Ant-Man

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Peyton Reed
Starring Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Michael Douglas
Running time:  117 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Ant-Man introduces another lesser-known Marvel superhero, one literally overshadowed by the likes of Iron Man and Thor.  Positioned as a change of pace film, like last year's Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man's success is driven by Rudd's reluctant and hilarious hero and a refreshingly reduced set of stakes.  A well-made film that may not match Marvel's top efforts but also should (non-cynically) appeal to a broad audience.


Scott Lang, released from prison as the film begins, is nevertheless down on his luck.  He just wants to start fresh, a life of new possibilities and one that includes his young daughter.  Unfortunately he and his wife, who has custody of their child, are divorced, and with his record Scott finds it difficult to keep a job even at Baskin-Robbins.  To pay child support so that he can see his daughter, Scott relents and joins his old partners in crime (literally) in robbing a house.  Adding to his bad luck, he breaks into a vault to find only an odd suit.  Messing around in it the next day, Scott finds that it is no normal suit:  it allows the wearer to shrink to the size of an ant.  He also soon finds the owner of the suit, who turns out to be less angry about it than he expects.

The suit's owner - and inventor - is a man named Hank Pam, who has kept the suit a secret but has watched with worry the development of a similar technology by his old company.  With few alternatives - and with the possibility of becoming worthy of his daughter's adulation - Scott agrees to help Hank try to keep this incredible but dangerous technology out of the wrong hands.

Ant-Man has an impressive cast, full of unexpected but well-chosen actors.  Paul Rudd plays the lead as Scott/Ant-Man and the role fits him like a glove, so much so that it's difficult to imagine someone else in his place.  Rudd doesn't have to deviate much from his characters' usual quiet, charming, yet (as already mentioned) down-on-his-luck ways.  His excellent comic presence is also here, and his own brand of "hero" fits into the Marvel universe.  Michael Douglas has the biggest supporting role; my film history is skewed recently enough that I really haven't seen him in much else but he does a great job here.  He banters well with Rudd, and also is crucial in driving the superhero plot forward and giving it meaning.  His character's daughter, played by Evangeline Lilly, unfortunately doesn't get written beyond the tough-but-skeptical heroine cliche.  There's plenty of room for growth there.  Corey Stoll plays a solid but unmemorable villain (Marvel's specialty, it seems).  Rounding it out are Scott's old cronies, led by Michael Pena; they, particularly Pena, provide excellent comedy but also good hearted partnership; and a small but important scene with a lesser known Avenger.

This is Marvel's "goofy" (read: not guaranteed box-office smash) release of the summer, following last year's Guardians of the Galaxy which, of course, went on to be the #3 grossing film of the year.  Ant-Man, with smaller stakes, (slightly) smaller star power in the cast, and smaller fireworks, is an even bigger exception than Guardians.  Without size and quantity, Ant-Man depended on the quality of its creativity, and it largely succeeds.  The backbone, its story and writing, are strong overall, especially in the first half.  We get tantalizing hints at the superhero nature of the film, before concentrating on Scott.  The main character here has the advantage of not being heroic (if anything, apathetic) yet also likable, thanks largely to Rudd.  His personal life and troubles are handled well (Hank and his daughter's, less so).  With Rudd as lead, comedy is of course a central theme and quite well done, everything from the aforementioned Baskin-Robbins to my old childhood buddy, Thomas the Tank Engine.  The superhero stuff eventually filters back in, wisely not trying too hard for "big reveals" but also keeping it relatively subtle.  We get a brief (if familiar) training period before the inevitable action-based final act.  The effects are done well and creatively - especially when mixed with comedy - but I wasn't all that impressed by the scale or creativity (possibly because of my headache and tiredness).  The film is somewhat too long, as superhero films often are; I would've cut down especially on the last act, but it's nevertheless entertaining throughout.

***

Ant-Man may not be yet another "A" film to join the ridiculous parade of such films this summer, but it is just what it needs to be.  I've wavered between a "B" and an "A-" on this one, so I think a "B+" is about right.  Taken for the usual superhero elements, Ant-Man is mostly average, with some strengths but also a little disappointing (i.e., the villain).  Fortunately, that isn't what Ant-Man is aiming for:  it's a more down to earth (no pun intended), comedic and character-driven film.  Following the bombastic - though also underrated - Avengers 2, this is a perfect complement.  Marvel has shown me that it is both quite savvy at the macro level of filmmaking - tying its films together, in both plot and style, timing their releases well - and simply making quality films every time (certainly making other, lesser movies like the new Spider-Man's stand out as the poorly conceived and executed efforts they are).  Ant-Man continues this pattern just fine so I say keep it up!  Recommended for a trip to the theater, especially for superhero and/or Rudd fans, of course.


Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Inside Out (A+)
2. Tomorrowland (A)
3. Jurassic World (A-)
4. Spy (A-)
5. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
6. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)
7. Ant-Man (B+)
8. Terminator Genisys (C)

"Ant-Man poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ant-Man_poster.jpg#/media/File:Ant-Man_poster.jpg

Terminator Genisys

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Directed by Alan Taylor
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney, Jason Clarke
Running time:  126 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Terminator Genisys is the fifth installment of the franchise that started over thirty years ago, and it doesn't live up to the standards of the first two.  Schwarzenegger is nice to see back, and there are some other good actors involved including the Clarkes (Emilia and Jason - no relation).  But the script botches an interesting premise and bogs everything down after a promising start.  Depending on your tastes, worth a rental but no more.


The year is 2029 and, as previous Terminator films have shown, the future is dominated by machines known as Skynet.  However, human resistance leader John Connor (J. Clarke) has helped his beleaguered companions turn the tide, and he launches an attack to try to end the threat of Skynet once and for all.  The attack goes well, but Connor finds a Skynet secret chamber - once again, a human-disguised "terminator" has been sent back in time to eliminate humanity's resistance before it can start.  Connor quickly puts his lieutenant, Kyle Reese (Courtney), into the time machine, too, to stop the terminator.  What Reese finds in 1984, though, is much different than what he expects.  Sarah Connor (E. Clarke), John's mother, already knows about the threat to her life and even has her own protection - her very own T-800 (Schwarzenegger).

While it seems humanity may have the upper hand this time in Skynet's attempt to pacify humanity, the timeline change also creates a new level of unpredictability.  Connor, Reese and the T-800 set out to stop Skynet, but a series of Reese's fragmented dreams is all they have to go on.  And they must be constantly vigilant, for Skynet could use anything - and anyone - against them.

The cast of Terminator Genisys is decent, if underutilized.  Jai Courtney plays Kyle Reese, the same guy sent back to 1984 in the original Terminator to protect John Connor's mother.  I guess he's supposed to be the main character, but both his acting and his part are incredibly bland.  He ends up just being a body that fights for the good guys, but is constantly overshadowed by his co-stars.  I often lost track of who he was supposed to be and why he was there.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is easily the most entertaining member of the cast, clearly enjoying his return to the series he built and carried in the first two films.  He doesn't have quite the same presence anymore, and the part is kind of cheesy, but he's still fun.  Emilia Clarke plays Sarah Connor; while she lacks Linda Hamilton's (original Sarah) raw ferocity, she brings plenty of personality to the role.  Her acting, and part, are the best of the human characters.  Finally there's the famed John Connor.  He's played by Jason Clarke, a good actor who does what he can but his role is poorly written and gets lost in plot murk (see below).  There are a few smaller parts, most notably J.K. Simmons in a funny role that I wish had been bigger.

The Terminator films are one of the top action franchises, but after the first two great films, ideas of where to go next have been far less certain than the quest for more cash.  While some fans of the franchise surely disagree, I think the general idea of Genisys is good:  use the main element of Terminator - time travel, and how it (could) change future outcomes - for a related but new scenario.  The problem is in the execution, most notably the script.  The prologue is decently and quickly done, with good special effects work to show the future war against Skynet.  And the first part back in "normal" times (1984) is quite good.  It starts by showing much of what you expect from previous films, then suddenly turns everything on its head, and it does all this with entertaining action.  Then it starts to fall apart, and quickly.  The characters use almost all their dialogue to simply try to explain what the hell is going on.  The time change is fine; combined with a messy plot, it's convoluted beyond salvage.  The nail in the coffin is Skynet's new way of dominating the world:  by infiltrating all of our devices, in 2017. ("See!!! It's an allegory for our culture!!!" Ugh.)  Even the action rapidly loses its entertainment.  The new terminator - and effects technology - are able to cause so much destruction that the action loses almost all tension (not to mention being hamstrung by the plot).

