Search the Community

Wow... the last Spoiler-free review I posted was waaaaay back in October 2020! Of course 2020 was during the pandemic, so the only movies I was watching then were on home video. I have been back to the theater to see movies since then, but frankly, none of them were really worth reviewing. Actually, I don't even remember most of what I saw now. Maybe I'll do a Spoiler-free catch-up edition, with just short one or two sentence reviews and a score for each movie. (More to warn people away from seeing them, than anything else.) I had intended to write up reviews for some of them, but just wasn't inclined to do so. I'm not all that inclined to write much about Godzilla Minus One, either. Except this: Go see it. It's awesome. This movie isn't part of the recent slog of Legendary Pictures' "Monsterverse" films featuring Godzilla, King Kong and so on. This is by Toho - the company that originated Godzilla in the first place. It was filmed in Japan, the dialogue is Japanese with English subtitles, it takes place in a devastated, war-torn Japan just after World War II, had a budget of less than $15 million, and is awesome. No, I didn't drop a zero there. $15 million. Not $150 million. And even though at times the visual effects belie the film's incredibly tiny budget, it just doesn't matter. The story and the characters are deeply compelling. Everything else is secondary. This is how movies should be. If you're engrossed in the story and care about the characters, the trappings of the film itself don't matter. You're far more likely to just enjoy the film for what it is. And this isn't a knock against the movie's visual effects at all. They serve the story perfectly. I think many big budget films (or TV series) get knocked for subpar special effects because the audiences get so bored, there's nothing left to do but look at the effects and pick them apart. The best blockbuster films were great not because of their effects, but because of their characters. Movie studios have totally lost sight of that, and have turned movies into just being excuses for spectacle. That said, Godzilla Minus One certainly has the requisite scenes of Godzilla wreaking havoc. But the stakes are personal. They're emotional. You care about the people in his path of destruction and what happens to them. The theater I went to last night was pretty packed, and at times the entire audience was absolutely silent, because they were completely captivated by the human story playing out on the screen in front of them. Godzilla Minus One has heart. The actors, notably Ryunosuke Kamiki as Kōichi Shikishima, are wonderfully cast and a joy to watch. I was rooting for them throughout this film. Not to just defeat Godzilla, but to triumph over their own personal wars as well. To just live. Go see it. It's awesome. Godzilla Minus One gets a 10/10.

After decades of searching I was able to find a movie that I saw on late night television where I think I saw an Atari 400 (it really looks more like an apple2), but I remember the basic code and the joystick, in addition to the semi-arid geography, a bicycle and a remote control (RC) helicopter. It has some Atari basic code, using POKE 53248 More screenshots: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2022/07/ifo-identified-flying-object-ovi-objeto.html

Yes, there's a new Star Wars Holiday Special. The most infamous piece of Star Wars lore returns to Disney+, but this time in LEGO form (and yes... LEGO is supposed to be all caps). If you're unaware of the first Star Wars Holiday Special... well, I just don't know how to describe it. It's unbelievable in its awfulness. Imagine some weird, unfunny mash-up of the worst 70's variety show you've ever seen, featuring has-been TV comedians doing painfully unfunny "comedy" sketches, a couple of trippy musical numbers, a cartoon, and mortifyingly embarrassing cameos by the Star Wars cast (with Carrie Fisher singing) and... well, you're not even scratching the surface. This is the train wreck of train wrecks. This is the train wreck that other train wrecks slow down to look at in astonishment, then quickly turn away from because it's so bad. I watched this as a kid when it first aired. It was the first new Star Wars anything after the original movie, while we were all eagerly waiting for what seemed like an eternity for The Empire Strikes Back. There was no home video. No cable. No way to see Star Wars since it had left the theaters. So of course anticipation for the special was high. But in the end, it was a train wreck. It was a train wreck, inside of a train wreck, that was happening on top of another train wreck. It didn't matter that it was Star Wars. Or that I was a kid at the time. I knew awful when I saw it. The cartoon was okay though. Weird looking animation, but still, it was kind of cool. Maybe because it was the only part that wasn't irredeemably awful. It also introduced Boba Fett who didn't once fall into a pit. So good for him! Yay, Boba! But the rest of that mess was genuinely unwatchable. Time for an anecdote! Some years back, I got a bootleg copy of the special on DVD from a sketchy internet site (before it was readily available on YouTube). For our Christmas/Holiday Party at the college where I work, we hosted a screening of it on the big projection system in one of our multipurpose rooms. We have a lot of Star Wars nerds there, and the screening started out with a pretty good crowd, since few had ever seen it. Well, that didn't last too long. The further we got into it, the more people left. Finally, near the end of it, we were down to maybe three or four people, most of whom were asleep on the floor by that point. One of them walked towards the door and we told him, "Don't leave yet - Carrie Fisher is about to sing!" We kidded him about not being a hardcore fan, at which point he rolled up his sleeves to show an Imperial tattoo on one arm, and a Rebel tattoo on the other, and then he said, "I'm a huge Star Wars fan... but I just can't take it anymore!" and left. What I'm getting at here, is if you've never seen it, don't. It's just not worth the two hours* of your life you'll never get back. George Lucas disavowed the Holiday Special. Rumor had it that he was actively trying to track down and destroy every copy of it. It has never, and will never be officially released. Yet now - there's a new one. A LEGO one. But it's not terrible. In fact, apart from the name and it centering around Life Day, it has basically nothing to do with the original. Rather, it's very much in keeping with the cute, irreverent, humorous tone the LEGO Star Wars games (and TV specials) have always had. It even manages to poke more than a little much-needed fun at the sequel trilogy. It's all pretty silly, and the personalities of the Emperor and Darth Vader are almost straight out of Robot Chicken. There's an attempt in there to have a heartfelt story of sorts, but c'mon... it's LEGO + Star Wars + Holiday Special. That should tell you how much time they actually dwell on anything resembling a plot. Some of the cast members from the movies and The Clone Wars series reprise their roles**. Those that don't are voiced by exceptionally good mimics. There are a lot of "blink and you'll miss it" in-jokes, and more than a few that are completely ham-fisted. But hey... holidays and ham go together! I got a few genuine laugh-out-loud moments out of it, including the very final shot which, frankly, made the whole thing worth watching (especially if you're a fan of holiday classics). At less-than-half of the run time of the original Holiday Special, the LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special is just long enough to be entertaining without wearing out its welcome. Pop some popcorn, grab some egg nog***, and curl up in front of the TV. There are worse things to spend 44 minutes watching. The LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special gets a 6/10. (*With commercials.) (**If you're interested, here's an article on the making of the special.) (***Mix egg nog 50/50 with 7-Up. Makes for a great holiday punch. Watch out for the foam.) Edit: This gives an overview of the original Holiday Special, but still doesn't fully convey how bad it is:

So you may ask "Wait... why are you reviewing this film??" Well, it's not the 2004 movie where the world is destroyed. Nor is it the 1983 TV movie where the world is destroyed. Nope. This is the 1975 TV special produced by Gerry Anderson of Space: 1999 and UFO fame. (And also Thunderbirds... but that never aired where I grew up, so I never watched that show.) And the world isn't destroyed in this one. Although it does make reference to us having ruined it by destroying the environment. I miss the days when science fiction was still fiction. It was produced between the first two seasons of Space: 1999; co-starred Nick Tate from Space: 1999; was narrated by Ed Bishop from UFO; and the visual effects were supervised by Brian Johnson, who was responsible for the effects for Space: 1999. And it's incredibly obscure. But I remembered it. Even though I'd never seen it. I'd only read about it. Once. Things like this have a tendency to stick in my brain. For example, the rumors about the Empire Strikes Back from Starlog magazine that I wrote about in my review for The Force Awakens. Or the photo from Midnight Madness at the top right of this page from the same issue that stuck in my brain for over 20 years until I finally watched and reviewed the movie for my old MacMAME.net website. In the case of The Day After Tomorrow, this article from Starlog, in September 1979, stuck in my brain for over 40 years. Ever since reading that article, I wanted to watch The Day After Tomorrow, but there was no way to see it. It was a one-shot TV special, and never aired again. Periodically, when I'd see a reference online to Space: 1999 or UFO, I'd think "I wonder if that other thing Gerry Anderson did is online somewhere?" But I didn't see it. Maybe just a short video clip here or there. And certainly, it was too obscure to ever come out on home video. Right? Well, never underestimate the niche fan market. Because some months back, it popped up in my recommendations on Amazon in a DVD collection of Gerry Anderson rarities titled: The Lost Worlds of Gerry Anderson. It actually came out a few years ago, but I only just recently bought it because, well, I've been looking for stuff to watch during the Coronavirus pandemic. Not because I'm stuck at home (I go into work most every day), but more for the distraction. I recently bought a stupid thing because of this too (which I'm enjoying watching very much, by the way). Now, I'm not going to review the whole DVD, because I haven't watched all of the other content (just skimmed it) and the rest of the materials on it aren't of any real interest to me. The Day After Tomorrow is what I bought this for. So... did it live up to 40 years of expectation? Well, of course not! For one thing, I'd forgotten that it was meant to be one in a series of educational programs. In this case - trying to explain Albert Einstein's theory of relativity to kids. (Just re-read that sentence for a minute, and let it sink in.) But the network didn't want a documentary, they wanted an adventure film, so the kids would get engaged and hopefully develop an interest in science. Anderson also had hopes of it being picked up as a series, so the story was left open-ended so it could serve as a pilot. The story centers around the crew of the ship Altares, the first ship capable of near light-speed travel. The crew consists of two kids, two dads and a mom, which was a bit confusing because they didn't really introduce who they were and what their relationships were to each other. (It turns out that one was a single dad with his daughter, and the others were two parents and their son, but you'd never pick that up from watching it.) Their mission is to travel to the nearest star - Alpha Centauri - and explain to the audience what redshift is and how time dilation works. Then they have to decide if they want to return to Earth (where everyone will be much older than they are), or continue on to explore other worlds. And then some other things happen, one of which involves the heavy use of shooting scenes reflected off of mylar that someone gets to wobble around a lot. And they get to explain what a red giant and supernova are, and a black hole, and probably some other stuff. Because of the educational angle, short run-time (under an hour), and made-for-TV nature of it, The Day After Tomorrow plays a bit like something that Filmation might have made just a couple of years later (Ark II, Space Academy), but with higher production values and slightly-less-cheesy dialogue. Plot-wise, it's Lost In Space meets The Black Hole. But without Dr. Smith or Hans Reinhardt. Or robots. That's not to say it's bad... but rather that you have to find the entertainment in it where you can. For me, it was in the first-rate models and sets that echoed what was being done on Space: 1999 at the time (which, apart from 2001: A Space Odyssey, were the best* in sci-fi until Star Wars came along). Also, there's the wonderful, unintentional cheesiness of it at times. Such as the moment where they have to shut down the malfunctioning Photon Drive, which means Nick Tate has to pull on a lever REALLY hard! Pull harder Nick!! Pull for your life!!! (Because an "off" button just wouldn't be any fun.) Or when the resourcefulness of the prop department shines through, and he has to fix the aforementioned, highly advanced and complex drive using a pop-rivet tool. Some of the other entertainment came from seeing similarities to sci-fi that came both before and after this aired. Besides The Black Hole, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan may owe a nod to this film for a scene in which Nick Tate has to go into a radiation-flooded engine compartment, and effect a repair nearly identical to what Spock had to do with the Enterprise seven years later. Coincidence? Probably. But the comparisons are still... fascinating. The Day After Tomorrow is just under an hour long, and it's an interesting artifact from the era of 1970's science fiction. For me, it was worth the cost of the DVD to satisfy my 40-year long curiosity about it. But for someone else, is it worth hunting it down? Well, no. Not unless you're a fan of Gerry Anderson, or are looking for a Saturday Morning kids' TV introduction to the theory of relativity. For what it is, The Day After Tomorrow gets a 5/10. (I wanted to come up with some clever mathematical joke for the score, but math and I never got along very well.) * (Yes, I'm aware of Silent Running - I have it on Blu-ray. I may get around to reviewing that as well, but it's a depressing movie, and I don't need anymore of that right now.)

I've been a fan of Herb Alpert since I was a kid. We just about wore out the Tijuana Brass Christmas Album playing it every year. Then for some reason, in my early teens, I started really getting into their music. I'm not sure why, other than it was probably because I was getting into collecting records at the time (the Monkees), my folks already had a number of TJB records at home, and I was playing trumpet in band at school. And, well, the music was fun and catchy. It was already at least a dozen years out-of-date by then, but it was so unique, listenable and undeniably happy, myself and a couple of friends really got into it. Non-ironically, too. But I really didn't know anything about Herb or the TJB. In fact, when I went to ask our high school band director if we could play some Herb Alpert music, he said, "We already are." Little did I know, Herb had just had a massive hit with the #1 song Rise, and we were playing 1980 - the opening track on that album (you should be able to guess the year this all happened ). I don't think Rise ever got any play on the radio station I was listening to at the time, which was AM top 40. I certainly don't remember hearing it before getting the album. (If Rise sounds familiar to you young 'uns out there, this was sampled by Biggie Smalls and became a hit all over again, generating even more royalties for Herb. Nice work if you can get it.) But at that point I started following Herb as a solo artist, and each new album was... Well, hang on. I've already written this somewhere. Let me find it. It's here somewhere... It's really too bad Categories don't exist in the blogs here anymore. It would make this a lot easier. Gimme a minute... Okay, here we go. So I've written about Herb's solo career here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/1311-time-marches-on/?tab=comments#comment-2826 And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/6419-mutton-beef-and-trout/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/8097-new-old-music-part-4/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/13004-new-old-music-parts-8-9-10/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/15180-new-old-music-parts-13-14-15/ And even then, there have been two more albums released since then that I haven't reviewed yet. The point is he's recorded a lot of music. Not counting Greatest Hits compilations, I have 47 of his albums (which are all of the ones I'm aware of), 30 of which were recorded after he disbanded the TJB. And he's continually changing what he's doing. He never stands still, and rarely does the same thing twice. Always exploring. Following his instincts. Creating what sounds good to him, not necessarily what he thinks will be a hit. Plus, Herb's a painter. And a sculpter. And a very wealthy philanthropist. You see, the TJB earned him a lot of money. He sold over 72 million records. That includes 15 gold records, 14 platinum records, several #1's, and 9 Grammy awards. He was also the "A" in A&M Records. He and co-founder Jerry Moss sold that to PolyGram in 1990 for $500 million. Not bad for a couple of guys who started in a garage with a tape recorder. So, from this unassuming trumpet player playing "happy music", to a multimillionaire industry giant, to a remarkably humble artist and generous philanthropist. This is all stuff that I learned over many years of following him, reading articles here and there, and of course piecing things together on the internet. Now of course, you can look up a lot of this on Herb's website or Wikipedia. One-stop shopping. But that doesn't really show you who Herb Alpert is. (How's that for a segue? Even after months off, you're still getting the same quality writing you've come to expect from my blog! Note that I didn't say "good" quality. Just "same" quality.) But this new documentary does. Herb Alpert Is... was originally intended for a theatrical release, but the Coronavirus pretty-much took care of that. But you can get it on various streaming platforms. In my case, I bought it on iTunes. Even though I knew much of the information factually, when you can see and hear Herb talk about his career, and watch vintage performances, hear first-hand accounts and interviews, it becomes a far more engaging and engrossing story. More than half of the documentary focuses on Herb's early career and years with the TJB and A&M. Of course, that's where people know him from. It largely skims over his solo years, stopping briefly to focus on some work he did with Hugh Masekela, the recording of Rise, and his collaboration with Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, but it doesn't really do a thorough job of showing how much music he's recorded as a solo artist. That said, this is more of a biography than a discography, and it does show who Herb Alpert is... as a person, an artist, and how he's arrived at who he is now: a vibrant, passionate, committed husband, artist, philanthropist and musician. At the age of 85. There are a few fun facts it would've been nice for them to touch on - Herb playing at the Super Bowl, or being an extra in The Ten Commandments, but it still covers a remarkable amount of ground. For my money, it could've easily gone another 30 minutes. I would've loved to have heard more about his creative process with the TJB and his solo career. Maybe they'll release some bonus footage or an extended cut someday. Still, it's a compelling and inspiring story. It's positive and uplifting. And the music is still happy. Right now, we could use pretty-much all of that. Herb Alpert Is... a 9/10. (There's also a BBC documentary from ten years ago, which covers much of the same ground. It's only an hour long, and the approach is more factual and less personal, but it's still very good.)

