Movie Review This Means War

This Means War (2012) 

Directed by McG 

Written by Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg 

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, Chris Pratt 

Release Date February 17th, 2012 

Recent to DVD the comedy “This Means War” is a criminally banal comedy starring three exceptional young stars in the hands of a competent but unimaginative director. The story of two spies using their skill and advanced technology as they compete for the heart of the same woman wastes three terrific stars and a solid premise on a series of mild and predictable gags.

Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) has had no luck with men. She moved to Los Angeles to with a man who dumped her soon after she arrived. Since then she has become focused on her job as a product tester and put seeking love on the back burner. Unfortunately for Lauren, her pal Trish won’t let her forget about love; eventually signing her up for online dating.

Through the love seeking website Trish meets Tuck (Tom Hardy), a kind and handsome travel agent. On the same day as her first date with Tuck she also meets FDR (Chris Pine) a jerky ladies man who tries to put the moves on her in a video store. What Lauren doesn’t know is that Tuck and FDR are friends and partners and spies. Soon, the smitten spies begin to compete for Lauren’s heart using the resources at their disposal to gain an intelligence advantage.

The idea of two spies using their spy craft to woo the same woman is wonderfully novel. Unfortunately, director McG doesn’t do anything unpredictable with this idea. Every beat, every joke, every turn of plot in “This Means War” is easy to predict. The plot gives you a great deal to work from and challenges the filmmaker to do something that audiences don’t expect and McG simply never does it.

With these three stars it is inexcusable that “This Means War” is so achingly mediocre. Tom Hardy and Chris Pine are evolving into major movie stars with Hardy starring in “Warrior” and “Inception” and Pine having given new life to Captain Kirk in “Star Trek.” And then there is Reese Witherspoon, arguably the easiest to like actress working today.

Witherspoon is the bright light of the modern romantic comedy. Her unique beauty and quirky approach to generally predictable material never fails to bring something interesting to the table. Even in “This Means War” Witherspoon’s charm is hardly dampened. Unfortunately, even Witherspoon’s charm can’t escape a plot so heavy handed and rote.

It’s not that McG is a bad director; the film is good looking and the story, such as it is, keeps a solid pace. The story logic is as strong as it is novel but the premise needed a touch up. We know from the marketing that these two guys are spies and she doesn’t know it so the film needs to find unique ways for the spies to use their craft. All we get from “This Means War” is people watching other people on hidden cameras.  

Surely there is more that could be done with spies than background checks via the internet and hidden webcams. Sadly, “This Means War” lacks the imagination to come up with anything more. It’s fair to assume that the filmmakers were relying on the stars to sell what they couldn’t but even stars as attractive as these can’t make nothing into something.

In the end what’s really hard to watch about “This Means War” is how truly mediocre it is. The film is well crafted and the stars are attractive but that’s not enough to get the movie past merely watchable. It would be easier for me to dismiss “This Means War” if it were truly bad but the film lingers in memory because it is so remarkably banal; a fact that is almost more offensive than if the film simply stunk. 

Jurassic World and the Legislating of Character Traits

Published June 17th, 2015 at IHateCritics.Net

“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.

Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.

One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.

And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.

I hate to engage in a cliched argument, but I will: If Claire were a man, would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan, would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits. A female character, apparently, has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like keeping a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage.

If there is an anti-feminist moment in “Jurassic World” it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park. Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen’s dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw.

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen, who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn’t see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back, pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward. Karen’s insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers.

It’s a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she’s changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking “Jurassic World” the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt’s hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she’s going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That’s quite a leap of logic.

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What’s the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive, then is it not perfectly alright that she’s attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him? Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. She’s more loving toward her nephews, but that’s because they’ve all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma.

Context is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn’t perfectly suit the writer/critic’s world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one for which she was quite fairly unprepared.

Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense, but that doesn’t matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn’t fit their agenda is simply wrong.

Look, my fear here is that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world views.

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her. She’s the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She’s a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition effects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she’s a warts-and-all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her.

