Captain America: Civil War

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo
Starring Chris Evans, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Chadwick Boseman, et. al.
Running time:  147 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Red vs. blue.  Irony vs. earnest.  The team of superheroes introduced in 2012's The Avengers has reached a breaking point in Captain America: Civil War as Chris Evans' Cap and Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man part ways.  Practically a third Avengers movie as nearly the whole team is present (plus new faces beyond the familiar ones), Civil War is also something much different as it focuses on internal turmoil.  Superhero fan or not, the characters, story, action and humor here are top notch and I highly recommend it to all.


A year after the Avengers saved the world from the artificial intelligence Ultron, ordinary people are beginning to wonder whether these powerful heroes are saving them from danger - or just throwing them into more and more of it.  Tony Stark (Downey Jr.), or Iron Man, feels their skeptics may be right; after all, he created Ultron, and now tries to use his wealth on projects like educational grants to assuage his guilt.  Meanwhile, Steve Rogers (Evans), Captain America, leads a team of Avengers in a successful but costly mission in Lagos.  When they return home, the U.S. Secretary of State presents the team with the Sokovia Accords, a United Nations document placing the Avengers under the control of an international security panel.  Stark supports the accords, but Rogers refuses to sign on.

As the historic Accords go into effect, disaster strikes again; Rogers' old friend Bucky (Stan), on the run for the last two years, is spotted in the area and a manhunt begins.  Unable to give up on his friend, Rogers is forced to go directly at odds with Stark, who considers bringing Bucky to justice essential to restoring the world's trust in the Avengers.  The other Avengers must choose sides, and blows are dealt from which the team may not be able to recover.

Civil War has an enormous cast, with a few new faces complementing a host of familiar ones - it's a new Avengers movie except in name.  Leading the way, however, are Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/ Captain America, and Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man.  Poor Evans has much competition for screen time in his own movie, but despite his traditional "good guy" role, he once again turns in a deceptively strong performance.  While sporting an earnest demeanor, Rogers' idealistic outlook is pushed to its limits in Civil War, with Evans showing that struggle well.  Downey Jr. has been my favorite actor in Marvel's movies, and he is great here again.  A more overtly complex character, a hero who is also sarcastic and arrogant, Stark has reached his own breaking point from his accumulated losses and guilt.  Rogers and Stark are good friends, but their clashing philosophies were apparent from their first meeting back in 2012's Avengers.  Now the "bystanders", the world itself, force them to choose, and Stark's and Rogers' opposing decisions form the core of a busy but focused film.

There are many more characters, but to avoid writing a dissertation on them, I'll have to stick to the highlights.  Scarlett Johansson returns as Black Widow, a former spy who is torn between Stark's practicality and Rogers' optimism.  Sneakily the third most important character, Johansson makes the most of her limited screen time with her usual intensity; and when in action, her acrobatics.  Chadwick Boseman plays the most important new character, T'Challa aka Black Panther.  Not just a hero, T'Challa is also the king of a secretive fictional nation.  Boseman captures his character's noble presence, one that is quiet and seemingly serene yet just as intense as Black Widow.  All the rest do fine work as well; the actors chosen to be Avengers don't just suit their own characters well but also have developed good chemistry with each other as their filmography grows.

Captain America: Civil War may be like an Avengers film in its cast size, but it offers a new paradigm that gives a fresh and intriguing take on the superhero genre.  As mentioned, the Stark-Rogers showdown is the focus.  While there is a villain, the evil plot is much more subtle than the usual take over/destroy the world idea (and I won't say more about it here).  The titular Civil War is based on accountability: even though the Avengers intend to do good and usually defeat the bad guys, should they be allowed to engage what they see as threat, when, how and where they choose?  This theme makes a lot of sense not just in the context of an ongoing universe of thirteen films and counting, but also as a mirror to our own world in which Americans in particular struggle with how to deal with malevolent forces like ISIS.  Each supporting character gets his/her say, too, whether it's directly tied to this struggle or not.  Therefore as the sides form up, it's not an arbitrary mix.

