Logan- Review

The last in line.

This can be a somewhat sobering and semi-surreal thought for sure, but one that essentially permeates everything in a sense. Time is the apex predator of all things, and is always moving towards the inevitable pounce upon its prey. People we love will be lost, fixtures in our lives will crumble, and eventually we, the individuals reading these very words, will one day no longer be here. Our efforts, our achievements, and even our very memories are but transient elements destined to be a faded forgotten fraction of a moment in the cosmos.

I've wrestled with this existential thought on many a solemn night for almost over tens years, but no matter how I try to turn it, or rationalize it in my mind, nothing can change the fact that we're all eventually victims of time at one point or another. The question has never been a matter of "if" only "when" and did you value the time that you had? This notion holds true, even in the realm of fiction, and especially for the likes of the immortal mutant Wolverine.

Created 45 years ago by Roy Thomas, Len Wein, and John Romita Sr. in 1974, Wolverine (a.k.a. Logan/James Howlett) has been a mainstay cornerstone within the genre of superhero comics. For many fans the world over, Wolverine exists as a veritable comicbook legend among his contemporary peers like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and Spiderman, consistently being listed as one of the greatest characters in superhero fiction of all time.

Be it his tragic past, his charmingly gruff demeanor, or his ruthless fighting prowess, viewers have their reasons for loving the character as much as they do, for as long as they have. I'll admit that even I am a bit of a Wolverine fan at heart, but despite his immense popularity, and his seemingly timeless nature (due to his uncanny ability to heal from any wound) Logan isn't completely immune to the affects of entropy. Time has finally come to claim Wolverine.

In the year 2029, mutankind is on the verge of total extinction. For reasons unknown mutants begin to no longer have children and the once prolific species quickly, and suddenly dies off. One of the few remaining X-Men, Logan (going by his birth name James Howlett) manages to survive the mysterious mutant plague, and maintains a low profile in southern Texas, by working as a chauffeur. Together with the mutant Calaban, Logan provides care for a senile and ailing Professor Charles Xavier, just south of the Mexican border.

Life is dismal and difficult for the trio, as Xavier suffers from memory loss and incredibly powerful/dangerous psychic seizures in his old age. After a particularly violent episode of seizures, Xavier claims to feel the presence of a new mutant somewhere in the world. Logan dismisses this as nothing more than the wandering thoughts of a frail and demented mind, until Gabriella (a nurse working for Transigen Corp.) seeks out his aid to escort an eleven year old mutant girl (Laura) north to Canada, to a supposed safe haven called "Eden."

Reluctantly taking the job, Logan gathers what little he can, and sets out for the Canadian border. Time isn't on his side though, as the ominous Transigen corporation seems dead-set on capturing Laura by any means necessary, and follows in hot pursuit. All the while, Logan is slowly succumbing to the affects of aging himself. The healing abilities that made him nearly invincible seem to be faltering, as his once mighty frame is now racked with scars and wounds. Does Logan have enough strength, humanity, and time left in his haggard soul to survive one last desperate mission? Can the last X-Man see to it that the young mutant Laura is safely delivered across into Eden?   

Before I go any further, I think I should let this one factoid gestate in the skull for a moment. It has been a whole seventeen years, nearly two entire decades, since Hugh Jackman first brandished those iconic adamantium claws of Wolverine. Despite the notably huge gap from back then til now, I can still vividly remember when I first saw Jackman in the initial X-Men trailer. I felt a literal chill run up my spine when he sublimely snikted! out those three classic claws, unveiling them for all the world to see. All that I could process at that moment was that it was real, X-Men as a live-action movie was finally happening. Cut to July 14th, of 2000, and as an early birthday present, I'm given tickets to go see X-Men opening weekend. As I went in to watch the first installment to what would become a full-blown film franchise, I could see there were tons of five year old children in the audience, all just as excited as me to witness this hallmark event. Those very same five year olds who watched that flick with me that night, are all now old enough to legally purchase alcohol, and are probably well into college.

What I'm trying to drive at here is that there's a lot of history and investment when it comes to the X-Men film series, let alone Jackman's storied run with the character of Wolverine. Despite the failures and missteps that have been taken in the past, it's undeniable that people have literally grown up, knowing/accepting Jackman as one of the most pervasive faces of superhero cinema for the majority of their young lives. Even for an older fan like me, Jackman and the X-Men films have (for lack of a better term) been a pillar to the comicbook movie empire that's been constructed over the better part of the last twenty years. It's quite frankly because of the critical and financial success of X-Men (as well as Blade in 1999) that comic-to-film adaptations even became a major priority for Hollywood during the early 2000's. 

Having to carry that heavily weighted history of essentially an entire genre on its back, and possessing the meta-context that Logan was set to be Hugh Jackman's final portrayal of what's been without a doubt his most recognized role (along with the indelible Patrick Stewart leaving the part of Xavier behind as well) I think it was a safe assumption on my end to make that everyone in the audience wanted/needed this last installment to be more than just your average comicbook movie. Logan needed to excel in every facet of its execution in order to please the long-time fans. It needed to be bold, to have heart, and to be a definitive statement on the character of Wolverine.

Did it do it? Did Logan manage to exceed expectations and reinvigorate the comicbook movie genre? I'll say that it did just that...mostly.

Gritty and bloody, but deeply character driven.

I without a doubt enjoyed Logan in its totality quite a bit, and I do honestly feel that it's a fairly solid send-off to a much vaunted actor's body of work that lasted well over his prime years, but the flick does unfortunately suffer from a few hiccups along the way to its conclusion.

But let's dive in to what Logan does right first. Up front, the biggest and best thing I can say about the picture is that it does manage to surpass a lot of the typical comic-based stylings we've come to expect these days. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the Marvel Studios Cinematic Universe films, but they're not exactly scoring home-runs with every one that comes out. There is a certain mediocrity to some of Marvel's movies, and I'd be remiss if I didn't call them out on it at least a little bit. We all know both Thor films weren't very well executed, and Doctor Strange was your bog-standard origin story we've seen far too often.

While I can agree with some critics in the regard that Logan lacks a complex plot, I personally feel the simplicity of the plot is gloriously deceptive of the meta-narrative depths of not only the genre, but the perception of comicbook characters as a whole. This is easily one of the best bits of doing a subversive study right in a story, while simultaneously embracing the defining tropes of genre film-making.  

Logan is, for all intents and purposes, what Unforgiven was for the wild-west genre, except for comicbook movies, and that's definitely not a bad thing. Much like how Unforgiven represented a send-off for Clint Eastwood's career in wild-west films, it also serves as an introspective dissertation on the wild-west genre. Logan does much the same, because if I had to be quite honest, Logan exists as not only a film marking the end of an era for the X-Men franchise going forward, it also exists as a semi-introspective meditation on the whole comic-film genre, and where it may be going in the very near future. Much like the world that's set up in Logan, the landscape of superhero cinema itself is potentially on the cusp of a major paradigm shift, or even an eventual/possible collapse. With pieces like Deadpool, Logan itself, and even the success of Marvel's own Daredevil Netflix (and sister) series, we could be seeing changes with how these intellectual properties are approached creatively sooner rather than later.

What is that change you ask? That change could be a far more staunch focus on making comic adaptations Rated-R, or at least making a notable shift into the direction of tackling more mature tones/subject matters. Sure, the enormous, bombastic, action scenes that have come to define the genre are nice and all, but as time has worn on, I think fans are developing a more complex palette for stories. Logan provides a more character rich depiction than we're used to getting from this ilk, and all of the film's best parts work in service to its tone, which leads into why Logan had to be Rated-R. If this movie was moved to PG13, it just wouldn't have had the same impact with its tone.

Any semi-savvy film buffs can see that Logan wears its influences on its sleeve with pride, and James Mangold (reprising his position as director from his previous X-Men effort The Wolverine which I previously reviewed here) comes at the material of the story with a much more emotionally nuanced take on the characters and the world they inhabit. There is a tone and texture to Logan that we haven't really seen before (or at least often) in the slew of comic-based predecessors of the modern era (outside of Marvel's Daredevil) and the somewhat risky nature still associated with those sort of decisions actually lends itself well to the overall vibe of the feature. This movie manages to feel both fresh and distinguished among the ocean of its more risk-aversion peers, and while some may scoff at Logan, calling it nothing more than a unapologetic ripoff of the videogame The Last of Us, or proclaim that it's merely a shallow/cheap cash grab on a floundering film franchise, I'd say to those people that they didn't really watch the same movie I did.

Hugh Jackman turns in what is more than likely going to go down as one of his best performances of not only the Wolverine character, but perhaps of his career. Despite still cutting an impressive physique for the role, you can tell that Jackman is channeling all the hard years he's put into portraying the immortal mutant. There is a clear, yet still subtle injection of world-weary weight with every scene he's in, that plays into not only how exhausted Logan is in the story, but also how exhausted Jackman has become over the years from embodying Logan.

Unfortunately, I can't really pierce the depths of the character performances much more without fundamentally spoiling the film, so I'll simply state that the on-screen chemistry Jackman has with the likes of fellow leads in Patrick Stewart's Xavier, Steve Merchant's Calaban, or Dafnee Keen's Laura is palpable from start to finish. There is an authenticity to the character drama, and even when the interactions take on a more comedic nature (mostly to provide a small degree of levity) they're quick, with no performance ever feeling irrespective of Logan's overall tone. This is easily one of the most consistently well acted of the X-Men films, and it'll be a downright crying shame if the academy award shows out there (I'm looking at you Oscars) don't put their biases aside, and acknowledge the fantastic work on offer here.

One last snikted! One last time.

