Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

RATING: B

When we last left Star Wars (not including spin-offs), the franchise had been kind of thrown into a state of flux thanks to the outrageous division between fans over The Last Jedi... to the point where I'm hard-pressed to think of anything non-politics related that has had as much heated debate recently. Some fans (myself included) loved it for trying to do something new with the series, as opposed to The Force Awakens (which I mostly enjoyed as well, for the record). Other fans hated it for seemingly betraying the spirit of prior movies. And still others... actually did love/hate it for political-related reasons. Ugh.

The result was that the SW writers became utterly terrified of angering the fanboys again. Hence part of why JJ Abrams was brought back on. It became clear pretty quick that Episode IX was not going to be in the spirit of TLJ. And it even looked possible that there might be retcons. Or even that this one might avoid its predecessor's existence altogether. Which one can't just do; whether one likes it or not, the movie exists and is part of the canon. You can't just pretend it didn't happen.

But now the end of the "Skywalker Saga" is here. If The Force Awakens felt all too derivative of prior works and The Last Jedi shot in a dramatically different direction, then The Rise of Skywalker tries to hit a happy medium. Essentially, it is more similar to TFA in tone. But it does not ignore TLJ, and even builds impressively off some of the things it brought to the table--while also backing off from other parts. In the case of the former, the Force bond between Rey and Kylo is expanded upon to actually pretty awesome results. In the case of the latter, the only thing that is basically totally retconned is Rose (reduced to side role)... which is hardly upsetting to me even as a TLJ fan. (Although there is also a joke about not throwing a lightsaber away like a toy.)

Also importantly, Rise of Skywalker doesn't feel like too much of a retread. There's not another Death Star. The movie doesn't end with Palpatine electrocuting Rey and her begging Kylo for help, and then him saving her by throwing Palpatine down a reactor shaft again. Yes, Palpatine is back (though in what precise capacity I won't say). Yes, there are certain moments that do feel familiar. Yes, there are certain story elements that are similar to Return of the Jedi. But such elements are gone about differently; as such, there's still a degree of an element of surprise, even if not a large one. And there's nothing as insultingly familiar as Starkiller Base, and all that entailed. 

Yes, there are problems. There's a lot that they try to cram into here; perhaps that's the fault of Last Jedi for not ending with a clear sequel hook, given that both sides were pretty decimated by the end of that one. One major plot development early on (you can probably guess which one) is alarmingly hand-waved. It's ultimately done for the sake of trying to bring all three trilogies together, so I guess I can't gripe too much. But it's at times like this where it becomes alarmingly clear that they did not have a proper outline for this movie ready back in 2015 or even 2017.

What's also noteworthy is just how much the movie blatantly tries to pander to the fans--to get certain reactions out of them, and how much it seems to have borrowed from fan forums. Some of that works fine as well. But there are a few points, namely the ending shot, that feel so blatantly pandering that it ends up feeling forced and inauthentic.

The same is to be said for a couple of points that feel like they're trying to emulate Avengers: Endgame, this year's other big mega-franchise-saga conclusion; one of them (a lite "on your left" moment) falls utterly flat due to a lack of emotional payoff. The other works fine enough, but this film is not Endgame, and they shouldn't have tried even for an instant to emulate it.

Still, a lot of this does really work. The story is wrapped up more or less neatly. The three main characters are finally paired together for most of the movie, and considering the lack of time for trio-character-development they've had together, they play off each other pretty well as characters. And if TLJ was lacking in a proper lightsaber battle, TROS makes up for that--not to mention plenty of other fun action scenes.

There's some good new actors/characters as well, such as Keri Russell's rogue type Zorri Bliss and Richard E. Grant's new First Order minion, plus an amusing droid-fixer alien. There's also some various cameos--expected and unexpected--that work quite well. Even if such things are also "pandering to the base," this is a healthier version given that it also works towards bringing the franchise full circle. And as previously described, despite the obvious level of by-the-seat-of-pants writing, some of the plot devices from other movies are built upon or pay off pretty well. (Not *all* of them, mind you. But what they do build upon, they mostly do well with.)