Continuing on with the continuation of my blog (and because I've only written 5 episodes of Artie so far), it's time for the return of the Spoiler-free review! Unfortunately, because of the Coronavirus pandemic, there aren't any movie theaters open around here. And even if there were, frankly, I wouldn't go into one right now unless the audience members were all sealed up in giant Ziploc bags and wiped down with a bleach solution, which would kind of negatively impact the whole ambience of the place. But there have been some movies that were slated for theatrical release that have been made available on streaming services (in this case, iTunes), so we'll just go with a couple of those. I've always thought that Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was one of the best (or certainly most fun) time travel movies. It had a goofiness and charm to it, was genuinely funny, used time travel very cleverly (by completely ignoring paradoxes) and had two extremely likable characters in Bill and Ted played by Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves. The sequel - Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey - wasn't as much fun, or quite as clever, but avoided the pitfall of just repeating the first film, and still managed to have some fun moments. The high point was William Sadler as a brilliantly funny personification of Death. The ending, while not as clever or satisfying as the first film, seemed to tie up the storyline for the two lead characters as they performed for a worldwide audience, fulfilling their destiny. A third movie had been rumored for years, and was officially announced two and a half years go. It was one of those projects that made me think "Why?" At that point Reeves and Winter were already too old to play the same daft but lovable high schoolers. And what would they do? They'd already fulfilled their destiny, hadn't they? Bill & Ted Face the Music answers that question by revealing that no - they hadn't. In fact, they were now middle-aged has-beens, and the end of the second movie wasn't the end of their story. What makes Face the Music work is how effortlessly Winter and Reeves fall back into these characters again. They're still earnest, likable, and somewhat daft (perhaps naive is a better word), but - and this is the important part - they've grown. They've been trying desperately for the past 25 years to write the song that would unite the world, and they've worked hard at it too. They've learned all about music, released album after album, and raised their daughters to have that same passion for music. It feels honest - that these two characters really are the same ones from decades earlier, but they haven't stagnated. The movie doesn't try to make time stand still (pun intended) and keep these characters stuck in the past. They've been trying their best. Older, wiser, but still unmistakably Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted's two daughters (Brigette Lundy-Paine and Samara Weaving) are fun to watch interacting with their dads, with Lundy-Paine particularly doing a most excellent job of picking up Reeves' mannerisms. William Sadler makes a welcomed return as Death and falls right back into character. Several other characters from the first two films also return (although a few were re-cast) and really help this feel like a continuation of the original films. A fun new addition to the cast is robot from the future played by Anthony Carrigan. As weird as the universe of Bill & Ted has become, he fits right in. The film revisits some of the tropes from the first two films, but without merely repeating them. The humor and writing style picks up right where the previous films left off, and the whole film feels very much like it belongs with the first two (it helps that the original writers from the first two movies were behind this one as well). The writers, cast and crew clearly had fun making this. Kudos especially to Reeves for being willing to step back into the role when he's become one of the biggest action movie stars in the world. He really didn't have to do this for any other reason than for the fun of it. Clips shown during the end credits tie the movie into how people from all across the world are using the internet to collaborate musically during the pandemic. It was genuinely (and surprisingly) emotional and is actually my favorite part of the film. (And yes... there's a post-credits scene too. Stick around, or fast forward, for that.) Since I didn't own the first two films in HD (only DVD for the first film), I bought all three on iTunes for only $30. That's about what it would cost to go to a nice theater (with snacks) to see just one movie, so it was definitely worth it, especially to re-watch the first two films again before seeing this one. Bonus features are minimal. Bill & Ted Face the Music is fun, light, and heartfelt entertainment. If you liked the first two films, you'll enjoy this one. It's not as good as the first, but better than the second, and it does a most excellent job of concluding the trilogy. And right now, in the midst of 2020, you can do far worse than that. Bill & Ted Face the Music gets a most non-heinous 7/10. Be excellent to each other!

SOLD! I have 4 Philips CD-I movies for sale. I picked these up new maybe 25 years ago? in one of the music & movie stores I worked when when they went out of business. I've never had a CD-I and have only ever played them a few times via computer. $20 shipped in the continental US.

SOLD! I got all these DVDs with a large lot of stuff. The three large stacks (with just over 100 movies) all have the correct DVD in them. Condition varies and many of them are previous rentals. The short all has cases with discs other than the ones that belong in them but I'll include them in case there is anything you find interesting. Shipping shouldn't be too much since these can be shipped with media mail.

Ten pounds of Bantha poodoo in a five pound bag. Okay, that's not quite the adage, but you get the idea. Anyway, now you don't have to read the rest of the review! You're welcome! But in case you're still here... When I first heard JJ Abrams would be directing Star Wars: Episode IX, I cringed. JJ Abrams is a lazy writer who substitutes hare-brained McGuffins for coherent plots and character development, and who has a complete disregard and profound lack of understanding for established rules of pre-existing movie franchises. If this wasn't already evident in the first two Star Trek movies with their abysmally drab characterizations and idiotic plot devices like Red Matter and interplanetary transporter backpacks, then it should've been hammered home with Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Even though I largely gave that movie a passing grade the first time I saw it, the ridiculousness of the sun-sucking Starkiller Base and JJ's other tropes effectively ruined it for repeat viewings. It still has entertaining moments, but as a whole, the movie just falls flat. I don't watch it when it comes on TV, or go out of my way to watch it on iTunes. The movie is too self-consciously a movie, and not a story that I can lose myself in. Episode VIII: The Last Jedi was far more divisive, with some fans hating the characterization of Luke Skywalker. That didn't bother me, since I liked seeing him in the state of a fallen icon, because it's when heroes are at their lowest that they can then rise to their highest. Far more annoying was the time wasted on the Casino planet, and most critically, director Rian Johnson's utter lack of regard for what happened in the previous film. "Wait," you say, "I thought you didn't like JJ's film?" Well, I didn't hate it. I just thought it was largely unimaginative and unoriginal. But it did set up new characters and situations: Rey, Ren, Snoke, the First Order, and left mysteries in place that at the time felt like there was a clear payoff ahead for. But with Episode VIII, that all went out the window. Snoke was dead, Rey was a nobody, Kylo was maybe not-so-bad for awhile, but then he was again, then Luke was dead (as dead as Jedis get anyway), and you could now use the Force for unlimited long-distance calling. So now there was clearly a new purpose behind all of this, right? Maybe? Well, who knows? We certainly won't. Because under Disney, the Skywalker saga is a rudderless ship. I detested the prequels. I think they're all terrible films (in all fairness, it's mostly just the acting, writing, directing and horribly racist stereotypes... otherwise they're fine). But here's the thing - at least they were on a clear path. Whether you liked that path or not, George had a plan and he stuck to it. Conversely, the postquels (has anyone coined that word yet? Because I should totally trademark that. Shoot. Maybe next time.) have no oversight. No overarching plan. No goal. It's just, "Hey JJ, make a Star Wars movie." "Hey Rian, make a Star Wars movie." "Hey Colin, make a Star Wars movie. Never mind, you're fired." "Hey JJ, make another Star Wars movie." And so it goes with Episode IX. JJ came in, ignored what Rian did, retconned a bunch of story and character arcs, and came up with another derivative retread that felt more like something made by a fanboy, or a four-year-old playing with his action figures - (breathlessly) "then Rey goes here and does this, an' then Poe does this, an' then the Millennium Falcon goes 'swoosh!!' an' saves everyone, an' then Kylo Ren gets mad, an' then they go here an' there's sand everywhere, an' then the Force does this, an' then they meet this girl, an' then they go here, an' then the bad guys do this..." etc. If you've watched little kids play, you get the idea. Now, do that for 2 1/2 hours, and that's this movie. JJ tried to cram at least two movies worth of stuff into this film. Much of which, and I do mean much, could've easily been left out. Do we really care about Poe and Finn? No. This is Rey's story. Or it should be. A friend and I tried to recount the film just after having seen it, and it was hard for us to piece it back together. The pacing is hyperactive. There's no time to get involved with the characters, or dwell on anything that's happening. None of it feels like it has any weight or consequence to it. This is an overstuffed, discombobulated mess. That may be the first time I've used "discombobulated" in this blog. I like saying that word. "Discombobulated." I should use it more. Maybe I have, but the blog software is so discombobulated right now, I doubt it would return it in a search. I like the word "pusillanimous" too. But I've been afraid to use it. Anyway... And then there are JJ's other problems. For one, his complete lack of originality or respect for the source material. He blatantly rips off the ending of yet another Star Wars film. Goes to yet another desert planet. Revisits the remains of the Death Star II. Dredges up old characters instead of creating a new threat, and as a friend of mine pointed out, actually ends up invalidating the Rebel Alliance's victory over the Empire. Guess what? The end of Return of the Jedi was all meaningless, suckers! Then, of course, you have his McGuffins. Ugh. Please, someone stop JJ from writing anymore science fiction, ever again. How do I put this without spoilers? Well, remember Starkiller Base, and how derivative that was of the Death Star? Remember how it needed the power of an entire sun, and was the size of a planet? In Star Wars, blowing up entire planets is a big deal, and you just can't do that all willy-nilly, right? Well... And then there's the Force. JJ started us on a slippery slope with Kylo Ren Force-stopping laser bolts in mid-air, and Force mind-reading, and so on. And then Rian Johnson came in and doubled down with Force projection, and Force touching, and Force space-floating-in-a-vacuum, and people got all up-in-arms about it. Well, JJ apparently wanted to actually make an Avengers movie instead of Star Wars this time, because in Episode IX he uses the Force as one-stop shopping for all sorts of ridiculous super-abilities that takes Star Wars completely off the rails. If any of it ever gets explained in the film, it's only through the briefest, throwaway lines of dialog that if you blink, you'll miss. JJ uses the Force as a crutch to get out of story situations caused by lazy writing. It's his Red Matter for Star Wars. Then we have Carrie Fisher. I was saddened by her passing. (I had a huge crush on her when I was a kid.) When JJ said they were going to repurpose unused footage of her to add her to the film, I was skeptical. It works about as well as you'd expect. Her lines are vague enough to be shoehorned into the story, but there's little substance to it. There wasn't really enough to fully tell her story in-depth, and knowing how they added her in only called more attention to it and took me out of the movie. And as for the "we won't use CGI to bring her back" promise? Bunk. Maybe the biggest issue with Episode IX is that in the end, it feels of no consequence. I felt no investment in the story, nor in the characters. The Resistance, the First Order - none of it ever felt like it had been explained, and there never was a sense of history or importance to them. In the original Star Wars, there was an evil Galactic Empire, and a small group of Rebels fighting for freedom. We got that in the opening paragraph and understood it immediately. Empire. Check! Rebels. Check! But in this trilogy, there's a Republic, a First Order, a Resistance, and you don't know who came first, how they rose to power, who has the most power, or why. And this is important, since we're invested in an entire galactic history by this point. And here again in Episode IX, so much (and I mean a massive amount) remains unexplained, I just couldn't buy into it. "Really, all that happened? And where did they get all of those matching bathrobes? Sure, whatever." Finally, they threw up so many red herrings in the film like, "Oh, we're going to do this to so-and-so now! Just kidding, now we're undoing it!" that after awhile none of it had any meaning. Nobody or any of their actions really mattered anymore, and I didn't care about who made it through or what was going to happen in the end. There was also a ridiculous amount of pandering to the fans (I'm going to call it "fandering". That one's original, right? Shoot.) to the point of distraction, where you're aware you're being force-fed Star Wars tropes, rather than being allowed to get immersed in a story, or be captivated by characters. In the end it all felt... pointless. (And besides, JJ totally missed an opportunity to bring back Koo Stark. If you're going to pander to fans, how can you miss that one? Pffft.) Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker is a disjointed, disconnected, cluttered mess. It's ten pounds of Bantha poodoo stuffed in a five pound bag. And it's recycled poodoo at that. It's an unsatisfying way to "end" the Skywalker saga, and more to the point, it all just felt like none of it really mattered. Sure there were a few moments of fun, and a few fan moments that connected with me, but it was all so contrived that it never felt genuine. The audience reactions were manipulated, not earned. The theater I was at was full, but there weren't any roaring cheers or spontaneous applause. That said, the movie wasn't prequel-level bad, it was just kind of... there. Uninspiring, unfocused, and inconsequential. I guess it's just as well the Skywalker saga is now over, because I'm now over the Skywalker saga. I wonder what George would've done... Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker gets 5/10. A half-bag worth of Bantha poodoo.

