2015: The Year in Film: "Ant-Man" Review.

At this point, Marvel studios is just a machine. They're churning out multiple comic movies a year about whatever minor characters they want and every single one of those movies is better than just about every comic book movie that's ever been released by a non-Marvel studio. It's insane. 2 years ago I would have bet you large sums of money that Guardians of the Galaxy would have been a disaster and it turned out to just be the best of the bunch. Enter: Ant-Man. Acclaimed fanboy writer/director Edgar Wright was attached to/worked on this one for years only to leave just before filming began. SURELY that couldn't be a good sign, right? Was Marvel about to finally crap the bed? It's not like Ant-Man is a compelling character to begin with, he's kind of a joke even in the comics. A guy who can shrink in size and control ants? That's just silly.

We're introduced to convicted felon Scott Lang just as he's released from prison and trying to reintegrate into the world and his daughter's life. He finds himself caught up in the scheme of reclusive millionaire and genius Hank Pym to keep the revolutionary technology Pym invented and hid decades ago out of the wrong hands.

The Good: at this point, Marvel can make these movies in their sleep. I know that I've said that before, but they're so good at plugging in characters and situations to their existing format and creating fun, exciting, extremely watchable flicks that there's no reason they can't just continue on like this in perpetuity.  This is especially true since they've begun to abandon the typical "superhero origin" tale in favor of laying superheroes over other genres. They did this with Thor 2 (fantasy), Cap 2 (political thriller), Guardians (space opera) and now Ant-Man (heist). Marvel continues to knock it out of the park with casting as well. Paul Rudd is an extremely likable dude, one who's a perfect fit for this role and he steps right in. The real coup here is Michael Douglas. Douglas hasn't worked much lately, but he knocks Hank Pym out of the park and is easily the best part of this movie. Evangeline "Kate from LOST" Lily does "badass" pretty well, and she stands to have a larger role in the Marvel universe moving forward. I've always been a fan of Michael Pena's, and he stands out as comic relief here as Lang's roommate/former cellmate. The other supporting cast (Bobby Cannavale, especially) are more than up to the task and they really make the flick rise above the silly schlock fest it easily could have been. There are two things this flick does really well, though: 1. comedy. It isn't afraid to be silly and laugh at itself, and given that the main character can control ants, that's kind of crucial, guys. 2. and this is going to sound silly, but everything with the ants is pretty damn great. They're given some solid scenes, have a lot of personality and are pretty damn charming. It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's just where Marvel is in 2015. They can build scenes around CGI ants and have those scenes be the best part of a pretty good movie.



The Bad: if Marvel films have a shortcoming, it's that they consistently fail to have memorable or significant villains. I like Corey Stoll, but his Darren Cross is simply another version of Obidiah Stane from Iron Man. Also, at times it's unclear if the movie wants to be a comedy or wants to be a generic superhero film. It's not enough to ruin the flick, but some scenes are weirdly serious in a way that feels betrayed by the general tone of the rest of the film.

All in all, this isn't the best Marvel film by any standard, but it's solid and a whole lot of fun. I'd rank it somewhere in the middle, in the Thor 2/Captain America range, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Marvel has successfully added another corner to its universe, and it feels like it fits right in. Come for Paul Rudd being charming, stay for Michael Douglas, Michael Pena, and an awesome last 30 minutes.

7.5/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Jurassic World" Review

So, in the time since I saw this flick on opening night to today, it's somehow become one of the biggest box office smashes of all time, despite solid, but lukewarm reviews and a pretty "meh" trailer. That's pretty remarkable, guys! As a disclaimer, before I write this review and you maybe disagree with what I'm saying: first, I loved the first Jurassic Park... but the sequels were shit. Second, I LOVED dinosaurs as a child, and I know that's a cliche thing for little boys to be into, but I was INTO INTO them, to the extent where my parents will tell you that they were convinced that I was going to be a paleontologist. I think the reason I never pursued it was because Ross on "Friends" was the worst, but I digress. So in this age of movie franchises, maybe rejuvenating Jurassic Park is just what we need.