***

Terminator Genisys qualifies as the first disappointment of this summer movie season (that I've seen) - the end of an astonishing streak of high-quality entertainment.  Yes, it has a 26% on RT so I wasn't too surprised, but I'm more guilty than most in being attracted to many film franchises (and Emilia Clarke's presence certainly didn't hurt...).  To continue from above, though, I would not call this a cynical cash grab.  The general premise is just fine, it has a cast full of talented, entertaining actors (aside from Courtney), and the production values are good.  The problem is almost entirely the script (and likely the directing, though I still often struggle understanding its role in a film overall), which infects other elements of the film.  It really is a shame, though not an uncommon one, when they don't give this crucial element more effort and attention.  This film was supposed to be the start of a new series, but considering its box office performance, who knows?  You can skip Genisys in the theater, but it looks like there is plenty of non-sequel/reboot fun coming up later in July at a theater near you!


Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Inside Out (A+)
2. Tomorrowland (A)
3. Jurassic World (A-)
4. Spy (A-)
5. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
6. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)
7. Terminator Genisys (C)

"Terminator Genisys" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terminator_Genisys.JPG#/media/File:Terminator_Genisys.JPG

Inside Out

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Directed by Pete Docter
Starring (voices of) Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling, Lewis Black, et. al.
Running time:  94 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  After an excruciatingly long two-year hiatus, Pixar is back with Inside Out - quite possibly their best film yet.  Starring the anthropomorphized emotions in a little girl's head - and voiced by an all-star cast of comedians - this film delves into the human psyche more deeply than ever, both literally and creatively.  It's everything you expect from Pixar, and more.  A must-see for all.


Riley is an ordinary, 11 year-old girl with loving parents in Minnesota.  Guiding her through her days of carefree fun are her five emotions:  Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Fear (Hader), Disgust (Kaling), and Anger (Black).  They cause her to respond to life's events based on which emotion has been "activated," then file the memories away in long-term storage; some events are important enough - like a game-winning hockey goal - to become core memories.  One day, however, Riley's Joy-dominated life is turned upside down when her family moves to San Francisco.  Not only does Riley struggle to find Joy anywhere in her new surroundings, but Sadness has become a problem.

When a profound event threatens to pull Riley further down, Joy grapples with Sadness, pulling them both into the distant, hard-to-access land of long-term memories.  As Riley faces life with just Fear, Disgust and Anger to guide her, Joy and Sadness race through the wonders of her mind to get back to her daily life.

The voice cast of Inside Out is outstanding, featuring some of my favorite contemporary comedians.  Amy Poehler is perfect as Joy, the lead character/emotion.  Having become a fan of hers as the star of Parks & Recreation, I can't think of a more appropriate actor given the boundless optimism and enthusiasm she produced on Parks.  Joy is a cheerful (duh), strong, tireless lead in helping her "host" Riley, with hints of the exasperated humor of Poehler's Parks character.  Phyllis Smith, supporting actress on The Office (one of my favorite comedies ever), is equally perfect as Sadness.  Her weary, down-trodden voice frames the character, but has stirring moments - within the confines of the emotion - of strength and resilience.  Fear, Disgust and Anger are also voiced by comedians I adore - Bill Hader (SNL), Mindy Kaling (The Office, Mindy Project), and Lewis Black (The Daily Show), respectively.  They are primarily used for comic relief (very effectively), but also play important roles in the story.  Richard Kind also has a significant part, but one that I'll leave secret.

Pixar films are known for their creativity, storytelling, emotional effects, and visual splendor - and Inside Out carries on this legacy, perhaps better than any before it.  Most obvious here is creativity - while Pixar has had many unique touches, the idea of a little girl's emotions being the main characters of a film takes the cake.  I'd like to read much more about it, but it's not surprising to me to know that this world went through painstaking revision to get to its final form, and it's a masterpiece.  The film incorporates the "rules" of this world effortlessly, painlessly into a simple yet incredibly compelling story.  As the characters navigate their way through Riley's head, they encounter endless ingenious devices that serve both the story and psychology (such as the "train of thought").  The visual construction of Riley's mind is also both well thought out and fun.  Scenes taking place in the "real world" (perhaps a quarter of the film) seem almost bland in comparison, though they are as expertly fleshed-out as you'd expect from a Pixar film.

The creativity is brilliant here, but it's the perfect harmony with poignant themes and storytelling that make Inside Out such an incredible achievement.  The themes, of course, deal with the interaction of our emotions, especially within a developing child (whose subject is one of Pixar's many strengths).  The degree of difficulty here must have been extraordinary; so easy to oversimplify, yet almost impossible to keep coherent when explored with any meaningful depth.  Somehow, Inside Out manages to achieve both elegant simplicity as well as universal significance that encourages reflection on the audience's own lives.  Beneath the bright colors and cheerful music, the film provides a more realistic look at our lives than 99.9% of live action films.  Draw in the technical creativity and tie it all together in a strong, well-paced, dramatic story?  Wow.