Well, that was weird. No, not the movie. My last blog post. Well, not the post, but the way it got posted. It used to be, that when you posted a new blog entry, it would move to the top of the main blog page. But mine didn't. It stayed down at the bottom, right below Eric Ball's latest entry: The weird thing is, I posted my entry on August 10: And Eric had posted his on July 10: And uh... Wait. Why did the blog software make that graphic so big? It's huge!! Give me a minute here. (Several annoying minutes and edits later...) Okay. So, one of the things I hate about high resolution monitors, is that everything arbitrarily scales things to the size they think they "should" be. This includes screenshots in whatever Apple OS I'm using this week. It used to be a pixel was a pixel. Now you're just guessing at what size things may or may not display at. And this brings up another problem with Invision's lousy blog software (in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, hang in there a minute...). You see, for the most part, I link directly to image files I use in my blog, rather than uploading them. This way I can simply replace files in my FTP folder when I want to update something. But not anymore. Now, Invision's stupid blog software cache's its own local version of a linked file. So when I upload a new one, it doesn't change. And it's not my browser cache either, because I cleared that. And I also confirmed this in another browser that I hadn't even logged into AtariAge with. If this looks twice as large as the other one, then you're seeing Invision's stupid caching: Because if you open the actual image link in another window, you'll see the actual size of the file: http://cheeptech.com/misc/blog_pics/july-10.jpg (Here's a screenshot, since this will probably eventually be fixed accidentally by Invision or the cache will randomly expire): In order to update the screenshot to the smaller version, I had to rename, re-upload and replace it. That completely defeats the purpose of linking to the FILE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! (sigh) Yeah, I'm on another Invision rant. You may have missed the last one, because instead of putting that blog entry at the top, it buried it amongst the older entries. Like I was mentioning before. That entry, by the way, was a movie review. But it devolved into a rant about Invision's stupid blog software. But clearly, Invision doesn't care about blogs, because they've now been relegated to a submenu under Apps, rather than having their own link. Thanks, Invision. So, why did my other post get posted out-of-order? Well, if I had to guess, it was probably because I didn't click "Immediately" for "Publish Time". I had saved it while working on it, so the time stamp was a little bit earlier than "Immediately" would've been. Since the blogs no longer list when entries were actually posted, but just show "Latest", I'm guessing the time stamp is screwed-up, or missing, or whatever. So this time, I'll click "Immediately" and see what happens. Why not? should be fun. Anyway, onto the movie review. As with Spider-Man: Far From Home, I actually saw this a few weeks ago while on vacation, but never got around to typing up a review for it. Actually though, I never planned on seeing it in the first place. You see, I'm kind of done with Pixar. And Toy Story. I'm just tired of them. When I saw Toy Story 3, I really, really liked it and... WHAT IS A WEB BROWSER POLL DOING IN MY TOY STORY 3 MOVIE REVIEW?!?! WHAT THE INVISION IS GOING ON HERE?!?!? I did NOT put that in there. Now admittedly, that would've been a pretty funny joke. But I have no idea where that came from!!! Wow. Maybe I need to move my blog. MySpace is still a thing, right? Sheesh. Okay... let's try and finish this. So, I really liked Toy Story 3 when I saw it in theaters. But the weird thing is, I never re-watched it. Whenever it comes on TV, I avoid it. Not ignore - avoid. Why? Well, I'm just kind of tired of those characters. Oversaturated with them. And the movie, while it does have some really funny moments, in hindsight the emotional stuff is all a bit cloying and manipulative now. I still think Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are really good movies (although they're starting to look pretty dated now), but that's because they were still exploring new ideas. But with Toy Story 3, it was the whole unloved/lost/abandoned/Woody-is-all-angsty toy schtick again. But it closed out the series, and that was fine. The toys were in good hands, happy ending, the end. Of course, Disney wasn't going to let it end there. They became sequel-happy. And the sequels have been ridiculously successful, with Toy Story 3, Incredibles 2, and Finding Dory each earning over $1 billion worldwide. In fact, now including Toy Story 4, the only Pixar movies that have cleared a billion dollars worldwide have been sequels. Sure, Pixar has recently said that they won't be doing any more sequels, but don't you believe it. I never bothered seeing Cars 3 or Finding Dory, but even beyond the sequels, I've grown weary of Pixar's original films as well. The Good Dinosaur was a train wreck, Inside Out did nothing for me (and I've never re-watched it), and I didn't think much of Coco either and... wait, WHY IS THERE A YOUTUBE VIDEO IN THE MIDDLE OF MY COCO REVIEW?!?! Oh right... that used to be a link, and Invision arbitrarily decided to turn it into an embedded video. Idiots. You know, writing movie reviews didn't used to be this difficult. Anyway, so... I'm tired of Toy Story, Pixar, blah, blah, blah. But we needed something to go see during vacation, and there was nothing else in the theaters worth seeing (I'd already seen Spider-Man), so we figured Toy Story 4 was well-reviewed enough to justify seeing. And it was okay. It was well-animated. Had some funny scenes. And the new characters: Forky, Ducky and Bunny really need to get their own road-trip movie. Seriously - I'd pay good money to see that. But I'm just tired of Woody and his endlessly repeating need to re-learn some valuable life lesson. It's just worn thin. To the writers' credit, they did come up with an interesting take on the whole "lost toy" idea, but by far the most interesting character in the film was Forky, and they didn't spend nearly enough time delving into what makes him tick. They touch on it here and there, and it makes for some of the best scenes in the film (including a scene during the credits that's almost worth the price of admission), but just as they get into it, it becomes about Woody again. As for the rest of the Toy Story characters, they were effectively relegated to support roles, when they showed up at all. And yes, that includes Buzz. In Toy Story 3, his gimmick was that he was reset and spoke Spanish. In this one, he has another gimmick related to his digitized voice, and given how long the character has been around, it seems he's actually regressed in this film, from where we would expect him to be. They did bring back Bo Peep who had been missing after Toy Story 2, and we get to find out a little bit about what she's been up to. But again, this is Woody's film, and even her story becomes about him. So while she probably has a really interesting story to tell, it becomes more about his reactions to where she is now, than giving her the center stage. It almost seems a little like they're pandering to girls in the audience, without really following through with the character in any meaningful way. Speaking of pandering, that's the only way I can describe the ending of the villain's story in this film. It was shlocky and lazy. It's like someone saw an early Pixar movie, and decided they wanted to copy the feeling they got from watching it without understanding how it was accomplished. As an aside, there was just some weird stuff in this movie, too. Previously, the toys didn't impact the world around them much or interact with people directly (except Woody's line to Sid at the end of the first film), and the movie even alludes to those being rules that aren't allowed to be broken in a couple of really funny scenes with Ducky and Bunny. But then near the end of the film, the toys completely throw those rules out the window in a really big way. It just doesn't fit in with the established Toy Story universe, and it seems like a lazy solution to a story problem the writers found themselves in. Toy Story 4 would've been a better film if it were used as a vehicle to pass the torch to the next generation of characters (as mentioned, Forky, Ducky and Bunny were standouts), but this was more like Toy Story 2.5, than Toy Story 4. It's not that it's a bad film, but it missed its best opportunities to be something new and different. Toy Story 4 gets a 6/10. But in hindsight, I'll probably look back at it and think I should've given it a 4 or 5. That always happens when I go back and look at old movie reviews. I often score a movie I've seen in the theater higher than I otherwise would, probably because the theatrical experience enhances my perception of the film. Maybe having waited a few weeks to write this review will have tempered that somewhat, but these are pretty-much the thoughts I had when I was leaving the theater. Maybe 5.5 would be better.

I saw Spider-Man: Far From Home a couple of weeks ago while on vacation, but since I was on vacation, I didn't feel like typing up a review at the time. I had other, vacation-y things to do. Also, while I think the forum changes at AtariAge have been a welcomed and much needed upgrade, I don't care for the changes in the blogs at all. In fact, I've all-but stopped visiting the blogs. The main page is a cluttered mess with banners that should be hidden unless you want to view them, and there's a complete lack of separation between different blogs so they're all lumped together. In individual blog indices there's no apparent way to view entries as straightforward lists rather than as yet-more banner-clogged grids (banners should be shut off by default unless a blog author wants to add them.) Worst though, is a complete lack of support for categories or tags, which makes finding things a chore, if not impossible. From a blogger's standpoint, when creating new entries, I can't match pre-existing tags if they were capitalized before (it forces lowercase), so clicking on any new entry tags as a means of searching brings up nothing from before the upgrade (excuse me Invision for choosing not to be net-illiterate). Try it with this entry. Click on the orange "movies" button near the title, and see what shows up. Then, click on this link instead. Consequently, I can't say I've had much interest in continuing to post things in my blog, knowing that the work I've done to try and organize it into useful categories is now all for naught. And if I don't want to slog through my own blog indices to find posts, I can't see why anyone else would want to. So for the moment, I don't have a lot of motivation for continuing with Artie the Atari, Homebreviews, New Old Music, WRC updates, Homebrew Art or other ongoing series of posts here, at least not until the blogs get the same sort of usability overhaul the rest of the forums have seen. Right now - I can't even effectively search through my own blog to find entries that I know exist. But given that blogs have always been Invision's unloved stepchild, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. (I should note, none of this vitriol is directed at Albert - the forums desperately needed an upgrade, and he's been swamped with the massive undertaking of making all of that work. He can't be expected to single-handedly fix everything Invision stupidly broke.) But anyway, I did see a couple of movies recently, so I'll go ahead and review them. As for the rest of this blog, we'll just have to see. It could be I'm just mired in post-vacation doldrums right now... Spider-Man: Far From Home follows the events of Avengers: Endgame eight months later, and does a pretty good job of showing some of the aftermath of the events of that movie. Although frankly, everyone seems a bit too chill (as the kids say) given everything that's happened, and the world all seems a bit too back-to-normal, given that half of its entire population disappeared for five years, and that there have now been three alien attacks on Earth (Avengers, Avengers: Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame). But from a story-telling standpoint, at some point you kind-of have to put the world back together and just get on with things. That's how comic books work. That's a bit of a minor complaint though, since I really liked Far From Home. As with the best Spider-Man stories, the focus is on Peter Parker and Tom Holland does his best work to date with the character here. This is what really set Stan Lee's approach apart - he made the characters interesting, not just their superpowers. Peter is still clearly a high-schooler, dealing with high-school things. Notably, his growing crush on MJ (wonderfully played here by Zendaya again). That's the foremost thing on Peter's mind throughout the film. Yes - there's a major threat in the film to be dealt with, and he's trying to find his footing in the aftermath of Endgame, but he can't get his mind off of MJ. He has the weight of his responsibilities of Spider-Man to balance with just wanting to be a teenager. Sometimes you want the weight of those responsibilities to just go away. It's very human, very relatable, and makes for a very compelling, engaging, likable character. Classic Spider-Man. The film is well-written and acted throughout, with a lot of moments that are genuinely funny, some that are touching and sweet, and some that are very intense and powerful. The action sequences work really well, and touch on Spider-Man's ability to find his own way to deal with villains who seem to have him at a disadvantage. The special effects are generally top-notch throughout with only a few "eh, that could've been better" moments (when you farm out special effects to that many companies, you'll never get 100%; even watching Avengers: Endgame on iTunes the other night, there was some pretty chintzy CG that jumped out at me that I missed in the theater). So from a Spider-Man standpoint, a Peter Parker standpoint, and a character standpoint, Far From Home is excellent. And that includes Jake Gyllenhaal who does a great job as Mysterio (and kudos to the costume designers who nailed his comic book look without making it look goofy and stupid). Which brings up the one problem I had with the film. If you know about Mysterio from the comics, then the film is a bit predictable. If you don't, you'll be fine. Still, despite that, I really enjoyed the film. I thought they nailed the feel of Spider-Man as a teenager, and what makes him a hero. Sure, action sequences and special effects are great, but the best superhero films are about the characters and their journeys. The Marvel/Sony Spider-Man deal apparently has one more film left to go (and the mid-credits scene definitely sets that up in a classic Spider-Man way). I really hope they extend their deal beyond that. I want to see this Spider-Man continue. There are a lot of stories left to tell. C'mon Disney - you have all the money in the world now. Just throw several billion dollars at Sony and buy the rest of your characters back already. Spider-Man: Far From Home gets an 8.5/10

If you go to the theater late enough at night... you can still get tickets to Avengers: Endgame. Which I did - going to a 10:45 PM showing last night. Mainly because I wanted to avoid spoilers, and the way articles and videos were popping up all over the internet about the movie, I figured time was running out. (I even ran across what turned out to be an incorrect spoiler watching a ZeroPage Twitch stream the other week. So nowhere is safe. Idiots who think they're funny or just want to ruin the film for others abound on the internet.) Also, my internal clock is all messed up from work, so being up until 3 AM is kind-of unavoidable at the moment. But that's another blog entry for another time. (But if you want a hint... it's this time of year again.) Anyway, onto the movie review. And just fair warning: there won't be much to it. Because while I'd like to describe it more, I don't want to risk giving anything away. Even minor things that might detract from some of the many fun, satisfying moments in this movie. It should come as no spoiler by now that Endgame is intended to be the conclusion to the storyline that has weaved through the MCU movies since the first Iron Man film, which kicked the whole thing off 11 years ago. And the only thing I could think of at first when writing this review was just to type "wow" over and over again. Because that was my response watching the movie. I'm glad I went in with no spoilers, because even though there are some sort-of vague hints that can be gleaned about what maybe the movie is about, I really had no idea where they were going with it, basically right from the first few minutes. And that kept up through the whole film, right through to the end. Even things I suspected might be coming, were so well done, that I was still fully swept up in it anyway. For me, this film hit all the right notes. Humor, emotion, action, and payoff. And the scale of it at times is... incredible. It makes Infinity War pale in comparison. This is a blockbuster, summer, popcorn movie, full stop. This is the popcorn movie. The Russo brothers were asked to describe it in one word, and they said, "cathartic". Yeah, that works. I'd go with "satisfying". If I were to sum it up in a sentence, it would be: What a journey. Now, did I like everything about it? Well, maybe not everything. And also there were some characters I'd like to have seen more of. But the core Avengers all got their moments to really shine here, and in that regards it was completely satisfying. If you've seen and liked any of the MCU movies, you need to go see this. Now, if you think too hard about some elements of the plot, your brain will probably break. But really, this is the kind of movie where you go and shut off the analytical part of your brain, and just go enjoy it. I'll give you one minor semi-spoiler of sorts, since it doesn't actually tell you anything about the movie itself: I really, thoroughly enjoyed this movie, on many levels. It's a love-letter to comic books, and superheroes, and everything that makes them amazing and wonderful. I haven't had a movie experience quite like this since Mad Max: Fury Road. So that being the case... Avengers: Endgame gets an 11/10. Go see it. Before someone spoils it for you. And since this seems an appropriate place for them, here are links to my previous MCU movie reviews. I've been at this for awhile now (I never did review Thor: The Dark World though): Summer Full 'o Movies pt. 2 - Iron Man Summer Full 'o Movies pt. 5 - The Incredible Hulk Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 2 - Iron Man 2 Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 3 - Thor Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 6 - Captain America (Marvel's) The Avengers - Spoiler-free review (first Spoiler-free movie review!) Iron Man 3 - Spoiler-free review Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Spoiler-free review Guardians of the Galaxy - Spoiler-free review Avengers: Age of Ultron - Spoiler-free movie review (plus free bonus rant!) Ant-Man - Spoiler-free movie review Captain America: Civil War - Spoiler-free movie review Doctor Strange - Spoiler-free movie review Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Spoiler-free review Spider-Man: Homecoming - Spoiler-free review Thor: Ragnarok - Spoiler-free review Black Panther - Spoiler-free review Avengers: Infinity War - Spoiler-free review Ant-Man and The Wasp - Spoiler-free review Captain Marvel - Spoiler-free review