Beyond all that seriousness, though, is still great fun in terms of action and humor that we've come to expect from Marvel's films.  There are at least four action sequences which not only push the story forward but also have distinct styles.  The first fight shows a "typical" Avengers mission, the chaos and grit; a chase scene later brings back an old character and introduces a new one, to go with some impressive stunts; the widely-touted Team Cap vs. Team Iron Man on an abandoned air field meets expectations; and a furious, intimate battle concludes the film.  The final two in particular display far different yet perfectly appropriate tones.  And yes, there is good humor spread throughout the film, even with the team splitting up.  Downey Jr.'s Stark alone is enough to bring the laughs, but just about everyone gets a chance.  Paul Rudd's return as Ant-Man is particularly welcome in this regard.

***

Captain America: Civil War challenges the first Avengers film as Marvel's best film yet.  I'm not at all surprised:  bring back the filmmakers from the bravura CA: Winter Soldier, add in the rest of the super team (esp. Downey Jr.), and cap it all off with a fresh approach that results in a lasting change to the whole franchise, and what do you expect?  It almost gets lost in talk of all the different characters and themes and action, but the basic stuff - you know, writing, pacing, filming and so on - all ranges from rock solid to superb, too.  It's worth mentioning the comparison to the other big superhero showdown film this year from DC.  Civil War is the better movie, certainly, but I'll repeat that I think Batman v Superman has been unfairly maligned by critics.  Beyond the similarity in basic premise, the two films are vastly different, each with unique strengths and viewing pleasures (as a reminder, check out Man of Steel first to enhance your enjoyment of BvS).  Back to Civil War, though:  this is an outstanding film, and I recommend it for all audiences.  Of course, if you've been following the Marvel films, this is flat out essential viewing.  Enjoy!



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48646207

Keanu

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Peter Atencio
Starring Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele
Running time:  98 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The popular comedy duo Key and Peele have released their first feature film, following on the success of their hit sketch TV show.  Keanu is essentially an extended Key and Peele sketch, built around a conventional normal guys thrown in with a bad crowd story (and a key role for a cute kitten for good measure).  Key and Peele are very talented and funny, and even if you haven't seen them before - actually, especially if you haven't seen them before - I recommend this film.


Cousins Rell (Peele) and Clarence (Key) are good friends but lead opposite lives: laid back Rell mourns the end of his marriage, while Clarence has a happy family yet suppresses his full personality.  One day Rell gets a surprise new companion when he finds a kitten at his door.  Little does he know that the kitten has recently escaped the scene of a bloody gang fight.  When Clarence's wife and children leave for a weekend trip, he and Rell go to a Liam Neeson film to return and find Rell's house ransacked - and his kitten, Keanu, missing.  Rell's next door neighbor (Forte) suggests that the dreaded 17th St. Blips, a local gang, may have been the culprits.  Desperate to find Keanu, Rell drags Clarence along on a mission to infiltrate the gang.

Newly renamed Tectonic and Shark Tank, Rell and Clarence are forced to prove their allegiance by joining the gang in distributing its new drug, Holy Shit.  Danger lurks around every corner as the cousins try to blend in and survive.  Even if they can make it in the 17th St. Blips, they aren't the only ones looking for little Keanu...

Keanu's cast is good, led by co-star comedians Key and Peele.  Possibly the two most talented comedians working today (and among the funniest), the duo is obviously the main attraction in this film.  Fans (like me) of their recently-ended sketch show Key and Peele will recognize the same kind of humor from them here.  One of the great things about the pair is that they have distinct personalities which complement each other and fit into the same style perfectly.  Their roles here - Key as the ostensibly "straight man" who breaks out of his shell, and Peele as the relaxed semi-troublemaker who shows a nicer side - are their bread-and-butter (though they're certainly talented enough to swap those roles or do entirely different ones).  Excellent work, as expected.  Most of the supporting work here is fine if unremarkable; one to note is Will Forte playing Rell's neighbor in just a few scenes, but he's very funny as usual.

Keanu is a pretty typical genre comedy film overall, with Key and Peele themselves as the main focus; it's solid in most ways, but also has few true fireworks.  Again, those familiar with Key and Peele will recognize not only the actors' humor and style, but also the overall set up:  it feels like an extended sketch, one that is similar to certain film conventions (no accident here, since many of their sketches were designed that way).  Keanu is even directed by the same guy who did their show.  This familiarity is not at all a bad thing, though the film does lean heavily on the force of Key and Peele's talent and personalities to carry it.  If you aren't familiar with their show, you'll still get the basic story structure with no trouble; you might simply miss a handful of references to their show ("Liam Neesons", etc.) but the vast majority of the humor is broad enough for any audience.  You can also expect humor that ranges from common slapstick to more subtle, clever societal commentary.  While the story is conventional with a few quirks - namely the title kitten - the film does its best to keep from bogging down with too much "keep the story moving" content.  Oh, and the kitten?  Yes, it's very cute.

