Eye in the Sky Review

eye in the skyYesterday I had the chance to see the new political thriller Eye in the Sky and it’s a tough movie to review because I was engrossed throughout but I left not really buying what it was selling. Let me explain. .

Eye in the Sky focuses on the many characters that come into play in the decision to make a ‘precision missile strike’ from a drone plane on a terrorist cell in Kenya.  Some of the key players are:

  1. Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren)- British military intelligence who has been hunting down these terrorists for many months.
  2. Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman)- British general who is in England brokering the different voices there
  3. Lieutenant Steve Watts (Aaron Paul)- USAF drone pilot out of Las Vegas
  4. Jama Farah (Captain Phillips‘ Barkhad Abdi)- Kenyan undercover agent
  5. An array of other voices- cabinet members, Secretary of States, Prime Minister, legal counsel, foreign secretary, and a woman in Hawaii who has cool facial recognition software.

These characters must work together to realize the threat, calculate the risks, and execute the attack.  Colonel Powell has discovered the 3rd and 4th most wanted North Africans are meeting together in a house in a dangerous part of Kenya. She hopes to do away with the suspects so they are no longer a threat to the Kenyan people.

eye in the sky3They must have facial recognition so they send in a little bug camera which is operated by undercover agent Jama Farah played by Barkhad Abdi in a solid performance.  Through the video they find the group is arming themselves for suicide bombings right then and there.  This makes it imperative the situation be turned from a capture to kill operation.

The problem for Helen Mirren’s character is this requires a million approvals.  Will they get away before the bureaucrats can make up their mind? That’s the big question and tension of the film. Alan Rickman is very good as her main touchpoint with London and the voice of the military in that discussion.

eye in the sky2Things then get even more complicated when a little girl sets up shop outside of the house to sell bread for her family.  They try to buy all the bread but it breaks Farah’s cover and they must decide whether a risk to her life is worth taking these terrorists out. Aaron Paul as the trigger man in Las Vegas is good as he stands up to the Colonel not wanting to kill the little girl.

eye in teh sky4The script by Guy Hibbert builds tension very well and the acting is great from all involved.  However, like I said above I don’t know if I bought everything it was selling.  It seemed a little propagandaish.  Like I was being presented with the best possible situation for this type of operation.  It felt like a way to say ‘see friends look how careful we are…’.  Like a slickly made PR push for drone strikes.

I am sure there are strikes that are as painstakingly decided upon as the one depicted,  but it all felt a little too perfect.  There is one woman who is the opposition voice in the discussions and she is given some good dialogue. I like her pointing out that a suicide bomber killing a crowd of people doesn’t make UK look bad but them taking out a little girl does. There is a sick and twisted reality to that comment.

But even the way her character was resolved felt a little too preachy.  I can tell you one thing my liberal friends will hate this movie.  If you hated American Sniper than you’ll hate this. Both films show the new brand of warfare, but I personally felt Sniper told Chris Kyle’s story from his POV in a compelling way.

Anyway, I wouldn’t say don’t see Eye in the Sky because it is very well done. But I guess just try to enjoy it as fun entertainment and not a realistic political/military portrayal. If you can take it with a grain of salt than you’ll probably really enjoy it.

Also, this movie should not be rated R.  Some of the swears must be background swears or mumbled because I didn’t hear them and the violence is not anything you don’t see on 24 or other shows.  Either way, it’s extremely tame R rating.  I can think of so many PG-13 movies that are WAY worse as far as content.

Overall Grade- B-

Content Grade- B+

My youtube review-

Rogue One Trailer Review

Man it’s a good time to be a nerd. Particularly a Star Wars nerd! In just a week and change we’ve gotten the amazing Star Wars Rebels finale (oh my gosh it was awesome!), Force Awakens on bluray (still waiting for mine stupid Target!!!) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story trailer this morning!!!  I’m giddy!

I will definitely be posting a review of Star Wars Rebels Season 2 down the road a bit but the finale had me pumped to get more information on Rogue One because the two properties aren’t that far apart in the Star Wars timeline and it looks like they share some similarities.

They both have strong female presences although Rebels has 2 lead men. Ahsoka and Sabine are complex, rich characters.  Nobody can claim they are Mary Sues (I hate that phrase more than I can say!).  In Rogue One we get Jyn Erso played by Felicity Jones.  She’s an Oscar nominated actresses so I’m sure she will be great if looking a little wooden in the trailer.  Her character sounds awesome.

Jyn is a true rebel which excites me.  We get a list of her crimes to start out the trailer. She has committed “forgery of Imperial documents, possession of stolen property, aggravated assault, resisting arrest”.  She’s been on her own since 15 and asks “this is a rebellion isn’t it?”.  We also learn she is “reckless, aggressive, undisciplined”.  I almost feel like Jyn is a grittier Star Wars version of Aladdin!

I also love seeing Mon Mothma back and Forrest Whitaker looks awesome in his role.  Donnie Yen is going to be great and the whole look and feel of the film looks like something we haven’t seen from Star Wars.  It looks like an actual WAR movie!  I mean the AT-AT’s and the battles look so cool. The action looks kind of like Rebels in some ways as well as the characters.

We also get a look at Ben Mendelson’s white Imperial leader and I think Vader bowing before the Emperor.  I am going to not get too excited about the cool Stormtrooper because I don’t want a Phasma disappointment.