Marvel has a knack for making superhero movies. And by knack, I mean they've pretty-much got it figured out. Of course, when you think about it, they probably should by now. But nothing is a given. I should note here I'm talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies, not Marvel movies made by Sony or 20th Century Fox. Those have been, at best, inconsistent. If you think about how many truly bad superhero movies there are out there, it's impressive that Marvel Studios really hasn't had any outright bombs. No Catwoman. No Elektra. No Batman and Robin. No Spider-Man 3. No Green Lantern. No Fantastic Four. No Fant4stic Four. They haven't had anything that I'd classify as "awful". For as many films as they've done, that's impressive. Sure, some have been just "meh" (Thor: The Dark World, I'm looking at you), and some may have not performed spectacularly at the box office (Ant-Man and a few others), but they've still all made money, and they all have one other thing in common: despite their flaws, they all have at least some compelling, likable characters in them. I think this is what separates Marvel's movies from DC's, and is what separated what Stan Lee did in the early 60's, from what other comic books were doing at the time. Make the characters behind the heroes compelling and interesting first, then what they do as a hero will follow suit. With the Aquaman and Wonder Woman movies, DC got it right. They made the characters interesting: who they were, their personalities, their stories. They got the casting right, and wrote the characters behind the superheroics in such a way that we could relate to them and like them. To some degree, they did this with the Flash in Justice League as well, but so far they've failed to make either Superman or Batman likable, because neither Clark Kent nor Bruce Wayne is particularly likable. That doesn't mean they have to be without flaws - Tony Stark is a very flawed character, but ultimately, Stark is redeemable, relatable, and chooses to be a hero for the right reasons. The fact that he's Iron Man is secondary to who he really is as Tony Stark. Where DC has gone wrong is that Batman is an unlikable jerk, because that's what Bruce Wayne is. Superman is distant, aloof and unrelatable because that's what Clark Kent is. It's how they're written, casted and acted. Oh yeah... and they kill people, too, which is counter to who they're supposed to be at their cores. Sure, it was cool watching Batman beat up a room full of henchmen in Batman vs. Superman, but one cool scene does not a good character make. In the comics, Batman is already a great character. So is Superman. They've been great onscreen at times, too. Batman: The Animated Series is still the high-water mark for Batman, and Christopher Reeves is still the definitive Superman. When it was recently (finally) announced that Ben Affleck was done as Batman, I was glad to hear it. Hopefully they can reboot the character and do it right this time. I'm hoping DC will recast Superman, too. DC has the ability to make great superhero films. They have the iconic characters to do it with. They just need to stop overthinking it, and go back to who the characters are, and why they're compelling and have been for some 80 years now. Stop trying to "make a blockbuster". Just tell good stories. The rest will follow. Right. So what does this have to do with Captain Marvel? Well, I didn't know much about the character going into the movie. I knew a little bit about her from when I collected comics, back when she was Ms. Marvel, and (a pre-X-Men) Rogue stole her powers and memories. At that point Carol Danvers became just sort of on the periphery of mainstream comics. She became Binary for awhile, with the powers apparently of 1's and 0's. Or a binary star. Something like that. Anyway, the name Captain Marvel belonged to a completely different character then. By the time Carol Danvers became Captain Marvel, I had long since stopped reading comics. I would suspect also, that outside of regular comic book readers, few people knew of her, even though she had become a very popular character in recent years. For me, the same had applied to a number of other Marvel characters. I had only passing familiarity with Dr. Strange, even less with Black Panther, and absolutely none with Guardians of the Galaxy. But all of those movies managed to draw me in, and made me interested in those characters. This is what Marvel has done so effectively since Iron Man. When the MCU started, those characters were the leftovers they had after selling off all of their most valuable characters to other studios. Hard to believe that now, given the success of the movies. Harder still to believe, is that there have been over 20 of these movies. So, as with other Marvel movies before it, last Monday I went to see Captain Marvel without any real expectations. Besides my unfamiliarity with the character, the trailers didn't really do much to convey her personality. It wasn't until I saw Brie Larson in several interviews that I got a sense of her own personality and humor, and began to see the potential in what her character might be. She was engaging, sincere, and genuinely funny. Especially when she teamed up with Samuel L. Jackson during their press junket. The two of them clearly have a lot of fun together. That relationship shows through brilliantly in the movie, too. They have a fun, natural chemistry together. It's almost a buddy movie when the two of them are onscreen. But make no mistake - this is Brie Larson's movie, and she's a, well... a Marvel. I really enjoyed watching Larson in this movie - a lot. Clearly, she had fun making it. But also, she clearly put an incredible amount of effort and dedication into the role. The emotional intensity she brings to the screen, the physicality, and the humanity all really make her character compelling (there's that word again), likable, and heroic. Marvel doing what Marvel does best: good characters, good casting, good acting and directing. And obviously, despite some trolling, audiences have caught on. Earning over $500,000,000 in less than one week, the score is: Captain Marvel 1, Internet Trolls 0. The rest of the cast is on point as well, but the standout is Jackson. He's playing a much younger Nick Fury here, early in his S.H.I.E.L.D. career (ca. 1995), less world-weary, and learning of all of this superhero and space alien stuff for the first time. It's a great, fresh take on a familiar character, and a lot of fun to watch. And this has to be said: the de-aging used on him in this film is seamless. I was going to use some other superlative like "incredible" or "astounding" but that makes it seem like it was something that was amazing to watch, and that's just the point - it wasn't. It was just... seamless. He never looked weird, or off-putting, or anything. He was just a younger Samuel L. Jackson. Now, admittedly, for someone in his 70's, he looks pretty ageless anyway, so I'm sure that helped. But in a film packed with all sorts of big-budget effects, the one that was just there and didn't draw any attention to itself was the most impressive. Another impressive effect were the Skrulls. Shape-shifters have been in science fiction for decades. But usually, that effect is done with a "morphing" effect, or something which doesn't really show how they actually change shapes. The closest to doing that is probably Mystique in the X-Men movies, but even that is a bit more sleight-of-hand. For the Skrulls though - when you see them shape-shifting close up, you can see them... well, sort of turning their skin inside-out. It looks like a biological (and not at all comfortable) process, and is the most effective way I've seen of doing this sort of thing. It's really cool, because it adds a new level of believability to an old trope. The effects throughout the film are excellent, which by now you almost just expect going into these films. There may have been one or two things which could've been done better, but nothing that was distracting, and no film is perfect anyway. Although one thing which has bugged me for years, and continues to bug me: colored contact lenses. Yeah... it makes someone look like an alien if they have yellow irises. But the problem is that a real iris is nearly flat and behind the cornea, and a contact lens is convex and sits on the surface of the cornea. The end result is that the eye never looks right - the iris and pupil sit on the surface of the eye, and light hits it completely wrong. It would look better to digitally recolor the irises instead. It'd be more expensive, but it would look more believable. There are some fun action sequences throughout the film - fights, chases, and a particularly excellent escape sequence where we get an early glimpse of how fierce and resourceful Captain Marvel can be. Throughout it all, there's just the right mix of humor, and the chemistry between Larson and Jackson is always fun to watch. Oh, and there's a cat in the movie, too. I understand that people like cats. The movie is replete with 90's references, and there are a lot of in-jokes, period music and details for audiences to appreciate (although it's weird to think of a movie set in the 90's as being a period piece...). There's a particularly moving tribute to Stan Lee as well. Excelsior, Stan! The overall plot of the movie probably isn't anything groundbreaking, although there are a few welcomed twists to it. But the real heart of the film is about Carol Danvers. Watching her story unfold, seeing her discover who she is, and who she becomes. Again, Marvel comics, and the best of their movies, are about the characters, and they really deliver here. I had fun watching this movie, and am considering seeing it again in the theaters (which I rarely do). Especially in contrast to some of the heavier Marvel films, it's nice to watch something that's fun and uplifting. Again, Marvel has a knack for these films, and a large part of that is how diverse they make them. From a World War II movie to an espionage thriller, from a science fiction romp to a heist comedy, from the craziness of Thor: Ragnarok to the drama of Avengers: Infinity War, and now a 90's-era alien invasion flick. Take notes, DC - I'm hoping the rumors are true, and the next Batman film will focus on him as the world's greatest detective. For now, I'm really looking forward to seeing Captain Marvel again in Avengers: Endgame. I really liked Captain Marvel. I got lost in the entertainment of it, and the strength and appeal of the lead characters proved Marvel hasn't lost its touch. Some elements of the story were a little predictable, but I still enjoyed watching it all unfold. There are a lot of people out there who are happy to see Captain Marvel because it's the first Marvel movie with a female superhero in the lead role; and given the wealth of strong female characters in Marvel's pantheon, it's certainly overdue. But I liked Captain Marvel because it was a fun movie with great characters. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be the success that it is. And as long as they keep churning these out, I'll go see 'em. Captain Marvel gets a 9/10. Get an extra-large popcorn. And be sure to stay through the end credits.

Okay, everybody sing the ! Aquaman, Aquaman, Does whatever a tuna can. Swims around, talks to fish When he walks, his feet squish Look out! Here's comes the Aquaman! Is he strong? Probably But he has to swim through fish pee Can he ride a seahorse? No he can't, they're too small. Hey there – There goes the Aquaman In the ocean deep If a boat is around When they fall overboard He'll make sure they don't drown Aquaman, Aquaman It's green-tights-wearing Aquaman Not first choice in a jam Unless your foe is clam Oh yeah - he has a magic spear, oh, You're favorite fourth-string hero Here comes the Aquaman! Pretty sure that's how it goes. A couple of weeks ago I went to see Aquaman. I didn't have a lot of interest in the movie when it was announced, because, well, DC films are usually pretty awful (except for Wonder Woman). But one of the few bright spots in Justice League was watching the fun Jason Momoa was clearly having as Aquaman. Rather than being the punching bag of Robot Chicken, (let's face it, the 70's animated Aquaman was the sea-themed TV superhero ever), this Aquaman was fast, powerful, funny, and kicked butt. But would that character translate to a solo feature film? After all, the CEO of Warner Bros. once said, "...the worlds of DC are very different... they're steeped in realism, and they're a little bit edgier than Marvel's movies." Yeah... like that worked. Well, if there's one thing that can be said about Aquaman, is that it's a movie not steeped in realism. Somewhere along the line, the filmmakers probably came to the conclusion that the idea of "realism" and "vast undersea empires that nobody on the surface has any idea they exist" probably didn't mesh all that well. Aquaman is a bonkers movie. It doesn't even pretend to be realistic. It's not so much that it doesn't care, but rather it goes out of its way to be ridiculous. This is fantasy. It's a comic book brought to life with no regard for realism at all because there's nothing realistic about the subject matter. Even for comic books the whole premise is silly. Early in the film Aquaman rescues a sinking sub by swimming under it, and pushing it up out of the water. Somehow. Nuclear subs displace on the order of 48,000 tons of water. But that's no problem for Aquaman - he just pushes on it, and up it goes. His hands should just punch through the hull. I don't even think he kicks his feet when he swims. Maybe he's psionically making the water around him do all the work. But it really doesn't matter how his powers work, because the movie just lays it out there, and expects you to accept it. If you're onboard with that, then you'll probably be onboard with the rest of the movie. After all, nobody asks how Superman flies. I should emphasize that this isn't a criticism of the film... it's merely a fact. That's what the film is. This is the universe it presents, and those are the rules that apply within it. Only the flimsiest of explanations are given for why things happen. Atlanteans can breath water, because a thing happened. Atlantis collapsed, because a thing happened. Aquaman has a magic trident, because it's a magic trident. In a way, this film is a bit like Thor in that we're given this preposterous world populated with preposterous beings, and that's just the way it is. And to the filmmakers' credit, once they establish how this world works, as wacky as it is, they're consistent with it. It's hard to break rules when you don't have any. Fortunately, Aquaman is so bonkers that it's an entertaining movie. Again, Jason Momoa is a lot of fun to watch. The visual effects are crazy. The sea creatures are insane. The scale of the battles is epic. The costumes are ridiculous. Amber Heard looks like Mrs. Ronald McDonald. The action scenes aren't just over the top, they're over over the top. It's funny, it's silly, it's ludicrous. But it's a fun ride. The story? Inconsequential. The villains? Forgettable. There is no logic to anything that happens in the film. But if you go into the theater with the attitude of just wanting to watch a movie for the sake of watching a movie, you'll do just fine. It unashamedly rips off more films than I was able to count: Star Wars (pick any of them), Tron, Close Encounters, 2001, Blade Runner, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws (all of them - or for that matter, any movie that's ever had a shark in it), probably every Marvel movie, and so many, many more. In a way, you're really getting your money's worth, because you get to see so many other films that they borrowed from. This is meant to be escapist entertainment, so don't expect anything particularly deep (pun intended ). Apart from pointing out how much humans pollute the oceans, there's little of substance here. Of course, rather than using their advanced technology to actually help humanity solve our problems, the Atlanteans stay hidden away in their vast, underwater cities complaining about it. Even at the end of the film, humans still don't believe Atlantis exists, despite everyone already having known about Aquaman because of the events in Justice League. None of it makes much sense, so just try not to think about it. Just enjoy the spectacle, because it has plenty of that. Aquaman is worth seeing in the theater, because of the scope and scale of everything. It's completely ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense. But that's okay, because it's a comic book movie, and it makes Aquaman a pretty cool character. Plus, based on the trailers, it's apparently setting us up for the new tone for the DC Universe: Wacky! Aquaman gets 7/10, because... why not? Now if they can just fix Batman and Superman. Does whatever a tuna can...get it? Tuna can! Sometimes, I crack me up.