***

Keanu is a solid comedy and if anything, my familiarity with and expectations coming from the Key and Peele sketch show leads me to a lower grade than others might give it.  I am a huge fan of these two comedians, no question; but I was left a bit disappointed by, more than anything else, how relatively safe and conventional they keep their first feature film.  While I found this movie funny, it is confining, almost like they were wearing straitjackets around their comedic potential.  They are so talented, they can break just about any movie "rule" that they want and not just be effective but better than just about anything else out there.  Since they can play so many characters, I'd love to see them play all or most of the characters in a movie, for example.  I know that's not new, but they could do it so much better than other attempts that it would seem like a new idea.  This is good, quality comedy filmmaking - it is funny and even the conventional structure works alright (esp. with the kitten) - so I'd recommend it for most people.  Do keep in mind, this is rated R, despite the kitten and Key and Peele's tendency to come off as "gentler" comedians to the uninitiated.  With that in mind, if you're looking for some laughs, this is a good choice!



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49182158

The Jungle Book

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Jon Favreau
Starring Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, et. al.
Running time:  105 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Elf) directed this new adaptation of a favorite children's story.  This is no gimmick release: the visual effects are amazing and put to excellent use with all the animal characters involved.  Bill Murray, Idris Elba, and others prove great voice actors, but so does young Sethi as Mowgli.  Add in a strong, straightforward script, and you have a must-see family film.  Highly recommended.


Deep in the jungles of India, there is a strange wolf pack.  One of the "pups" being raised is a human boy named Mowgli (Sethi).  The orphan boy learns the ways of the pack, frolicking about with the wolf pups under the watchful eyes of mother wolf Raksha (Nyong'o) and the elusive black panther Bagheera (Kingsley).  The boy's place does not seem to hinder anything or anyone in the natural cycle of life in the jungle, until a long and brutal drought comes.  As all the animals are drawn in to the last remaining water source, a fearsome, man-hating Bengal tiger, Shere Khan (Elba), finds Mowgli and promises to kill the boy once the drought ends.  Although Mowgli's friends hope to protect him, the boy decides he can't put anyone else at risk and leaves for the nearest human village, with Bagheera as his guide.

Furious at being denied his victim, Shere Khan hunts down Mowgli.  Soon, the boy is lost and alone, facing dangers he's never encountered before.  Yet new friends arrive, too, and Mowgli begins to discover the usefulness of his human abilities or "tricks", as the wolves called them.  The boy would be happy to live in peace in the jungle - but a final reckoning with Shere Khan the tiger is inevitable.

The cast of The Jungle Book is exceptional, though, with the exception of Mowgli, entirely computer animated.  Leading the way is Neel Sethi as the "man cub".  Child actors are hit or miss, but fortunately Sethi is very impressive in the role.  His character, Mowgli, has been raised by animals, and Sethi does a very good job of giving that impression.  He clearly comes across as a strong, brave, compassionate boy, making Mowgli a vivid, interesting character, but also doesn't go overboard (a common weakness for child actors).  While not the most spectacular part of the film, Sethi's rock solid,  compelling performance lays the foundation for all the rest.

The voice acting is also very good, with a few particularly good fits.  Serving as Mowgli's animated co-star is Baloo the bear, voiced by Bill Murray.  Murray does a great job, though the part certainly fit him well, anyway: a rather lazy, self-serving and sarcastic bear, he is nevertheless loyal and, when it comes down to it, compassionate.  He is largely responsible for making the film's middle section, often the least interesting, meandering part of a film, great fun.  Idris Elba is also a bit typecast here as Shere Khan the tiger, but he is plenty menacing, in a unique way that shifts from blunt to unsettlingly subtle.  The main members of Mowgli's jungle family are Bagheera the panther, voiced by Ben Kingsley, and Raksha, by Lupita Nyong'o.  They aren't standouts like Murray and Elba, but they still do very good work in portraying their weary wisdom and motherly love and fierceness, respectively.