***

Pixar has made better films than any other studio in Hollywood since 1995, period.  Still, it had been noticeably quiet and merely "strong" since 2010's Toy Story 3.  Well, they are back.  I think I usually rein in my enthusiasm for films that I really like, at least in the short term, until there is time to fully digest the work.  There is no doubt here, though:  Inside Out is an instant classic, quite likely Pixar's best film to date.  I simply can't find anything to criticize:  everything, everything is well done in this film.  It's admirable for a film to be solid, but Inside Out goes above and way beyond to amaze with its imagination, to impress with its ingenuity, to entertain with its humor, and ultimately to touch our hearts and souls with humanity.  I'm not sure what else there is to say; this film is essential viewing for all.


Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Inside Out (A+)
2. Tomorrowland (A)
3. Jurassic World (A-)
4. Spy (A-)
5. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
6. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)

*Blinks* what an incredible summer so far... this year is already one for (my) record books, and we haven't even gotten to James Bond or Star Wars yet!!




"Inside Out (2015 film) poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_Out_(2015_film)_poster.jpg#/media/File:Inside_Out_(2015_film)_poster.jpg

Spy

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Paul Feig
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Jason Statham, Jude Law, et. al.
Running time:  120 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Spy is Melissa McCarthy's biggest film yet as lead and, re-teamed with director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids), she continues to produce great comedy.  While this film isn't hiding its role as 007-parody from anyone, its secret weapon is a hilarious supporting cast (where McCarthy herself developed) including Statham and Byrne.  Come see McCarthy as she takes her place at the top of contemporary comedy, and go back home still giggling happily.


While MI6 has the suave, heroic James Bond, the CIA has impressive Agent Fine (Law) supported by analyst Susan Cooper (McCarthy) watching his back (and talking in his ear).  Fine, along with Cooper, is determined to locate and retrieve a stolen suitcase nuke.  However, despite all of CIA's intel and Cooper's assistance, the bad guys see Fine coming and he is taken out.  With the bomb still out there, the CIA's hands are tied as its top field agents have been compromised.  Analyst Cooper steps up, however:  she is technically an agent herself, but has spent years behind the desk instead.

As Cooper hops around Europe searching for the nuke, she is told to stay at a safe distance:  surveillance only.  Following orders becomes more difficult, though, when she finds that a rogue agent has decided to take the mission on himself.  It soon becomes a question that, if not her, who will prevent the bad guys from using the nuke?  With friends of her own, including her own desk jockey friend, Nancy (Hart), Cooper dusts off her skills and goes to work.

Spy has a great cast, quite funny all around despite featuring just one star comedian.  Melissa McCarthy gets perhaps her most important role yet as the undisputed lead of this big film.  I think she's one of the top three best comedians today, and after a string of excellent supporting or co-lead roles (and the lead in the severely underrated Tammy), I'm thrilled that Hollywood has gotten the memo that she's A-list talent.  Interestingly, as the lead, McCarthy has to modify her humor away from scene-stealing crazy lady to (relatively speaking) more conventional heroine.  Fortunately, she pulls this off just fine, assuring us that she can be the dependable lead for many more films to come, as Ferrell and a select group of other comedians have managed.  Don't worry - she also gets to fire off some of the machine gun-deadly, filthy (and hilarious) monologue insults she's known for, too.

Pulling Spy above the level of a good comedy is its excellent supporting cast - essentially doing the things that McCarthy herself once did so well.  Most surprising, and I would argue most hilarious, is Jason Statham as tough-guy agent Ford.  Statham puffs up his usual act even more, particularly in regaling Cooper with ridiculous tales of his feats.  Then when he actually gets put in action... well, more comedy ensues.  A genius casting, pulled off superbly.  Rose Byrne also appears as the villainess, though her comic skill isn't at all surprising anymore (Bridesmaids, Neighbors).  Still, the intensity and consistency of her haughtiness is impressive.  Miranda Hart is another standout, as Cooper's friend and CIA helper; the two have great chemistry.  There are other small but funny roles as well, particularly from Allison Janney and Peter Serafinowicz.