Movie Review Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. #3

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. #3 

Directed by James Gunn 

Written by James Gunn

Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Pom Klementieff, Karen Gillan, Sean Gunn, Will Poulter, Vin Diesel, Chukwudi Iwuji 

Release Date May 5th, 2023 

Published May 3rd, 2023 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. #3 arrives at a strange time for a Marvel movie. The Marvel film universe appears, in many ways, to be in decline in relevance and popularity. The biggest stars such as Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson, and Chris Evans, have left the MCU and the fan base is growing impatient with how the latest phase of this universe is unfolding. Add to that, Guardians writer-director James Gunn who has already abandoned Marvel to take over the leadership of the D.C Film Universe even as his final MCU movie is only now arriving in theaters. 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. #3 is feeling like a bit of an afterthought. Intended as a coda to James Gunn's little corner of the Marvel Universe, the film has the feel of an afterthought as well. The villain pales in comparison to Kurt Russell's towering Ego in Volume 2, the lack of the Peter Quill-Gamora dynamic feels like a pivot that no one in the Guardians universe wanted to make but were forced into, and what has replaced that dynamic here feels quite slapped together and unwelcome. 

The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 picks up on an outpost called Knowhere. The Guardians and their allies are regrouping for their next gig, saving the universe when someone brings the fight to them. Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), glimpsed in a post-credits sequence in Volume 2, comes to Knowhere with the intent of kidnapping Rocket (Bradley Cooper). He's here on the orders of the Grand High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), the man who created Rocket many years earlier. 

The Guardians turn back Warlock but not before he nearly kills Rocket. The rest of the plot will center on the gang having to enact a heist to steal the plans they need to save Rocket's life. This will involve a reunion with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), now a member of The Ravagers, who has no memory of her other life as a member of the Guardians. She's a completely different person than the Gamora the Guardians knew and she angrily asserts just how much she doesn't know the family she'd had in another life. She's willing to help out of sympathy for her sister, Nebula (Karen Gillan), but she'd rather killer Peter than listen to any of his memory of who she might have been before. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connelly 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Omar Sy, Irfan Khan

Release Date June 12th, 2015

Published July 13th, 2015 

"Jurassic World" has been called 'Sexist,' 'Anti-feminist,' and, in one review, was called 'Gendered,' a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are each aimed at the portrayal of the character of Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career oriented, driven, Boss of the "Jurassic World Theme Park." 

Claire's character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain however, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc, you know, like a movie character. 

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition however, threatens to legislate character traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters who stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws. 

One of the criticisms of Claire that I have read about Claire and her anti-feminist symbology centered on her clothes. Bare in mind, we are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the Jurassic World theme park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in boardrooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. The being chased by dinosaurs part is, quite fair to say, not on Claire's schedule EVER. 

And yet, we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs. 

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire's comfort comes from achieving her ambition which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack then what is the dramatic arc? 

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominous-Rex, maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. My point, she was a little busy for a wardrobe change, there's a freaking dinosaur on the loose. 

I hate to engage in a clichéd argument but I will: If Claire was a man would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits, a female character however has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like, keep a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage. 

If there is an anti-feminist moment in "Jurassic World" it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park and Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen's dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw. 

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn't see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward and Karen's insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers. 

It's a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she's changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking "Jurassic World" the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt's hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she's going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That's quite a leap of logic. 

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What's the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive then is it not perfectly alright that she's attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him. Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. Yes, she's more loving toward her two nephews but that's because they've all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma. 

Context however, is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn't perfectly suit the writer/critic's world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character who is thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one that she was quite fairly, not prepared for. Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense but that doesn't matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn't fit that agenda is simply wrong. 

Look, my fear here is thus, that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world view. 

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her, she's the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She's a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition affects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she's a worts and all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her. 

That's not a symbol of anti-feminism, that's a character arc.

Movie Review: Bride Wars Starring Kate Hudson

Bride Wars (2009) 

Directed by Gary Winick 

Written by Greg Depaul, Casey Wilson, June Diane Raphael 

Starring Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway, Chris Pratt, Steve Howey, Candace Bergen

Release Date January 9th, 2009 

Published January 10th, 2009 

Two best girlfriends go for each others throats after their weddings are booked on the same day. Some might say, big deal, share the day. But then you wouldn't have a series of scenes where the now former BFF's trade nasty pranks ending with one tackling the other from behind as she walks down the aisle. That is the nasty little premise of Bride Wars a dull witted new comedy that provides the latest evidence of the career devolution of the once radiant Kate Hudson.