While The Jungle Book is not a fancy new tale in the world of cinema, this latest film version both makes it fresh again and is as strong, traditional filmmaking as I've seen in some time.  This is due to good writing, the performances just described, and the absolutely incredible visual effects work.  Many films rely on at least a few good effects shots, but The Jungle Book relies on them almost entirely - not only are the animal characters (obviously) CGI, but so is all of the scenery.  Fortunately, the technicians for this film created exquisitely detailed, incredibly realistic work throughout.  More credit again goes to Sethi for working in such an environment, and the effects blend seamlessly with him.  To be honest, one of the most impressive specific examples of the visual work is the sunlight - strikingly bright and real (more so than many live action films').  The visual effects provide a considerable "wow" factor, but they also don't distract from the original (though modified) story.  And thank goodness, the writers did not attempt to dumb things down or convert the dialogue to modern vernacular.  Yes, this is a story for children with some basic, important life lessons - but adults are well served, too, by the earnest, non-pandering writing.

***

The Jungle Book is almost certainly destined to become a family film classic, taking its place among other outstanding adaptations.  Frankly, I didn't have much interest in seeing this at first, and saw it mostly due to its phenomenal Rotten Tomatoes score.  I thought it would use a few fancy visuals and a modernized tone to "update" the classic and grab some cash.  Well, the visuals are more than fancy, they're groundbreaking and breathtaking, and the storytelling atmosphere is old fashioned at its best.  I will warn prospective family viewers that this isn't for the very youngest as there are some scenes that could be pretty frightening (heck, I jumped once or twice).  I don't pretend to know what the threshold is, but this is not exactly Bambi we're talking about.  At any rate, above that threshold this is a film for all ages, whether you are taking in the astounding visual effects, enjoying a familiar and well-retold tale, or laughing and singing along with Bill Murray and co.  Highly recommended (and see it in the theater!).




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46830494

The Boss

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Ben Falcone
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage
Running time:  99 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Boss is the newest comedy feature from superstar Melissa McCarthy.  She slips into the new role (a self-serving "0.1 percenter") with great skill and her usual massive dose of hilarity.  Unfortunately, the plotting and writing that attempt to form a semblance of a story around her great performance fail miserably.  Still, if you're a fan of the star, it's worth seeing.


Michelle Darnell (McCarthy) has never been a very nice person.  Raised in an orphanage, she made few friends but also quickly learned how to get ahead - by any means necessary.  She even betrayed her one true connection, Renault (Dinklage), as she made her way to the top.  Once she got there, Darnell became revered by millions - those who didn't know her, but who craved her fame, power, and wealth.  However, Darnell becomes a bit too comfortable in her status and sees it all come crashing down in an insider trading conviction.  Having to support her child, Darnell's loyal but put-upon assistant Claire (Bell) leaves her behind, as does everyone else.

When she emerges from prison, Darnell is determined to become bigger than ever, now further motivated by those who abandoned or hurt her.  Still, she is starting back at square one, and so she pleads with her former assistant for help.  The way forward seems impossible, but Darnell's nose for opportunity leads her to the unlikeliest of "markets" as she attempts to rebuild.

The Boss has a decent cast, but of course, all are subordinate here to the queen of comedy, Melissa McCarthy.  She dives into her new character, and matching wig, with her typical gusto and is the driving force behind everything good in the film.  McCarthy is deceptively good, in fact: her character is truly a rotten egg, an expert at controlling and manipulating others without any regard for them, not to mention an enormous ego.  Yet while McCarthy presents all that with great skill and makes you feel it, she somehow also makes the character sympathetic and real; the character is not exaggerated (well, in these terms, anyway) and almost feels... normal.  This is all in addition to being hilarious as always, and so McCarthy deserves great credit for her performance.  Dinklage is also fun in a pretty small role.  His character is certainly over the top, but entertainingly so (particularly in the final act).  Bell is fairly bland as McCarthy's straight co-star and is essentially a plot device (albeit one with a lot of screen time).  Among the other supporting roles, my favorites are Cecily Strong (current SNL cast member as Claire's weird post-Darnell boss) and Kristen Schaal (as a timid Girl Scouts troop leader).