Spy is a really good comedy, one of the best in recent years, but it still is important to know what you're going into.  In fact, my personal preference would be to avoid trailers/previews as much as possible (which for comedies reveal most of the funniest parts - even for Spy) and instead be told what kind of humor to expect.  Here, we have obviously a parody film, but also one that is considerably more slapstick than McCarthy's other films.  Even though goofiness abounds in her films, the overall tones are not as silly as the one in Spy.  This is fine - but also good to know to maximize your enjoyment, I think.  As a parody, the majority of the humor arises from mocking the kinds of roles in these films (Statham's tough guy agent, Byrne's arrogant villain).  McCarthy's is the zero-to-hero character - and thanks to her (and director Feig's) sharp-as-tacks comic sensibility, the fact that she's a plus-size leading lady elevates it to the complete opposite of scorn.  As a 007 parody, Spy has quite a bit of action too (more than I was expecting), and most of it's done well, particularly for something that's a comedy at heart.

***

Spy is one of the best comedies in recent years, and I hope to see it again soon (for the additional reason that I felt... off, for some reason while watching it, yet still recognize its high quality).  I think The Heat is still her best film, but this is not far behind.  At any rate, McCarthy has achieved Will Ferrell-level status for me:  if I find that she's in a film, I'm going to see it - period.  Not only is she super funny, she can also pull of a range of personalities (sometimes within the same character) that would make plenty of other great comedians jealous - from outrageous provocateur to genuine, sympathetic, vulnerable cast-off (see Tammy - no, really, go watch it).  And wherever she goes with her characters, she remains likable, in part because she's so damn funny and in part because she doesn't come off as having a bone to pick, as an actress, through her character.  It's not surprising that McCarthy lured and inspired such a good supporting cast (including comedy newbies) in Spy, and surely will continue to, making her films all that much better.  McCarthy is a genuine superstar - go see her in Spy, and then eagerly await whatever she does next.


Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Tomorrowland (A)
2. Jurassic World (A-) (after seeing this a second time, I've upgraded my score; since it's a dinosaur film it wins all tiebreakers for me, but also very worth a trip to the theater for any moviegoer)
3. Spy (A-)
4. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
5. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)

As you can see, this continues to be an absolutely astounding summer for movies - don't miss out!

"Spy2015 TeaserPoster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spy2015_TeaserPoster.jpg#/media/File:Spy2015_TeaserPoster.jpg"

Jurassic World

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)  (Note: upgraded from B+ after a second viewing)

Directed by Colin Trevorrow
Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, et. al.
Running time:  124 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Jurassic franchise is back at last after a 14-year hiatus, and the filmmakers are eager to make up for lost time with the most action-packed installment yet.  Chris Pratt ably leads the way, a suitable choice whose distinct yet subtle playfulness matches the film's tone.  The script is lacking, but the dinosaurs rampage gloriously - and the humans do OK, too.  For those unlike me who don't see Jurassic films as essential viewing, this is still a perfectly entertaining summer film.


After 22 years in the making, Isla Nublar has finally been transformed into a full operational wonder of the world: a resort filled with animals gone millions of years ago and brought back to life.  Amazing as it is, though, this Jurassic World finds itself in the unforgiving world of modern capitalism.  As youngsters Zach and Gray arrive, their aunt Claire (Howard), operations manager of Jurassic World, introduces CEO Masrani (Khan) to a radical new idea to boost profits.  Meanwhile, behavior specialist Owen (Pratt) works with a group of the fearsome velociraptors, studying their intelligence up close and personal.  Nervous, CEO Khan calls him away to examine the new attraction.

It isn't long before this new freak of nature surprises everyone and shatters the peaceful stability on the island.  As shady businessmen and other parties try to both hunt down the creature and hide its true origins, the animal wreaks havoc on the island where nothing alive - man nor beast - is safe.

The cast of Jurassic World can be split into two categories:  the humans, and the (frequently more interesting) dinosaurs.  Chris Pratt leads the homo sapiens as the Alan-Grant-meets-Indiana-Jones trainer, Owen.  Pratt is a strong presence as a source of safety and stability, but not quite the average hero.  He frequently conveys the underlying, good-natured smirk that he had in Guardians of the Galaxy; he's "serious" enough when he needs to be, but also matches the role to the more fantasy-like qualities of the film, too.  Easily the most enjoyable human role.  Bryce Dallas Howard also does well as Claire, avoiding damsel-in-distress cliches, building decent rapport with Pratt, and being perfectly watchable (unlike JP3's insufferable Tea Leoni).  The film's kids are basically dull obligations, though, and the human "villain" played by Vincent D'Onofrio is painfully overplayed and poorly written.  The CEO, played by Khan, has a small and bizarre role, and there is just one returning actor from the original (whose JP role was so small that only fanatics - like me - would remember).