Visually, Logan is hands-down resplendent with some of the strongest cinematography the X-Men franchise has probably ever seen. The dry yellows and oranges of the desert shots, juxtaposed with the washed-out cool greens of the cold north sequences compliment beautifully. From the opening frame of Logan stepping out of his limo, into a parking lot saturated by inky blacks and neon pinks, one can easily tell that Logan's is different from its predecessors. While this is ultimately a comicbook movie at heart, this has all the hallmarks and visual language ques of a modern western. Solid camera work is something the X films have noticeably lacked for a long while now, and Logan even addresses that by keeping all of the action in frame and easy to follow. There is a notable lack of quick cuts, and an emphasis on longer takes, more than likely meant to ground the events, while also showcasing the strong performances from the cast. Thankfully this also means that by the time the blood-soaked climax hits, we get to see Wolverine doing his Wolverine thing in full cinematic glory.

Make no mistake, this is the violent depiction of Logan we've all been waiting for. While I highly appreciated the truly awesome cameo of Weapon X in X-Men: Apocalypse (and it's rage fueled magnificence) this film goes above and beyond full-bore with its brutality. Displaying some of the most nasty, yet righteous kills to Wolverine's name, every blow feels wet and meaty. Knowing that Logan's healing powers are dwindling makes even the act of Logan's claws coming out look extremely painful, and it makes for some excellent tension throughout the action beats. The only shame I would say is that we never got Jackman in a proper Wolverine costume doing this caliber of carnage.

Marco Beltrami reprises his role as composer for Logan, and once again he infuses the score with splendid spaghetti western overtones, albeit with a much more controlled hand. The twangs on a lone, almost out of tune acoustic guitar punctuates much of Logan's respective scenes, and emphasizes the haggard state of his character excellently. Thankfully Beltrami and Mangold both know when to dial back and just let the ambiance of a scene build with little to no music at all, making for when the tracks do kick in, they add style and flare.

Now while I have been showering Logan with tons of praise, I do feel that it suffers from two major issues and that is almost the entirety of the second act, and its lackluster villains. Without going too deep into spoilers, our crew ends up on a farm for a somewhat protracted amount of time that (while serving as a somewhat decent character building moment) ultimately goes on for far too long in my eyes. A family is introduced that ultimately goes nowhere and does little to add to the main cast of characters, let alone to the stakes of the narrative. While it does lead to one powerful scene in its wake, it unfortunately breaks up what was otherwise a nearly flawless experience. Had the sequence been shortened or perhaps even cut, I think we would have had a film that moved along at an otherwise fantastic pace. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, but it does stand as a noticeable blemish on an otherwise immaculately paced piece of work.

Despite the immense strength of the main cast, the villains (a.k.a. The Reavers working for the Transigen corp.) are severely underdeveloped, and lack any sense of presence beyond being fodder for a Wolverine slaughter. The head of Transigen is your typical evil dude who only wants to see mutant-kind destroyed, and comes off as painfully cliche' at points. Donald Pierce does have some charm to him, but has little screen-time to really unfurl his character and make him truly memorable. I don't want to say that any one performance is necessarily bad, but they are somewhat bland in the end.   

Overall, Logan is a must see for not only X-Men movie fans, but comicbook movie fans in general. This is more than likely going to go down as a veritable classic in the annals of superhero cinema, as it may be marking a touchstone for where the genre could be going in the very near future. As a send-off to Jackman's portrayal of the iconic Wolverine, I thinks it's one of the best good-byes we could honestly ask for, as the man gives one of the best performances of his whole career. After all the bloody conflicts are said and done, come the credits you may potentially find yourself fighting back some tears. Knowing that this is the end for such an influential character that has helped to lay the foundations of the comic-film smorgasbord we're enjoying today is a heavy sensation, but one that feels gratifying in its closure.

The only thing I can say now is thank you Hugh Jackman for all the years and all the memories. God speed with your future en devours sir!

Postive Factors

• Perhaps one of the strongest solo outings for the Wolverine films. Emotionally textured, layered and nuanced.
• Jackman gives one of the best performances he's ever done with the character. 
• Supporting main cast is consistently solid, with excellent on-screen chemistry between the leads.
• Fantastic cinematography that's both stylish and comprehensive.
• Rated-R action that compliments the tone of the picture wonderfully. Some of Logan's most glorious kills are on feature.
• Music is rustic and ambient, knowing exactly when to kick into high gear.
• This is the end of an era, and stands as on hell of a good-bye from Jackman to the role of Wolverine.

Negative Factors

• The entire second act feels like it could have been substantially cut down or removed altogether. Worse part of the movie.
• Villains have little to no presence within the narrative and lack any substantial development or nuance.

Final Rating: Splenderiffic! (Blenderiffic! if you're into some gloriously gory Wolverine wreckage!)

Death Race 2050- Review

The immortal Frankenstein rides again!

Move over Mad Max: Fury Road, take a hike Fast and the Furious franchise, blow it out your rear Snowpiercer, because a new post-apocalyptic bad boy filled to the brim with high-octane, over-the-top automobile action and scathing social commentary is on the mean streets, and its name is none other than Death Race 2050 from Roger Corman!

For those not in the know, producer Roger Corman is perhaps one of the most prolific producers in cinema history, whose influence on the medium can truly never be understated. Corman practically invented the whole idea of the independent genre film, and once more he returns (at the age of 90 no less) to reclaim his rightful title as King of the Cult Classics. Having been responsible for the creation of hundreds of influential movies worldwide, tons of directors and actors all owe a certain debt of gratitude to Corman in one way or another.

Despite being a fan of Corman's seminal bloodbath original, Death Race 2000 (probably one of his best known and most beloved works) and having access to the internet, I feel somewhat ashamed in admitting that this flick almost went completely under my radar. Thankfully I was able to make good on watching this cacophonous chorus of carnage recently, and I can't honestly think of a better film to open 2017 with. 

In today's day and age we simply just don't get films like this anymore. As a child of the mid 80's to early 90's, I grew up in a time when B-movies ruled the airwaves and cable networks like Sci-Fi and Cinemax. Sure they were schlocky and hokey, but they were also inspired and creative. While a shamefully small handful of them are still around today (such as Sharknado) I've gotta be frank and say that they just don't make them like they used to.

The year is 2050, and the civilized world as we know it is in complete shambles. Overpopulation has lead to widespread famine, and automation of labor has created a massive 99% unemployment rate. As the global economy collapses, the once mighty USA is reformed as the UCA (United Corporations of America) and it is lead by a lone leader known only as "The Chairman". As a means of population control, the Death Race is formed. An overtly sexualized, ultra-violent, cross-country race where the competitors gain points by killing pedestrians.

Of all the drivers, none are more popular than Frankenstein, the reigning champion, and this year's race looks to be an especially brutal one for him. New racers such as Jed Perfectus (a genetically grown super athlete) A.B.E. (an A.I. controled car) Tammy the Terrorist (a zealous cult leader) and Minerva Jefferson (a famous rap artist) all enter the fray, looking to claim Frankenstein's title. To make matters worse, seeds of a rising resistance to the current corporate power structure is making its first move to take back the country. With the odds stacked against him, can Frankenstein win the race, or is he set to become the next name on the long list of latest victims?

To be fair, this doesn't seem that far off from actually happening.

Written by the duo of G.J. Echternkamp (who also directed the film) and Matt Yamashita, Death Race 2050 stands as a beautiful example of not only how to properly remake a cult classic, but also how to effectively mix elements like black comedy with unapologetic social commentary. As much as I enjoyed the 2008 Death Race remake featuring Jason Stathom, I felt that version lacked the distinct bite of the original. A substantial amount of the humor was missing, and the narrative was devoid of the commentary that defined the original.

With this installment, there's a clear and obvious effort being made to have this flick actually be about something over the somewhat shallow action set-pieces of the 2008 version. Much like its predecessor, this spiritual sequel/remake takes more than its fair share of pot-shots at the mundanity of popular culture and its consumption. Be it the drivel of modern music, to the corporate media at large, to the rampant celebrity/idol worship, there almost isn't a single area Death Race 2050 doesn't touch upon in gloriously crass fashion, and I'm all the more glad for it. But it doesn't stop there, as it also retains themes from the original such as the conscious sedation and somnolence of society to the likes of becoming numb to violence, mass surveillance, and blatant political corruption. While it's far from the definition of subtle, and I'm sure there are those who will more than likely perceive it as being a way too on the nose jab at modern culture, I think it's also fair to point out that subtlety is not exactly a stated goal for this movie, nor is it in the style/method of a Corman piece.

Frankenstein enters the race.

In terms of casting, I would dare to say that Death Race 2050 is pretty damn solid all around, if not one of the best casting lists I've seen in years. Every part fits the actors chosen, making no one feel remotely out of place, and all of the archetypes they portray support/enhance the overall themes of the film. Like I said before, it isn't often we get movies like this.

Manu Bennett (of Arrow fame) is the leather-clad lead of a beastly cyborg that is Frankenstein, and is ultimately the core of the whole experience. Coming to the part with a slightly comedic masculine gruffness, Bennett is simultaneously amusing, and badass. The veritable icon that is Frankenstein in the Death Race world feels like it has weight with him, and as the narrative unfolds, his motivations become more and more clear, to the point that, even if you didn't like him at the start, by the film's end you can at least understand his goals. Unlike Stathom, who came at the role as pretty much himself, Bennett brings a much appreciated self-awareness to the character that actually serves to enhance the themes, coupled with his excellent chemistry with the supporting cast.

Marci Miller as Annie Sullivan (a navigator for the race who also serves as Frankenstein's virtual proxy passenger) is absolutely charming in her role, and has a great sense of comedic timing in several scenes. The celluloid legend that is Malcolm McDowell takes on the part of the "The Chairman" with class and crass, fitting the character like a tailor-made glove. From his glamorously fop (and perhaps even Elton John inspired) wardrobe, to his obvious comb-over toupee, to his clear lack of leadership skills, everything about "The Chairman" is meant to reference today's political climate with scorching fervor. Even the somewhat small role of Yancy Butler as the brutish, no-nonsense leader of the fledgling (and charmingly stupid) resistance stands as a ludicrous lampoon to modern public discourse.