Another thing I am pleased with is as great as it looks it has a bit of a 70s feel about it so I don’t think it feels discordant with the original Star Wars: New Hope, which this is a precursor of (I won’t use prequel word!).  It feels like it is at least semi-believable that the next step is New Hope in the story.

Long and short of it is I’m thrilled with what I see Gareth Edwards is doing with Rogue One.  I think it is a grittier version of Star Wars but it will have compelling characters and fun action as well.  It was a longer trailer than I expected but I’m pumped!

What about you?  What did you think of the Rogue One trailer?  Did you see Star Wars Rebels finale?  Without spoilers let me know what you thought!

Hit Me With Your Best Shot: To Kill a Mockingbird

This week Nathaniel over at Film Experience has given me a near impossible task.  I have to pick a favorite shot from either To Kill a Mockingbird or Roman Holiday- 2 of my favorite movies of all time!  I actually saw Roman Holiday on the big screen in December and To Kill a Mockingbird last month so they are fresh on my mind.  They are both near-perfect examples of their genres and that is in no small part because of their tremendous leading man Gregory Peck (he would be 100 this week hence the Sophie’s Choice we are given…).

I have already done a character study of Atticus on this blog where I break down why he is such a compelling character. You can read that here.

I also reviewed Roman Holiday previously on my youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuSFzTJgVE.

I also reviewed Harper Lee’s follow up novel (basically To Kill a Mockingbird fan fiction written before TKM was published) on my youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyvT8gHmdkQ

Anyway, I decided to go with To Kill a Mockingbird because as great as I think Roman Holiday is, it’s Audrey’s movie.  To Kill a Mockingbird rises on the wings of Gregory Peck’s great performance.  It takes one of the greatest novels and makes one of the greatest movies ever made.

Someone asked me if I could have lunch with a fictional character who would it be?  My answer is Atticus Finch.  The reason is I feel I could learn something about being a better human being from him.  He is such an honorable man and is willing to fight a battle he knows he is going to lose.

But he is also not a martyr to a cause or principle.  He’s just doing the task the world called upon him to do in the best way he knows how.

My best shot comes at the end of the trial.  He has lost and justice has failed.  As he packs up his stuff the black citizens watching in the balcony stand up and the minister sitting with Scout tells her:

‘stand up, your father’s passin’.

For me, one of the great scenes of cinema or literature.  Perfection.

mockingbird best shotWhat is your favorite scene of To Kill a Mockingbird?  Share your thoughts in comments section.  Thanks!

Everybody Wants Some Review

Today I got my vintage movie on and did a bit of a 70s double header.  I saw my favorite director Richard Linklater’s new movie Everybody Wants Some and the Mormon musical Saturday’s Warrior.  My Warrior review will be on my other blog http://smilingldsgirl.com/2016/04/04/saturdays-warrior-review/.  It probably goes without saying that Everybody Wants Some was the stronger of the two films but they are very different so tough to compare.

dazed-and-confused-picture-31000Everybody Wants Some is billed as the ‘spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused’.  If you haven’t seen Dazed it is set in 1976 and follows a group of high school students on their last day of school.  What makes it special is it feels so real. Linklater isn’t afraid to have mean characters or for things to be unfair at the same time they are also funny.

In Dazed you have everything from the cruel bullies to the star football player.  Linklater is so great at writing dialogue and making things feel authentic to real life. Dazed and Confused is funny, sweet, sad and has one of the best soundtracks ever.

everybody wants some6I’ve never heard of the concept of a ‘spiritual sequel’ but it does seem to fit Everybody Wants Some.  Instead of high school students, here we get college students in 1980-something and just like Dazed we follow them around for a weekend.  This wouldn’t work if Linklater wasn’t such a master at what he does.

I wrote on twitter after I saw the film “I liked spending time with these guys” and that’s how I felt.  They are losers, jerks, friends, party-animals and everything else.  That’s what makes them feel like real people.

everybody wants some5Coming out of the screening they were asking for feedback and one man said ‘it was slow’.  This is the problem some people have with Linklater’s ‘day in the life’ kind of movies.  Some people want more plot.  I actually think that is what makes his movies special but it’s not for everyone.

Everybody Wants Some is perhaps more relatable than Boyhood but it also has less emotional heft to it (I’m a huge Boyhood fan).  It feels lighter and a little bit nicer than Dazed and Confused and I’m kind of still processing whether that makes it better or worse.  Either way, it is very enjoyable.  I’ll repeat- I liked spending time with these guys.

everybody wants someThe story revolves around Jake played by Blake Jenner who is a freshman baseball player who is moving in to the home shared by the rest of the championship baseball team.  They are of course told by their coach to not party or have girls in their rooms, which they promptly disobey.

eerybody wants someAt the end of the film Jake is exhausted and can’t hardly get through his first class which is no surprise with the amount of stuff they pack into a weekend.  It will make most of you wonder why your college life was so boring!  But through all the shenanigans the boys felt real and authentic and even when they were being brats I still kind of liked them.

everybody-wants-someTyler Hoechlin as Glen, Glen Powell as Finnegan and Quinton Johnson as Dale were 3 of my favorite of the boys but they were all good.  Zoey Deutch was believable and great as Beverly a girl that catches Jake’s attention.  Amidst all the chaos you totally get why he likes her and she likes him. That’s what makes Richard Linklater so great.  I don’t know how he does it!