The real attractions, of course, are the dinosaurs - and there are more in Jurassic World than ever before.  The dino "villain" this time is the lab-designed genetic freak Indominus Rex.  A T-Rex like creature with some special features due to its hybrid origins, it's a bit like JP3's Spinosaurus:  a previously-unknown but seemingly unstoppable terror.  It serves as the symbol of World's status as, again, the most fantasy Jurassic film yet, and even as an intriguing "villain" to the other dinos.  The raptors have an interesting new role, as Owen trains a small group of them.  It makes sense due to their intelligence, but the film emphasizes the unpredictability of these deadly creatures.  It all adds up to an intriguing new feel for them.  There are many more "supporting" dinos than before, too - in other words, the herbivores.  And finally - yes, the T-Rex also returns, despite its absence in the previews (which was quite savvy, I think).  More on the big guy later, but suffice it to say that World makes up for the injustices committed by JP3 here.

It might be tempting to lump all the Jurassic films together, but the first three were actually all quite distinct in tone.  Jurassic World continues this, perhaps to an even greater degree.  If and when you can accept this (which took me a little while), it becomes a perfectly entertaining film.  Consider the following:  Jurassic World, fully functional, is essentially a zoo that happens to have dinos; Owen is training velociraptors; and an invented dino with the traits of several different kinds mushed together is on the rampage.  Frankly, it makes Jurassic Park look pretty damn realistic.  It is possible to get bogged down by weaker elements of the film, especially if one doesn't accept this change in tone.  The script is poor, sometimes awful, and while I expected a build-up, it serves up no appetizers at the beginning as we sit through obligatory muck.  Despite inheriting the greatest film theme music of all time (IMO), the soundtrack is lazily utilized.  And perhaps most shocking, many of the effects are not that great.  It does make me appreciate just how mind-blowingly good Jurassic Park's were (both computer and animatronic), but disappointed in some of the quality produced here in a $150 million budget.

All that said, Jurassic World still has much to its credit.  Once the action starts to get going, it's pretty damn entertaining.  While the beginning is poorly handled, some of the human scenes are just fine, particularly involving Pratt and Howard, and even moments in the control room with (a sadly under-utilized) Jake Johnson.  The pacing starts to improve, and, just as John Hammond "spared no expense" in trying to build the park in 1993, the film starts throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at you.  Indominus Rex puts the beat down on teams of security personnel.  A sky full of flying dinosaurs descend on terrified crowds.  Owen leads his velociraptors in a spooky nighttime hunt.  And then there's the finale battle royal.  No surprise entrance like in the original, the film teases T-Rex's big entrance and it put a huge grin of anticipation on my face.  Here, full disclosure, the film goes totally nuts.  No, it's not realistic - but if you were ever a kid who played with toy dinosaurs, all you can do is hold onto your seat and say, "****, yeah!".

***

It is difficult, to say the least, for me to give Jurassic World an accurate score.  I hold the Jurassic franchise on a pedestal within the film world; I have high expectations, yet the sight of dinosaurs in film entertains me more than the average joe.  I will surely see this film in theaters several more times, and my opinion will likely evolve and eventually settle somewhere.  As the first of three super-anticipated releases in 2015, and on initial consideration, I would say that Jurassic World meets my expectations, despite its flaws.  The crucial thing for me - and likely for others - is to understand and accept (or not) its tonal differences from previous Jurassic films (esp. the first two) and its go-for-broke philosophy.  Yes, its script and characters are hit-or-miss (though still much more entertaining than in JP3), but those aren't the reasons you see this film, anyway.  The disappointing effects are probably a bigger problem, to be honest.  The dinosaurs are the real stars, as always, and they are about as good as, and sometimes better, than ever.  I hope they continue making Jurassic films - and don't wait 14 years to do so.  The great thing is, they can do whatever they want - make a sequel to World, in plot and style, or reboot it for an entirely new approach.  The dinosaurs are the key, and I'll always be back for more.  


Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Tomorrowland (A)
2. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
3. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)
4. Jurassic World (B+)

"Jurassic World movie poster".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_World#/media/File:Jurassic_World_poster.jpg

Movies: Tomorrowland

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Brad Bird
Starring George Clooney, Britt Robertson, Hugh Laurie, et. al.
Running time:  130 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Based on a Disney ride, like Pirates of the Caribbean (although that's where the similarities end), Tomorrowland is a difficult to define sci-fi adventure.  What isn't difficult to say is that it's a resounding triumph.  A strong cast includes a solid lead in newcomer Robertson, the reliable Clooney, and a stunning (hopefully break-out) performance from young Cassidy.  They help propel a strong story, interesting, hopeful ideas - and yes, some cool visuals.  Highly recommended.