Liv (Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) have, since they were little girls, always dreamed of June weddings at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. Emma has gone so far as to save from her teen years to now just to pay for her dream wedding, Liv is independently wealthy having grown up to be a lawyer. Now, both have met the man of their dreams and their dream weddings are approaching. 

Two dopey doofuses have sought the chance to marry our wedding obsessed heroes. Fletcher (Chris Pratt) has romantically pursued Emma and given her lovely surprise proposal. Poor, dummy Daniel (Steve Howey) is basically tricked into asking Liv to marry him following a mix up with a ring in their shared apartment. Both men are merely props in this story and neither prop is well used. 

Things are in perfect order for two dream weddings at the Plaza as a high profile wedding planner happens to have three openings in June, two on the same day, one 3 weeks later. While the girls think they have booked separate dates, the wedding planner botches things and the girls end up on the same date. And the hilarity begins..... or not.

Bride Wars is briskly paced and bubbly early on as we can sense the fun in this idea and the possibilities of these two talented actresses. But, it's not long before things begin to fall apart and once the girls have split up and are going after each other things turn from bubbly to brusque, from brisk to bludgeoning. I adore Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway but watching the nasty ways in which they attack each other in Bride Wars is unpleasant, 

Under the direction of Gary Winick, who brought much charm to Charlotte's Web and 13 Going On 30, Bride Wars is so childish I wanted to hire a babysitter. What the movie desperately needs to balance the lunacy of Hudson and Hathaway's antics is one adult character. When none emerge the movie flips and flops about in demonstrations of nastiness that even tweenage girls will find childish.

Anyone whose every tripped over the reality show Bridezilla on the We Network knows there are big laughs to rend from the idea of crazed women in search of the perfect wedding. That Bride Wars is incapable of finding any of those laughs shows just how wildly inept the entire enterprise is. Bridezilla is Kubrick-ian level cinema with the wit of a 70s era Woody Allen compared to Bride Wars. 

Movie Review Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom (2018) 

Directed by J.A Bayona 

Written by Derek Connelly, Colin Trevorrow 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeff Goldblum, Rafe Spall, B.D Wong 

Release Date June 22nd, 2018 

Published June 21st, 2018 

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom picks up the action of Jurassic World not long after the action of the first film in the reboot franchise. Here we find Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire now working as a dinosaur advocate. Claire is lobbying the government to mount a mission to Isla Nublar, former home of the Jurassic World theme park, to rescue the dinosaurs who are threatened with extinction due to an active volcano on the island.

When the government declines the effort, on the advice of none other than Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jeff Goldblum’s character from the original Jurassic Park, Claire is forced to accept the help of secretive billionaire Benjamin Lockwood (Jame Cromwell) and his associate Eli Mills (Rafe Spall). Lockwood was a partner of the original park owner, Dr. Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough from the original Jurassic Park), before he dropped out of the project following the death of his daughter.

Lockwood and Mills will bankroll a secret expedition to save as many dinosaurs as they can but only if Claire can convince her old flame Owen (Chris Pratt) to come with her. Owen is the only person on the planet who can likely convince Blue the Raptor to remain calm enough to be captured and taken off the island. Once he agrees, the expedition is all set but of course, there is a secret agenda at play and once the dinosaurs are secured, plans get underway to bring them to Lockwood’s estate and not the island sanctuary that Claire was promised.

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom was directed by J.A Bayona who took the reins of the franchise from Colin Trevorrow. Trevorrow had left the project behind after he’d been hired to direct the final film in the Star Wars franchise, a film he was famously fired from. Trevorrow remains on this project however as one of the screenwriters alongside Kong Skull Island screenwriter Derek Connolly. Bayona brings a unique, childlike sensibility to Fallen Kingdom that makes the film scary yet still family friendly.

Bayona was the director of the wonderful 2016 family adventure A Monster Calls and that experience appears to have influenced the making of Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom. The film features a subplot involving the granddaughter of Benjamin Lockwood, Maisey played by newcomer Isabella Sermon. This subplot brings a child’s perspective to the film similar to the perspective in the original which featured a pair of kids in peril.