When I first heard Sony was making an animated Spider-Man film, my first thought was, "Ugh. Really? Have they learned nothing from their past failures with Spider-Man? Why can't they just leave creative control of the character to Marvel, and take whatever money Marvel gives them?" Then, when I heard it would feature the Miles Morales version of the character (from the Ultimate Universe), I was even less interested. Even though I knew people really liked that character, I had stopped reading comics some 20 years before the character was created, so I had no connection to him. Peter Parker, as far as I was concerned, was Spider-Man. Then, after the second or so trailer, I thought, "This has a pretty cool look to it." Better than the typical animated comic book fare. Early positive reviews, and the fact that one of the co-directors is an alumnus from where I work, sold me on the idea of seeing it. So while I was on vacation over our winter break, I did. Now, I almost saw it in 3D. But 99% of the time, 3D is less-than-impressive to me. So since there were more 2D showings nearby, we saw it in 2D. In hindsight, maybe I should've seen it in 3D. But either way, I'm glad I saw it. Because Sony Pictures Animation (not to be confused with their live-action arm who made their other Spider-Man films), absolutely knocked it out-of-the-park. Into the Spider-Verse is a lot of fun. It also has totally unique, and at times breathtaking animation. It's visual style is incredible. It probably looks great in 3D. It's probably one of the few films that really could. The animation is difficult to describe - it's mostly CG animation, but with some traditional animation, and unique texture mapping that gives it a very distinct, illustrative look. This doesn't look like your typical rubbery/plasticky CG animation. This embraces its medium of origin: comic books. Not just embraces, but relishes, basks in, and fully celebrates comic books, using textures reminiscent of Ben Day dots, but in a way that works in CG, rather than on a flat, printed page. Besides the visual look, the animation itself is stunning. There's probably some performance capture mixed in there, but everything is so nicely stylized it never intrudes. There's also just some straight-up cartoony animation as well, and somehow, everything merges together into a cohesive whole. It's unlike any other animated film (or film, for that matter) that I've seen. Visuals are all well and good, but what makes this movie work, or outright shine, are the characters. Marvel made its name because when Stan Lee created characters, he brought to life characters that were interesting as people. Not just as superheroes. The people behind the masks made the characters compelling and relatable, and that's what Sony Pictures Animation has captured here so well. The film centers around Miles Morales and his origin as (one) Spider-Man, and if this is how his character is in the comic books, then I can see why people like him so much. He's his own Spider-Man, with his own family, backstory, issues, and apart from a similar set of powers, isn't derivative of Peter Parker's Spider-Man. They're as different as two characters, or two people, can be. Bound by a common accident, but otherwise completely different. The basic story of Into the Spider-Verse centers around Miles, and other Spider-characters (including Peter Parker's Spider-Man) who are brought together to fight a common foe (of course). Without going into detail, suffice it to say they're all very different characters than the Spider-Man you're used to. Some are more serious, some are played more for laughs, but each are entertaining and engaging in their own way. Stylistically, they're all very different too, as if the movie knows they were all pulled out of different genres of comic books, and is perfectly okay with that. The animation styles for each matches who they are. Given how different they are, it probably shouldn't work. In a live-action film it would be a hard sell. But in an animated film, you can get away with it. Everything is blended perfectly. Cartoons are a wonderful thing. There's great action, great humor, and genuine heartfelt moments. Some of the Spider-characters have less to do than others, but that's okay. The filmmakers knew who to focus on, and when. There's nothing wrong with having some comedy relief, and it's far better when a film like this uses it appropriately - as a break in the action, to lighten a moment, or just for sheer entertainment value - rather than overdoing it and detracting from a main character. Or worse still, using a sidekick as a crutch when the main characters are weak (I'm looking at you - Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, A Bug's Life, and more other animated films than I can count). The voice casting and acting throughout is excellent. There's not a weak link in the bunch (and Nicolas Cage was a particularly inspired choice). And the post-credits scene is my favorite so far of any movie. Period. Top that, Avengers: Endgame. I don't want to go into any more detail about the movie, other than to say go see it. Set your expectations aside, and just go. It's fun. The animation is a rare, unique treat. The characters are compelling. I'd recommend seeing it in a theater, for the sheer visual experience of it. Maybe even in 3D - and I rarely recommend that. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse stands on its own, apart from any other superhero film, animated or otherwise. If you love comic books, see it. If you love animation, see it. If you just want to kill a couple of hours with a bucket of popcorn, see it. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse gets a 10/10.

I'm not even sure Ralph Breaks the Internet is still in theaters. I saw this back in November, but only now have had the time to write up a short review for it. Actually, I've got three movies to write reviews for, hence the need to keep them all short. What do you mean, you'll "believe it when you see it"? I don't always write needlessly long-winded, rambling, circumlocutory reviews. And yes, I did look that last one up - I felt there would be additional humor if I made a counterpoint to my own statement within the statement itself. Padding the beginning of this out implies to the reader, "Here he goes again" when in fact, I do plan on making these three reviews more concise. Mostly because I don't feel like writing long reviews today. I'm afraid this newfound (and temporary) brevity has less to do with giving readers a break, and more to do with my own laziness. The point is... I'll be brief. Right. So on with the first one. I really loved the first Wreck-It Ralph movie. Mostly because it was a loving tribute to video games, and more importantly, video arcades, which are now all-but-gone, and were the places I hung out with my friends in high school and college. It was a great nostalgia trip, and a funny movie. I saw Ralph Breaks the Internet at work, which may seem odd if you haven't read some of my reviews before (I work here), but being closely tied to the animation industry, we get special screenings there from time to time in our theater. In this case, co-director and alumnus Rich Moore was there to do a Q&A and introduce the film. Seeing an animated film with 120+ animation students is the ideal audience, since if it's a good film, their reactions are going to be really strong because of their level of appreciation for the work. That was the case here. They cheered, laughed, applauded, and really seemed to love the movie (particularly Gal Gadot's character). Being in that room, it's hard for their enthusiasm to not be infectious. But while I liked much of the film, a lot of it just sort of fell flat for me. It's certainly got its funny moments (including some choice parodies of Disney itself), but I just didn't connect with it like I did the first film, or as much as the students did. The reason? Well, this film wasn't made for me. It's made for the current generation who have grown up on (and are immersed in) the internet and its culture. Even though I've been on the internet since 1994, I don't live there. I'm not into social media. I don't keep up on memes. I don't do online gaming. So while I understood the humor in the film - I didn't connect with it. The students loved it. But I think the real problem I had with the film goes deeper than being generational. Wreck-It Ralph was a movie about Ralph being on a journey of personal growth. He had a character arc where he significantly changed over the course of the film. He learned what his true worth was, and went from selfish to selfless. Other characters had arcs too - Felix became more understanding of Ralph's feelings, Vanellope learned her true potential and realized her dream of being a racer, the Nicelanders learned to be accepting of Ralph, Calhoun moved past the hurt of her previous relationship and found love with Felix. The movie was packed with character development. Not so much in the sequel though. The movie focused almost exclusively on Ralph and Vanellope and their quest to go find something on the internet. It wasn't driven by character development, but rather a MacGuffin. And even though there is some character development with Vanellope, it's all very superficial. As a character, she doesn't really change. She goes through a journey of discovery of sorts, but it pales in comparison to the one she already went through in the first film. Ralph is largely wasted in the sequel, as, if anything, his character actually regresses in order to have some sort of arc forced upon him in order to learn something by the end of the movie. For the most part, he's just used as a point of ridicule where he ends up involved in various internet memes to propel the main quest along. Felix and Calhoun are completely wasted, get very little screen time, and are given almost nothing to do. It's not that Ralph Breaks the Internet is a bad film... it does have some really funny moments, and is generally entertaining and visually impressive. The ending is, frankly, sappy and overly sentimental. Considering the effort that they put into the climax of the movie, I had hoped they'd find a more exciting way to resolve it than what they did. Ralph Breaks the Internet is, if anything, a missed opportunity. Or rather, several. One thing they really missed, was an opportunity to bring in Tron as a side character. After all, Disney owns Tron. The arcade game makes a brief cameo, and Tron himself is called out by name, but seriously - couldn't they get Bruce Boxleitner to come in and even read a few lines for the movie? How much fun would it have been for Tron to be the straight-man in this film, accompanying Ralph and Vanellope through the internet? Discovering that outside of his game, his light disc only has the properties of a Frisbee? It would be a great running joke as his useless Frisbee repeatedly, harmlessly bounced off things, and failed to get them out of several jams. Finally, Tron would get fed up, and bring something over from his game that really worked: a tank! "I fight for the USER!" Go get 'em, Tron! (sigh) But the biggest missed opportunity, in my opinion, was to make the move about Felix. From the very first time I saw Wreck-It Ralph, one line stood out in Ralph's opening monologue that immediately jumped out at me as a film that I wanted to see: "So yeah, naturally, the guy with the name Fix It Felix is the good guy. He's nice enough as good guys go - definitely fixes stuff really well. But uh, if you've got a magic hammer from your father, how hard can it be?" That's the story I wanted to see. How did that happen? What's Felix's relationship with his dad? Does a Fix It Felix Sr. game get rolled into the arcade? Was Fix-It Felix Jr. more popular? Was Sr.'s game a flop? Is Felix embarrassed about his dad? Is his dad resentful about his son's success? Or was Sr. the popular game, and Jr. was only popular at Litwak's? What is the quest that they need to go on? Are they mending their relationship? Or maybe the game arrives without Sr. in it, and they have to go on a quest to find him for the game to be restored. There are so many possibilities here for really good stories, and Felix's story is the one that needs to be told - everyone else had their backstory told in the first film. Then Ralph and Vanellope could be the ones going on the side quest this time. A huge, missed opportunity. All that said (and yes, this counts as a "short" review, relatively speaking), Ralph Breaks the Internet was a bit of a disappointment to me, despite the enthusiasm of the audience I was with. Wait for it to show up on Netflix. Or the Disney Channel. Or rent it. Maybe you'll like it more than me, if you're more immersed in the internet than I am. Ralph Breaks the Internet gets a 6/10.

I really liked the first Ant-Man movie. I thought its light-humored approach and small scale (no pun intended) was a nice change from the overly-busy mess that was Avengers: Age of Ultron. And while I thought Avengers: Infinity War was excellent (in fact, it was the first movie in quite a few years I've seen more than once in the theater), it was kind of exhausting. I left the theater feeling like I'd just been out running. Admittedly, I could stand to exercise more... Ant-Man and The Wasp brings the Marvel Cinematic Universe back down to a personal level. Rather than having 20+ characters all vying for screen time while the fate of the universe hangs in the balance, this film is about a handful of characters and their relationships with each other. One problem with sequels is when they just trudge over the same ground as before because it worked and they don't want to risk something new. But if they do try something new, they can't go too far because the audience wants the characters to be true to who they were, and to not change the tone too drastically. Ant-Man and The Wasp manages to retain what was good about the first film, while expanding on it and developing the characters further. There are certainly nods to the first film, but this feels like a proper continuation of these characters' stories, rather than just trotting them back out to do the same schtick as before. Watching the trailers, I wasn't really sure what the plot of the film was going to be. There's a character named Ghost who can phase through things, and has to be stopped from doing bad stuff. That's about as much as I knew going into it. The movie isn't just about that though. Ghost is certainly an important part of the film, but isn't the entire focus of it. Actually, I found the way they handled Ghost to be decidedly refreshing. Not as a villain in the traditional sense. I'll leave it at that. The central theme of the movie is about relationships. Between Hope Van Dyne (The Wasp) and her family, and Scott Lang (Ant-Man) and his, between the two of them, and other relationships that stretch beyond that, and the impact those relationships have. This is a more character-driven movie, and this is where Marvel really excels. Sure, you have the big showpieces like Infinity War which are fun for what they are, but some of the best Marvel films dive down deeper into the characters' personal stories: Iron Man, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming, etc. This is what made Marvel Comics (and Stan Lee's writing) so revolutionary. It's something DC still hasn't figured out yet in their movies. Now that's not to say that this is a two-hour talking heads movie about people getting in touch with their feelings. It's still a superhero movie, and it's a fun one at that. The Wasp is easily the best female superhero the MCU has put on screen so far. Her first fight scene is amazing, and I couldn't help but think, "Yeah... Hank should've given her the Ant-Man suit in the first movie. She would've had that whole thing wrapped up in about five minutes." The movie plays around a lot more with the ideas of shrinking and growing people (and objects), which makes for some genuinely funny moments and pretty cool action scenes. Just don't think about it too much, and you'll be fine. The entire main cast is back from the first film, and it looks like they're all having a lot of fun making this movie. Evangeline Lily particularly shines - her character gets to show a broader range of her personality, she's revealed to be a brilliant scientist in her own right, and of course she gets to kick all sorts of butt throughout the movie. Scott Lang is back as the everyman hero, who more than anything just wants to be a good dad for his daughter, sometimes to his own detriment. Abby Ryder Forston returns as his daughter Cassie, a little bit older now, and she absolutely steals just about any scene she's in. Michael Peña and his crew of oddball ex-cons are back, bringing some of the funniest bits in the film; and while Micheal Douglas is back playing the perfect straight-man to all of the craziness going on around him, he also has an expanded role as he plays a more pivotal part in the main plot. Really, there's not a misstep in the entire cast. Even some of the periphery characters who are only there to introduce some extra conflict are well-cast, and they end up bringing some of the biggest laughs in the film. I found Ant-Man and The Wasp to be a nice change of pace after Infinity War. Some other reviews have referred to it as a palate cleanser. It's lighthearted, yet warmhearted. It has great action and a lot of funny moments. The Wasp is awesome. And maybe best of all, the stakes here are actually higher than in the first Ant-Man movie, because they're personal. A good superhero movie doesn't always have to be about how bad the bad guy is. Wasp and The Ant-Man get a 9/10. As an afterthought, something I noticed in this movie which seems to be a growing trend, is there was quite a bit of dialog (and a couple of shots) that were prominently featured in the trailers, but weren't in the final film. I'm wondering if filmmakers are beginning to create scenes or dialog specifically for trailers now. I don't really mind this, because it can give audiences an idea of what's going to be in a film, without having to spoil more dialog or scenes from it. The downside is when you see a scene in the movie that was dubbed differently for the trailer, and that dialog is conspicuously absent. Anyway... that's just an observation. Not a criticism.