None stand nearly as uproariously tall though as Burt Grinstead who plays Jed Perfectus to immensely hilarious aplomb. This character is easily the film's best feature, as Jed is literally a genetic product of the Death Race world. If Frankenstein represents heroes of a by-gone era, Perfectus is a representation of the homogeneity of modern action leads. From his self-aggrandizing narcissistic attitude towards every aspect of the world around him, to his overly sensitive temperament and hyperbolic outbursts, Jed not only reflects the extensive fiction he exists in, but also serves as a road-sign to what a future American generation may be heading towards. Regardless of what his character represents, Grinstead camps it up for the camera, and it's hard, if not downright impossible, not to come away loving his performance.

Truly a master-craft of automobile design.

Visually Death Race 2050 is an insane, gory, macabre, masterpiece. Despite my dubious praise though, you won't find me denying it that this movie looks cheap as all hell. The notoriously frugal Corman still utilizes all of the tools at his disposal, and makes this flick feel almost like a celebration of all the different methods used in its creation. Intentionally shot with as minimum of a budget as possible, every aspect of the movie reflects a dour world that's only holding on by a thread, essentially making for a meta joke on the production itself.

For the practical effect hounds out there who loved the delightfully destructive mannequin and dummy work of the original, you'll find plenty to adore.The astoundingly graphic tone of the original is preserved to an immensely faithful degree here, as once the race gets fully underway there is no shortage of severed body parts to liter the fields, or blood squibs to stain the streets. It only gets more gratuitously ridiculous as the plot progresses, and when Death Race 2050 enters its climax, you can certainly tell where most of the budget went.

The cars (while quite obviously made of equal parts plastic and foam) all have unique designs that congeal with the cast, making for vehicles that feel like an extension of their respective characters. Frankenstein's car is a dark and spiky mass seemingly built for the soul purpose of raking up a body count. Jed's ride is garish and streamlined, meant more-so for show and spectacle, rather than results.  A.B.E. looks like a calculator on wheels, and Tammy the Terrorist's jingoistic, all American paint-job is just as obnoxious as she is.

Annie takes ol' Franky to task.

Oddly enough, due to those very same budget constraints, it also means that there is little in the way of jumpy edits, or shaking cam. A lot of these shots are incredibly well framed (probably because they needed to count) providing only the most visceral angles to emphasize speed or impact. At no point do scenes loose focus on whatever is happening in frame, making for some surprisingly effective conveyance of action throughout all the set-pieces. The most post-production editing to find is in the coloring of the movie, which opts for a more saturated palette of hues and inky blacks, giving every sequence a near comicbook feel. Even with with the admittedly cheesy sped up footage for the car chases, or the blatant green screen shots, every moment in Death Race 2050 feels alive and occupied like a classic 70's comic strip.

Combine all of these factors with a deliberate (hell, it's almost reckless) use of casual full-frontal nudity, and you've got a movie that by all margins successfully encapsulates the essence of what made Death Race 2000 such a legendary film experience to begin with.

Perhaps the only area where I feel Death Race 2050 truly does fail to deliver is on its music. While it may be somewhat intentional, I do find the lack of a distinct identity to the score to be a bit saddening. Essentially the backbone of the original was sex, violence, and synth laden rock. Don't get me wrong, the original wasn't exactly a masterstroke of composition by any means, but I feel Gunter and Cindy Brown simply fall on the generic side of the sonic spectrum. Sure, the tracks are easy enough to listen to, don't distract from any moment, and at several points work well with the chaos unfolding on screen, but nothing resonates by the film's end.

The only notable track that I think anyone would take away from the experience is 'Kill, Kill, Kill, Drive, Drive, Drive' and that's only because it's a crappy rap/pop song that's meant to lampoon the insipid, derivative, and uninspired schlock we have in popular music today. If it were up to me, I'd more-so be trying to capture the spirit of those funky synth hooks from Death Race 2000.

In the end, it's hard for me to hate Death Race 2050. This movie is quite possibly now the penultimate example of how to do a fun B-movie correctly in the modern day. While I would never recommend it to anyone as a solo venture (because watching this flick of their own volition by themselves will probably not have nearly the same effect) it's one hell of a good time with friends while it lasts. If you're a fan of the original Death Race like I am, you'll find this to be far more in line with the original's concept than the somewhat soulless 2008 Jason Stathom version. Regardless of where you're coming from though, you'll more than likely laugh at the over-the-top kills, the metric tons of gore, the copious amounts of sex, and the surprisingly savvy script. With the world being as it is right now, I think we could all use something like Death Race 2050 to not only tide us over til the blockbuster season goes into full-swing, but to give us an opportunity to simply take a look at ourselves and have a hearty belly-laugh at the contorted fun-house mirror style reflection staring back at us.

Positive Factors

• Recaptures the essence of the original Death Race 2000, unlike the dismal 2008 remake. For old-school fans, this is a god-send.
• A raucously funny film, filled to the brim with black comedy and scathing social commentary. 
• Beautiful casting, Manu Bennett as Frankenstein provides a solid backbone for the plot, while Jed Perfectus steals the show.
• Car designs are goofy, but feel like organic extensions of the cast. 
• Surprisingly solid action cinematography, given the huge budget constraints.
• Immensely fun to watch with a group of friends.

Negative Factors

• This movie is cheap, big-time cheap. If you're not on-board with Roger Corman flicks, this isn't going to win you over.
• While the social commentary does give the film some much needed bite, it's about as subtle as a brick to the skull.
• The score is devoid of identity. One track is memorable, and it's the most intentionally insipid piece of the whole film.
• You might want to avoid watching this alone, unless you're that brave

Final Rating: Craptacular!

If you're like me though, there's only one proper response to this film, and that is:

Going the Distance

Perseverance- steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc. especially in spite of difficulties, or discouragement.

Tales about perseverance, the will to succeed despite the odds, not only permeate storytelling the world over, but are in essence an intrinsic part of the abstract concept that is the indomitable human spirit. Regardless of personal circumstances, practically everyone can relate to the idea of having to struggle to achieve something. We tell these stories to inspire not only ourselves, but to instill the notion within future generations, that with enough gumption and effort, they too can accomplish whatever it is they set their hearts and minds to. 

While I am a self-described action/sci-fi/fantasy movie geek, I'm also a sucker for the inspirational film drama, and nowhere are these types of films more prevalent than in the boxer/fighter genre. For years it has been a tradition of mine to indulge in watching and celebrating these highly encouraging pieces of cinema, if only because viewing them reminds me to work harder to complete my own goals.

November has always been the month I have on reserve for this celebration, so while I'm currently in the thick of it, I figured I'd share with you my list of personal favorite flicks dealing with those most determined combatants. These stimulating celluloid marvels are in no certain order (beyond my top pick) as I feel any of the films mentioned here could easily stand as a testament to lighting a blazing fire within one's own blood. Having said that, let us now chomp down on our mouth guards, hop in the squared circle, and ring that bell!

Fearless

To truly win, one must fight without fear.

The 2006 film Fearless tells the (somewhat exaggerated) tale of real life wushu competitor Huo Yuanjia. It is a time when Chinese sovereignty is being eroded by foreign imperialist nations at the turn of the 20th century, and Huo Yuanjia stands defiant in the face of those changes. By challenging foreign combatants in highly publicized matches, and upon winning each and every bout, Huo goes on to become a national hero.

Being regarded as one of the few people responsible for bringing back national pride to China, he's also seen as representing the true spirit of martial arts competition itself. Before his death, Huo would establish the Jin Wu Sports Federation, a school that stands to this very day, dedicated to teaching the essence of wushu.

Despite Fearless telling a highly fictionalized account of Huo Yuanjia's life, I honestly feel that every aspect of Fearless' production shines through with incredible polish, and passion. From the scale of the fights, to the intensity of the choreography itself, few martial arts flicks have ever created the enormity of combat in such an elegant, yet visceral way, while simultaneously embodying the core values of what martial arts are ultimately meant to be.

I have no issues in admitting that the ending of Fearless almost brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it. Without going too deep into spoiler territory, I'll simply say that during the last moments of Huo's life, he encapsulates everything that one would think of when the term "honor" is uttered. It's because of how galvanizing this ending is that I consider Fearless to be one of the greatest pieces out of Jet Li's sizable film catalogue, and it comes highly recommended to anyone looking for where the heart of a true champion resides.

Ip Man

The master who would inspire a generation.

The 2008 dramatization of the real-life wing chun grand master Yip Man, is set during the early 1930's in the city of Foshan China, a central hub for martial arts training. Schools are formed all over, and actively compete against one another for fame and glory. Although Ip Man is considered to be the most skilled of all the local masters, he never takes on any students. Instead, he seems content to lead a humble life, dedicated mostly to honing his wing chun skills, along with spending time among his family and friends.

All of that changes though when the Japanese invasion of 1937 occurs. Stripped of his home, his wealth, and even his dignity, Ip Man is forced to work as a coal miner for small daily bags of rice while under the Japanese occupation. Holding on to a mere thread of hope, Ip Man learns to find strength in not only his fellow masters, but with the common people of Foshan itself. Upon discovering a new purpose to his life, Ip Man dedicates himself to spreading wing chun the world over, teaching students until the day he dies.