In 1964, a young boy named Frank visits the World Fair in New York City.  Not content to watch others, Frank has brought his own jetpack to the inventors' competition, though the judge, Nix (Laurie) is unimpressed by its flaws.  A young girl, Athena, watching nearby meets Frank, and tells him to follow her as she and Nix go on what appears to be an ordinary ride.  Frank obeys, and the ride takes him to quite literally a whole new world - one much more receptive to his grand ideas.  Later, in the present day, Casey (Robertson), is another curious teenager frustrated by a limiting world holding her back.  One day, after her frustrations get her in trouble, she has a bewildering but brief experience in the same world Frank found.

Enraptured by the visit, Casey is determined to find a way to get back.  However, forces in our world have been waiting for someone to try to do just that, and will do anything to stop her - for the other world holds a secret that they will not let out.

Tomorrowland is one of the strangest - yet also one of the best - cast movies in recent memory.  Despite what the previews may show, Britt Robertson as Casey is the lead, rather than Clooney's Frank.  Robertson, whom I have not seen before, gives a strong performance.  It's also restrained - I'm going to say this was on purpose, since it works well to allow the audience to, in a sense, use her as their surrogate in the adventure.  But she conveys personality of her own, particularly determination and courage.  With no love interest or similarly limiting cliches, her Casey seems a great role model for younger (esp. girl) viewers.  Though his role is smaller than expected, Clooney's presence is most welcome - at once the stable, safe adult chaperone and also the charming curmudgeon (is that a thing? Well, George is here).  Clooney also does a good job giving the impression of a sharp, exciting mind that is shaking off years of neglect.

The film also features some very strong supporting roles.  None are better than Raffey Cassidy's Athena.  Although somewhat passive early on with young Frank, later she helps out Casey in a vibrant role.  Just twelve years-old, Cassidy is remarkably expressive and equally controlled in her acting.  Anytime she has an active part on screen, my attention was drawn to her like a magnet, though she also easily pulls back when not featured.  Maybe it's just me, but Cassidy's ability to project her emotions off screen is outstanding, and also has great humor and timing.  Really, really hoping filmmakers in Hollywood take notice.  Hugh Laurie is great every time I see him, so not surprisingly he is a pleasure here as well.  And there are small roles (one scene, really) for Kathryn Hahn and Keegan-Michael Key; they are as hilarious as expected.

Tomorrowland is a difficult film to describe succinctly, which is likely (one reason) why the previews are deceptive.  It is also a reason, along with the strong cast, as mentioned, story and sentiment, why it's so good.  With such a premise - there's a parallel universe with future technology and always blue skies! - the filmmakers could easily have leaned on the special effects, from glittering city portraits to high-tech action, to carry the film.  While there is a healthy-enough dose of wondrous imagery, the film wisely instead relies on good old-fashioned characters, story and ideas.  The cast I've already discussed individually, but it's a very good balance in size and chemistry, particularly Casey, Frank and Athena.  They relate well and naturally, unforced.  The script is very good, including dialogue that avoids cheese and/or cliche, and explains enough to bring you into the world but not so much that it bogs down everything else.  And the ideas!  Beyond the high-tech wonders is a strong sense of optimism, of exploration and creativity.  Yes, there are some "bad guys" in the film - including one notable, entertaining scene of Frank and Casey evading attack in his gizmo-laden home.  But the main point is not to defeat someone else, it is rather to become their - and our - best selves.

***

Tomorrowland is a great film, in my opinion, but it is not a straightforward classic.  That's why it has a 49% on RT (although it has plenty of great reviews, shame on critics overall for not giving it more thought), and why it's disappointing at the box office (that, and it's not part of a franchise).  It was not made for any one demographic; I think it's intended for all.  Different parts of it will appeal to different people.  To me, and I've said this about other highly-rated films before, this is just classic, excellent filmmaking.  It does take advantage of today's technology - but only in support of telling a good story, not to replace it.  And working in tandem with the great story and ideas is a great team of characters, with some of the best casting I've seen in years.  This was not a "must-see" movie for me; I thought it looked entertaining, and a good change of pace after last week's Mad Max.  And it was both of those things and so, so much more.  So if you're looking for a great quality entertainment - and especially if you'd like less violence and more optimism - then do yourself a favor and see this.

New - rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Tomorrowland (A)
2. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
3. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)

As you can see, it's been an outstanding summer movie season so far - I hope you're enjoying it!

"Tomorrowland movie poster".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_(film)#/media/File:Tomorrowland_poster.jpg

Movies: Mad Max: Fury Road

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by George Miller
Starring Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, et. al.
Running time:  120 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  With Mad Max: Fury Road, George Miller has resurrected the franchise he created - and last visited 30 years ago.  Tom Hardy takes Mel Gibson's place in the title role, but the true lead belongs to co-star Charlize Theron - they make a good, if hesitant, team.  The film's true strength is its blistering action, focused on chase scenes in gnarly vehicles in a desert world.  Go along for the ride - it's a must-see.


In a post apocalyptic desert world, Max (Hardy) is a former patrol man whose family has been destroyed by elements of the uncivilized remains of humanity.  His own survival is precarious, and he quickly finds himself pursued and captured by a gang known as the War Boys.  Max is taken back to their home, an outpost ruled by the brutal, masked Immortan Joe.  From that same outpost, a commander named Furiosa (Theron) has taken a convoy to get more gasoline - but in reality has a different mission.  When Immortan Joe realizes this he orders his entire army of suicidal War Boys into pursuit on a fleet of modified and supercharged vintage vehicles, with Max along for the ride.

Eventually able to free himself, Max joins up with Furiosa.  Both flee from Immortan Joe but do not know or trust each other.  However, the two strong personalities must work together to avoid a shared grizzly demise.

In the frenzied journey that is Mad Max: Fury Road, there is relatively little dialogue but the cast still comes up with intriguing performances.  Tom Hardy plays the title character, Max; we get none of his backstory (three films made from 1979-1985) except brief, vague flashbacks to a traumatic past.  Max has little personality, the implication being that spending years alone in this desert world has stripped it from him.  Still, Hardy does a good job as a tough, sometimes brutal and even vulnerable action hero.  The real main character in fact, as you may have heard, is Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  Theron slips naturally into her role as a tougher-than-nails heroine, similar to Sigourney Weaver and the like.  The film doesn't give much space for character development, but Furiosa achieves the goal as coming off the equal, if not the stronger, in her partnership with Max.  Nicholas Hoult has the only other significant role, as the War Boy Nux.  He is quite good as a deranged acolyte of Immortan Joe early on, and still does alright when Nux starts to change later on.

The newest Mad Max is first and foremost a high-octane action film, and a damn well-made one at that; riding shotgun are several plots that succeed to varying degrees.  The film essentially comes down to one big chase, and so the vehicles used in that setting are almost characters themselves.  Moreso because they, unlike the gleaming but generic rides in Furious 7, are each customized creatures - big rig oil trucks with VW Beetle husks mounted on top; double-decker muscle cars; porcupine attack cruisers; etc. etc.  There are at least four main chase/fight scenes (amongst scattered thrills throughout - and limited CGI!), and each one has a new dynamic and new dangers to add; you almost start to cheer for Max and Furiosa's big rig itself.  Along with this, Mad Max keeps things fresh along the way by incorporating different filming techniques (the opening sequence is in semi-"fast forward"); gonzo, sometimes loony characters, behavior, and dialogue appropriate to this "mad" world; and a nifty, atmospheric score with everything from pounding percussion to hard rock to grand orchestral music.  It's the more straight-faced plot elements that are merely "meh".  Furiosa's backstory, mission, and pre-climactic "twist" are been-there-done-that, though decently executed.

***

With a stunning 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, Mad Max is widely viewed as one of the best films of the summer, if not the year, so far.  And I would agree, too, that it's one of the best pure action movies in years (this is the vehicle-based action franchise that deserves further entries, unlike some others *cough*).  What George Miller, the filmmaker who also created the series 35 years ago, understands is that there's a fine balance in great action films between excellent production and awe-inspiring moments on the one hand, and a level of craziness/creativity (that's different for each film) on the other.  I would hope to see some character development for Max, Furiosa and/or (even better) some new personalities in further entries.  The lack of this in Fury Road is not a mark against it, but rather a condition of the kind of film it is, nevertheless capping my initial score for it to A-.  Again, this is an outstanding action film; if you want to see the most entertaining film available and don't know much about superhero films, I'd even recommend it over the new Avengers movie.  Go see it!



"Mad Max theatrical poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max:_Fury_Road#/media/File:Max_Mad_Fury_Road_Newest_Poster.jpg