Hey look - another review! You'd almost think that a whole bunch of movies were being released at the same time of the year for some reason. Can't imagine why. The weather's beautiful outside today. Anyway... It's been fourteen years since The Incredibles was released. How long ago is that? Well, that's before this blog existed. That's a long time. Consequently, there's no review here for The Incredibles. But if I had to place it somewhere in Pixar's pantheon of animated features, I think it would probably be my favorite. The reason I say "probably", is because it's been around so long, it's lost some of its impact over that time. But I still do remember the first time I saw it, and I remember it being fun, exciting, funny, and, well... incredible. It was the first film in decades that gave me the same kind of rush that the speeder bike chase in Return of the Jedi had. Were I to guess, I probably would've scored The Incredibles a 9 or 10 out of 10. So that's a lot to live up to. And now, there's a sequel. When Pixar fully jumped on board the sequel train after being acquired by Disney, I was worried. Pixar had been at their best with original films. Sure, Toy Story 2 was great, but Pixar themselves had spent years railing against Disney wanting to make sequels of Pixar films. Ultimately though, we got sequels. And the question that begs to be asked is, was it worth not having an original Pixar film, every time they had to devote the studio to making a sequel instead? Well, the answers, as it turned out were yes. Then no. And no. And two more no's I didn't even bother seeing (Cars 3 and Finding Dory). Sure, they all made money, and soccer moms needing something to baby-sit their kids with for 90 minutes were more than happy to go see them. And Pixar's track record for original films isn't exactly spotless anymore, either. So I was worried when I heard they were doing another Incredibles film. The Incredibles is one of those films that's so good, you want to see a sequel. But it's such a perfect film on its own, it doesn't really need one. Back To The Future is another example of this. Back To The Future Part II has some clever ideas and some fun moments, but it's also disappointing in many respects, and neither sequel lives up to the first film. We would have been just fine without them. At worst, a bad sequel can actually tarnish your enjoyment of the original film. Even with Brad Bird back to direct, I was still worried. Bird's previous effort wasn't exactly one of my favorites, and I wondered if he could recapture the magic of the original, fourteen years later. Could he stay true to the characters, and make their story still interesting and relevant, despite 73 (count 'em) superhero films being released since the original? Fortunately, the answer is a pretty definitive "yes". I know... you can't really be "pretty definitive". It's either do or do not. There is no "pretty definitive". Incredibles 2 is a fun film. Let's get that out of the way, first. Superhero films should be fun. This one is. Helen (Elastigirl) takes center stage in this film, and we really get to see how formidable of a superhero she really is. We only caught glimpses of her abilities in the first movie, but here it's almost an Elastigirl solo film for a good chunk of the movie. And it works. It works so well, I kept thinking... "Hey, with the right director, a Fantastic Four movie could be really cool! Mr. Fantastic would be awesome!" Hopefully, Marvel can get that sorted out someday. Anyway, the Helen and Bob (Mr. Incredible) roles from the first movie are effectively reversed for Incredibles 2. Helen goes out superheroing, Bob stays at home with the kids. And then things happen, and... well, that's kind of where the "pretty definitive" part comes in. Incredibles 2 pretty-much follows a lot of the same plot points as the first film. Yes, things are switched around a bit, but overall it's a pretty predictable film. In some cases, a bit too much so. Oddly enough, the predictability didn't matter that much. In most films, it would be a problem. But with Incredibles 2, the emphasis is on the main characters - the Parrs. Everything else is in support of that. Even though on a larger scale things were predictable, and that may have reduced the overall impact of the plot of the film, it didn't diminish my enjoyment of it. The individual character moments, the family's interaction, action sequences, humor, and fight scenes (one in particular is my favorite superhero movie fight scene - ever), all pay off. Revisiting the Incredibles was a lot of fun. It picks up right where the last one left off, and feels like a perfectly natural extension of it. The technology used to create these films has grown by leaps and bounds, but the filmmakers resisted the urge to change the look of the film. Aesthetically, it fits right in with the original, but still takes full advantage of advances in CG software and hardware to add a little more texture here, a little more detail there, or smooth off some previously rough edges. It's subtle, but it manages to match the original, without looking dated. The voice cast is (mostly) back, except for Dash, who they had to recast since the original kid's voice is completely different now, and Rick Dicker, because the original voice for the character - Bud Luckey - passed away. Everything is amazingly seamless, considering how much time has passed. But CG doesn't age, and with the same director at the helm, the same composer and voice cast, there's continuity across the board. Probably more than most films, you could run this back-to-back with the original, and it would all just work. The characters all naturally just fall right back into place, and the chemistry between them is still there, as if this were made right after the original. They're just as likable (and often flawed) as before. I'd questioned Bird's plan to pick this film up without any time having passed, but it really works. Plus, we don't have to wonder about how characters got from where they were back then, to some completely different point now. We get to enjoy seeing them pick right up where we last knew them, and take off from there. We also get to see more of Jack-Jack and his developing (and unpredictable) powers. Some of this is hinted at in the trailers, and it looks cute there, but Jack-Jack really steals a lot of this movie, and has some of the absolutely funniest scenes throughout the film. Where the film is less successful is the villain. The villain is a significant step-down from Syndrome in the first movie. While the new villain (The Screenslaver) certainly has their motivations, they're lacking the same personal connection to the Parrs that Syndrome had. The Screenslaver also isn't as much fun as Syndrone was, but more of a typical, cookie-cutter, disposable, villain-of-the-week. Yes, the stakes are still high and all that, but the stakes are always high. That's a given. The villain should be more special. More engaging. More fun. Fortunately, the rest of the film and characters are fun enough to make up for that. Incredibles 2 is still a very fun ride, and one sequel I'm glad Pixar made. It doesn't have the originality, freshness or excitement of the original, but it's certainly a worthy successor, and it was great fun revisiting these characters again. Go see it with a big, buttery bucket of popcorn. Incredibles 2 gets an 8/10 A word of warning: if you're susceptible to flashing lights, be warned that there's a scene in the film that could cause some problems. I don't have issues with that sort of thing, but the flashing was so intense, I immediately thought, "Wow... I hope everyone's okay with this." If you want to go see the film, and want to know where it's going to happen:

When I first heard that they were making a Han Solo solo movie, my first thought was, "Why?" I already knew what I wanted to know about the character. I didn't care about unanswered questions from his past. Sometimes, a character is more interesting because you don't know everything about them. Take Darth Vader, for instance. He was a much more interesting character before the prequels revealed that he was an annoying, cherubic urchin, who grew up to be a spoiled, whining, obnoxious emo-brat. The fact that the first Solo directors were fired and Ron Howard had to be brought in to effectively reshoot the whole movie didn't help assuage my lack of enthusiasm for the project. It's not that I think Howard is a bad director, but whenever you have to switch directors mid-stream, it tends to mean the film is in a lot more trouble than reshoots are going to fix. See for example The Good Dinosaur or Justice League. I don't mean go see the films themselves... I just meant see them as object lessons. Fer cryin' out loud - don't see the actual films. They're stinkers. But because it's Star Wars, I decided to go see Solo anyway. Much like James Bond, Star Trek and Pixar films, I have a long-standing tradition of seeing them in theaters. Except I never did go see Spectre. Or Star Trek Beyond. Or Cars 3. Or Finding Dory... I may need to re-think my traditions. Anyway, I went to see Solo last week, and it was... okay. That's it. Just okay. Not awful. But not really worth seeing, either. Again, this boils down to answering questions that didn't need answering. It's much more interesting in Star Wars when Han says, "Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff..." and leave it at that. That's cool. That's mysterious. Instead, we're told where he grew up, how he got his name, how he met Chewbacca, how he met Lando, got his blaster, acquired the Millennium Falcon, developed trust issues, and a host of other things that frankly, do nothing to improve the stature or mystique of his character. Instead, what we learn only diminishes the legend. We're told about how he became an amazing pilot, but we never once actually get to see it. It happens offscreen, between two scenes that are apparently years apart. They completely skipped over it. That would've been interesting. Maybe even fun. And you know those dice he had hanging in the Millennium Falcon? Well, they're here in this movie too. Prominently. But we're never told how he got them or what significance they are to him. But we do get to see the infamous Kessel Run, and it's a massive let-down. I always assumed it was a race, or a smuggler's run that carried huge bragging rights with it, but it's not. It's hard to describe it without spoilers, but it's basically just a stupid way of trying to explain away George's "12 parsecs" scripting mistake, 41 years later. Look - whatever George claims now, it wasn't a navigation challenge. Because during the conversation, Han Solo was talking about speed. Not navigation. Fast enough. Case closed. If you want to make it canonical instead of an outright scripting mistake, you could just say that Han Solo was so full of himself when he was bragging, he made a mistake, which then makes it a character moment that doesn't need correcting anyway. However you look at it, it's a question we didn't need answered, because anything we imagined the Kessel Run might have been, was better. We also find out why the Millennium Falcon ends up looking... different in Star Wars, than it does at the beginning of this film. Another question that didn't need to be answered. But hey - let's shoehorn that one in here, too. And while we're at it - why not an unexpected, pointless, fan-service cameo? Sure. We'll throw that in, too. Now, I suppose that I wouldn't be so apathetic about the movie, had the story been better, or the answers more interesting. But the fact is, they weren't. At best, this is the kind of B-grade story that would have been filler material in the old Marvel Star Wars comic books from the 70's and 80's. Or maybe one of the early paperback novels that came out during the original trilogy. But it's not movie-quality stuff. It's not even Clone Wars or Rebels TV level stuff. That said, the movie is well-enough made for what it is. The actors are fine. The special effects are fine. It's not badly made. There are even some fun moments in it. It's just unnecessary. As for the characters in the film, Donald Glover does a very passable Lando Calrissian. He's suave and charming, and seems to be having the most fun. His co-pilot L3-37 continues the Rogue One tradition of making the Droids more interesting than the humans. Woody Harrelson is fine in his role as Han's mentor (or sorts), although I couldn't tell you his character's name without looking it up. Paul Bettany is an adequate generic villain, again - totally forgetting his name. And there's a love interest played by someone, who is okay, if not memorable (again). Oddly enough, Chewbacca actually had some of the best moments in the film. He's also the easiest to readily accept as a younger version of himself, probably because his character doesn't have to be played by any particular actor (no offense, Peter). Which brings us to the main focus of this movie... Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich is probably a fine actor. He does pretty well in this film. But not once did I think of him as Han Solo. He just... isn't. He's not Harrison Ford's Han Solo, anymore than Chris Pine is William Shatner's Captain Kirk. You can name them the same characters, but they're not the same. You can claim they're part of the same continuity, but they're not. Roger Moore's James Bond isn't the same as Sean Connery's. They're different characters. Even though they're supposed to be the same. And I just couldn't get past that. I accepted the character he was playing for who he was in this film, but there's just too much of a disconnect to think of him as the same Han Solo I've been familiar with since 1977. So this might just as well have been someone else entirely, and they could have named the movie something else, and it wouldn't have made any difference. And I guess that's the biggest problem of all. This film just doesn't make any difference. We know that all of those things mentioned above are going to happen. There are no real stakes here. No real surprises about this character. Nothing that fundamentally changes or impacts him. It's all completely inconsequential. So while not a bad film, Solo was the Star Wars film that really didn't need to be made. Disney needs to do better. (Hint: we don't need Obi-Wan Kenobi or Boba Fett films, either.) Solo gets a 5.5/10.

Dang. I mean seriously... dang! I just got back from seeing Avengers: Infinity War, and I'll get to the review in a moment. But first - a rant. I try to avoid spoilers. And I hate websites that spoil movies. I wasn't planning to see Infinity War until later in the week, but felt I had to see it tonight if I had any chance of avoiding spoilers. Why? Well, because of idiots at websites and YouTube channels like IGN, Nerdist and Because Science. Yeah, that's right - I'm calling the lot of you out. Like you care. Spoiler-face. Because even if you think you're not spoiling movies, you are. Whenever you post an article or a video with a title like, "How does (so and so) do (so and so)?" or "Did (such and such) really just (such and such)?", even if you think you're being vague or speculative, the fact that you're still putting plot points into the titles of your articles or videos makes them spoilers. Anyone subscribing to your channels or perusing your website can not miss them. And yes, I get the fact that you're all desperate for readers and viewers so you'll post whatever click-bait you think you can get away with, but might I suggest that you title your articles and videos something more along the lines of: "(Movie title) Speculation: Potential Spoilers" so those of us who don't want anything spoiled in a movie don't feel like we have to shut the internet off completely until we can actually get out to see the film? Sheesh. End of rant. Or as Stan would say, 'nuff said. Now then, onto the movie. I'm going to keep this pretty short. Mainly because it's late. Also, I don't want to potentially risk giving anything away either. The question at hand is - does Infinity War live up to the hype? This has been cooking now for 10 years, so this movie has a lot to live up to. Age of Ultron didn't. Civil War didn't quite either. It seemed the more characters that got added to a movie, the more muddled a movie became. Infinity War, on the other hand, nailed it. It's kind of strange to see nearly every Marvel movie character in one film - but it really worked. It almost felt like watching several of the other movies all edited together. But only the good parts. Except they were parts you hadn't seen before. To be sure, there's a lot of ground to cover in this movie, and a lot of characters. And nearly everyone gets a moment to shine here or there. But it doesn't feel forced. Characters who aren't that critical to the story are present, but aren't shoehorned into the plot in order to give them their five minutes. Some are more in the background and that's how it should be. Keep the focus where it belongs. I'll give an example: Star Trek. The original series. In the original series, it was about Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Checkov were supporting characters. And some episodes they got more to do, because there was time in that format. But when the movies rolled around, it often felt like they trotted out all of these supporting characters and gave them more to do, just because they now had fans. But in a two-hour movie, you don't always have the time to give everyone something to do. In ensemble films, finding this balance of who's important and who's not is critical. In Infinity War, the Russo brothers managed this expertly. It was great to see everyone again from the other films. And because we've seen them in their other films, even if some characters got less screen time here, it didn't feel like we were being short-changed. Unlike, say, Justice League. Infinity War starts with its foot on the gas and never lets up. If anything, it stomps on the gas harder, kicks in the supercharger, and then hits the nitrous. There is a ton of great superhero action in this movie. Frankly, I felt kind of exhausted by the end of it. But in a good way. This is how a blockbuster-epic-action-special-effects-superhero-movie-event should be. Gimme my popcorn money's worth! This is a dense movie. There is a lot of story, a lot of locations, a lot of characters, and a lot of things happening. It's pretty impressive that it all fits into 2 1/2 hours, and does so pretty organically. A lot of pieces get put together, and it's fun to see a lot of long-standing plot points finally coming to fruition. The characters are true to who they've been in previous movies. At the heart of the film you have heroes who we've gotten to know and care about over the last decade. If you liked them in other movies, you'll like them here. They don't do anything goofy like take a character who was super heroic and fearless in a solo movie, and turn them into a hopeless, lovestruck shut-in who hides away from society for 100 years because their boyfriend who she knew for two weeks blew up in a plane. Just sayin'. Infinity War delivers massively in the super hero action department. There are a ton of fan-pleasing moments throughout the film where you get to see some really cool stuff. And there's enough humor to lighten the tension once in a while, and remind you that Marvel doesn't take itself too seriously. We wouldn't want to get all morbid and gloomy, right? Now, being a comic book movie, I should point out that not everything always makes sense. You may just wonder, "Well, why doesn't so-and-so just do this?" And some things are a little convenient, for the sake of moving things where they need to go. But it's a comic book movie. Not a documentary. If you over-think it, you're missing the point. And besides, you can always explain away comic book plot holes with comic book "logic". There's one other important thing that needs to be touched on here - because it's the shortcoming of a number of Marvel movies: the villain. Where Marvel movies consistently shine is with their heroes. They're human, flawed, complex and relatable. This is what separated Marvel from everyone else. This is why Stan Lee is as significant to comic books as Walt Disney was to animation. But Marvel movies don't always bring their villains up to that level. They're usually still fun to watch because of the heroes, but the films are at their best when the villains are as equally interesting as the heroes. Up until now, Thanos has just been sitting on a chair, floating around, and not really doing anything. So the question was - would he make a worthwhile villain? Not just a powerful one - but an interesting one? Fortunately, the answer is pretty-much yes. Thanos is - by far - the most formidable opponent the Avengers have ever faced. He's a powerful opponent in every sense of the word. And as far as being interesting - he's that, too. Mostly. I think he still falls a little short in terms of really understanding why he's so motivated by what he's doing, but he's certainly motivated to do it. And like some of the best movie villains, he doesn't see what he's doing as being wrong. However, what he's doing is so wrong, it's hard to relate to him. But he's really cool to watch in a fight, and in a movie like this, that counts for a lot. For me, Avengers: Infinity War lives up to the hype. Of course, I just got out of the theater less than two hours ago, so I'm still on somewhat of an adrenaline rush from it. But you know what? This is a big, loud, action-packed, summer blockbuster, popcorn munching, superhero movie. Maybe my opinion of it will temper over time, but right now I had a lot of fun watching it. I cared about the characters. I had fun watching them. I totally bought the fan-service moments. I laughed, shouted, pumped my fist, gripped the arms of my chair (without even realizing it), and absolutely pounded down the popcorn. The movie is packed with surprises. Even with the spoilers I complained about earlier, there was so much else I never saw coming, that I'm still processing it. I rarely go to a movie twice, but for this one, I think it'd be well-worth it. Because it'd be fun. Go see it. Go see it before it gets spoiled for you. It's a lot of fun. It was totally satisfying. That's what a superhero movie should be. I can't wait to see what they pull out of the bag for the sequel. Avengers: Infinity War gets an adrenaline-assisted 10/10 (Okay... the review wasn't all that short. But it was relatively short.)