The Rise of Skywalker may not be the spectacular finish that many are likely to hope for. It is a little shaky at times on its way to the finish line, but it does get there and doesn't leave too much disappointment behind in the process. And given that the last movie basically broke the Star Wars fandom and made the writers utterly terrified of angering a ton of people again... the fact that this movie is remotely satisfying is a small miracle. And maybe, just maybe, that is enough this time.

I don't know that I'll look back on the sequel trilogy with as much general fondness as the original trilogy, but I know that I won't have any big issue with revisiting all three movies... even if there are some things that ultimately hold it back from being what it could've been.

Toy Story 4

RATING: C+

Here's yet another movie from 2019 that I would be perfectly okay with if it just didn't exist. I mean, Toy Story 3 was the perfect ending to the trilogy. As such, the idea of going back to the well one more time is horrifying on principle. What could they even do? The story is over. There's nothing important left to say in this franchise.

Really, if the Lion King remake didn't come out in the same year, the idea of a Toy Story 4 would be a good contender for the worst movie idea of 2019.

Anyway, here we are again. Probably because money. Hopefully this time for sure being the last time. This new movie's plot is kick-started into gear by Woody and company's new owner Bonnie actually creating a new toy of sorts in Forky -- a spork with pipecleaners and sticks for limbs, and fake eyes attached to it. And it comes to life somehow. One of the toys' first reactions is this from Trixie the triceratops: "I have a question. Actually, I have ALL of the questions!" Indeed, Trixie. Indeed. And that question is one that the movie blatantly has no interest in answering.

But we'll discuss that more shortly. Forky's just one part of this hodgepodge of stuff. Shortly after Forky's creation, Bonnie's family goes on a road trip--and she takes the toys with her. A new adventure ensues when Forky keeps trying to throw himself away because he sees himself as trash, and Woody keeps trying to save him--resulting in a series of events that involves being reunited with Bo Peep (who was missing from the third movie, in case you forgot), and meeting a bunch of new toys--some from one of those scam "win a prize toy" stands at a carnival, others from an antique store.

There is a *lot* to unpack in this movie. Let's start with Forky, since he seems to be the most popular thing about this movie. The idea surrounding him is pretty inventive, and as Woody tries to explain to him his purpose, it does open up some pretty interesting philosophical discussion about what it means to be a toy, "why am I alive," et cetera. Unfortunately, much of this is thrown out of the window after the first act. Regardless, he is still pretty amusing at times--even if the "trash" gag is overdone.

Let's go to Bo Peep's return next. This was one of the starting points for the writers during the making of this movie--which didn't help my already nonexistent enthusiasm about this movie. Bo Peep was never one of the memorable things about the first two movies, and she wasn't really missed in the third movie. The kicker is her complete character transformation into more of an adventurous, almost-action girl. While it's certainly very jarring, it's a transition that ultimately works out fine (though her new view on life as a toy is a different can of worms). What's problematic is how in the opening flashback to Andy's younger days, Bo is bizarrely already more outspoken/a leader in the toy room. Look, if you want to change a character who had basically zero memorable qualities before in your new movie, that's fine. But don't alter how they acted in the movies prior.

But even that doesn't begin to get into the more bothersome side of this movie. This movie almost acts at times as a semi-deconstructing of its predecessors. And it starts almost at the very beginning, when Bonnie--who adored Woody when she found him in TS3--bizarrely ignores him in favor of literally everyone else. I don't feel like Andy gave Woody up to Bonnie so that he could sit literally in a closet.