It's been 20 years since the events of the first Jurassic Park film, where a tropical storm unleashed the horrors of nature on park staff and a tour group. Since that time, InGen, the corporation responsible for cloning the dinosaurs and building the park on Isla Nublar has doubled down on its efforts, and successfully opened a part, Jurassic World, that is a smash hit on the same island. In the face of flat attendance, the corporation seeks to renew healthy growth, and is investing in new dinosaurs to boost attendance. Up-and-coming director Colin Trevorrow follows up Safety Not Guaranteed (which I loved) with his big-budget debut, so color me intrigued intrigued. (He must love working with Parks and Recreation stars, for what it's worth)

The Good: this film does a pretty solid job of capturing a lot of what made the first Jurassic Park film so good. The mix of wonder and terror is kind of what's at the heart of a great summer blockbuster when it comes down to it. The flick takes the interesting approach of treating the dinosaurs like its actual stars, and that makes things a lot of fun. When the T-Rex finally shows up, it's pretty damn awesome. Chris "Star Lord" Pratt, who went from this to ripped action hero in the span of 3 years, is continuing his quest to conquer us all, and brings his roguish charm to this one as well. Bryce Dallas Howard, who I usually hate (NEPOTISM), is decent enough here as a career-obsessed corporate drone. The action sequences are well done and you'll leave the theater feeling like you just had a rip-roaring good time, which is exactly what the movie wants you to feel.



The Bad: I have a few main complaints that ultimately take this flick from the upper tier of recent blockbusters (Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy) to the more mediocre tier. First, and this is a true shame, one of the best parts about the original Jurassic Park is that the main characters were intellectuals, they were scientists who were at once knowledgeable and legitimately interested in dinosaurs. Dr. Satler and Dr. Grant were informing the audience about dinosaurs, and even if a lot of what they were saying was nonsense, it was still a gun-ho attempt by the movie to be more than a monster flick. There's none of that here. No one in the movie is interested or informed about dinosaurs beyond a generic interest in animals, and everyone is just sort of a generic stock action character of the type that you'd find in a Transformers movie. Considering that the original Jurassic Park had Satler, Grant AND Ian Malcolm, that's just disappointing. These dumbed-down characters make dumbed down decisions that create the central conflict in this movie. Where in Jurassic Park a hurricane and a rogue employee bring down the park, here it's just people being dumb. Also, the central plot is DUMB. That's not new for an action/horror movie, but I feel like some adult supervision would have been nice. The very idea that after the horrors that dinosaurs have brought over multiple movies now that ANYONE would think that genetically modified hybrid killing machines would be a good idea is just preposterous. You know how zoos are always trying to create bigger, badder tigers in the lab? Oh yeah, that's never happened. (The military using raptors to kill people? C'mon, man) So not only are the characters dumb and not interested in dinosaurs, we also have two children who are shoehorned in to apparently call back to the first film AND appeal to the kid demographic. That would be well and good if the characters were anything other than generic sitcom characters OR if the performances were worthwhile, but the actors are flat and the writing is "meh" so the kids are just a waste of time. I just feel like this movie was written by dumb(ish) people for dumb(ish) people and that's absolutely not true of the first Jurassic Park so it's ultimately disappointing on the intelligence front. I was also kind of weirded out by the thought-process that goes into a fundamentally anti-corporate message being delivered by a film that's chock full of product placement from front to back.

So, ultimately, this film is big, loud, dumb fun. The dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park series are beloved by this point, so you could do much worse than seeing raptors and t-rex's rampage on the big screen. Pratt is one of the most likable action stars we've had in years, and the movie delivers tons of dinosaur mayhem for your consumption. Ultimately, though, it's dumb and silly in a disappointing way, so I can't give it a glowing review.

6.5/10. Eminently watchable and fun, just don't think too hard about it, or try to figure out why NO one involved seems to give a damn that they're surrounded by miracles.