There is a warmth to the production design of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom that was lacking in the original. This is owed to the main setting of the film, an elaborate mansion filled with dinosaurs as the film progresses. Despite the chilling scenes of suspense and terror with characters running for their lives, the mansion is actually rather inviting, like a library or a museum but filled with real dinosaurs.

The strong production design of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom extends to the special effects which are top notch. The dinosaurs remain an extraordinary sight and the ways in which the effects interact with the human characters are as remarkable today as they were in 1993 when Steven Speilberg made us believe that dinosaurs had roared back to life in Jurassic Park. The effects and design go a long way to make up for a tepid script and lacking characters.

I remain a fan of Chris Pratt but boy does he need to change up his style soon. His Owen is barely a step away from his Star Lord character from Guardians of the Galaxy. Owen is perhaps a tad more muscled up and slightly more mature but the wisecracks and tough guy posturing remain Pratt’s prominent acting tricks. Howard meanwhile, has moments when she breaks out of damsel in distress mode but it’s a mostly one note performance undermined by a script that doesn’t seem to know what to do with her.

The human villains are the weakest part of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. Rafe Spall’s weasley assistant and Toby Jones rat-like underground arms dealer the ostensible villains but they never prove necessary beyond providing a reason to get the dinosaurs to the mansion. They lack personality and their ambitions appear silly. The notion that gangsters and arms dealers are paying millions to buy dinosaurs never registers as realistic and the supposed buyers are mere caricatures of villains from other movies.

The best villain in the film is the one that doesn’t have an agenda or a scheme. The Indo-Raptor is a remarkable creation, combining the DNA of a T-Rex and a Raptor. The bad guys were hoping to create a hunting, killing dinosaur that could be controlled and used as a weapon. But, when the Indo-Raptor gets loose, there is no controlling it and its rampage provides the best parts of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom.

I don’t love Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom but by the lowered standard of brainless summer blockbuster, it’s not bad. Turn off your brain and enjoy the remarkable dinosaur CGI and you will have fun with this movie. It may not be great art but it’s fun enough for me to say take the kids and have a good time. Keep in mind, Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom is rated PG-13 and the violence can be scary for young kids, especially the Indo-Raptor is a potential figure for children’s nightmares but as long as you prepare them and hold their hands, kids 8 and up should have a good time here.

Movie Review: Wanted

Wanted (2008) 

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov

Written by Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Chris Morgan

Starring Angelina Jolie, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Terrence Stamp, Common, Chris Pratt

Release Date June 27th, 2008

Published June 27th, 2008 

For years Angelina Jolie has been a lot of flash and little cash at the box office. It seemed she was a bigger draw in the gossip columns than she was at the box office, her star power better suited to selling People and Us Weekly than her movies. With the release of the new ultra-violent action flick Wanted however, things have definitely changed.

Though Wanted is ostensibly about James McAvoy's rookie assassin, the ad campaign made quite clear that Ms. Jolie's killer pout and outstanding derriere were the real draws of this summer mind melter.

Wanted stars James McAvoy as a sadsack cubicle drone who finds himself the target of the world's greatest assassin. It seems that McAvoy's Wesley Gibson just happens to be the progeny of another of the world's greatest assassins and that the ability to kill with precision is a genetic trait that doesn't skip a generation.

Helping to hone Wesley's heretofore unknown talents is an elite group of assassins known as The Fraternity. Lead by Sloan (Morgan Freeman), The Fraternity of assassins dedicated to meting out fate as delivered to them by an ancient loom that can see the future. No, I'm NOT KIDDING! With the help of his trainer, Fox (Jolie), Wesley is to be trained to track down the man who killed his father, Mr X (David O'Hara).

Russian born director Timur Bekmambetov became a world wide sensation everywhere except in America with his series of Russian vampire series Nightwatch, Daywatch and the upcoming Twilight Watch. These stylish, high impact action flicks are on the cutting edge of special effects and likely would have been major hits were it not for the subtitles.

Taking elements of The Matrix and creating a killer trilogy mythology, BekMambetov has set box office records in his home country. For his American debut Bekmambetov brought along his talent for bombast and left behind his talent for mythology and grand storytelling. That may be due to him having left the screenplay duties to Americans Derek Haas and Michael Brandt.