The Boss has some very good things going for it... and a lot going against it, too, unfortunately.  As previously mentioned, McCarthy is as hilarious as ever, and her character work is among her best ever.  The movie has plenty of laughs, which is a comedy's first priority, naturally.  There are several standout sets, especially a knock-down, drag-out street fight between rival Girl Scout troops (yes, I'm serious); and Darnell's attempts to "adjust" Claire's wardrobe for a date.  McCarthy also has a great ability to dig out extra humor and interest from otherwise normal scenes, an underrated skill.  However, there's also quite a bit going against The Boss as well.  Aside from a few inspired scenes, the plotting and pacing are awful; not just frequently cliche, but bizarre much of the time to the point that I thought the director and/or writer must be amateurs.  Most elements of the film dealing with Claire are dull, uneven or poorly executed, particularly those dealing with her single-mother status.  To end on a more positive note, the soundtrack was at least quite well selected - so at least you could tell they were trying for the right ideas in most scenes.

***

Overall, The Boss ranks as one of Melissa McCarthy's lesser starring vehicles.  It's certainly not as bad as the 19% it has on Rotten Tomatoes, though.  I would guess this score is driven primarily by the strange, often poor plotting and pacing, which are what most drag the film down for me, anyway.  McCarthy does not have a primary partner-in-crime in terms of humor; if Bell was supposed to serve this role, she failed miserably (at least there are other supporting actors who provide intermittent help here).  However, McCarthy is just so good, and there are enough genuinely funny moments and scenes - and this is a comedy after all, not a serious drama - that however bad some of the other elements might be, they aren't enough to sink the film.  If you're a McCarthy fan, you should check this out; and even if you're just looking for something funny, this is a perfectly fine choice for a Netflix night some time.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48652703

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Zach Snyder
Starring Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Adams, et. al.
Running time:  151 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Following on the success of Marvel's Avengers, DC has finally put the two biggest heroes in all of comics into one film: Batman and Superman.  Ben Affleck debuts as Batman, joining Henry Cavill who reprises his role as Superman, and both have their fair share of glowering to do in a decidedly darker (but still PG-13) vision of these heroes.  If you're looking for something lighter or you want a standalone film, you might listen to the critics and stay away.  But it offers a lot, from the action to the story, for those willing to go along and stay for the ride.


Eighteen months after Superman's (Cavill) arrival on Earth, tension around this seemingly noble yet supremely powerful being is reaching a boiling point, both in public and in private.  Many laud Superman as Metropolis' savior, but others - including Senator Finch (Hunter) - view him as a potential threat who must be held accountable.  Across the bay in Gotham, Bruce Wayne (Affleck) also grapples with how to handle him; Wayne is personally driven by the collateral destruction of the Wayne Enterprises building during Superman's battle with another Kryptonian when he arrived.  Still others have interest in the man of steel:  wild-haired (and -brained) Lex Luthor (Eisenberg) obsessively seeks out remnants of the Kryptonians and their ship which had menaced the world.

Batman's anger and frustration with Superman's presence intensifies the brutality of his already less-sanitized crime fighting work.  Clark Kent the reporter gets wind of some of these messy altercations, and before long he becomes determined to end the terror caused by the dark knight.  It seems there isn't room for two superheroes in the world as Superman and Batman set their sights on each other, but they are far from the only interested parties.

Batman v Superman is stuffed with a cast of stars, most of them well-suited to their characters.  Ben Affleck makes his debut as Batman/Bruce Wayne; despite my prior skepticism, he does a very good job in the role.  This version of the dark knight is grumpier and grittier due to years of fighting; gray hair streaks and weary gazes emphasize his long experience.  Affleck fits this brooding demeanor well, though he also gets to show his charisma occasionally through Wayne.  Henry Cavill returns as Superman, having debuted this version of the character in Man of Steel.  As in that film, Cavill is mostly asked to put a conflicted grimace on his face, although he gets one light-hearted scene here.  I'll have more on the character itself later; as for Cavill, he's fine but unspectacular.  The third major part is that of Lex Luthor, the villain played by Jesse Eisenberg.  This Luthor reminds me of a brainier version of the Joker here; it's not very original, but at least interesting to watch.  From what I've seen there is a wide variety of opinion on Eisenberg's performance, and I would say overall it's solidly positive.  He definitely comes off effectively as both smart and mean.