I wasn't planning to go see Black Panther. During the time I actively collected comics ('84 - '91), I really don't recall seeing the Black Panther very much - and I bought a lot of comics back then. He may have appeared in some of the Avengers stories, but I don't really remember. All I do remember was thinking, "Sheesh... he looks a lot like Batman." At any rate, I had no real familiarity with the character. Not until the movie Captain America: Civil War anyway. Also, I was getting kind of burned out on superhero movies. Even though Justice League wasn't a Marvel film, that one was kind of the last straw. It was just dreary, boring and overblown, and I didn't care about any of the characters in it. Even Wonder Woman, who had been great in her own solo film, was completely wasted in it. Plus, with Avengers: Infinity War and Ant-Man and The Wasp coming out, there are already enough superhero movies to go see this year (and that doesn't include: Deadpool 2, Incredibles 2, Aquaman, and how ever many others I'll probably just end up renting or watching on Netflix). So, I figured I'd just skip it. But I kept hearing good things about it. And it kept lighting up the box office. And I haven't seen a movie in several months. And I was bored last week. So I went to see it. And much to my surprise, it was really, really good. Once in awhile, with films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Ant-Man, Marvel steps back from their big epic stories, and brings their superheroes back down to a more personal, human level. We get to see the people behind the heroes. This is what Stan Lee did that was so different from the typical superheroes of the early 60's. This is in Marvel's DNA, and they have rich character histories to draw from for their movies. When they do it right, it works really well. And with Black Panther, they did it right. First, they did a great job bringing us into the world and history of the fictional country Wakanda. They had to lay a lot of groundwork in the movie, but it never seemed to get bogged down or overburdened by it. Nor did it feel superficial. They hit just the right notes introducing us to its culture, its conflicts, its history and its leaders. It was all very organic and accessible. So with the stage set, the characters had a proper backdrop for their stories and personalities to shine - and shine they did. Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa made for a very compelling lead character. One that had burdens to carry, flaws to overcome, truths to confront, lessons to learn, and an opportunity to grow and develop as a leader and as a man. Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger provided for one of the best and most complex villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date. He was a much more sympathetic and tragic character than we typically get in superhero movies, and his backstory made his motivations for what he was doing hard to dismiss as just being another "bad guy". The entire cast is first-rate, really. There are some powerful moments in this movie, and incredibly unique and memorable characters throughout. The Dora Milaje (Wakanda's all-female special forces) are particularly memorable, formidable, and just plain fun to watch. There are certainly some great action sequences in the film, but what really made the film work were the personal stories and relationships - why they were doing what they were doing, and how those choices impacted themselves and others. I cared about these characters, and what happened to them. For characters I knew nothing about, that's no small feat. It's how movies should work. I hope DC is taking notes. For that matter, I hope Marvel is taking notes too. Keep the stories about the people - not the events. Certainly, Black Panther has its fair share of superhero movie tropes: super-strength concoctions, inexplicable techno-gadgets, and a few all-too-convenient plot twists, but it gets far more right than it does wrong. If I had one complaint about the movie, it's that the Wakandan technology was a bit... convenient. Vibranium, apparently, can do anything from healing wounds, to materializing costumes out of thin air, to making julienne fries (okay... maybe not that last one, or at least not on screen ). It's just a catchall cure-all. But hey - it is a comic book movie, so there will be some of that. Black Panther is a smart superhero film, and a unique one. If you didn't know this was part of the Marvel Universe, these characters and their world could easily stand on their own. It's beautifully filmed (at times with stunning scenery), with an excellent, immersive soundtrack, and best of all, it has heart. A lot of heart. It's well-worth seeing while it's still in theaters. Black Panther gets a 9/10. And now, a mini-rant: Usually, I drive about 25 minutes down to the Arclight theater in Sherman Oaks to see movies. But since this was a spur-of-the-moment thing, I went back to the local Edwards theater. I'd written about the problems I've had with them before. Twice. And yet again - it was disappointing. While not as awful as previous visits, there were still two glaring problems with the presentation: 1) The movie was framed wrong. The projector was set up wrong and the screen was masked wrong. How do I know? Because the subtitles shown when characters were speaking in Wakandan were half cut-off at the bottom. Subtitles should be fully onscreen with some margin below them. Filmmakers never put subtitles at the very bottom edge of the screen, because of the risk of them being partially obscured by masking or screen curvature. Yet even with that safety margin, these were still cut off. There were also a number of scenes I recognized from the trailer that were cropped way too much. So clearly, the theater just wasn't paying attention. 2) The other glaring issue was literally glaring: the aisle lights are bright green and red LEDs. And I mean bright. Ridiculously so. Yes - you need aisle lights for safety, but other theaters manage to get away with darker lights. Even if they just got rid of the green ones, that would help since the green cuts through darkness like a laser pointer. Wearing glasses only makes it worse, because then you're picking up reflections, too. I'll write them to let them know, but they won't fix anything. They'll probably just send me some free tickets which I won't use anyway, because I'm going back to the Arclight.

MEMOIRS OF A NOVELTY ACCOUNT VOL. III, ISSUE I I wanted to use this entry to state my opinion on The Last Jedi and the recent backlash. I want it to be known that: 1. I am a huge Star Wars fan 2. I, too, dislike what Disney is doing to Star Wars 3. But I LIKED The Force Awakens 4. And I LIKE the prequels 5. And I LIKED this movie. People should stop romanticizing Star Wars so much that nothing new is allowed to be tried. Star Wars has never been a masterpiece (except for maybe Empire Strikes Back) and should not be held to such high standards. It has always had glaring flaws in either writing, directing, or acting, but we love it just the same. Why? Because it's space samurai fighting with laser swords! It's awesome! I believe that people will grow to like this movie. The Last Jedi has not killed Star Wars -- if anything, The Phantom Menace did that. Episode VIII was competently directed, visually beautiful, and emotionally resonant, even if it had some questionable writing and awkward scenes. There were many good moments, like the flashbacks with Luke and Ben Solo, and the quiet parts where the director let John Williams' brilliant score shine through. I hate what Disney is doing to Star Wars in that the movies (and other media) are starting to feel more like an industry than an art. That's OK -- Disney is under investigation for monopoly and things might get better in the future. At least, I hope they will. Whatever your opinion is, just remember to take it easy, and have a happy new year.

I got out to see Star Wars: The Last Jedi a couple of nights ago. But before we get to the review… two things: 1) Remember my rant a few years ago about how awful movie theaters are? And later how I found movie theaters that corrected those problems? Well, to see any movie now, much less a Star Wars film, I'm really particular about where I see it. Since I'm in Seattle at the moment, I'd hoped to go to the Cinerama again, where I saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens. However, we found an alternative, and much to my surprise… it was at a theater chain. In this case: AMC/Loews. And while I think most AMC/Loews theaters are still little more than wallpapered outhouses, this one had something special going for it: one of their screening rooms had been turned into a Dolby Cinema. So, what does that mean? Well, first, it's new. That means it hasn't been trashed yet. The screen is new, and clean. The seats are new. The floors aren't a sticky mess. But better than that - it's fully equipped with the latest Dolby projection and audio systems. So that means there's a better-than-average chance that the picture and sound may be somewhat correct (in this case, both were excellent). Plus, the seating is vastly improved. The old seats have been removed and the theater completely restructured with fully adjustable, electrically-controlled leather* recliners. Big and comfy, with tons of legroom. Plus, the rows are tiered in such a way that the theater is much steeper, and each row has a knee wall in front of it, giving uninterrupted sight-lines throughout the room. *(probably not actual leather) And better still - the seats are reserved. No waiting in line with the huddled masses in order to maybe find a decent seat. We ordered online a few days in advance, and were able to score some excellent seats for a midday showing. The downside? Well, it's more expensive. A lot more. By the time you add in "convenience" fees**, it's almost $20 per ticket. For a movie. A popcorn and a drink added another $15. So… yeah. Crazy expensive. Plus, the bathrooms still stink like an open sewer. **(does this mean they owe me a refund for all of the times it was inconvenient to see a movie there?) But ultimately, for me, since I don't see that many movies, and presentation makes a huge difference in my enjoyment of a movie, it was worth the extra money. So if they have a Dolby Cinema in your area, you might check it out. Especially if you have to sit through 24 minutes of trailers. 24! A quarter of my popcorn was already gone by the time the movie started. But if they don't have a Dolby Cinema, avoid AMC/Loews like the plague. Seriously, their other theaters are toilets. They aren't like toilets, I think they actually are toilets. 2) As I was getting ready to see The Last Jedi, I thought back to Return of the Jedi. What did the title mean? Who was the returning Jedi? Was it Anakin Skywalker returning as the Jedi he had once been? Was it Luke Skywalker returning, now as a Jedi? Was it plural - the Jedi as an order returning in the person of Luke Skywalker? Beats me. I'm still not sure. Just some food for thought. There's no such ambiguity in Star Wars: The Last Jedi though - by the end of the film, what The Last Jedi means is pretty clearly explained. So, on with the review! Cue the Spoiler-free Review theme music! (For the sake of variety, this time it's by the Archies, for no particular reason.) Actually, you ought to hear Micky Dolenz's version from his solo album Remember. Totally different take on it. Oh right. The review. So, first things first - I enjoyed The Last Jedi. I know there are some fans out there who outright hated it, but I'm not in that camp. Much of it was a lot of fun, which is what a Star Wars film should be. There wasn't anything that I really disliked about it, although there were some things I was disappointed in. But I thought it was better than The Force Awakens, although a lot of that is because The Last Jedi wasn't just a rehash of the original Star Wars. Carrie Fisher has a more significant role in the movie, and her presence in Episode IX will be sorely missed. Mark Hamill actually gets to speak this time, and does several other things as well! He easily has the strongest performance in the movie, and this movie is as much about Luke Skywalker as any of the newer characters. In fact, pretty-much everyone has an expanded role in the film (save for Captain Phasma, who does a little more this time around, but really is becoming something of a punchline), but therein lies one of the problems of The Last Jedi: it's a long film. A bit too long. While Rian Johnson does a good job of keeping the film and its different plots moving along, there's a bit too much of it. Most notably, the side quest with Finn and Rose is entirely unnecessary. It's kind of a throw-away B-story - something that would be more suited to an old Marvel Star Wars comic book, rather than taking up so much time here. The Last Jedi would have been a sleeker, more streamlined, and possibly more effective story without it. Parts of their story are fun, but a lot of it feels like "We better give Finn something to do - since he doesn't fit in anywhere else". There's also a significant amount of fan service in The Last Jedi - scenes that were added in just to please the audience - with a number of overt homages to The Empire Strikes Back. While those can be fun, I tend to find them distracting since they remind you that you're watching a movie, rather than just letting you sit there and enjoy the new movie for what it is. Also, I felt some of the humor was a little too… familiar. Not in terms of it being recycled, but in terms of it feeling like contemporary, pop-culture humor. Star Wars humor (when it worked best) was always kept in the context of the Star Wars universe, and felt natural. Some of the humor in this film felt forced (pun not intended), or overused. The Porgs were completely unnecessary, but they didn't bother me all that much, since they didn't have as much screen time as I feared, given all of the marketing hype surrounding them. There were a couple of scenes with BB-8 though that were just too over-the-top, and seemed like they'd be more at home in a HISHE parody, than the actual film. As for those disappointments I mentioned - there are a couple of significant plot points that weren't handled very well. I'll expand on those a little here, plus add another. Please use Spoiler tags if responding to these: Again, I'm not in the "I hate The Last Jedi" camp. I fully get that some people hate it, but as far as I'm concerned, everything except The Empire Strikes Back has failed to some degree or other to live up to the original Star Wars. Return of the Jedi was a massive disappointment to me (30+ years later, I still refer to it as a big, Muppety, Ewok turd). The less said about the Prequel Trilogy, the better. And while The Force Awakens was overall a good movie, it was too derivative, and had too many of J.J. Arbrams' trademark technology McGuffins. Rogue One was a solid piece of Star Wars storytelling entertainment, although again, not without its problems. That's basically where I'd put The Last Jedi. I didn't have any issues with how the characters were handled. I didn't have any preconceived ideas about how Luke Skywalker should or should not have acted. I went to the movie to find out what had happened to him - not watch online fanboy theories play out. I never read any of the non-movie books (save for Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and a couple of the early Han Solo books). None of the Expanded Universe matters to me, so I had no alternate histories for this film to live up to. I'm sure they're good stories - but I don't expect them to be canon any more than the Marvel Star Wars comics that I collected as a kid. I just enjoyed them for what they were. I generally liked the performances in the Last Jedi, the notable exception being Snoke, who looked even more fake here than in The Force Awakens. Mark Hamill brought great emotion to Luke, and a depth we'd never seen before. Carrie Fisher seemed far more at home in The Last Jedi, and really shone brightly as the heart and soul of the Resistance, and her final scenes are a poignant reminder of what will be missed about her. Daisy Ridley was solid again as Rey, and Adam Driver still makes for an interesting, conflicted Kylo Ren As mentioned before, I felt that the Finn and Rose side story was largely throwaway, but they did a serviceable job with the material they were given. The other characters in the film are fine - again, mostly serviceable. Nothing bad, but nothing they're going to be handing Oscars out for, either. But they should really stop trying to make the Poe Dameron thing happen. I just don't get the appeal. Not really a strong, lead character in my opinion, and someone they wasted entirely too much screen time on. The action sequences in the film were solid - although there were a few scenes lifted a little too directly out of The Empire Strikes Back. Stop with the homages already, and come up with something new, please. The special effects were all up to the best of modern standards, except, as already mentioned, Snoke. He never looked convincing, he walked badly (like bad CG animation, not like he was limping or something), and I didn't think much of Andy Serkis' acting, either. He seemed very flat, and never truly menacing. Also, Chewbacca looked a little odd at times. I know Peter Mayhew is no longer in the mask, but I'm wondering if they were attempting some CG trickery or had changed something significant about his face, because his mouth didn't look quite right. Where The Last Jedi actually worked best for me were the scenes with Luke coming to terms with his own past. Again - I went to this film to find out what had happened to him. Mark Hamill might not have agreed with the direction of Luke's character for this film, but that didn't stop him from doing a powerful acting job with it. We already know the Jedi were flawed and often made mistakes out of hubris - especially in the prequels. Even Obi-Wan turned out to be somewhat of a jerk with his "certain point-of-view". So Luke having some conflict in his own past shouldn't be that surprising - Jedi or not, he's still human. I think that makes him even more compelling. I enjoyed seeing Mark Hamill back as Luke Skywalker, and really delivering a performance worthy of the character. I spent decades assuming we'd never get to see Hamill back again as Luke. So I'm glad we finally got that. And if it wasn't what people were expecting - well, maybe sometimes that's a good thing. I get pretty tired of going to see movies where I can predict everything that's going to happen. Some people may be unhappy with Star Wars being in the hands of Disney now - but remember what happened when it was in Lucas' hands? Remember Jar-Jar? Li'l Anakin? Teen angst Anakin? That absolutely awful dialog between him and Padme? And remember that Star Wars was effectively dead as a movie franchise when George had finished Episode III? Star Wars will never be everything everyone wants it to be, anymore than Star Trek will ever be everything everyone wants it to be. It can't measure up to peoples' nostalgia, memories or expectations. Overall, The Last Jedi was fun movie. For me. That's all I needed out of it. Anything beyond that is a bonus. And it was way, way better than the prequels... and a certain Muppety, Ewok Turd. No movie is perfect, and I doubt any Star Wars movie will ever live up to fan expectations. The Last Jedi didn't meet all of mine either, but neither was it predictable. Nor was it bad. Long? Yes. Incomplete? Sure. But I'm satisfied that seeing it was time well spent. I had fun. I really enjoyed watching Luke's story play out. I'd recommend it. It's a good popcorn flick. And a little bit more. What I'm not looking forward to, is that J.J. Abrams will be back for Episode IX. Ugh. He'll probably introduce trans-galactic-hyper-underwear for traveling millions of lightyears without needing a spaceship. Or he'll bring in a race of time traveling, Force-weilding space Leprechauns. The last thing Star Wars needs is time travel. Can you imagine the mess that would cause? Star Wars: The Last Jedi probably should get about a 7.5/10, but in order to score it higher than The Force Awakens or Rogue One, I'll have to give it an 8.2/10. Yeah… that's probably being inconsistent with peoples' expectations. I'm sure someone will just absolutely hate this review because of that. (After writing this, I read this review at Slashfilm. I think it actually addresses some of my own complaints very well, and has a good perspective on the film.)