Ip Man exists almost as the exact opposite of Fearless in many ways. While Fearless tells a noticeably hyperbolic story that somewhat aggrandizes its lead character, Ip Man hunkers down and weaves a far more grounded narrative that's more so meant to provide perspective. While there are several liberties taken in order to facilitate the parameters of a movie plot, for the most part, Ip Man is a fairly accurate retelling of historical events. The area where I consider Ip Man and Fearless to be similar though is in the area of their leading actors. Much like how I feel Fearless is one of Jet Li's very best films, the same goes for Donnie Yen's performance in Ip Man. This may be the defining work of his career, as nothing before, or since (not even the Ip Man sequels) have lived up to this master stroke of martial arts extravagance. Equal parts entertaining, emotional, and empowering, Ip Man is a work of art.

Cinderella Man

One of the original underdog stories.

2005's Cinderella Man is based off the life events of heavyweight boxing champion James J. Braddock. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, James Braddock is an Irish-American boxer who's simply out of luck. He isn't strong enough to win any of his fights, he can barely afford to keep the lights on for his family, and any injury he takes in the ring hurts his chances of finding work somewhere outside of it.

Just as Braddock is about to lose his boxing license, his manager and long time friend, Joe Gould manages to get him one last fight. What was supposed to be Braddock's last bout turns into a surprise victory, as Braddock wins the match, and begins to quickly climb the ranks. He isn't just on the way to having a possible heavyweight title shot, but perhaps a second chance at making good for his family.

There must be something about the early twentieth century, because this was where a metric ton of real-world, inspirational material seems to come from. Much like the other two movies on this list, Cinderella Man is a semi-loose retelling of actual events, but is perhaps the most grounded on the entire list, as it lovingly recreates not only the aesthetics of 1930's America, but fundamentally embodies it in tone from start to finish.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the leading actors Russel Crowe and Renee Zellwegger (or director Ron Howard for that matter) I cannot deny the sheer overall quality of this flick. Crowe and Zellwegger have fantastic on-screen chemistry together, giving what's easily the best performances either of them have done to date, while Howard's direction compliments all the action in just the right way. Cinderella Man takes us back to an era, where the strength of your heart was more important than the strength of your punches.

Warrior

The bonds of family run deep.

The 2011 sports-drama Warrior is the fictional tale of two estranged brothers who are set to face off in the fight of a lifetime, within the brutal high-stakes world of mixed martial arts.

When former marine Tommy Riordan returns to his hometown of Pittsburgh, it's only because he's enlisting the aid of his formerly alcoholic father, Patty Conlon, to train him for an upcoming MMA tournament. The grand prize of one million dollars is too great to ignore though as several other prominent fighters from all over the globe are set to enter as well.

As Tommy begins cutting through the competition to the title prize, his brother Brendan, a former MMA fighter himself, returns to the ring after failing to make ends meet as a public school teacher. Rising in the ranks as an underdog entry to the tournament, both Tommy and Brendan are set on a path that will not only force them to confront the very things that tore their family apart, but to do it in a winner takes all cage match.   

As much as I'd like to, I really don't want to delve into too much of the plot of Warrior, as this is a densely packed, highly emotional film to parse. Tackling such issues as abuse, neglect, and alcoholism, Warrior is not an easy watch, but one that feels ultimately life affirming come the end. Despite all the hardships the characters endure, redemption is the one thing no one is beyond in this narrative.

Out of all the movies I have on this list, Warrior may be the one that speaks to me the most, if only because of how it deals with a tale regarding brothers. From our two main leads in Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton, to the supporting role of Nick Nolte, every character in Warrior feels expertly cast, and downright fantastic in their performances.

And now for my #1 pick!

The Rocky Franchise

Before them all, there was the Italian Stallion.

It should probably come as no surprise that this would be my number one pick on the list. Granted, I am cheating a bit by listing the entire franchise, but it's all just too damn good to simply pick one. If I had to say which was the objectively best of them all, it would more than likely be the first Rocky film, as that movie's success is quite frankly one of the most profound turning points in cinema history. Honestly I don't know if I should bother going over the plot to Rocky, seeing how it's so effectively ingrained into pop-culture on the whole.

Had Rocky not been the runaway hit it was, Martin Scorsese would never have been able to get his unarguable classic Raging Bull off the ground. Every film that was like Rocky and came out in the wake of Rocky (and yes, that even includes the sequels) wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if Stallone didn't change the game. Suddenly every sports flick had a chance to be made, provided it had enough heart to carry it through to the audiences at large.

What's so great about Rocky is how much it transcended its medium. How many times can you name a film character who had an actual statue errected in their honor? How many fictional characters do you know of who have been inducted into a sporting hall of fame?

Before Rocky, Sylvester Stallone was much like his own character, a no name who no one took seriously, until he changed cinema history forever with this highly enduring piece. Whenever someone thinks of the iconic inspirational film, even sans the sport/fighting element, they're more than likely thinking of Rocky, or something like it. This movie is without a doubt the quintessential example of why I even have a love for this genre to begin with. I grew up watching the Rocky franchise, and to this very day the series continues to inspire me to run hard, to take that shot, and most importantly, to be willing go the distance for my dreams.





That about does it for this entry. I know this one was a bit of a short list, but quite frankly I could gush on and on for hours about each of these films and why they're all important to me as a creator and simply as a person. If anything else, I hope this list helps you to find something you may like that can help motivate you to achieve a long held goal in your life. Til next time folks, run hard for that gold!   

Warcraft- Review

The beginning of the end?

Once again I find my opinions forming opposite to that of my peers online. In the recent weeks numerous sites have put out reviews branding the new Warcraft movie as one of the worst video game to film adaptations ever. Having now gone and seen the picture (at least twice as of this writing) I frankly have to wonder if those critics and myself actually watched the same flick.

While everyone is most certainly entitled to their respective thoughts on any matter, as a personal standard, I do feel one must at least be able to functionally justify their thoughts when trying to convince others. How do you do that? Do research on the subject, such as finding out any and all facts that could affect outcomes. Provide citation of examples/evidence outside of the anecdotal that support any claims you make. And most importantly, you need to remain as objective as possible when analyzing the data you've collected.

In the case of Warcraft I think there has been a notable disconnect to any one of these standards, as many of the critics have somewhat failed to truly justify (in my eyes) why they feel this film is so poor beyond "It's a movie based on a video game, and those all suck." There is very little evidence to support their arguments of Warcraft's actual failings as a movie, making most of the reviews available come off as exceedingly narrow minded, or outright biased.

I will agree to the notion that most film adaptations of video games leave a lot to be desired, but to be fair, there are quite a few that were honestly decent, if not good, so to see Warcraft (an admittedly flawed, but still fun experience) get lambasted seemingly all over every major publication is a bit sad to say the least. Let alone that the volley of criticisms lack any substantive body of real critique to them to begin with.

Dreanor, home world of the Orcs, is being torn apart by a mysterious magical force known as the fel. With drought, famine, and death pushing the Orc clans to total desperation, they unite under one ruler, Gul'dan, an Orc shaman claiming to have access to a portal to a new land that is ripe for the taking. On the other side of the portal is Azeroth, a peaceful realm ruled by the seven kingdoms of humans, high elves, and dwarfs. Upon entering the portal, the Orc Horde immediately lays waste to the surrounding human settlements, and ignite the sparks of war. Only through uniting the kingdoms, and the aid of the guardian wizard Medivh can the forces of Azeroth hope to survive the Horde invasion, but as the two worlds collide, leaders from each side of the conflict begin to question if war is truly the only answer.

I'll concede that some level of familiarity with the source material can help in deflecting some of the issues Warcraft possesses. Plenty of fans have spoken positively of the flick, and seeing that I am somewhat versed in Warcraft lore/characters, perhaps some of the problems don't affect me quite as much as it could someone less knowledgeable. Many can and have argued that this movie is more so meant for already established fans, than it is meant to bring in new ones, but that really doesn't seem to be the case. While continuity lock-out is certainly a thing in many stories, the Warcraft film is a decent place to start for anyone who may be looking to get into the franchise. 

To be blunt, the largest criticism I can levy at Warcraft is its pacing. Nothing is inherently wrong with the story or the characters as some out there have reported. Every bit of information one would need in order to functionally digest Warcraft is present and accounted for, on a base level. We know who the protagonists/antagonists are, what their motivations are, what is at stake, etc. etc. The big problem I think a lot of critics are missing is that a sizable chunk of the material simply isn't given enough time to truly breath or fully develop. Sub-par pacing isn't the result of a poorly written plot and characters, or simply bad ideas. What we have here is a fundamentally solid war story that's been unfortunately watered down for the sake of a smaller running time, and that's the only real flaw I see with Warcraft.

If you can't get around the pacing issues, I totally understand. Some in the crowd might not be able to fully grasp plot details, or comprehend the significance of a particular character when focus on those things is very brief. A lot of Warcraft's elements move by so quickly the audience doesn't have time to absorb what just happened, what's happening, or what's about to happen, which is definitely a serious problem. Warcraft does sadly contend with pacing from start to finish, and pacing is a very big deal when it comes to any story. If you get this one thing wrong, it could topple the whole narrative, and there are major beats in the movie that come and go so fast they're almost a "blink and you'll miss it" type of situation, which is certainly not a position you want to find yourself in with regards to storytelling.

A lone picture of Durotan that's worth a thousand words.

Opposite of that argument though, I can say there are plenty of sequences in Warcraft that utilize their time wisely, and create some great emotional gravitas to what is obviously a very epic (both in scope and scale) tale of two worlds clashing for survival. It has been made known that close to forty minutes of Warcraft was cut for the theatrical release, and quite honestly, it shows. I really do believe that there is a great movie to be found with Warcraft, it simply got edited out. Knowing this doesn't even remotely excuse the pacing issues of the final product, but it does at least let us know where the problem stems from, which is important to keep in mind.