That might seem picky, but there's more. These films have drilled into us in the past about how a toy's purpose--for them--is to be played with by a child. TS2 possibly delved into this concept the best. But here, Bo Peep suggests that there's more to life for a toy than being a child's plaything. And while part of that new purpose does involve the decently noble pursuit of getting more neglected toys families... well, without giving away spoilers, the film as a result ends up flying in the face of its predecessors. It's like they were trying so hard to present new ground for a toy that they lost sight of the mythos of their own franchise in the process. And thus, while the ending of the third movie basically hit all the right notes (and did a lot of onion cutting as well), this one wants to do the same but instead hits mostly the wrong ones and leaves a sour taste behind.

And I hadn't even gotten into how--aside from Woody, Buzz, and Bo Peep--all of the other original toys are sidelined for most of the movie. Even though Woody and Buzz have always been the centerpieces, the other toys have always played their roles too and been great supporting characters. It's frustrating to see both them and most of Bonnie's other toys that we met in the last movie given such little screen time. 

After all of that (and a little more!), it may seem amazing that there's anything positive to say about this movie. But if the ending hadn't gone in such a wrong direction, I could've probably overlooked a lot of the other issues. For one thing, this movie is pretty hilarious at times. A lot of that comes from the new characters. There's Key & Peele's Ducky and Bunny; and while not all of their gags are effective, there is one bit ("plush rush") that's actually a contender for most hilarious moment in the entire franchise--and that's saying something. And then there's Duke Kaboom, and given that he's voiced by Keanu Reeves, he's about as great as you'd expect. (There's even a Keanu "whoa" moment!)

And as previously stated, while there are a lot of questions to be asked regarding the existence of Forky, they can be overlooked because he's funny and it's still an interesting concept. And while I oddly don't have much to say about Gabby Gabby's character, Christina Hendricks does give a very good voice performance for her. And a lot of the other toys do still have a certain charm to them.

Toy Story 4 is fairly enjoyable at least because of its lightheartedness, which never feels forced. There are a lot of laughs to be had, which helps balance out the numerous problems somewhat. Still, it can't help but feel like an entirely unnecessary fourth chapter in this franchise that we didn't need. And the fact that towards its ending it ultimately goes against the general principles of life as a toy that have been established... well, it's hard to not be frustrated by that. More forgiving or casual viewers might overlook a lot of this. But I can't.

Spider-Man: Far From Home

RATING: C

I would've been totally fine with it if the Marvel Cinematic Universe had ended with Avengers: Endgame. But because there is money to be made, we're gonna keep going and milk this cash cow for all it's worth... until they inevitably screw up and make everyone hate them. Based on their success rate, that may not happen for a while, so we're still on this ride for the foreseeable future.

While there are some future MCU films that interest me--such as Thor traveling with the Guardians of the Galaxy--another Spider-Man film isn't really one of them. While some folks have already gotten Marvel fatigue, I seem to only have Spider-Man fatigue. But then again, that cycle's been going on a lot longer. Three separate castings, plus that Spider-Verse thing.

This new installment takes place some time after Endgame. And quite frankly, the film dealing with some of the ramifications of Endgame is arguably the most interesting part of this. They even manage to work a darkly hilarious moment into all of that. But we're not going to spend too much time there, because this is a Spider-Man movie.

Peter Parker is about to go on a summer field trip vacation with his class to Europe, and he's hoping to use some of that time to confess his feelings to MJ (or rather, the girl who shares MJ's name from the comics). Unfortunately, there's someone else who's interested to which quickly makes for some cliched embarrassing moments. And which makes me annoyed pretty early on. But hey, their trip just so happens to coincide with the attack of the Elementals--monsters made up of earth, water, fire, and air--and the appearance of Mysterio to fight them. Wait, they're trying to convince us Mysterio is a good guy in this? They know that the majority of the audience either read the comics or is semi-familiar with the lore enough to know about one of the members of the Sinister Six, right? 