These junk food junkie Americans cram a candy bar full of action and effects into Wanted and neglect anything close to a meal in terms of storytelling. This is brain free American entertainment of the most outrageous level and that it works is a testament for our love of true junk. As bad romantic comedies can be well equated with chocolate, Wanted is the Red Bull of movies, all caffeine.

Angelina Jolie has always dripped with sexuality but few films have played that aspect of Ms. Jolie as well as Wanted. Rather than be merely offensive with it's obvious objectification of Ms. Jolie, Wanted makes it the central preoccupation of Wesley, our hero. With Wesley focused on Ms. Jolie's assets (ahem) so are we. The forced perspective has a way of turning the objectification into a form of worship rather than something entirely sleezy.

So what of Mr. McAvoy? He is actually the perfect choice for a role such as this. A bigger star would be less 'believable', in terms of this movie, not believable in any real sense of the word, (CONTEXT PEOPLE!). Because McAvoy has never played a role such as this we have few expectations of him. He exceeds any and all expectations  by miles and we can't help but be roped into his world and his experiences as he seems to react as an average person might and not just a movie character.

That said, as good as Ms. Jolie and Mr. McAvoy are, Wanted is a relatively dull witted picture. Bouncing as it does from one overly loud set piece to the next, Wanted is not a film to attend if one is searching for the deep and meaningful. Like last year's Shoot'Em Up, a slightly more entertaining version of the same Red Bull style action movie, Wanted is all about the quick shot of adrenaline and little else.

This style is entertaining while your watching it but unless you take notes as I do, it's forgotten by the time you get to your car. Wanted is pure brain free entertainment for the videogame and energy drink crowd. Skip it if you like your movies with a little more meat on their  bones. If however, you are searching for a movie that will be in and out of your consciousness like a freight train, Wanted is the movie for you.

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffe, Amanda Silver, Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow 

Starring Christ Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, B.D Wong 

Release Date June 12th, 2015 

Published June 11th, 2015 

“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.

Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.

One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.

And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.

Movie Review Passengers

Passengers (2016) 

Directed Morten Tyldum 

Written by John Spaihts 

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Ray Liotta, Michael Sheen 

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016 

I really wanted to like Passengers, the new sci-fi adventure starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. I am a big fan of both Pratt and Lawrence, each of whom are veterans of the blockbuster genre having starred in Guardians of the Galaxy and The Hunger Games respectively. Unfortunately, Passengers sticks Pratt and Lawrence with one majorly flawed story choice that even their charm cannot overcome. 

Chris Pratt, dialing back on his usual Chris Pratt schtick to a welcome degree, plays Jim Spencer, a mechanic who has signed up to travel to a new space colony, a journey that is supposed to last 120 years. Jim is supposed to be in hibernation during the entire trip but a malfunction wakes him up after only 30 years. Alone, Jim at first tries to get his sleeping pod working again. When that fails he begins to get a tad stir crazy. 

With a robot bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen) as his only friend, Jim begins to think about doing something terrible, waking up another passenger. He even has his eye on one in particular, Aurora, played by Jennifer Lawrence. After reading her file in the ship's archives, Jim begins to fall for Aurora but he knows that waking her up is basically a death sentence. 

I won't tell you whether it is Jim or some other circumstance that leads to it, but, indeed Aurora is awakened and after a short while of rehashing Jim's failed attempts at restarting the sleep pods, she resigns herself to Jim as her only companion and the two begin developing a relationship. Naturally, their idyll will have to be disrupted and when another pod fails we begin to find out just how much trouble our heroes are in for. 

The major flaw of Passengers is one that could have easily been avoided. A simple rewrite of the script, one simple decision by the writer or director, and a major flaw could have been corrected. Unfortunately, Director Morton Tyldum apparently preferred the forced and predictable drama of this flawed choice over something more satisfying and less damaging to one of our main characters. 

Sorry to have to dance around the problem so much but I don't feel it is my place to spoil this movie for people who still want to give it a chance. The film does still have two incredibly appealing leads and they are beautiful to look at, especially when they begin to fall for each other. There are other positives as well such as Michael Sheen's robot supporting player and the ship sets which have both a modern gleam and an old school Kubrickian-sci-fi majesty to them. 