While the film can be a bit heavy on exposition (mostly relegated to the beginning of the first act) it's fairly evident from jump-street this is a character driven narrative, which has always been the impetus behind most of Blizzard's stories. Nowhere is this more prominent than with one of the first opening shots of the Orc chieftain Durotan somberly and silently watching his pregnant mate Drakka sleep. We can see from this single expression alone that he is contemplative over all that is happening around him. He's bringing a child into a dying world, and perhaps even into a war. A small tinge of fear belays his large figure, as a potentially dangerous, and seemingly unavoidable future hurtles toward his family and clan. Does the portal to Azeroth lead to hope, or does it lead their demise? All he knows for certain at this moment is all that has ever mattered to him is sleeping right in front of him, and he must do whatever it takes to give them a fighting chance at life.

Every word I wrote there wouldn't mean a damn thing if Warcraft was rife with miscasts and bad acting, but I can joyously exclaim that isn't the case here, as Warcraft feels expertly cast, with no one actor feeling out of place with their role. Even though there isn't much in the way of notable "star-power" per se with Warcraft, I personally think it's one of the movie's strengths. Without any huge names to form certain expectations within the audience, the characters are essentially allowed to simply be who they are without any preconceived notions.

On the side of the horde we have the likes of Toby Kebbell's portrayal of Durotan, which feels appropriately weighty, and is perhaps the best performance of the whole picture. His struggles as an Orc Chieftain and an expecting father make him one of the most likeable characters on offer, and Kebbel has beautiful chemistry with the other Orc actors. It's that very chemistry that really brings the Orcs to life. While Anna Galvin's Drakka I think is a bit underutilized (seeing as she's Durtan's mate) overall she is gratifying come the film's end. Robert Kazinsky's work with Orgrim Doomhammer (who's Durtan's best friend) is compelling in his own right as a character torn between the loyalty he has to his friend, and the loyalty to his people. Kazinsky (a self-professed World of Warcraft player) is clearly enthusiastic about being a part of the Warcraft mythology in the promotional material, and it shows through in his performance. Hell, even one of my favorite character actors, Clancy Brown, takes up a role in Warcraft as the Orc War Chief Blackhand, and he (in true Clancy Brown fashion) makes him awesomely brutal. Even Daniel Wu's Gul'dan is deliciously evil, with every word he says coming off with wry sadistic glee.

The conflict between the Horde and Alliance feels nuanced and compelling.

With the Alliance, we have Travis Fimmel's Lothar, who is almost as equally endearing as Durotan. From his humorous quips to the physicality of his fight scenes, you can certainly tell that Fimmel is having a blast with his role. Paula Patton's play on Garona (in a somewhat depressingly small part) fits the character exceedingly well. Looking totally badass whenever the camera is on her, Patton gives Garona an imposing visage, while maintaining a slightly emotional vulnerability, due to her heritage as a half-human half-orc slave turned warrior. Dominic Cooper as King Llane, is probably one of the only fantasy story kings (I can recall in any recent memory) who actually is just an all around good guy. Typically kings in these types of stories are written as all encompassing douche-nozzles, but King Llane is a man I would honestly follow right into the heat of battle. Ben Foster captures the essence of the reclusive (and clearly off-kilter) guardian wizard Medivh, and he gets to show off his chops as a character actor in at least two excellent sequences, one of which made me teary eyed.

Visually Warcraft is a standard setter. Despite the copious amounts of CGI (something I'm normally not a huge fan of) Warcraft manages to have a very healthy mix of practical effects to compliment the renders. All the vistas of Azeroth and Draenor feel lived in, thanks in part to the actual sets that were constructed (such as the streets of Stormwind) making Warcraft a sight to truly behold at times.

Vast amounts of detail both big and small fill every scene of Warcraft, and fans are surely in for a treat as tons of iconic items, armors, weapons, etc. etc. from the games are brought to life. It really is the little things sometimes that can make all the difference, and getting to see the likes of Orgrim's namesake the Doomhammer, to King Llane's armor be so painstakingly accurate is refreshing to no end. Typically film studios would take tons of unnecessary liberties with the source material and make something only marginally resembling the game it's supposed to be based on, but with Warcraft, even the runes on spells are flawlessly manifested on the silver screen. Regardless of one's own opinion of the overall package Warcraft presents, it ultimately can't be denied that it's one hell of a gorgeous motion picture.

ILM's work with the Orcs of Warcraft is clearly one of the major attractions for the piece, and I'm sure is going to set a very high bar for motion capture performance for future blockbusters. Every bit of nuance the actors playing the Orcs have translates effectively to the models, and there isn't an instant where an Orc model looks poorly rendered. This is easily some of the most impressive work I've ever seen with lighting, and texturing CG models for a live-action movie. The camera work throughout Warcraft flawlessly captures the interactions of the humans and Orcs, and at no point does it feel like either one isn't occupying the same space. Making the Orcs feel tangible, alive, and integrated was absolutely essential to making them a convincing effect, which I believe ILM managed to do with flying colors. 

Shots like this really help to create the epic scale of Warcraft's story.

Never mind that the war scenes with the Orcs are surely some of the best epic scale battles put to film within the last five years of cinema. For a film called Warcraft there is a surprisingly small amount of battles, but when they happen they are an undeniable spectacle of the highest order. The camera swoops in from sky shots to down low angles, displaying all the balletic carnage of combat dutifully. In a day and age where camera work is so spastic and shaky, I find it nothing short of exhilarating to see how tightly choreographed Warcraft is.  

It's only in a few small areas where the computer generated seams begin to show, and they're mostly in the scenes involving Lothar's gryphon mount. It's isn't terrible by any means, but there are a few shots with the gryphon that leave a bit to be desired. The creature doesn't seem fully integrated, and every time Travis Fimmel "stands" next to it, or "rides" it you can tell it's not really there. I wouldn't be so bold as to say it's a deal breaker, but it is a particularly noticeable blemish on an otherwise stellar looking picture.

Perhaps the only other place where Warcraft slouches ever so slightly is in its score. Now don't get me wrong here, the music isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it does lack somewhat in the memorability and identity department. Composer Ramin Djawadi (of Game of Thrones fame) does an admirable job in giving Warcraft the big epic feeling it needs in order to be serviceable for the tale being told, but he doesn't deliver on an outright definitive/fantastic sound that I think this movie definitely needed. The themes for the Orcs is where most of the stylistic sounds reside, but beyond that, it is mostly just bass drums and guttural war chants that we've heard the likes of before in other films. When you consider how memorable his work is on the likes of Game of Thrones or even Pacific Rim, one has to wonder if he was simply trying to invoke the spirit of Lord of the Rings distinctive tracks when it came to Warcraft. Again, it is by no means a weak score, let alone an outright awful one, but its lack of an identity to help set it apart from its peers can without a doubt be felt.

Overall Warcraft is an enjoyable picture from start to finish. I won't be so brash as to declare it a modern masterpiece for the fantasy genre, but it isn't nearly as horrid as the vast portion of critics out there would have you believe. There have been far worse films in the last five years that haven't caught even half the flack Warcraft has, and there are even worse video game adaptations you could waste your time watching to boot. While saying "There are worse films to see." may not seem like a super strong argument (and honestly it isn't) I think my friend Matt may have put it best when he said "At least this isn't a film that takes a huge steaming dump all over its fans." and in today's movie making climate, that puts Warcraft head and shoulders above the competition.

Besides, China really seems to like it, seeing how it broke records there and all that...

Positive Factors

• While fans will certainly know what they're looking at, newcomers won't find themselves lost.
• When the pacing hits its mark, this is a very compelling high fantasy war story.
• Characters are all expertly cast, with tons of solid/fun performances.
• Faithfully recreates the world of Warcraft (no pun intended) down to the most minute details with spectacular effects.

Negative Factors

• The pacing of the movie may be a flat-out deal breaker for some. Too much comes and goes on a whim at points.
• Some heavy exposition in the first act comes off heavy handed.
• The score lacks an identity to truly set it apart from its peers.

Final Rating: Splenderiffic!

Ghostbusters 2016- Trailer Reaction

March 3, 2016 may be a date that will forever live in infamy within the hearts and minds of millions of nerds the world over. On that day Sony Pictures unveiled the first trailer for the new Ghostbusters film (set to release on July 15, 2016) and the reception has very much been mostly negative. Fans honestly seem to not like this movie at all so far, and frankly I don't know if this new installment can recover from such a poor response this early on in its advertising cycle. Some have already gone on to say that this is going to be the newest Pixels or Fantastic 4 caliber wreck of cinema, and there may be some credibility to those harsh claims. Be the judge for yourself...

Who ya gonna call? Apparently someone else, because if this trailer provides any indication to go by, Sony Pictures and director Paul Feig have shown that they clearly don't understand what the essence of Ghostbuster is/was. This reboot to one of the most beloved films in history isn't just a big Twinkie. This flick could very well be headed towards a disaster of biblical proportions with its fandom. Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!

Sorry... Always wanted to do that... But please allow me a moment to elaborate on where I fundamentally stand on not only this trailer, but on the franchise as a whole. Normally I don't make it a point to discuss things like trailers on this blog, as I'm not a very reactionary type of person, but I do feel a special exception must be made in this case. I've taken the time to gather my thoughts, and quantify my feelings. I'll have to dig into some personal history in order to provide some perspective, but I think it's necessary in order for you to understand where I'm coming from in regards to anything Ghostbusters related.  

For anyone who knows me even somewhat personally this comes as no big revelation, but I freaking love and adore Ghostbusters. It's without a doubt one of the first things I was ever sure I was a fan of, and I have a long. personal history with this franchise. I've been told by my parents that my first words were "Green Ghost" as an infant... Yeah, it goes that deep.