Like Dazed and Confused, the soundtrack to Everybody Wants Some is stellar.  Needless to say I already have it on pre-order with amazon.  Pat Benatar, Blondie, Jermaine Jackson, Van Halen, Patti Smith, Cheap Trick, Devo etc.  You also get to hear a variety of songs- disco, rock, country and even punk.  All of this adds to the authentic feel of the film.

everybody wants some4Everybody Wants Some is not for everyone.  It is a hard R with a lot of profanity, vulgar dialogue, sensuality, brief nudity and drug use.  If I wasn’t so in love with Linklater’s characters and writing it would probably be too much for me if I’m honest.

However, if you can handle the content and the pacing than you are in for a treat.  Is it as good as Dazed and Confused?  Ask me in a couple weeks but for now I’m just happy I saw it and enjoyed a slice of life in the 1980.

If any of you see Everybody Wants Some let me know what you think.  Are you a fan of Richard Linklater’s films?  What is your favorite?  Mine is still Boyhood but I love the Before trilogy as well.  He just nails it every time.

Overall Grade- A

My youtube review

How to Fix Superman

superman

Some Batman v Superman spoilers!

 

Ever since the disappointment (to most) of Batman v Superman I have heard lots of talk (oh so much talk…) and one thing I’ve heard repeatedly is ‘Superman is a boring character. You can’t do him right in a modern movie’.  When I first heard this I agreed.  On the surface it seems obvious.  He’s a near-Messianic character (especially in the Snyder movies) who only has one physical vulnerability of kryptonite.  Perfection can be interesting in a way but it is more about the way that perfection is responded to not the character himself.  But the more I thought about it the more I wondered if this was too easy an answer.  If you think about Superman’s enduring appeal over the years there has to be more to him than his similarities to Jesus.  Surely a boring character can not be consistently popular since 1938? So what went wrong and how do we make Superman interesting again?  I have some ideas.

Now I should start by saying I am not a comic book expert but I have consulted a few, and I have seen all of the Superman movies. I know there are different eras in the comics and my friend at @howtolovecomics  helped enlighten me a little bit on the character, but I am mostly going from a movie perspective.

superman returnsSuperman Returns is a flawed film but one thing I noticed on my recent viewing is he isn’t all brawn, and he isn’t all emotion either.  He has to be smart in order to succeed.  For example, in the great plane sequence he can’t just fling the plane around because there are people on board. And he can’t save each person individually because he’s still only one person.  There are also multiple pieces breaking off and crashing at the same time so deciding what to fix where requires some smarts.

According to my friend, Superman was a smarter character in the 60’s comics.  @Howtolovecomics explained “There were a lot of stories in the 60s where Superman had to use his brains to get out of a situation, which I like. He still used his powers, but he had to use them in a way that solved a puzzle.”

batman-v-superman-trailer-096If you think about it this element of Superman’s intellectual abilities is completely missing in both Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. In MofS he is confronted with brute strength and barely eaks out a victory. If anything Zod is actually smarter than Superman with some sound logic to what he is trying to do. Superman has the emotional weight of the film but most of the movie he gets advice from people. He doesn’t figure out much on his own (there’s not much to figure out just be bigger and stronger than your opponent and fight/hide at the right time).

With Batman v Superman, Superman is again completely disengaged intellectually.  Lex, who can challenge Superman in terms of brain power, is solely focused on manipulating Batman into confronting the God-like power of Superman. Nearly every time he is confronted by Lex, Superman is caught off guard. For example,  he doesn’t expect what happens to his Mother or put together anything before the Senate incident.  Basically Superman in these films is a ‘big lug’- a sweet, big guy who is very sincere and strong.  He’s like the Michael Oher or the Wreck-it Ralph of comic books. (In fairness Batman can be very easily manipulated in this world also but he is at least putting pieces together).

I guess this type of character can work but again it is usually because the things around him are interesting or the quest they go on is engaging.  None of that happens to this modern Superman.  He stands around a lot, saves people in montages and we are told contrasting views on how to think about him.  No wonder the character seems boring!

smallvilleOne of the things that made Smallville a good show is there were constantly things that Clark Kent couldn’t control despite his massive powers.  In addition, he was confronted with a smart enemy who challenged him in the best portrayal of Lex Luthor by Michael Rosenbaum.  This is obviously easier to do with a Superman who is growing up and going to high school but not impossible as an adult.  There are plenty of things that Superman can’t control as an adult that if we could see into his mind  would make the character very interesting.

For example, in Batman v Superman we get a scene where he is rescuing a woman at Day of the Dead.  Why did he pick that woman?  Why not the surely hundreds of women in car accidents right there in Gotham/Metropolis?  From what we see there is plenty to keep Batman busy.  We are given no motivation and so we assume it is because Zack Snyder thought a Day of the Dead rescue would look cool.  You see what I am saying?  He’s still only one person and this modern version treats him like he can part the Red Sea and bring down plagues upon the entire world. He must make choices and those choices could be really interesting.

superman2Not only can he not be everywhere and save everyone but he can’t control the choices of other people. He can give speeches at the UN (Superman 4 reference! Oh no!) but in the end he can at best be a symbol that hopefully will motivate a ripple effect of good choices.