In the end, Passengers is not a bad movie, just one that is ruined by one silly, kinda creepy, poor storytelling decision that leads to a lot of false, unnecessary and predictable melodrama, all of which could have been easily avoided. This movie could have played out in much the same way that it does without this one stupid plot contrivance.

Movie Review: Avengers Endgame

Avengers Endgame (2019) 

Directed by Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

Written by Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely 

Starring Robert Downey Jr, Karen Gillan, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johannson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Pratt, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Dave Bautista

Release Date April 26th, 2019

Published April 24th, 2019 

We’ve reached the Endgame, if not the finale of the Marvel Universe, the definitive ending of a chapter at the very least. One of the great tricks pulled off in Avengers Endgame by directors Joe and Anthony Russo is how they have crafted a story that is both a definitive ending and a new beginning that doesn’t leave you exhausted and dreading the future. When it was first announced that Avengers Endgame would balloon to just over three hours in length, I was among those who worried that the MCU was overstaying its welcome. That feeling is completely allayed after Endgame. 

Avengers Endgame picks up the story with Earth’s greatest heroes still reeling from ‘The Snap,’ Thanos’s victory and the wholesale destruction of half the people in the universe. Those left behind, including Captain America (Chris Evans), Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with disparate members of the MCU, the remaining heroes of Wakanda, the missing Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) are still spoiling for a fight. 

But first, Tony Stark needs to be retrieved from somewhere in deep space where food has run out and air will soon follow. Tony and Nebula (Karen Gillen) were the only survivors of The Snap in a group that included Spider-Man (Tom Holland), Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), and The Guardians of the Galaxy, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Mantis (Klemm Pomentieff), Groot (Vin Diesel) and Drax (Dave Bautista). Near death, Tony spots a light in the sky that proves to be a savior. I won’t spoil the fun, you can see for yourself who has the honor. 

Nebula knows where Thanos has gone and with her information the Avengers are able to locate him and make a play to regain the Infinity Gauntlet and those incredibly powerful stones. The Russo Brothers are smart to have this scene take place very early in the movie as it raises the stakes to infinity when you find out that the Gauntlet won’t be so easy to wield and that time may not be so easy to manipulate. 

I will stop there in my plot description as I don’t want to spoil anything for you. Just know that Avengers Endgame goes to some wonderfully unexpected places and gives you solid reasoning how we end up where we end up. This is quite a smart movie with many unexpected twists and turns. The writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely wonderfully lay out the story with roadblocks and detours that force the story into unexpected yet logical places. 

The issues I had with Avengers Infinity War are pretty much made up for in Avengers Endgame. I was annoyed that Infinity War ended on a few highly predictable and cynical notes. There was no real tension or suspense in the ending of Infinity War as it was easy to predict that Endgame would simply undo all that happened in Infinity War rendering that film a 2 hour and 45 minute anti-climax. I also did not care for the careless fashion in which certain characters were treated by the screenplay that had little room for the many characters. 

Somehow, those problems are relatively minor in Endgame. The more than 3 hour runtime has left plenty of room for our main characters and the many side characters whose fates we’ve come to care about over 22 Marvel movies. The best compliment I can give to Avengers Endgame is that even at 3 hours long, the movie never drags, it never feels like 3 hours. I did not check my phone during the entire run of Avengers Endgame because I was engrossed by this movie. 

It is remarkable that the Russo Brothers have crafted a story that is satisfying as an end point for the story they’ve helped to tell over 22 movies and a beginning for new stories to be told. We have new Spider-Man, Black Panther and Captain Marvel adventures to look forward to. We have more Guardians of the Galaxy in our future with a whole new look and new Captain America adventures and that is not a spoiler, you will have to see Avengers Endgame to see how that is not a spoiler. 

The new Marvel Universe is perhaps even more exciting than what we have seen before. The stars that this franchise has booked are the best of the best and even the heroes who won’t be returning will have a lasting impact via the actions of Avengers Endgame. The trick of Avengers Endgame is intricate and well detailed and its based on a strong and brave approach to storytelling and a group of characters who are irresistibly charming and compelling. 