Is the first film easily one of my all-time favorite movies? Is the atomic weight of cobalt 58.9? Of course it is! I quote Ghostbusters on an almost daily basis. Despite some of its obvious flaws, I even love Ghostbusters 2. As kids my older brother (Justin) and I made it a point to not only eat those green Ninja Turtle pies, but to also drink those Ecto-Cooler drinks well into the end of our elementary school lives, because we loved Ghostbusters Goddammit! I watched the cartoon with Justin to an almost religious degree when coming home from school, and yes, that even includes The Extreme Ghostbusters. Between my brother and myself, I'm sure we had most of the toys. When we had a radio that could record our voices, we did our own Ghostbusters radio plays on cassette tapes. Justin and I used to pretend we were Ghostbusters (by using backpacks and flashlights) in our front yard at night. The Scoleri Bros was our favorite ones to bust by the way.

Before I ever thought about picking up a pen for myself, I used to ask my father (who is also an artist by hobby) to draw me pictures of the Ninja Turtles, and the Ecto-1. When I finally made the decision to take up art, some of my very first artistic en devours involved me trying to draw that exact vehicle. I've been drawing since I was four years old, and to this day I still find myself sitting down and doing small exercises utilizing that car. I'd be completely remiss if I didn't admit that the inner child part of me would love nothing more than to be an artist for an official Ghostbusters related product. I've had so many ideas for Ghostbusters for so very long.  

Hell, to this day (even though we're both in our thirties) I still have hours long nerd-slang-laden talks with Justin of how cool it would be to form a full fledged Ghostbusters league of our very own. Watching the fandom blossom and grow over the years (thanks to the wonders of the internet) has helped make the franchise continue well passed what anyone probably ever thought it could or should go. It's because of our collective love for the boys in beige that the fantastic 2009 video game even happened. For those who don't know, Ghostbusters: The Video Game is essentially the third movie we never got. It was easily one of the most fun games I played on the last console generation, and simply writing about it here makes me want to pop it in and play it again.

Frankly I could gush on and on about my deep love for this franchise, and the incredibly intimate role it has played in not only forming my sense of humor (seeing how I pull most of my dry wit from that movie) but simply informing my life in general. Many fans say this, but I really do mean it when I say that Ghostbusters is a cornerstone for me, pure and simple. When I first heard that the newest installment was set to come out on my birthday of all days (July 15) it felt almost like divine providence.

Except... It kinda wasn't... I watched the above trailer, and well...

All female, all awesome.

If I'm going to be completely honest and upfront, this just doesn't feel like Ghostbusters to me. Before anyone gets any funny ideas, it's not because the cast is all female. In fact, I'm totally down for an all female team. The current IDW comics of Ghostbusters features extensive tales of an all women crew, and they're some of my favorite stories out of the comic so far. The actresses they have selected are all fine in their own right, and I'm sure (with the proper direction behind them) could be more than up to the task of delivering the goods where it counts.

Unfortunately casting issues don't look to be the problem we're dealing with. It essentially comes down to the fact that this movie looks like it is trying way too hard to be funny, and nothing is worse than something desperately trying to be funny. One of the many things that made the first picture work was that it was a sci-fi horror flick that happened to have a good deal of humor to it, thanks in part to solid direction.

I'll explain further. While humor definitely has a part to play with Ghostbusters, it's ultimately a secondary element. Regardless of its inherently silly premise, the original film was conceptualized and shot as if it were a somewhat serious sci-fi action/horror movie mashup. The comedy of Ghostbusters stems more so from the delivery of the (arguably loose) script, and the interaction/clash of the character's differing personalities. At its core, Ghostbusters has always had a darker, more serious tone which kept it grounded. It's because of that grounded tone that the comedic elements of the movie come off as being more natural and incidental (much like how funny situations among friends play out in reality) due to the characters simply being characters, rather than someone reciting scripted jokes. This remake screams of boring punch-lines we've been exposed to hundreds of times before, and none of it lands... At least with me... Never mind the fact that the humor looks to be the core of the experience. There doesn't appear to be any of that semi-dark tone to ground this new movie, and it looks like an extremely lesser product for it.

Compounding issues further, is that this new team feels less like they're characters, and more like cliche' archetypes. Now I know I can't truly judge the movie going off of just a two minute trailer. I know first-hand of how trailers can be deceiving and this flick could very well surprise me, but frankly I just don't see that happening. The exposition about each of the characters is incredibly lazy writing, and I'm fairly certain the studio really did think that this was some of the best material the movie could offer going forward. It's (much to my chagrin) some of the most lowest common denominator schlock I've seen in a while. The whole ghost barfing on someone, along with one girl screaming "The power of Patty compels you!" while hitting her friend bit smacks of something you'd see in one of those god-awful Scary Movie type flicks. Even the whole "Ow! That's going to leave a mark!" line is painfully old-hat. Frankly, none of the characters shown in this trailer are all that humorous or original.

And speaking of originality, it's sad to see that this movie looks like it's just going to be a retread of the first installment, only with way worse humor. I've seen some reboots/remakes/reimaginings that fall short of capturing the spirit (no pun intended here) of their predecessors, but this one just outright fails. I mean, fall flat on your face fails. This new Ghostbusters reeks of being designed by comity, and looks to be adhering to some sort of Hollywood algorithm in regards to how movies are made today. From the now cliche' minimalist slow piano version of the iconic theme (which was used for Jurassic Park and several other I.P. relaunches now) that's mostly meant to cash in on some form of nostalgia, to the ridiculously quick cuts that ultimately tell us nothing about the actual film, to the overabundance of CGI, everything with this picture just feels hollow.  

The ghosts lack the imagination of the previous installments, which only serves to make this reboot look even more derivative and bland. All the ghosts are blue and green, and humanoid, with Slimer being the only mild exception so far. If you watch the first two movies, you'll see a plethora of very creative designs, a lot of which were also pretty damn scary to look at. The only somewhat inspired ghost in the trailer is the stilt man ghost, and even he is a bit boring at first glance. The effects on the ghosts look like they're straight out of the Haunted Mansion movie (which was awful) and it's obvious that a good deal of the action in the trailer is taking place on a green-screen set. How is it that such a big I.P. is seemingly getting such a lackluster treatment? Again, I will concede that there very well could be more interesting ghosts in the actual movie, but if we're going to talk about what this trailer fails to do, then that is get me excited.

There's only a small handful of designs I actually think are kinda cool. I do find myself liking the overall presentation of the proton-packs, and the new Ecto-1 doesn't look too terrible. The new jumpsuits are fine enough, and I do dig some of the new instruments like the proton-knuckles and the duel pistols. I have next to no doubt that we will at the very least get to see some cool busting bits at the climax.

This doesn't have to be terrible, but it's really looking that way so far guys...

As of the writing of this post, there is another trailer that has been made available, which you can watch here, and even this one is failing to grab positive views. It's even worse when you consider that this trailer was more than likely put together as a response to all the negative reactions from the first time around. Again, if I'm going to be frank, this trailer doesn't really improve matters at all. In fact, this trailer may be somewhat slightly more deficient, as the humor in this one I find to be even less in line with the spirit of the original. Be it Chris Hemsworth being portrayed as a handsome, but apparently stupid man, who only gets hired because of his looks (at least that's what's being implied from the trailer) to the way overdone crowd-surfing joke, I'm finding myself less amused and more worried.

What pains me the most, is that it doesn't even have to be this way. Screen writers like Max Landis have written amazing treatments for a new Ghostbusters flick. Perhaps one of the biggest sins this movie is committing, is trying to reboot what is an inarguable classic. I think what everyone wants (myself included) is a continuation of Ghostbusters, not a reboot. The world of Ghostbusters is fun, interesting, and exciting, and I don't think there is a single fan of the series who wouldn't want to see what the world of Ghostbusters would be like thirty years later. Before anyone tries to claim that it needs to be a reboot because the franchise is thirty years old, I'd like to point out that Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars; Episode VII, and Creed were all sequels from franchises that are over thirty years old. All of these movies were hits, and all of them acknowledge their continuity. I don't want to hear that it can't be done, or that there isn't an audience.  

Ghostbusters is an iconic I.P. that means something to nearly countless fans all over the world. This was a film many of us not only grew up with, but truly inspired us. One friend I have, who works as an engineer, only took to that field because the character of Egon Spengler was his childhood hero. Seeing Ghostbusters be treated so poorly here is like seeing a horribly unfunny clown dance on top of your recently deceased dog's grave. Sure you still have those great memories, but this disrespects and tarnishes the legacy. If that analogy isn't cutting it for you, then I'll say it's sort of like watching this clip here, just pretend that Bill Murray is the Ghostbusters franchise.

While I am maintaining some modicum of hope that the actual film could be decent in the end, I'm certainly not gonna hold my breath. Seriously, this looks like nothing more than a soulless cash grab. While I do understand that movies are fundamentally a business, they're also an art form.  Witnessing a work of art that many consider to be something so great, and so renowned, get milked by the corporate machine kills any real enthusiasm the masses could have. Right now it looks like the creators completely missed the mark on this, and I think the rest of the movie-going public is essentially fed-up. The negative reaction to these trailers has been overwhelming in more ways than one, and it may be a sign of the tide finally turning. After years of lackluster reboots and retreads, of Michael Bay's Transformers caliber films, this flick may be the straw that's finally broken the audience's collective backs. Only time will tell now if this new Ghostbusters can truly succeed, and I'm more than certain that the rest of world will be paying attention come July 15.

I know I will...  

Star Wars: The Force Awakens- Review (Spoilers)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away...

Well kiddos the time has finally arrived. After an achingly long ten years, a torrential downpour of hype, and a metric ton of fan speculation, the newest film in the long storied Star Wars saga is here for our viewing pleasure. While I'm confident most fans have already fought through the crowds to witness this latest offering, I'm also sure there are quite of few of you out there, staring at the setting suns of Tatooine, who are wondering the following: Does one of the most anticipated flicks of the current decade live up to the veritable media fervor that has surrounded it, or is it just another wild bantha chase? Is it superior in every way to the prequels, or is the motivator shot? Is The Force Awakens even so much as just an enjoyable watch, or is it a half-witted scruffy looking nerf-herder?