Last year I did an Adventures in Reading segment over on my other blog.  This was an attempt to dive into genres of literature that I hadn’t experienced.  I still need to do graphic novels but did comic books and manga.  It was a lot of fun and for the comic book segment I came across a Superman issue entitled DC 507 Adventures of Superman Bloodsport.

bloodsport1In this story a Vietnam vet looses a job to a black man in an affirmative action type situation.  This causes him to become very bitter.  He justifies his hatred by claiming those in the in a poor neighborhood called Hob’s Heights are ‘taking not giving people’.  He only see’s them as welfare drains and addicts and thinks the world would be better if they were done away with.

While this type of villain could become very preachy, in the talented writers hands it could be very interesting.  Hate is completely out of Superman’s control.  The man in the wheelchair could have become this kind of character in Batman v Superman, but he is again used more to manipulate Batman than Superman.  The thing that is interesting with Bloodsport also is that he is a trained army sniper, military veteran who takes over an entire project development- making it harder than you might think to get rid of him.

bloodsport3There is also an emotional heft to the story with a little boy who is murdered at the beginning.  The Mother then turns to alcohol and Superman has to try and help her as well.  Again, could be very saccharine but in the right hands it could also be another thing that Superman can’t control.   You have this loss, grief, and addiction that he can’t make go away with his powers.  There’s something there that could be interesting.

Now I can hear you saying ‘Boy Rachel, your Superman sounds like a real downer.  Isn’t that what you didn’t like in Man of Steel?’.  At least to  me, in Man of Steel there wasn’t a moment of inspiration, a moment of hope- which is what Superman is about in the end.  If he is able to use his powers, intellect and empathy to help make things better would that not be a more rousing hero movie?   I mean that is ‘truth, justice, and the American way’ if I’ve ever heard it!

bloodsport2And you can make it a little bit fun as well.  Throw in some quips and give Lois some moments of witty banter with Superman but the film would feel inspirational, heroic, instead of dark and dismal.

superman3So in summary, if someone asked me to fix Superman I would give him obstacles he can’t control.  Make him use his intelligence, not just his powers, to make decisions and win.  I would present him with a villain like Bloodsport who truly hates for definable reasons. Not just being bad for the sake of being bad.  This throws in more elements he can’t control.  Give him characters he loves who make poor choices like addiction and then show him grappling to help those loved ones.   This makes the character interesting instead of simply a God-like edifice we don’t care about.

What do you think of my idea?  Anything there? How would you make Superman interesting or do you think he is an inherently boring character?

Animated vs Burton Alice in Wonderland

Many of you know I am doing a Disney Canon rewatch over on my youtube channel.  I’ve honestly been surprised how different my experience has been with several films- with my either looking more highly or slightly down on films from my 2014 watch.  I mean there are very few Disney films I don’t like on some level, so I suppose degrees of liking will vary depending on mood/situation.

Anyway, I am up to week 13 which means Alice in Wonderland.  I love Alice in Wonderland and it ended up at #11 in my original Disney Canon ranking.  This time it could end up even higher.  What struck me on this watch is how it is nonsense but nonsense with a purpose.  Alice says she thinks the world would be better if it was nonsense and all books had pictures, right was left, up was down etc.  So when she gets to Wonderland she experiences her vision of what she thinks will be better and it turns out it isn’t.  There’s something interesting there.  How often in life do we think another world/lifestyle would be better but if we walked around in our dream world it might not be so great?

Alice’s journey is non-linear as far as plot.  She meets one character and experiences their version of nonsense.  Whether it is an insane tea party, an angry Queen of Hearts or a blubbering philosophizing caterpillar.  Some people don’t like that lack of structure but I love it.

I actually just read the book for the first time and posted a review on my other blog.  I loved the book as well.  It’s funny, endearing and magical. http://smilingldsgirl.com/2016/03/29/teaser-tuesday-alice-in-wonderland/

The voice cast here may be the best in Disney history and the artwork from Mary Blair and team is geometric and rich in detail.  I love it.

So here is my youtube review of the Animated Alice.

—————–

Now let’s talk about the 2010 Tim Burton version.  I did not like this movie when it came out in the theater but I knew I needed to rewatch it for the upcoming sequel so I tried to go in with an open mind….and boy do I still dislike this movie.

First of all, it entirely gets the purpose of Alice in Wonderland wrong.  She thinks that nonsense is better and she gets a chance to confront that belief.  In this version she is escaping a stuffy proposal because she’s a free spirit. Groan…They keep saying in the film it is her dream but what proof have we gotten of that in the real life segment?  And who dreams of these things?  It makes sense for Alice in the animated film to dream of a world of nonsense but who dreams of prophecies, battles, apocalyptic death and destruction?   That makes no sense where an angry version of nonsense does make sense.

Even if you accept a different purpose for the story, the purpose that they chose is incredibly generic and boring.  Alice is the chosen one we’ve seen in a million other movies who is prophesied to save Wonderland…oh excuse me Underland (gag me).  I mean how many movies from Twilight, Harry Potter, Narnia, Hunger Games do we see this story arc.  What they’ve done is take a bright unusual story and turn it into the most milk toast of stories.

Now about the visuals.  This film won Oscars for visual effects and costumes but to me it looks extremely flat and one-note.  Everything is gray and brown and a lot of it can feel quite garish and gross (how about the mote of heads…). I can see why they are pleasing to some palates but to me it is completely bland and seen it a million times. To me it is remarkable that Mary Blair with essentially black backgrounds gets more creativity and better world building in the animated film than all of this 2010 version accomplishes.