So to recap that last paragraph... this movie's plot is mostly shockingly uninteresting. The big draw here is supposed to be Mysterio and the twist surrounding him, but it doesn't work. For one thing, most people already know who he actually is. (Though they do give him a different origin story this time, which does prove to be interesting.) Another problem is that much of his plan hinges on a shockingly dumb decision by Peter. But Mysterio is just not one of the better Spider-Man villains to begin with. His big thing is large elaborate illusions and trapping people in them. And one of the signature scenes is supposed to be when Spidey gets trapped in one of those illusions, but instead it's just tiring.

What does work about this movie, then? Well, it is still pretty amusing at times. A lot of the performances are good; despite the problems with Mysterio, Jake Gyllenhaal plays him well. Samuel L. Jackson is also good, per the usual. Both the character of MJ and Zendaya's performance seem better this time as well. And some of the action is good; the scene with the fire elemental is probably the standout. The final act is okay, if unremarkable.

Actually, that "unremarkable" word might apply to this whole movie. Aside from the issues with Mysterio, little about this movie is downright bad. But little about it particularly stands out either--aside from the two credits scenes, of all things. And it's just hard to get invested in this. Because as a Spider-Man movie, it's just another Spider-Man movie and a pretty forgettable one at that. As an MCU movie, it seems fairly pointless. On both counts, it doesn't really offer much new or interesting to justify its existence.

At the end of the day, this is the worst MCU movie thus far. It's an unfortunate way to kick off the post-Endgame era. But then again, Marvel doesn't seem to be in a huge hurry to kick off the next story arc; the next movie (Black Widow) is a prequel. So I guess until they get the new storyline going (probably with The Eternals), this MCU installment and the next one are just going to be riding the coattails of their predecessors.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix

RATING: C-

The argument could be made that the X-Men franchise should've ended with "Logan." It makes sense; after all, the entire series has mostly been a character arc for Wolverine (aside from First Class and Apocalypse--and even then, he had cameos in those). That movie concluded his story, and given that there didn't seem to be plans to go back to the older X-Men cast again after Days of Future Past--or to properly explain what happened before then in the new timeline--this series had basically run its course anyway.

Still, Fox was pressing forward with the younger X-Men anyway. And their next step? Retrying the Dark Phoenix saga, which X-Men: The Last Stand didn't handle the best. And while it sounds like at one time this movie was more close to getting it right... it got screwed both by meddling from Fox higher-ups and also by fate. Because then Disney bought Fox. And it became pretty clear quickly that Dark Phoenix would've been cancelled if it hadn't already been too far along in production to stop (and Marvel eventually did confirm this version of the X-Men series was ending).

So essentially what we get here is a lame duck entry movie--which is a kind of bizarre thing. This is a movie that once upon a time may have had a reason to exist--but now it has no reason, because this series was declared over before it even came out. And Dark Phoenix wasn't even supposed to be the end, and it shows.

But the fact remains that this movie isn't that good even on its own terms. While we don't have the extra subplots of a mutant cure to contend with this time, the Phoenix story is in essence still the same; and while Jean's backstory is done differently, things otherwise aren't really done any better. The Phoenix power is still held back a bit much here--until the very end, when we finally do see the proper extent of it... for about three minutes. And then the movie's over, basically. So I guess in a sense, they did get marginally closer to doing the Phoenix story right this time. But the problem is that this movie still is not good. And while The Last Stand had its share of problems, it was still at least generally enjoyable.

Part of it's the writing. There are some poor bits of dialogue here, but some characters just seem to be written differently. Mystique is suddenly telling Professor X "you're wrong" again... a lot. And Professor X's actions in meddling with Jean's mind to prevent disaster prior to this movie are ridiculously vilified. It's understandable as to why other characters wouldn't be happy about his actions, but it gets taken to insane levels here. And it doesn't make much sense, because Professor X's actions here arguably make *more* sense than in The Last Stand--and yet the fact that he's "completely wrong" here is a huge plot point and is barely up for debate somehow.