To be quite honest, if I am to truly asses/answer these questions, I'M AFRAID I HAVE TO GO INTO SOME DEEP SPOILER TERRITORY. If you've yet to get on over to your local theater and watch this movie, there's your warning. It's practically impossible to discuss the positives and the negatives of this picture without delving into a fair portion of the juicy bits from the plot and characters. For those who wish to avoid said spoilers, I will succinctly sum up my opinion as such with a quote from the dark lord of the Sith, Darth Vader himself:

Allow me a moment to elucidate and elaborate. I honestly do like this franchise relaunching installment, and I would definitely encourage any self-identifying Star Wars fan to watch it on the biggest of big screens as soon as possible. This is easily and without a doubt better than the any of the prequel movies, and to clarify, I don't actually hate the prequels with any absolute certainty. There are a lot of excellent ideas in those works, but I feel that they are deeply flawed experiences that add up to nothing more than simply a missed opportunity to expound upon on one of the most influential film sagas to ever be made. Though I do consider The Force Awakens to be greater than its prequel predecessors, it too ultimately fails to truly capture that same force lightning in a bottle that was the trendsetting masterstroke of film making known to us fans as the original trilogy. Of course I will admit to the fact that even the originals are not perfect films by any stretch.

There more than likely is a hint of potential bias in my assessment of this picture (seeing as how the original trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies of all-time) so checking out The Force Awakens for yourself and coming to your own conclusions is probably still the best way to go. For everyone else who wants to investigate this disturbance in the force with me, feel free to keep reading further.

Once more the galaxy is at war. The diabolical First Order has risen from the ashes of the Galactic Empire, and only the Resistance has stood defiant against the First Order's onslaughts. When a map containing the whereabouts to Jedi Master Luke Skywalker is discovered on the desert planet of Jakku by Resistance pilot Poe Dameron, the First Order's Kylo Ren isn't too far behind. Cornered without any chance of escape, Poe has no choice but to entrust the map to his droid BB-8. The small droid flees into the Jakku deserts, and in his travels meets up with the scavenger known only as Rey. Together they embark on a journey to deliver the map to the Resistance, with the hope that finding Luke Skywalker will be the key to bringing the battles with the First Order to an end. Along the way they'll encounter friends and foes, while discovering that the First Order possesses an immense star system destroying weapon called Star Killer base.   

If that synopsis sounds even somewhat remotely familiar to you, it should because you've undoubtedly already seen it. As much as it pains me to write these words, The Force Awakens unfortunately lifts the plot of the original film (subtitled A New Hope) wholesale. Every single major plot point from that flick is unabashedly mimicked here, and I can't help but feel disappointed by that. This is by far the worst part of the whole movie. I mean, we waited for ten whole years just to experience the exact same narrative that was written well over thirty years ago? The creators seriously couldn't be to troubled to conjure up something fresh featuring a brand new story, brand new characters, and would encapsulate the spirit of the original classic we all know and love? They deliberately went out of their way to disavow some of the outright amazing Expanded Universe material (like the excellent Thrawn Trilogy) in favor of regurgitating Episode IV in the hopes that they could capitalize on viewer nostalgia. I'm sorry, but in my eyes this is something I can't in good conscience ignore. Rehashing the story of the inaugural film just reeks of lazy writing from the creators, and they need to be called out for it, not praised.

Totally haven't seen this before...

Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first in line to admit that the prequel flicks were lackluster experiences on the whole, but I can at least say that they tried to chart some new waters regardless of their overall execution and quality. I totally comprehend that this picture is meant to be a relaunch/introduction to a whole new generation of Star Wars fan (and in that regard it fundamentally succeeds) but playing it safe isn't how Star Wars does business. You can tell a story that is in essence familiar, but is at that same time fresh, new and exciting. The original Star Wars was equal parts a love-letter to science-fiction, high-fantasy, and adventure narratives, while also being a pioneering work meant to raise the bar with how we consider making movies and telling stories. Thus, seeing no real effort to tell us a NEW Star Wars story (like the superb Star Wars Legacy comic series did) is incredibly underwhelming, and it really does bring down in my eyes what could have been an otherwise potentially fantastic addition to the saga.

Never mind the fact that another sequel movie like Tron: Legacy was lambasted and torn apart by fans and critics alike for doing the exact same thing. People noted the blatant similarities with the original and its sequel and justifiably called out the creators for it. Why then does Star Wars: The Force Awakens get a free pass for committing the same crime? Is it simply because it's Star Wars, and we as a whole just so desperately want to have another good movie? If anything else can we at least be consistent in our criteria of critiques?

I can almost hear the angry clacking of keyboards now, setting up responses to argue me on this very fact. If you don't believe me, I shall demonstrate by recounting every major plot point to The Force Awakens, and A New Hope.

1. Rebels/Resistance are on the run from The Empire/The First Order because they have info MacGuffin.
2. Said MacGuffin is entrusted to a droid who escapes onto the desert planet Tatooine/Jakku.
3. Lowly moisture farmer/scavenger Luke/Rey finds said droid with MacGuffin. 
4. Protagonist initially resists call to action.
5. Events transpire that ultimately team the protagonist with allies to go on the galactic journey to face the enemy.
6. Allude to the hidden potential of the protagonist who is now destined for great things in a future installment.
7. Introduce nearly insurmountable weapon the enemy possesses that will be fired off just to show how nasty it is.
8. Old mentor character to the protagonist dies at the hands of the major sword-wielding villain.
9. Climatic battle against the insurmountable weapon The Death Star/Star Killer Base ensues. 
10. Hitting the insurmountable weapon's one weak spot ultimately destroys it, with the heroes saving the day.

This reiteration is almost made doubly worse when you consider that the original film honestly did certain elements far better. To be quite frank, nowhere is this more exemplified than with Star Killer base. This singular element alone comes off almost as an afterthought in the whole plot. Seriously, Star Killer base suffers from one of the worst cases of the "oh by the ways" I've seen in a long long time. You see, in the original Star Wars, the Death Star was a pivotal part of the story from practically the beginning. Leia had to get the Death Star plans to The Rebel Alliance before The Empire could do any real damage with it. Those plans are the linchpin to the Rebel's success in the end, as opposed to Star Killer base that just comes off as a "Oh by the way, we have this big nasty weapon here." that only really matters come the third act. No part of the plot honestly hinges on The First Order possessing such a weapon, which removes a lot of the gravitas such a thing could've had. It's pretty much just another obstacle thrown in the way of the heroes, and everything about it raises questions. Does the base move on it's own or teleport somehow to be in range of new targets? Which planets did it destroy when it got fired off? Why would they decide to convert an entire planet into a system destroying weapon/base? I think this clip may be the answer as to the writer's thought process.

We can try to deny it all we like, but it's as apparent as the burning sun in the sky. The Force Awakens is a blatant (and somewhat inferior) retread of A New Hope, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. While this very well could build into something new and substantial come Episode VIII, right now this comes off as nothing more than derivative. At least A New Hope had the forethought and courtesy to end on a fairly complete note. The Force Awakens ends with a ton of major cliffhangers that sequel bait painfully hard, and attempt to build mystery, something Star Wars was never about. Granted, there still is a three-act structure to Episode VII, but the stinger ending and the inconclusive threads remove a good deal of feeling any substantial sense of resolution, or accomplishment for the characters, out of the finale.

Tons of people are praising The Force Awakens as some sort of revelation to the franchise, and in my eyes it simply isn't. Again, I think it's a decent movie, but let's be real here, is this really a watershed film for the franchise? I've seen this sort of behavior from fans before when The Phantom Menace was released all the way back in 1999. Fans proclaimed to the high heavens that Episode I was a rock solid film, built to remind us all as to why the original trilogy was so amazing. They were partially right in that statement, because when I walked out of that flick, I remembered why I loved the initial run so much more. Out of my entire class, and group of friends, I was one of the only people who saw Episode I for what it really was, lackluster. Naturally everyone (as most fans initially do) refused to believe that a Star Wars movie could actually be bad. We collectively smiled and lied to ourselves, and it wasn't until years later that people finally started to admit that The Phantom Menace really just wasn't that good a movie. Without a doubt I feel like I'm seeing that all over again here with The Force Awakens. While it may be years from now, eventually the sugar-high will wear off, and more objective views of The Force Awakens will come. Once more, I will concede wholeheartedly that this is definitely a more fulfilling movie when compared to any of the prequels, but that has a lot to do with the fact it replicated a much better plot from an already superior film.

Moving on from my story concerns, one area where The Force Awakens excels is its characters. A lot of this film's heart comes from the focus on characters this time around, as opposed to the flat, one-dimensional characters of the prequels. The one thing George Lucas seemed to have to forgotten when doing the prequels was that characters are essentially the life-blood of Star Wars. Having lacked emphasis on character in those movies made everyone talk in either cliches', stereotypes, or exposition, making for very boring characters that were hard for fans to have any investment with. In the case of The Force Awakens most of the characters have a far more natural feel to them. The dialogue comes off leagues more in tune with the spirit of the original trilogy, making for some legitimately funny banter/exchanges, as well as some well grounded drama. Not every line is a winner (as some lines are rife with the schmaltz of daytime soap operas) but hey, even the original trilogy had that from time to time.