Then we have the performances and characters. Mia Wasikowska is completely generic and boring as Alice.  What is great about Kathryn Beaumont is she seems to have the personality of both a grown up and a child. Here she is a free spirited independent girl- yawn!

As far as the other performances, they don’t realize that in the animated film these characters are on screen very briefly so they don’t ware out their welcome.  Here Johnny Depp as the marose Mad Hatter is very annoying and nobody should want to hear Helena Bonham Carter shrieking for a nearly 2 hour movie.  It’s just awful. The one stand out for me is Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar who is perfect for the part.

I know a lot of people like this film but I really hate it.  On the rewatch I honestly dislike it just as much as Maleficent.  Just not for me I guess.

Here is my video review of 2010 Alice in Wonderland

—————————————————————————–

I know that is throwing a lot at you guys in one post but I would love to hear your thoughts on either film.  Thanks so much! And if you like my videos please give them a thumbs up and subscribe because each Wednesday I post my Disney Canon reviews. Next up Peter Pan.

Miracles From Heaven Review

miracles from heaven

I just wanted to share with you guys real quick my thoughts on the recently released faith-based film Miracles from Heaven.  I go over it in more detail on my youtube review but I’ll share a few things I really liked about it.

If you are open to faith-based films I think you should give this a watch because I felt it did a lot of things better than many in the genre.  It tells the story of the Beams family who’s little girl is taken ill with a gastrointestinal disorder.

Most of the movie revolves around Jennifer Garner’s character and how her faith is tested during this difficult time for her family.  Then a miracle happens (which they totally give away in the trailer) and that takes a new kind of faith.

The thing that impressed me about this film was how subtle it was compared to other faith-based films.  There are a lot of scenes that could have been very preachy but instead the film went with a softer more realistic approach.

For example, in one scene an anthiest father of a little girl has a conversation with Jennifer Garner about a cross necklace her daughter has given his daughter.  He explains his beliefs and asks her if she understands.  In movies such as War Room this would have gotten a big speech about belief and faith.  Instead, she said ‘I understand more than you know’.  That seemed like such a great response  for the situation.

There are a lot of moments like that within the film.  Whether the Miracles from Heaven will be attractive to non-believers I don’t know.  I guess it depends on how sensitive you are to people talking about faith and belief because it is in there.  I just thought it was handled much better than the genre typically allows.

It’s definitely a tearjerker so go with a box of tissues.  I think especially if you’ve experienced a chronic medical condition in your family you will relate to what they are going through.  I cried but I didn’t feel manipulated that much.

I’m not saying it is a perfect movie but I did enjoy it very much.  I recommend you all go and see it if you can stomach faith-based movies at all.

Overall Grade- A-

(ps.  Make sure you are subscribed to my youtube channel because I don’t necessarily post everything from that channel on to this blog and vice versa. Would love your thumbs up and feedback on the video.  Thanks!).

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 (Review)

greek wedding2Guys I feel genuinely sad. While everyone else is bummed out over an underwhelming Batman v Superman this weekend, I’m sad about My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2.  It kind of broke my heart. 🙁

I love the original Greek Wedding from 2002.  It’s one of my favorite comedies of all time.  Why does it work?  Because it is focused on one character Toula and her becoming an independent woman and getting married.  Along for the ride are her parents and crazy family.   The writing is funny and most people with loud obnoxious families can relate to what Toula goes through.  I certainly could.

So now all these years later we get a sequel and like  most comedy sequels it is a disaster.  Whether it be Dumb and Dumber 2, Zoolander 2, Caddyshack 2, most comedy sequels suck.

greek wedding3What did Greek Wedding 2 get wrong?  Well…

To begin with it decides to not focus on one person’s story but it splits up the focus on a variety of subplots.  We get Toula and her stale marriage, her daughter Paris going to prom, Paris deciding what college to go to, her parents finding out they aren’t actually married, her cousin revealing he is gay, her father wanting to be related to Alexander the Great, her trying to plan her parents wedding etc.  The list goes on.

None of these plots are given ample time by the screenplay to grow and be more than a sitcom.  It’s like I could practically hear the laugh track in the background behind every situation.

They also take jokes we liked from the first film and run them into the ground.  For example, Toula’s Aunt Voula has a great joke in original about a growth on her neck.  Here we get 3 jokes about her body including one about having one working ovary. Another example is Toula’s father and his making all words Greek.  In the original you get it twice.  Here it is repeated over and over again.  Same thing with the windex and the awkward sex talk/ sex situations we get at least 3 times.  All of these jokes land with a thud.

greek wedding7They even bring back Toula getting taunted by the girls at school over her strange lunch from the first one.  I wanted to say ‘let it go!’  Toula had moved on from such nonsense and become a strong woman and it felt petty and kind of judgemental on her part.

As I was watching I got angrier and more irritated.  So much so, I almost considered walking out of the theater. It was such a disappointment to these characters I loved in the original.