But another big problem is the villain. This can also be blamed in part on the troubled production; originally Jessica Chastain was going to be playing Lilandra, then a Skrull leader (then I guess they found out Captain Marvel was using them), and then for a while even she didn't know who she was playing. But they settled on Vuk and the D'Bari aliens -- which are basically discount Skrulls. I liked Chastain in Interstellar, but she plays Vuk way too monotonously here. Not to mention the fact that she starts off trying to manipulate Jean/Phoenix--by spouting empowering-related cliches repeatedly, most of which don't make much sense either in context. And while the D'Bari turns out to be a powerful bunch, they're also very forgettable and don't do much to stand out. 

It's a shame the way the movie turns out, because it's not like it's without good moments. It actually starts off pretty promisingly with an opening action scene that takes in space that is actually really well done and makes use of each mutant's ability. After that... not much else that's particularly interesting, aside from the ending train scene, which does feature some cool moments--such as younger Nightcrawler getting to shine. Quicksilver doesn't really get much to do after the opening this time, unfortunately.

What's also of note is the music. Hans Zimmer does it this time, and despite the movie being arguably the weakest entry and certainly the most meaningless in the series, he ends up giving this movie the franchise's best soundtrack ever. If only it hadn't practically gone to waste on a movie that no one really cared about.

The acting is also worth discussing; despite the prolific cast, it's pretty hit-or-miss. Some actors/actresses seem to be phoning it in; a lot of that probably comes from the reshoots, at which point everyone knew that this was a lame duck entry. What's surprising is seeing James McAvoy phoning it in. As a matter of fact, Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult are two of the only ones who look like they are taking this fully seriously (and Sophie Turner herself).

Dark Phoenix isn't quite as awful as it's been made out to be. But it's still definitely a mess, and probably the worst X-Men entry (though Origins: Wolverine isn't far off). And it's quite a shame things had to end this way. It doesn't make me feel better that this franchise will later be rebooted with new castings all over again by Marvel--if anything, it makes me feel worse. While this film might not be the biggest waste of time, it's still difficult to recommend to anyone due to its meaninglessness. My advice is to just pretend this franchise ended with Logan. Or Days of Future Past, if that works better for you.

The Secret Life of Pets 2

RATING: C

The first Secret Life of Pets movie was a fun enough movie, even if it was heavily derivative of other computer animated movies. Still, it had a likable enough premise centering around what our pets do when we're not around. Regardless of what you thought of the movie, it made a lot of money... so therefore a sequel was inevitable.

This movie basically takes three subplots and eventually awkwardly strings them together for the climactic act. For one, Max and Duke's owner Katie gets married and has a kid, thus introducing another new element into their lives; and then they take a trip to a farm, where Max meets a new dog named Rooster (Harrison Ford), and Max will have to learn to stop being so fearful... because apparently he is. Maybe I've forgotten it from the last movie, but I don't remember him being almost like Marlin from Finding Nemo in terms of being scared of the real world; instead, he more resembled Woody from Toy Story in that he only feared being replaced. (Man, these folks just can't stop ripping off Pixar, can they?) 

Elsewhere, Gidget the tiny dog has to rescue Max's favorite chew toy from a house chock-full of cats... and this is where those scenes of "learning how to become a cat" from the trailers come in. And in our third subplot, Snowball the bunny fancies himself as some kind of superhero now. Yup, that's a thing. And as previously stated, all three of these subplots will be driven together somehow in the final act. It's an odd case of attempting too much, but at the same time not really doing anything remarkable.

The bottom line is this sequel is not as good as its predecessor, which is unlikely to be a surprise. Neither of the two movies are overly remarkable, but this one is more oddly written because of the way the "plot" is structured. And while Gidget's subplot is generally fun and amusing (as is Jenny Slate's voice acting for her), both Max and Snowball take a step back in this one. As previously stated, Max's character seems to be a little different in this one. And while it was to be expected that Snowball would be different in this one, the direction it goes is just the wrong kind of silly. Save for when he fights an evil circus monkey near the end, though--that part's fun. Harrison Ford's Rooster is decent enough as a mentor, but feels oddly underused--he's not there for the final act, anyway.