Movie Review: The Lego Movie 2

The Lego Movie 2 (2019) 

Directed by Mike Mitchell

Written by Lord and Miller 

Starring Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Tiffany Haddish, Stephanie Beatriz, Allison Brie

Release Date February 8th, 2019 

Published February 7th, 2019 

Has the magic of the Lego movies already worn out? The last Lego movie, Lego Ninjago, was a strong indication of the limits of the franchise. That film was so remarkably dull for non-fans of Ninjago, like myself, that I walked out halfway through the movie. I hadn’t laughed one time during the first 45 minutes of the movie and I had the distinct impression that what I was missing was something that perhaps only Ninjago fans would understand. Then again, I didn’t hear many of them laughing either as I took my early exit. 

I assumed however, that Lego Ninjago was just a case of a too insular, fandom servicing, cult piece that I was not meant to understand. The Lego Movie 2 however, is supposed to be welcoming. The first film roared out of the gates with a wide appeal story about an every-man, named Emmett (Chris Pratt), learning to become a hero in a world with actual heroes including Batman (Will Arnett) and Wildstyle aka Lucy (Elizabeth Banks). 

The broad pop culture burlesque of The Lego Movie proved to be an unexpected delight that Lego then capitalized upon with the equally unexpected and ingenious, Lego Batman. That film took the gags of The Lego Movie and turned the absurdity up to 11 and, in the process, exposed the all too seriousness of the DC Movie Universe by creating arguably the best characterization of The Caped Crusader not played by Christian Bale. 

Much of the success of those two films however, is owed to creators who would not be taking part in either Lego Ninjago or The Lego Movie 2: The Second One. Phil Lord and writing and directing partner Christopher Miller may have writing credits on The Lego Movie 2 but the film is distinctly lacking in their anarchic genius. Instead we get Mike Mitchell whose middle of the road vision has given us Trolls and Shrek Forever After, a pair of mostly forgettable efforts with just enough easy to process laughs to be passable. 

The Lego Movie 2: The Second One (and what an inspired title that is) picks up the story of Emmett and his pals, Lucy and Batman, just after the action of the first Lego Movie. Finn (Jadon Sand) is informed by his dad (WIll Ferrell) that his little sister will also be allowed to play with the legos in the basement and the two will have to get along or neither will have legos to play with. Five years later, with brother and sister at odds, our heroic lego characters are no longer city dwellers in a place where ‘Everything is Awesome.’ Instead, the lego world is a dystopian wasteland at odds with the aliens of the Sistar System. 

One day, the alien General Mayhem attacks and kidnaps Emmett’s pals and he must go on a journey through the dreaded ‘Stair-Gate’ and into the Sistar System to rescue them. Aiding Emmett on his journey is a newcomer who calls himself Rex Dangervest (Chris Pratt, again). Rex is introduced more than once by an announcer who puts over his Barbie-esque ability to master many, sometimes mundane, activities. 

The voice cast of The Lego Movie 2 is as spectacular as the original with Pratt, Banks and Arnett terrific in their memorable roles from the original and backed up by equally brilliant newcomers, Tiffany Haddish, Richard Ayoade and a cameo that I won’t spoil as it is the best runner in the entire movie. Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, and Will Ferrell also reprise roles from the original Lego Movie but these are little more than cameos. 

I can’t sit here and tell you I didn’t enjoy The Lego Movie 2: The Second One, because I did laugh plenty during the movie. I am however, a little letdown. The spirit is definitely lacking in this sequel. The premise is not nearly as consistently funny and inventive as the original. There is an over-reliance on pop references that feels lazy here even as it felt fresh and funny in the original. The lack of Lord and Miller’s anarchic spirit is definitely felt here. 

The Lego Movie 2: The Second One feels worn out, a little tired. The look is less exciting, the humorous Mad Max inspired animated dystopia has promise but is abandoned quickly for the excess of a space setting that is less inspired. Tiffany Haddish’s character, a Queen who can shape-shift into almost any character design, is not fully taken advantage of and becomes little more than a plot device by the end. 

There are still enough laughs in The Lego Movie 2: The Second One but much like that lazy subtitle, the tiredness of The Lego franchise is showing. Instead of Lego Ninjago being a one off flop in this budding animated franchise, it now appears to have been a warning that this once flavorful franchise has already run out of juice. The uninspired title The Second One proves to be as much of a warning. They put no effort into giving the film a title and only slightly more effort into making something reminiscent of the first one.