The other problem is they forget that the crazy family antics were relatively spaced out in the original.  A ton of time is spent on Toula, her and Ian’s relationship, their courtship and nice quiet moments between Toula and her brother, mother/family etc.  The craziness made you laugh because it felt believable within the context of a wedding or big family event. Weddings are nuts for big families.  That’s believable.

greek wedding6Here it is so overdone.  For example, Paris has a college career fair at school and the entire family- cousins, aunts, uncles, all come.  This becomes annoying instead of funny because it no longer feels like a heightened version of reality.  I mean there are a lot of grandkids in that family and if everyone comes to every college fair/minor activity than they must not get much done.  It is believable for a wedding or big event, not every day life.

greek wedding5The other disappointment in the film is Nia Vardalos’ acting  She’s wooden for much of her line delivery and her and John Corbett seem to have lost the chemistry that made them so great in the original. Her responses are either bland or way over the top. It’s one extreme or the other.  There is a scene for instance when she out of nowhere unleashes at her neighbors who are watching the commotion next door.  It frankly felt bizarre.

Other elements don’t work like the wedding being stopped because Toula’s father is tipsy at the alter.  You just feel sad for Lainie Kazan’s Mother character and I think the movie wants us to laugh.  Either way we haven’t spent enough time with her character to be emotionally invested in the situation.  It just ends up feeling awkward and uncomfortable.

greek wedding4Another example is they are setting up for a wedding and out of nowhere a man tells the Joey Fatone character something like ‘well, at least he isn’t hiding any more’ and it turns out they are partners. There’s nothing wrong with that storyline in the film but it is literally shoehorned into a cleaning scene and then quickly dispensed of- leaving no laughter or emotion for the audience.

It’s like they thought they had to give everyone in the family (even the Grandma gets a storyline) a subplot so they all leave us under-served and frustrated.

But most importantly they didn’t make me laugh. Family hijinx aren’t in and of themselves funny.  It has to be balanced amid people we care about or it is just annoying and that is the case here.

Lainie Kazan does her darndest to squeeze some emotion out of her desire to be proposed to by her husband but again the movie doesn’t focus on her enough leaving me unmoved in the end.

Some people on my facebook liked the film and that’s cool but it really bummed me out.  I know technically speaking Norm of the North and The Choice are more poorly made movies but as far as disappointing me My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 is the worst movie I’ve seen in 2016.

At the very least it begs the question- YOU HAD 1 JOB AND THIS WAS THE BEST YOU COULD DO AFTER 15 YEARS!!!!  Darn it all…

Overall Grade- F

Batman v Superman Spoiler Review

batman v superman11I can’t sleep so might as well write.  This will be a spoiler review.  If you want my nonspoiler review click here.

Ah Batman v Superman…the movie that broke a million fanboys hearts. Immediately I got some flack on social media for being a ‘hater’ and a ‘Marvel fanboy’ (probably only time in my life I’ve been accused of being a dude but there you go).  It’s no secret that I am not a big Batman fan and I do prefer Marvel’s brand of movies.  However, I can honestly say that preference has no bearing on my response to this film. It really doesn’t. (I’m not that big a superhero person to begin with)  As you will see in this review none of my issues have anything to do with tone, characters, humor or any of those Marvel strengths.  My issues have to do with the way the story is laid out, Lex Luthor manipulation of Batman and especially the ending.

So let’s get talking!

I was really with Batman v Superman for about the first hour.  I watched all 14 previous theatrically released Batman and Superman films going up to this film so I had just seen Man of Steel.  Some might call it apologetic to address the carnage and destruction caused in that film but I thought it was a really interesting way to set up conflict.

As we all know, Superman and Zod caused a lot of havoc in their fight and what we see in Batman v Superman is this destruction includes Wayne Enterprise’s Metropolis building.  In fact, Bruce is down on the street the day of the fight and saves a friend and a little girl from the falling building.  Seeing such power makes Bruce worried (and maybe a tiny bit jealous) about Superman and he wonders if something should be done to stop him before he turns evil and is unstoppable.

All of this set up works pretty well.  We get to see Bruce as this tougher, more grizzled Batman.  He has been through a lot and has become kind of reckless in the way he treats the criminals, even branding them with a bat when he captures them.  He also is willing to shoot people, which personally I didn’t have a problem with.

But there’s a problem that the movie also sets up with all this good Batman stuff.  He’s sort of shown as a private investigator looking into Lex Luthor and Superman. This makes him seem all the dopier later on when he is played so completely by Lex, which isn’t a good look for our Batman.  I don’t want a dopey Batman.

Meanwhile Clark Kent has some kind of understanding at the Daily Planet where he can get random stories but be gone for long segments as well.  Perry wants him to cover local football and not investigate Batman.  Superman’s beef with Batman is a lot less convincingly developed than Batman’s with Superman in the film. In fact, when it comes to the final fight Batman is a bit of a bully to Superman which is a strange sentence to write…

As part of Bruce’s investigation into Lex, Bruce attends a party at Lex’s house and Clark Kent is there too.  This is a fun scene but problematic also.  First of all, Bruce goes into the food prep area and finds all of Lex’s servers laid out without a lock or guard or anything.  He puts his transfer device on the server and in 7 minutes gets all of Lex’s files…really?