There is a significant supporting cast as well, led by Amy Adams' Lois Lane.  She's another returning player but while the part gets a good bit of screen time, it's underwritten; Adams' talent isn't utilized.  If Superman gets Lois Lane, then Batman gets his support through butler Alfred, played here by Jeremy Irons.  While Batman's a bit older than usual, Alfred seems significantly younger than other versions.  Irons' Alfred is faithful and dry-humored as most are, but he is still a welcome addition.  Other smaller roles include Gal Gadot as Diana Prince (Wonder Woman), shown just enough to give promise for future films; and Laurence Fishbourne, returning as Daily Planet editor Perry White (still a great choice).

Batman v Superman is a flawed film, but still a very entertaining and interesting one.  The director, Zach Snyder, has built a reputation as a visual maestro who can't carry a quality story.  In this film, he retains the former strength while improving significantly on the latter weakness.  Snyder and his writers made the very smart move (IMO) of making Batman the main character and Superman - while crucial - largely symbolic.  It makes sense: Batman is a human and thus more relatable - and frankly, more interesting -  than Superman as a character.  We mostly get Bruce Wayne/Batman's past through brief but effective moments, which is where Snyder's style and visuals really shine.  The shooting of his parents is here yet again - but it actually comes back to play a direct role in the film, which is nice. The main theme is built around Superman: what responsibilities and accountability do heroes have to the people; does the collateral damage and their lack of oversight outweigh the good they do?  While Marvel started this theme earlier (in film), there's really no better representative for it than Superman.

As an interlude, I want to say that the action is quite well done; well-choreographed, and purposeful within the story rather than just for its own sake.  Although there are others, the three scenes that stand out to me the most are two featuring Batman, and then of course the titular hero duel.  The first, chronologically, is nearly as cool a Batmobile chase as the one in The Dark Knight; this one doesn't have the incredible tension, but it's visually spectacular and has a great ending.  The second Batman scene is a pretty ordinary setup but features great choreography as Batman beats the hell out of some bad guys by hand.  And while I had serious doubts about how an actual fight between Batman and Superman could be plausible, this manages it pretty darn well.  The final fight is in some ways another monster mash, but once again, fits well with the story (and introduces Wonder Woman!).

The last element is that which DC is somewhat shamelessly - but effectively - ripping off from Marvel, in building a multi-character world from which to spin off many million (or billion) dollar films.  Is this financially motivated?  Sure.  But it still has very compelling storytelling potential.  Man of Steel, a "solo" film (i.e. Superman's the only hero), kicked off this world, and its final battle - particularly the consequences of it - set the entire stage for Batman v Superman.  There are only a few minutes of flashbacks from the earlier film (from different perspectives this time), but BvS takes what was a weak movie and turns its resolution into a fascinating take off point.  BvS itself carries hints of next chapters but not over much.  The ending - which I won't spoil here - leaves the door wide open, but the exact direction uncertain.  DC may have stolen some of Marvel's ideas, but it has already done even better with several of them.

***

Batman v Superman is very much a popcorn blockbuster, but both the film itself and the reactions to it lead to a lot of interesting thought and discussion; this itself is a victory, I would argue.  Now to address the drubbing BvS has received.  In pure film terms, it's not hard to find flaws; the ones that stand out most to me being continued overuse of moral(e) speeches told to Superman (though they are fewer and not nearly as bad as those in Man of Steel); awkward and/or poor use of Lois Lane; and some deus ex machina.  Still, to me the good elements of the film were more than enough to minimize the impact of the bad.  Others complain that it's another big, loud, overlong slog.  I would counter that it's quite well paced and for crying out loud, it's Batman vs. Superman - of course it's going to be big!  But I think the most underrated element of the film is how well it uses previous material (Man of Steel) to create more compelling ideas and story, and concludes its own chapter while allowing a bigger adventure to grow from it.  Clearly, most critics don't have the patience to discern that or the interest to try; and no one is forced to.  However, if you are looking for a big, fun action movie that asks you to see it in the context of an extended franchise (read: see Man of Steel first), this film has great rewards.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41557090

Zootopia

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Starring Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, et. al.
Running time:  108 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Zootopia is yet another animal-based animated film, but it stands out among its peers due to a Pixar-like level of quality.  An odd couple bunny and fox, Judy and Nick, are a strong lead pair and appropriate voice actors are found throughout the cast.  It's also of the moment, with both Judy's empowerment and a broader racial allegory.  Highly recommended for families, it's also smart enough for adults of all kinds.


