

I recommend checking out Con Air because it really is a time capsule of bizarness. It's very easy to pick up and enjoy the ride while it lasts. Just don't think too hard about it.

But those are my thoughts on Con Air. What do you think of this film? How does it rank up against the other action movies of the 90's? 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, I'll see you again soon!

Future Man Season 1

Hulu Original shows have been a difficult subject for me. I haven't always consistently had the streaming service and the times that I did (through roommates or family), there weren't the quality of original programming that we have today. I saw descriptions and trailers for Future Man and was interested, but not enough to really binge the show. And then I got a personal recommendation from a friend of mine and he happened to mention that the episodes are half hour long episodes and suddenly I was totally sold. After watching the show, I'm actually really bummed I didn't check this out earlier.

Future Man follows the story of 20 something year old janitor, Josh Futturman (played by Josh Hutcherson). Josh lives at home with his parents and works as a janitor at a big science lab called Kronish Labs. His boss, Dr. Kronish (played by Keith David) is researching the cure for herpes. He is a bit of a mentor to Josh who finds himself in a bit of a rut, unable to figure out what he wants to do with his life. So he plays video games for a form of escapism. He is obsessed with a game called Biotic Wars. Biotic Wars is an almost impossible game in which Josh has been working so hard to get to the end of. Finally one night he does it. He beats Biotic Wars and he is named The Savior at the end of the game.

I will note that the representation of gaming is not at all accurate. Not only is Biotic Wars a really low res game in comparison with the other games that are out there today, but it's also a linear game that is considered impossible? There are a couple of articles out there that have made this point already but although the gaming aspect of the show is inaccurate, the gaming culture isn't that far off, especially in the form of Josh's friends, portrayed by Awkwafina and Paul Scheer. I'll try and attach a link to article that talked about this at the end but the point is, this is the first nod towards fandom that Future Man gets right, even if it gets the specifics wrong.

When Josh beats the game, the two characters from the game, Tiger (played by Eliza Coupe) and Wolf (played by Derek Wilson), come to him and assume he is the savior who will help them prevent their dystopian future, a future Josh thought only existed in the game.

What follows is a really hilarious romp where this trio is traveling back and forth through time, fighting evil agents from the future, and trying to put the timeline on the right course in what is self described as a plot similar to The Last Starfighter and Quantum Leap with a lot of Back to the Future and Terminator all squeezed in there.

This show is produced by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg so a lot of the humor feels like something you'd see out of Pineapple Express or Sausage Party but it all works really well. The three main characters are really hilarious and their dynamic really works out. At the start, you think that it's going to be a fish out of water story with Josh being the fish out of water. But it works in the opposite direction as Josh is actually more in tune with the "rules of time travel" and just rules of human decency then the two time travelers are so it often is put on Josh to teach the other two how to behave and not murder everyone they come across.

The show is riddled with references to all the classic 80's movies from Back to the Future, to Top Gun, to a lot of other pop culture. If you're a fan of gaming, movies, or pop culture in general like I am, you are going to absolutely love this show. If you're not, I think you'll still enjoy the comedy because this had me laughing quite a bit.

Tiger and Wolf are two characters that I wasn't sure I was going to like at the beginning. I don't think they are the best characters in the world but somehow they manage to create characters that are cold blooded killers that really have no regard for human life as long as they get to their goal, and yet manage to make you care about them and the really funny moments they create. A lot of it comes from the up ended premise that the time travelers in every movie with time travel are always the all knowing person. In this show, Tiger and Wolf are really out of their element and it really becomes hilarious, especially when they start time traveling to the sixties, to a future where James Cameron is the founding father of a new world order, and to the birth of Keith David's character back in the 40's.

Among Keith David are a bunch of supporting characters that really color in the background for the main trio. Josh's parent's (played by Ed Begley Jr and Glenne Headly) are hilarious and Robert Craighead plays a really, REALLY funny role as a police officer who is continuously haunted by these three as they travel through time.

I think the thing that really made me love Future Man was how simple it was. The episodes are only a half hour long and that's really good. If they had been an hour long I feel like I would have gotten bored with the premise or I would have gotten sick of the humor, that let's be honest, is very typical Seth Rogen dick joke humor. But the episodes go by very quickly and they keep you engaged in a self aware time travel story that you kind of forget how silly a lot of it is or how weak the narrative can be at times. The story has a pretty good grasp on the use of time travel as a story device and even when it meets some pitfalls, it is very quick to point out how that is a pitfall just in general in the way other people have used those story elements.

I gave myself a little bit of time to marinate over Future Man. While I was watching it I was having a really fun time. I blasted through it very quickly and all of that I can give it a lot of credit. But it's not a show I'm really going to remember. Compare this to Ready Player One and I would take this as a more true to form homage to 80s movies and pop culture, but overall, I wouldn't subscribe to Hulu to solely watch this show. It's good, but not mind blowingly good. Entertaining, but not a show I will put down as my favorite of the year.

But have you seen Future Man? 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 I post from this blog.

Thanks, see you next time.


Footnotes:
Article about Gaming in Future Man: https://www.polygon.com/tv/2017/11/17/16666552/hulu-future-man-pilot