Now the movie tries to claim this is all part of Lex’s plan but Lex doesn’t even know Bruce is coming to party and how does he know that Bruce is Batman?  Same thing with Clark Kent being Superman?  We are given the impression this is the first time Clark has been to such a gathering and yet Lex introduces Clark and Bruce as if he knows who they are but nothing in the files seems to corroborate this kind of knowledge.  This is a major plothole in the film. In a world where Lois and Perry are the only one’s who know Clark’s alter-ego it doesn’t really make sense and they needed some kind of explanation on his super-secret knowledge.

Anyway, we also meet Diana Prince at the party and she see’s what Bruce is doing (everyone see’s what he is doing. Even Lex’s assistant does!).  Clark also figures out that Bruce is Batman at this point because he hears Alfred talking to Bruce (I didn’t realize Superman’s powers included that kind of hearing capabilities).

So, Diana see’s him making the transfer and takes the transfer device.  She tries to look at it later on but it is military encoded.  I liked Gal Gadot.  She’s sexy, strong and I look forward to her getting more time on screen.

At the same time, Lex is throwing the party because he wants to convince a senator played by Holly Hunter to turn over a piece of kryptonite found in the Indian Ocean.

They try to explain that Lex views Superman as the devil but for a dark gritty Batman movie he’s kind of an old school comic book movie villain, which makes it stand out.  He just kind of wants to get rid of the good guys because they are good guys spoiling his bad guy plans.  Like I said, Snyder gives us lots of speeches about God and Godlike power and that’s compelling motivation for Batman to be afraid of Superman but why that bothers Lex Luthor so much isn’t exactly clear, except it stops him from doing bad things. Kind of lame villain if you ask me.

I didn’t really like this version of Lex Luthor (I realize he is Lex’s son Alexander Luthor) but he just became kind of annoying because he didn’t really fit in with the feel and tone of the rest of the film.

But Lex is certainly quite the planner because he evidently had it all arranged that Batman would get the information,  investigate Superman and do everything that he wants him to do throughout the film.  Bruce learns about the metahumans from the files and this gives us some very awkward introductions to Aquaman, Cyborg, Wonder Woman etc.

Lex also seems to be able to predict Batman’s dreams (remember at this point we have no clue he knows Bruce or Clark from any other party guests).  Bruce has a dream of The Flash who can time travel and warn him about an impending threat. (Are you getting the feeling that the story is all over the place?)

Meanwhile, Superman is sad that people don’t like him but yet they do seem to like him.  The  movie is very inconsistent in that regard. Nevertheless, there is a hearing at the Senate with the Holly Hunter character.  Lex again predicts Superman will arrive and blows up the Senate.  This is a horrible act of terrorism and yet it seems to be forgotten by the movie and is never really talked about again…

Evidently Luthor is doing this to make people dislike Superman even more but this seems like an unnecessary step for Luthor.  If the main point of his plan is to get Batman to fight Superman who cares what the public is thinking?  They were already having a hearing.  Isn’t that enough to peak Batman’s interest and you know he has already stolen those files and is looking into it.

And Batman is a pretty lame private investigator.  You’d think with all of this he could find out about Clark, the Kents and everything else.  I mean these files are oddly specific and if Lex knows that Clark and Bruce are Superman and Batman, which he seems to at the party, why wouldn’t he have put all of that information on the files?  Wouldn’t he want Batman to know all about Superman?

If he doesn’t know about Clark and Bruce’s alter egos than his plan is nonsensical and he has the worst security on his home.  It’s hard to believe he has other motives for Bruce to have those files other than that he knows Bruce is Batman. It really makes no sense.   Well, and I guess he knows about Diana because she is on the files so why isn’t he trying to manipulate her?

Anyway, despite being a very suspect person Luthor is able to gain access to the kryptonite, Zod’s spaceship and Zod himself which seemed highly implausible.  And not just that but there are power outages caused by his activities and he is in there for quite some time learning from the Zod spaceship.  Don’t you think someone from the government might monitor that kind of access? I mean call me crazy but I don’t think he would be able to make Doomsday and activate the ship like he does without anyone realizing it.

But there’s also more of his plan…(It’s quite the plan and I remind you this is all in a gritty comic book movie not a Schumacher silliness movie).  He ends up obtaining the kryptonite. Batman tries to stop him in a long car chase but instead they kill lots of people and destroy property.  Whatever it’s a decent car chase.

Then Batman ends up breaking into Lex’s offices and stealing the kryptonite and this is all supposedly part of Lex’s plan to pit Batman vs Superman.  This is quite the plan! How does he even know that Batman knows about the kryptonite at all?I guess there is the car chase but Lex isn’t there.  They are just a bunch of cronies and how did Lex get to take possession of the kryptonite in the first place?  He makes a deal with a lolly rancher guy but this is quite the leap a private citizen would get access to a major radioactive substance, an alien vessel and alien body for no reason at all…

Anyway, Batman gets it and Lex wants him to have it.  That’s the part that makes no sense.  How could he possibly predict all of this is going to happen and that it is all going to lead to the takedown of Superman?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the kryptonite himself instead of orchestrating Batman to do it?

But that’s what he does and Batman begins training to take on Superman.  He designs a new suit and does some crossfit.  It’s very exciting.

Then we have Lex further mad scientisting himself in the spaceship and he combines his DNA with Zod’s because evidently the ‘Genesis Chamber’ tells him what to do.  He creates a Doomsday creature which was  a generic kind of crappy looking CG creature. I was shocked at how bad it looked.