Despite historically being mortal enemies by the laws of nature, predator and prey live in harmony (and without the presence of pesky humans) in the world of Zootopia.  With this unifying situation, many of this world's denizens believe the other stereotypes of different species no longer matter; one of these is a bright, young, ambitious bunny named Judy (Goodwin).  Determined to make the world a better place, she works hard to overcome her diminutive size and graduate from the police academy. However, when she moves from her small hometown to the big city, she finds that the greater variety of species has not resulted in an equal open-mindedness.  Judy's first assignment is... meter maid.

Still, Judy believes that she can prove herself in her new home.  Staking her career with the police on a case of disappearing citizens, Judy enlists the help of a variety of characters, even con artist Nick (Bateman), a member of her species' worst enemy, the fox.  Biological barriers between species may have ended, but Judy finds that past differences die hard.

Zootopia does not have quite the A-list cast of other recent hit animated films, but the voice actors are well chosen.  In the lead is Judy the bunny, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin.  Not the most original character, Judy's combination of classic animated bunny cuteness with modern strong, determined femininity is still winning.  Goodwin's voice carries both of these qualities easily, and the animation brings this plucky heroine to life well, particularly her expressive eyes and ears.  Anyone familiar with Jason Bateman's work will find that he fits perfectly into the cynical yet very funny role of Nick the fox.  Nick serves as a great foil-turned-partner for Judy, an intriguing and entertaining part that still leaves the spotlight for her.  Idris Elba and J.K. Simmons are probably the most recognizable of the supporting cast, but my favorites are employees of the police department: Jenny Slate as an adorable-with-an-attitude sheep secretary, and Nate Torrence as a sloppy, obese cheetah with a good heart.

Zootopia is a well-made animated film with a surprising amount going on.  In fact, it's a considerable credit to the writers that it all plays nicely together without feeling forced or bloated.  There are three primary levels to the story itself.  It starts off with Judy's development: she's already a determined, bright spirit when we meet her and she achieves her lifelong goal quickly - but the rest of the movie is about the reality (and difficulty) of doing something with that.  This flows into her relationship with Nick; not only does this touch on bigger "race" issues, it works well as an odd couple.  Finally, about halfway through, a rather overt allegory for the Black Lives Matter issue comes around.  I wouldn't say it's at all forced, or particularly preachy, but admittedly it only works on the surface (a deeper comparison to the real life issues is problematic, to put it lightly).  With good pacing and dialogue that is clear enough for kids yet surprisingly live action-y, this apparent jumble fits seamlessly together.  Of course, this is still an animated film and while the pictures are busier than usual, they're very high quality.  It's also quite funny - not laugh out loud, but I was chuckling throughout.

***

Zootopia is one of the best non-Pixar animated films in years.  While it doesn't match that studio's top films, and the 99% RT rating is a little deceptive, the overall quality is very impressive.  Along with the quality, it has a Pixar-esque focus and maturity.  It isn't quite as clever as Pixar but still has some cool parts - my favorites being a (literally) sloth-run DMV and an entire Breaking Bad-referencing scene.  Judy and Nick are rock-solid leads with good chemistry and voice actors behind them; with the film's resounding critical and financial success I would be surprised if they didn't get a sequel, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.  My main quibbles - which are mostly due to inevitable comparisons to Pixar - are that I didn't feel a true spark of inspiration, more a series of components that happened to work well together; and some stretches are more obligatory than entertaining.  Still, it's a top quality animated film highly recommended for families, and most anyone else, too.



*By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48786765

Deadpool

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Tim Miller
Starring Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin and Ed Skrein
Running time:  108 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Deadpool is the newest hit superhero film, led by Ryan Reynolds, the actor who campaigned for the foul-mouthed outsider character.  The R-rating is not just for show - this is significantly bloodier, and has a crude sense of humor altogether new to the genre.  To my tastes, both of these were done quite well.  The story is bare-bones origin fare, making way for Deadpool's unique personality to dominate.  A polarizing film in terms of audience; choose for yourself.