I actually got to see Pixar's Coco at a sneak preview at work a couple of weeks ago, but couldn't write anything about it until the movie was in theaters. (I work at CalArts in the Character Animation Program, for those that haven't been following along.) It was an interesting screening, because Disney had what I could only describe as their Secret Service on hand to make sure nobody recorded anything or took pictures. Several dark-suited individuals (I don't recall but I'm almost sure they had to be wearing sunglasses), stood in the front corners of the theater with very stern looking expressions on their faces. There were numerous signs that we had to put up in the theater about not recording or spoiling anything about the movie, including threats of fines and other fun legal action. Although I guess since I only write Spoiler-free reviews... I probably technically could've gotten away with writing this review sooner. But it probably wouldn't have been worth the risk of getting my . I wonder though - were those really Disney Secret Service? Or did they just use cast members from Disneyland who wanted a little overtime? For all I know, they're usually dressed up as Chip 'n' Dale or Snow White. The other reason the screening was interesting, is because we were watching the movie in a theater full of animation nerds. So if a movie is really good, then the reaction will be really enthusiastic. On the other hand, if the movie is a stinker, then the reactions can be... brutal (which in their own way can be entertaining). Since The Good Dinosaur, I haven't bothered with Pixar. I skipped Finding Dory and Cars 3, because the former just looked like a rehash of Finding Nemo, and Cars 2 was just too awful to give that franchise another chance. I almost skipped Coco too. None of the trailers or commercials appealed to me at all. But I decided that Pixar had more hits than misses, and besides, I was effectively getting paid to watch it. So why not? It's... research. Yeah. That's it. Unfortunately - I didn't think Coco was very good. The main problem I had with it was that it was just too predictable - to the point of being trite. The basic premise has been done to death: kid wants to pursue music, but his family doesn't want him to. Kid pursues music anyway. Family finds out. Stuff happens. You can figure it out from there. Coco isn't even the first animated film this year to have this exact same story, either. Now, it's not all that uncommon to have the same basic premise as other films, but even within its details, Coco was too predictable. There are a couple of supposed plot "twists" that are meant to surprise the audience. But the film telegraphs them so early, they should come as no surprise to anyone by the time they're revealed. They certainly didn't surprise me - I sat there for some 20 minutes waiting for the movie to just get on with it already. I should point out that during a couple of these "reveals", the audience I was with reacted as the studio hoped they would, with vocal shock and awe. But someone I talked to with afterwards wasn't entirely sure that wasn't sarcasm. I honestly don't know. Maybe they were making fun of the obvious. Or maybe they just aren't familiar enough yet with recycled film clichés to recognize the obvious. Even though the story is all-too-familiar, what should have made this film more original was that the story takes place within the context of Mexico's Día de Muertos (Day of the Dead). And although there are story points and visual elements unique to that, Coco is now the second animated film within the last few years based in that setting. The other problem that I had was that the main character was just so generic, that by the end of the movie, I'd forgotten his name. And no - it isn't Coco. That's another character in the film. In fact, it's a secondary character in the film. But due to advertising, the name Coco was so burned into my brain before ever seeing the film, I never really paid attention to what the main character's name actually was. The fact that he was called by a nickname during part of the movie didn't help, either. Now, I want to make it clear that Coco isn't a bad film. The animation is really well done. There's a dog in particular that's a great deal of fun to watch, that reminds me of Scrat from the Ice Age films. (Maybe too much, since it doesn't really fit with the rest of the film's style... as if Pixar were saying, "Look! We can do wacky, too!") There are some genuinely funny moments here and there, and a couple of heartfelt ones. But given the film's predictability, there's never a sense of real menace, or urgency, or consequence. There are some scenes that are visually impressive, but nothing that really "wowed" me like the best Pixar films used to do. Even when we visit the Land of the Dead, so much of it still looks like the real world, it becomes kind-if boring. Overall, the film is... competent. Professionally made and visually polished, but nothing I'd go out of my way to see. That said, Coco has been getting rave reviews. Maybe people are just really glad it's not another sequel (or The Good Dinosaur). Maybe I'm just jaded. But I didn't connect with Coco. I sat there, distantly, fully aware I was watching a movie. But never losing myself in it. In the end, I think Coco is just so-so. Want to go-go? I'd say no-no. It gets a 5/10.

Okay. Justice League is finally here. Now, I wasn't a big fan of Man of Steel. Or Batman v Superman. Or The Dark Knight Rises. Or Green Lantern. This isn't a Marvel vs. DC thing. The comic book characters I liked. I grew up with them. This was DC just not understanding how to take those great characters and translate them well to the big screen. The heroes just weren't likable. The villains were forgettable. The films were a dreary chore to sit through. I didn't care about the heroes, or what they were doing. DC had a long way to go. They redeemed themselves big-time this summer with Wonder Woman. Finally! A DC character brought to the screen with a likable personality, and wit, and charisma! Things were looking up! (The villain was still stupid - but hey, one step at a time.) So that brings us to Justice League. Zack Snyder (who was responsible for a lot of the morose tone of recent DC films) stepped down due to a family tragedy, and Joss Whedon was brought in to finish the film. Now, Whedon did a great job on The Avengers. But not so much on Avengers: Age of Ultron. The latter film was a bit of a disjointed mess, and the characters never really got the screen time they needed to develop into compelling characters. And fundamentally, that was the problem I had with Justice League. Well, one of them, anyway. So let's get this review started! (play Spoiler-free review theme music here) Ahhh... that's great stuff! I especially love the part where it goes da-da-da... da-da-da-dummm! Classic. What - you're not hearing it on your end? Plays just fine here. Huh. Well, it's Mars - Bringer of War from Holst's "The Planets". About 3:51 into it. Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. I'm sure there are other great recordings out there, but I like Bernstein's tempo and interpretation. Actually, his tempo is really close to Holst's own. Pretty amazing they have recordings of him conducting that. Some conductors just go way too slow with it for some reason. You can really hear where John Williams lifted a lot of his ideas for Star Wars from. I wonder if Lucas used that as a temp track while editing the film together? I'm sure I could find that on the internet somewhere. I may even have it in the Making of Star Wars book. I should look for it. Great book. Anyway... onto the review. Where to start? Well, let's start with Batman. Batman is one of the coolest superheroes, period. But here - he's just... bland. Oh sure, there are a few fight scenes where what he's doing is cool, but as Bruce Wayne, or whenever Batman is saying pretty-much anything, Ben Affleck delivers the line like someone who's sitting in a dentist's chair, completely shot full of novocaine. He's numb. He's expressionless. Any attempt at humor, or any emotion for that matter, feels forced and falls flat. He seems bored. Batman is... dull. Batman should be anything but dull. He should be exciting. Scary. Unhinged. Something. Frankly, the rumors of Affleck leaving the role don't bother me a bit. Where's the world's greatest detective? Where's the great strategist? He just kind of meanders around in this film, and things happen. It doesn't feel like he's driving the plot and situations forward. He's the de facto leader of the Justice League, but doesn't really lead. And Batman relies way too much on his Bat-military-equipment-that-he-somehow-acquired. What's up with all of the machine guns and missiles? I guess if he didn't have all that stuff, he'd be so hopelessly outmatched he'd have nothing to do. But that's not a character weakness - that's bad writing. In comparison, Captain America is always outclassed super-power wise, yet he manages to hold his own in combat and lead a team more powerful than himself. They really need to fix this before the next Bat movie. Okay... but what of Wonder Woman? Well, she's still charismatic, and formidable, and has some great moments on screen, but they really messed up her character arc. I'm still completely unclear on where's she's been since the end of World War I. The end of Wonder Woman's solo film seemed to imply she was ready to go out there and help humanity. That did nothing to help her character, and if anything, weakened it. That's just lazy, sloppy, stupid writing. There were better ways of answering the question of why Batman had never heard of her before now. Aside from that, she was still fun to watch. But they've got some 'splainin' to do in Wonder Woman 2 to sort this mess out. How about the rest? Aquaman was a lot fun to watch... in an almost Thor: Ragnarok sort-of way. But I couldn't figure out why he was so goofy. He's like a surfer dude version of Aquaman. For an Atlantean and self-proclaimed loaner, I had a hard time figuring out where he picked up such a casual use of human colloquialisms. Maybe I'd have understood that approach better if they'd done his solo movie before Justice League. I honestly have no idea what his backstory was supposed to be. Also, his powers are very unclear. Or maybe underutilized. Besides swimming, he doesn't do much "watery" stuff in the movie. In most of the battles, he's just a really strong dude jumping around, punching things, and carrying a magic (?) trident around (which is also never explained). He just didn't get the screen time needed to really be developed. There were bits of dialog in the film that supposedly told more - but it went by so fast, and was so choppily edited, it just never clicked. That said, I'd like to see more of Aquaman. Learn his history. See him really in his element. But we should've seen that first. Maybe that's part of the problem here... maybe the directors were so fully aware of who the characters were, because this film (and solo projects) have been in development for so long, that they forgot that the audience didn't know all of that stuff. Cyborg really got the short end of the stick, backstory-wise. His origin is all-but completely skipped over. Maybe it was too dark? Too long? He's relevant to the story (in a very significant way), but he's there more as a necessary plot device than a really engaging character. There are scenes where we start to get a little insight into him, but then the movie pulls back for whatever reason. It's like they didn't know what sort of personality to give him, so they played it safe and gave him none. Maybe this was intentional because he lost so much humanity - but if so, show us the humanity he's lost. Maybe this was due to the change in directors and they had different visions for him. But it was certainly a missed opportunity. Also - I really disliked the design of his cybernetic parts. Too cluttered, overly-busy and Michael Bay Transformers-like. Detail for the sake of detail, not functionality. And the CG, especially around his face, generally looked pretty bad. Sometimes it looks like they replaced some or all of his face, and it just had that creepy uncanny valley vibe to it. Flash, on the other hand, comes across great. He's a lot of fun to watch, and has a really engaging, likable personality. I don't know if he has any more screen time than the others, but it's certainly much better utilized. A large part of that comes down to Ezra Miller, who absolutely knocks it out of the park. He's likable and believable (although his origin is all-but completely skipped over as well). He's easily the best character in the film, and hopefully we'll get to see more of him soon. I don't recall enough of the Flash from when I read comics to know how on-point his Barry Allen is with that of the comics, but really, it doesn't matter all that much. This Flash is the star of this movie. Maybe that's in part because super-speed is just a lot of fun when it's done right. Let's see... is that it for the League? Well, the original posters said "Unite the Seven"... so we're still two short. Wendy, Marvin and Wonder Dog would leave us with eight, so it wasn't them. And this might be considered a spoiler, but it wasn't the Wonder Twins, either. "Form of - a bucket of water!" That would've been awesome. Even as a joke. But nope... So with the heroes not faring all that well, how about the villain? Disposable. Generic. Boring. Inconsequential. Uninteresting. Bad CG. Completely lacking in any compelling characteristics. I have no idea, nor do I care, who even played him, because nothing of whoever it was showed through the final character onscreen. Should I go on? Nope. Not worth it. He was just a plot device to for the Justice League to assemble go All-In. Nothing more. Maybe he'll tie into another movie featuring the more-powerful (and hopefully more-interesting) Darkseid, but I'll just say one more thing about him - how can you have a villain named Steppenwolf without even having one reference somewhere, anywhere, to Born to be Wild? Seriously. Aquaman should've been all over that. Okay - heroes were a mixed bag. The villain was useless. How about the overall plot? It's nothing we haven't seen before. But that would be okay if the characters who were on the journey were compelling, and if compelling things happened to them. If we had genuine concern for them, or the Earth, or something. But that just didn't happen. There were no stakes or consequences that really felt like we'd be losing something, if the heroes lost. Well, was it fun to watch? Was the action good? The special effects worthwhile? At times. There were some fun popcorn-munching scenes here and there. Aquaman seemed to be having the most fun. Wonder Woman and Flash have the best action scenes. But a lot of it we'd already seen before in other superhero movies, and I kept having flashbacks to other films where the same thing had been done, and usually better. As for the special effects, they were... okay. The problem with most films now, is that the special effects are all kind-of at the same level. So unless the events of the film wow you, the special effects just... won't. And while there were some impressive effects and sequences in the movie, for the most part, I just didn't care about what was going on. Justice League feels like DC is playing catch-up to Marvel. But they didn't lay a proper foundation. They should've developed the characters in their solo films, and built up the mythos of the DC universe first, before throwing us into a larger, cosmic, high-consequence, team-centered story. As it is - this felt like a truncated, badly edited version of something that was supposed to be much bigger. It feels like half of the movie is missing. It runs just two hours, which is unusually short for a superhero movie - especially one that's supposed to be a tentpole film for an entire cinematic universe. Maybe this was due to the change in directors. Maybe the studio wanted to shift the tone of the original film too much. Maybe they wanted to get this out the door before Marvel's Infinity War comes out next year. Whatever the cause, they should have taken their time. Instead, Justice League feels disjointed and lacking its own identity. It's not morose and dreary, it's just... kind of boring. Justice League goes only Half-In, with a 5/10.