He abducts Lois to try and lure Superman out of hiding and she gets rescued for the umpteenth time in the film (I didn’t think Lois and Clark had good chemistry in this version).  But that’s not all he has done.  He has captured Martha Kent, Clark’s Mother (again how he knows Clark/Superman backstory doesn’t really make sense).  This manipulates  Superman to go and confront Batman.

Batman is there in his super duper Batsuit having been totally manipulated by Lex into designing a kryptonite spear and gas pellets to take down Superman.  Superman tries to talk to Batman about his mother but he won’t listen and the two fight.  It’s an Ok fight but more smashing into things than a martial arts style match if that makes sense.

I was a little surprised how close to taking down Superman it got but that makes the ending even worse.  Batman is just about to spear Superman with the kryptonite spear and Superman says ‘Martha’.  Now we saw earlier in the film Bruce’s mother’s name is Martha, as is Clark’s mother.  This is it and he not only stops killing Superman but he agrees to go with him and save his mother.  This is completely ridiculous.

It’s not like this is a spur of the  moment angry fist match and Martha would wake him up.  This is a plan that has been in the works for months.  That he has thought about and weighed out.  He has trained, made weapons, even had that warning from Flash in his dream about the future.  There is no creditable way that Martha would have made him stop killing Superman at that moment.  It makes no sense to this admittedly dopey but dark and gritty character they’d built up to that point.  You can’t have him killing lots of people and branding people and then have something so lame stop the Batman v Superman match.

And then they don’t stop there!  Not only do they work together to find Superman’s Mother but he refers to Superman as his friend!  Are you kidding me?  And he is mourning him later as if they were so close.  I don’t think one word away from killing him is a friend…

When Lex realizes his plan for Batman to take down Superman hasn’t worked he unleashes Doomsday and we get a tedious segment that seemed right out of the Raimi Spiderman movies more than a dark and gritty comic book movie. You’ve got your one note cheesy monster fighting Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.  (Like really how different is Doomsday than Sandman in Spiderman 3?)

And here’s where I really got annoyed with the film.  We all know there is a Justice League coming out in 2017. And not only do we know that but the movie hints at it again and again with all the Metahuman file shoehorned bits.  So with that knowledge…

They kill Superman.  And not only do they kill Superman but they have a long drawn out funeral, processional and mourning process with Bruce, Lois and Diana grieving. This really irritated me because I felt like the movie was trying to invoke phony emotion out of me.  I don’t feel sad about Superman dying because I know it isn’t real.

Now you can make the argument that Zack Snyder knows we know and this is all just a fun little teaser for Justice League but that almost annoys me more! We already know from the earlier dream you have introduced a time traveler in The Flash. I’m not stupid Zack.  I know exactly what is going to happen and it greatly annoyed me.

I think he thinks we are all stupid.  That we are going to somehow find this intriguing and that there is going to be debate about what might happen next, kind of like the ending of Force Awakens did with Luke.  Force Awakens is fun speculation because we don’t know what is going to happen with Luke or what he is going to be like.  We all absolutely know for sure that Superman is going to be in the freakin Justice League! Give me a break!

There is even a shot of the coffin that greatly insinuates The Flash and the time travel and everything else and it all just makes me groan!

So in conclusion, Batman v Superman started out promising with the bounce off of Man of Steel.  The charisma of most of the performances kept me from being miserable.  However, Lex Luthor’s plan has so many plot holes as well as the script as a whole.  How he gets permission for certain things, knows about certain things, and how the Senate explosion is never talked about again.

Batman is cool but he is also kind of stupid if we believe he is a pawn in Lex’s scheme.  Wonder Woman is cool but underused.  Lex is annoying. Lois is a damsel in distress.  Superman stands around a lot and while people are making speeches about God.

But all this would have been fine if they hadn’t had the climatic fight end so unbelievably, bland Doomsday sequences, and the cheap, phony trick of killing off Superman.  That was unpardonable and it really irritated me.

And some people may be inclined to say ‘oh, it’s just a fun popcorn movie Rachel.  Just turn off your brain and have fun with it’.  I poo-poo that idea because don’t try to sell me on darker, grittier realistic Batman and Superman and then expect me to go with such nonsense.  Wasn’t that the whole appeal of Man of Steel is that it wasn’t the man with the red underwear saving people?  It was more than the old school popcorn movies?  Now they want to have it both ways. No way.

Also, someone said would I be as annoyed if they killed off Captain America in Civil War?  No because we’ve had 3 Captain America movies and 2 Avengers.  It is a lot less obvious we need Cap in Infinity Wars as we need Superman in Justice League.  Therefore, such an ending has that debate and feels more authentic and believable. There is no way Superman is dead where I could believe Cap really is dead (hopefully not though as that would break my heart!).

Well, and Zack Snyder has already said ‘I’m a comic book guy. I was trying to be 100% accurate to the comic books’.  I’m no expert on Frank Miller and dark and gritty comic books but I’m pretty sure they don’t involve crackpot scientist with elaborate schemes that manipulate Batman.  Plus, you are making a MOVIE not a comic book, not a video game, not a music video.  You need to tell a coherent story with a satisfying ending for this movie.  It comes off as not only a weak excuse but kind of blaming the comic books for the problems of the film. Not goona fly.

So there you have it.  My long rambling spoiler filled thoughts on Batman v Superman.

Overall Grade- C- although more I think about it the more annoyed I get.