Wade Wilson (Reynolds) is living the low life... and while he may not love it, it pays well.  A mercenary in New York, Wilson frequents an underground organization that connects him with clients who need various dirty work to be done.  One day he meets a special woman, Vanessa (Baccarin), and they enjoy a happy relationship for awhile - until Wilson is suddenly faced with a terminal illness.  Resigned to his fate at first, Wilson eventually succumbs to a dubious offer from a strange man to save him.  He turns up at a run down, makeshift medical facility where he learns that the "treatment" will either spur his body to fight off the cancer - or kill him.  Seeing no other choice, Wilson goes ahead with it.

Wilson survives the brutal experience and comes out of it with extraordinary new power, but a completely disfigured body.  Despite having undertaken the treatment for Vanessa's sake, he finds he cannot face (literally) her, and instead his thoughts turn to revenge on his cruel "savior".  With great power comes great responsibility... but some interpret that differently than others.

Deadpool has a somewhat limited cast, but it is good and features a strong performance from the lead.  That role is Ryan Reynolds' title character, a sarcastic, self-aware super-but-not-so-heroic dude.  Apparently Reynolds has tried to get this character his own movie for quite some time, and it turns out that he suits the character pretty darn well himself.  He seems right at home with the bone-deep sarcasm, and so it feels neither forced nor over-the-top; mostly, it is pretty amusing.  The particular tone and pitch of his voice is even appropriate, particularly when he dons his full body- and face-covering red suit; the dissonance caused by what you expect from a costumed hero (Spider-Man, for instance) and the voice you hear and what it says is a genre game-changer itself.  We don't get much deeper into Wilson than this humorously cynical attitude, though.

The villain of the film, Ajax (played by Skrein) is not a stand out, but he's just fine.  With a very asshole-y leer, he is easy to root against, but the writers wisely shape him more as a goon than a supervillain.  The love interest Vanessa, played by Morena Baccarin, is pretty generic, not much to say other than the not-your-average-superhero fact that she's a stripper.  A few lesser-known X-Men are in this, and are played up for their stereotypes - the hulking but noble Colossus, and young, punkish Warhead.  Finally, the best supporting role is certainly T.J. Miller as Weasel, Wilson's friend from his mercenary days.  Weasel is perhaps even funnier than Wilson, and is twice as dry in doing so.

Deadpool is another in a rapidly growing segment of superhero films that is moving away from the traditional earnest/save-the-world style (e.g. Superman).  This film subverts the genre in three main ways:  R-rated humor, language and violence, self-awareness and a not-so-heroic protagonist.  These elements serve as the backbone of the film, an introduction to the colorful, charismatic title character; the story itself is pretty standard origins fare, whose stakes are much more personal than wide-scale.  To me, the humor worked, typically at chuckle-level but there are several laugh out loud moments as well.  Most of the self-awareness is amusing, and fits in well with the tone of the film despite consisting of, literally, asides.  The way this affects the opening credits is probably the best part of it.  The violence is also acceptable, although even I squirmed a few times (oxygen deprivation and a skewering).  The key set piece, a shoot-out on the freeway, actually sets up right at the start (Deadpool isn't chronological).  As it unfolds, it features impressive and creative choreography, and also symbolizes Deadpool's violent, humorous style effectively.  The narrative itself is underwhelming and the climax lukewarm, but again the focus is Deadpool himself, and this generally works well, particularly since the film wraps up well short of two hours.

***

Deadpool is of high enough quality to settle into the second-tier of superhero films, a genre that has developed consistently high quality overall (granted, this is coming from a fan of the genre).  Films like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man paved the way for Deadpool, in fact building a strong appetite for funny, non-traditional superheroes and their stories.  While this first Deadpool film doesn't really suggest any specific, intriguing directions for sequel(s), it does a great job of introducing him so I can imagine a variety of even well-worn scenarios could get fresh, even thought-provoking takes in this world.  Ryan Reynolds capably commands the cynical, foul-mouthed yet fun lead and holds your attention throughout; I wouldn't want a sequel to focus so exclusively on him again, but he is a perfectly good lead.  Finally, remember once again:  this is significantly more violent than other superhero films, and way more crude and potty-mouthed than its genre peers.  If you don't think it's for you, you're probably right.  If that "warning" sounds appealing to you, then definitely give it a try.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46244159