I found myself enjoying the new cast quite a bit. Oscar Issac's role as Poe Dameron (which unfortunately isn't that prominent) still manages to leave a lasting impression, and I personally can't wait to see more of him in Episode VIII. John Boyega's turn as Finn is one of the most endearing characters I've seen in Star Wars in a long while. I like how he is a guy who is sort of fumbling through the story (like Jar Jar Binks if he was done correctly) and is clearly in way over his head. His decision to finally stand and fight (with a light saber no less) really solidified his character for me. While I do find it a tad disappointing that the promotional material made it look as if he was the hero (sadly turning him somewhat into a decoy protagonist) he's still entertaining as hell, and I want to see where his character goes in the future. The new discovery for this film, Daisy Ridley, gives a palpable performance that is more than worthy of being this new trilogy's true heroine. The on-screen chemistry Ridley has with everyone (be it old or new cast) has such a genuine feel that I have little doubts about what's to come with her as an actress, let alone as a Star Wars lead. Even the new droid BB-8 is incredibly likable. In the wrong hands this little guy could've been annoying to no end, but thankfully he's immensely funny, cute, and an all around awesome addition to an already solid cast of heroes.

A fun character, and an awesome prop/toy to boot!

Of course the returning players all give solid takes as well. Getting to see the now legendary Harrison Ford take a seat on the Millennium Falcon, all the while declaring "We're home." sent some highly nostalgic chills up my spine. One of my fears going into The Force Awakens was that Han Solo would be played exactly how he was in the original trilogy, except that he'd be older. Thankfully Ford plays Solo as someone who has changed over the course of time. While some of his character ticks are still there, we see a Solo here who is somewhat emotionally broken, but still sure of himself in more ways than one. Carrie Fisher's turn as Leia is nice to see, but I feel like we didn't get to see enough of her. I really dig the idea of putting her in Mon Mothma's position as head of The Resistance, but her scenes are so few that she sometimes feels like a non-entity. Much like Solo though, Leia too comes off as someone who's changed over the years from bearing tons of emotional baggage. What's really refreshing though was seeing Chewy become more of a developed character this outing. Even though he still speaks in growls and howls, Chewy actually gets one of the most emotional scenes in the whole flick. Depending on what type of fan you are, you may hate the decision to have Luke Skywalker as nothing more than a glorified cameo at the end of the movie. One of the prime players in the whole saga doesn't even get to so much as speak in The Force Awakens, and I can see that being a very big turn off. I personally though didn't mind the move. Leaving Luke to the background gives the newer cast an opportunity to shine, and I'm damn sure we'll get to see plenty of him come the next installment.

As for the villains, it's sort of a mixed bag. Once again, depending on what type of fan you are, you either really like the villains, or you don't. Kylo Ren, General Hux, Captain Phasma, and Supreme Leader Snoke all have a great deal of potential to be fantastic villains, and while I do like some of them, it must be stated that a portion of them go underutilized. Nowhere is this more apparent then with Captain Phasma. Essentially she is nothing more than a walking talking gun-rack. She doesn't fire a single shot in the film, let alone is ever portrayed as a fearsome/competent captain of her troops. She says a couple lines, get's thrown into a garbage chute (off-screen mind you) and is never heard from afterward. Again, the promotional material made it out like she was going to be a big deal, but she honestly isn't. If it weren't for the knowledge of her being confirmed for Episode VIII I'm going to be completely honest and say that her character was outright wasted here. In my eyes Phasma should've been the storm trooper who fought toe to toe with Finn when he had the light-saber. If that would've happened I don't think a soul would've complained. I wouldn't have her die from a shot by Han like the random trooper does, but she seriously needed something more to do in this movie beyond simply stand there and talk.

Kylo Ren seems to be the most divisive villain on the roster, and for good reason. Fundamentally he is Anakin Skywalker all over again, but in some ways not. Personally I feel like he's Anakin done right, with a much better actor portraying the character type in Adam Driver. I really dig how he knows he's being called to the light-side of the force and essentially prays to the remains of Darth Vader's helmet to help keep him on the dark-side. Playing up his religious overtones to the force feel very appropriate, and while I can see how Kylo can come off as having emo-wank fests, I think they characterize him in a very interesting way. He isn't Darth Vader (let alone a Darth/Sith at all) and he knows it. He appears to be written with a major temper/inferiority complex which I enjoy quite a bit. He isn't your usual villain, in that he spends a good portion of the movie sort of pea-cocking. He puffs up his chest, shows off some of his skill, but ultimately isn't what he wants everyone to think he is. He's very much a Starscream (of Transformers fame) type character, and I enjoy the rivalry that exists between him and General Hux. He's not the best villain to ever come out of Star Wars lore, but he is definitely different from the usual ilk.

Remember when people were only divided over the design of his light saber?

Now onto some of those major spoilers I mentioned earlier. The biggest moment in this movie is the death of Han Solo at the hands of Kylo Ren, who is actually Han and Leia's son, Ben Solo. A lot of fans seem to be divided on the decision to kill Han, and I'm going to throw my hat on the side that says I don't mind this. Harrison Ford is getting up there in age, and has long stated that he wanted Han Solo to go out on a poignant death. It's easily one of the most dramatic moments in the entire film (even though they do make it pretty obvious it's going to happen in the third act) and I feel Han's death galvanizes the stakes for our heroes. I know it can be tough to see a character that is so iconic, that we all love bite the big one, but sometimes that death can take a story that was merely good and make it great. I won't be so bold as to say that Han's death makes this movie phenomenal by any means, but I will say that it certainly gives weight to an otherwise rehashed plot. Hearing Chewy's mournful howl as Han dies, and his subsequent rampage against First Order troopers will quite frankly go down as one of the most heart-wrenching moments in Star Wars history.

The other story bit that's creating a point of contention is the character of Rey herself. By the bottom of the second act it is revealed that Rey is force sensitive, and is perhaps in some ways, one of the most powerful force users we've yet to see in Star Wars. Without any real experience whatsoever Rey is able to pilot the Millennium Falcon with seemingly the greatest of ease, while also besting Kylo Ren (a trained force user) in light saber combat. I honestly do understand when accusations of her essentially being a Mary-Sue get thrown about, but frankly I find myself somewhat in disagreement. Rey is a character who as far as I'm concerned is a natural force user done right. She's been using the force her whole life, but has simply never realized it. And even when she does begin to have an understanding of her powers, she's definitely not fully capable with them yet. For most of her fight with Kylo Ren, she's fundamentally running from him, or on her back heel. It's only when she finally gives herself to the force that Rey actually starts to beat Kylo down. Never mind the fact that she's also fighting an already injured/bleeding-out Kylo Ren. When one takes the time to consider how the force has been said to work throughout the entirety of Star Wars, is it really that surprising Rey is able to do what she can do? I remember a lot of Star Wars fans declaring how they liked the character of Star Killer from the Force Unleashed games, and that guy could literally incinerate people using the force. Where were the accusations of a Gary-Stu then?

Visually, what can I say about The Force Awakens that hasn't already been said? This movie is drop-dead gorgeous in all sense of the word. The decision to use actual film reel, as well as a huge slew of costuming/practical effects was a divine one to say the least. This is hands down one of the most textured and real feeling Star Wars films we've ever had, and I can't give enough of my praise to the special effects department for their obviously dedicated work. The only drawback to the whole flick is the occasional lapses with shaky-cam and two entirely CG characters which, to my dismay, are apparent as hell. I really don't understand why the choice was made to have Supreme Leader Snoke be an all CG character. His proportions and overall appearance are pretty much humanoid and achievable through masks/makeup. The other character is Maz Kanata, who is perhaps even more egregious than Snoke. While I understand that they probably wanted to have Lupita Nyong'o's performance be both physical and vocal, the CG here just really makes her stand out. At least Snoke was covered in heavy shadows which alleviated some of the uncanny valley effect on him. While they're far from the worst I've seen done with CG (I'm looking at you Terminator: Genisys) with so much amazing practical work they're tragically somewhat distracting.

John Williams reprises his role once again as Star Wars composer, and I feel he does just as good a job with The Force Awakens as he's done throughout the entire saga. The First Order's theme, while not as iconic/memorable as The Imperial March is still evocative nonetheless. Getting to hear the likes of some of the classic tunes (like Han's theme) again was quite welcome amid the new tracks. I can only hope with the next episode coming that Mr. Williams will continue his trend of giving us more superb new scores.

Overall I want to emphasize again that I do not hate this movie. I think the opening line "This will begin to make things right"  is quite appropriate in how most fans should see The Force Awakens. Despite of all my criticisms on the film, even though it's not what I would've wanted/preferred to see out of a brand new installment, I will say it is at least what the franchise needs. I'm only coming down somewhat hard on Star Wars because I am a big fan of the franchise, and if we want to see it get better, we have to be willing to criticize it truthfully/objectively. My take away in the end is that The Force Awakens is ultimately a pledge from Disney that they can be trusted to not make Star Wars any worse than the prequels, and I guess that's a starting point. The original trilogy's spirit is certainly there, which for the most part means we're going in the right direction. Perhaps with Episode VIII we'll get a more bold picture, but for now I'm gonna have to call it as I see it, with that being The Force Awakens is most certainly a decent Star Wars flick, but a far distance from the greatest.

Positive Factors

• A return to form for the franchise in more ways than one, and a solid starting point for new fans.
• Strong emphasis on characters both old and new as any good Star Wars installment worth its salt would do.
• Some legitimately funny banter/dialogue along with some poignant drama elevates the whole experience.
• The decision to use actual film/practical effects throughout gives the texture and tangibility Star Wars needs.
• John William's score is just as solid as ever. You'll be humming the tunes from this one in no time flat. 

Negative Factors

• This is a blatant retread of the original film's plot, and unfortunately the original did it better.
• Some of the characters go completely underutilized, or are very like 'em or hate 'em types. 
• While the movie is gorgeous overall, the two completely CG characters are obvious as can be.

Final Rating: Splenderiffic!