Still, for all the faults this movie has, there is a little fun to be had. There are still a handful of hilarious moments surrounding the pets, such as when Chloe the cat tries to wake up her owner. These guys seem to have a grip on the way animals behave that is realistic enough for the setting they're trying to create, but still with a little embellishment for a cartoon. In both movies, we do see the kind of behavior that we'd expect from some dogs and cats--and what they might say if they could talk.

What you think about this movie will probably depend on what you thought of the first one. If you disliked the first one for being a silly cartoon being derivative of better cartoons, give this a wide berth. If you enjoyed the first for what it was, maybe give this a go but with tempered expectations. Animal lovers are really the audience that is likely to get the most out of this--so long as they're not cynical cinema viewers as well. Ultimately for this viewer it's a passable but also forgettable 90 minutes. Hopefully this will be the last we hear from this franchise, because Illumination in general has proven that they are not good at sequels. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

RATING: B-

Out of the various "cinematic universes" these studios have attempted to kickstart, the "MonsterVerse" is one of the only non-superhero ones that has lasted more than one or two movies. This is the third installment and a fourth one is on the way. It may not get much further than that, but that'll still be better than the *other* "monster universe" that they tried to start with The Mummy two years ago. Anyway, thus far this series is certainly not as loaded as, say, Marvel--it mostly exists to put Godzilla (and the other "Titans") and King Kong in the same universe.

We've gotten a movie for both Godzilla and Kong, starring primarily them. Now in the new Godzilla movie, we get for the first time in a Hollywood Godzilla production the *other* Titans. Mothra, the three-headed King Ghidorah (the main antagonist monster), and Rodan (a pterodactyl-like "fire demon," if you're not familiar) are the main other players here, but there's a bunch of others to be seen briefly.

While 2014's Godzilla movie was fairly good, it was often criticized for not actually having that much Godzilla being onscreen. It kind of got away with that because, despite some forgettable characters, the rest of the movie didn't totally suck and Godzilla made the most of his screen time (and then some). But that's the big draw here--there's a lot more Godzilla this time, and there's a lot more of him fighting other monsters (or other monsters fighting each other), so this time you certainly get your money's worth.

And that aspect of the movie absolutely works. The monster fights in this movie are pretty awesome. And it helps that there's a lot of great visuals and special effects to go along with them; Mothra in particular looks majestic. And Ghidorah is definitely a worthy opponent for Godzilla. In general, almost every part of the "monster" side of this movie is super fun to watch, and will be doubly so for actual fans of the Godzilla mythos.

The problems in this movie come elsewhere--particularly via the ludicrous plot backdrop/catalyst which gets this movie going. You see, humans are destroying the planet. And therefore, according to Vera Farmiga's character, we must set the Titans free to restore balance to nature. In other words... destroy the world in order to save it! And cut down on the overpopulation as collateral in the process! Thanos would be proud!

(Minor spoiler alert for this paragraph--not regarding the monsters or human characters.) What's truly bizarre is that the aftermath of the monster war here suggests that this theory/plan actually works--a notion I reject completely, particularly given that the apocalyptic level of destruction we see in this movie suggests the planet would be pretty decimated.

Beyond that, a lot of this movie just isn't particularly well written. Besides how bonkers the catalyst for the plot discussed earlier is, there's a fair amount of silly/lame dialogue and once again the characters aren't that interesting. And despite having a fairly decent cast that includes Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, David Straithairn, and the aforementioned Vera Farmiga, they aren't really given much to work with and thus don't stand out as much as they should (except *maybe* Watanabe). That said, Millie Bobby Brown (Eleven from Stranger Things) stands out in her first non-TV role.

So while Godzilla: King of the Monsters certainly surpasses its predecessor in terms of monster action, it falls short as an all-around product. Still, it's absolutely worth a watch if you're a fan of the genre. It's definitely a popcorn action film, and it may end up being one of the best non-superhero ones you'll see all year. I'm a bit skeptical for Godzilla vs. Kong, but so far these MonsterVerse movies have thoroughly entertained on the action front, if not a whole lot else.

Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

RATING: C

This movie did not sound like a good idea when it was first announced. A live-action Pokemon film? "Detective Pikachu?" Why? Since when is Pikachu a detective? (Wait, that's actually a real Pokemon spin-off game? Ugh.) And they have Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu? What is this supposed to be, Deadpool for kids or something? It's certainly a bizarre idea to try and start a franchise with (because come on, that's always the end goal with these kind of movies nowadays). The Pokemon series hasn't seen a movie with a wide release since the turn of the millennium anyway, and those were more extensions of the TV cartoons than anything.

And then the trailers came out and it actually seemed sort of okay. Perhaps even funny. Despite the fact that I was never really into Pokemon, I figured I'd give it a go. Of course, with my knowledge of Pokemon being limited to playing the Super Smash Bros series and watching a couple of TV episodes, I was going in without much knowledge--but hopefully the movie will be understanding of that, right? Well... mostly no. 

If you know absolutely nothing about Pokemon, good luck. If you've at least had some minimum exposure, you might get by. It helps to know at least who some of the major ones that are included in this are--namely Pikachu, Charizard, or Mewtwo. But overall, this film does sometimes feel like it was made for Pokemon fans than for the other moviegoers. Which is sort of fair, I guess. It's a big enough cultural phenomenon that there aren't going to be a lot of people watching who *aren't* already fans. Unless they just want a Ryan Reynolds fix while waiting for more Deadpool or something. But the powers that be can only do so much to acclimate those few outside viewers while still pandering to their core audience.

The good news is that you don't have to know any preexisting human characters at all going in. No Ash to be found here. This story centers around one Tim Goodman, whose father is missing and presumed dead--and when he checks up on his old apartment, he encounters a Pikachu--one that he can understand in English, instead of just hearing "Pika pika!" And also one that has amnesia. And this Pikachu believes Tim's father is still alive, *and* that he was on the verge of discovering a plot that could threaten both Pokemon and human alike. And he wants to help Tim find him.

The main obvious draw here is that we have a talking Pikachu who only one person can understand; and this Pikachu is voiced by Ryan Reynolds/Deadpool. (I mean... they're basically the same person at this point, right?) These things are played for some good comedic effect at times, though it does feel like most of the best gags were used in the trailers.

What does deserve attention here is how well the CGI Pokemon are rendered into the real world. This is something that sounds quite difficult to do, which is part of why a live-action Pokemon movie would sound terrible at the outset. But for the most part, they manage to blend in stunningly well. They don't feel like they're not a part of the real world, but they still retain the basic looks of their cartoon counterparts--everyone is easily recognizable, and hardly anyone looks like a CGI abomination. This was actually an impressive feat.

Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of great things left to say about the film at this point. Part of the problem is poor writing; namely, some of the early dialogue before Pikachu shows up feels rather forced. And while the concept of the film is interesting, the plotline itself doesn't hold up that well. There's also some cliches to consider, such as a rather silly use of a fake-out death. Also, the human characters aren't really that compelling or appealing--not bad, just uninteresting.

There's also not a whole lot of Pokemon action in this. The film spends so much time on the comedy and the sort of mystery angle that there's not a whole lot of time for much else until the final act, which centers around two main Pokemon (one of whom is possessed). Granted, there's some pretty awesome stuff in that final act. But it makes you wish that we'd seen more of that. What we're left with primarily is a the Pikachu/Charizard fight we saw in the trailers where the former forgets how to use his powers, thus leaving it played for laughs. There's also an extended rather wacky action scene involving another Pokemon where you're definitely likely to feel the continuity lockout if you aren't very familiar with the series.

Detective Pikachu isn't really bad by any means. The main problem is that beyond a Ryan Reynolds Pikachu plus Mewtwo, this film doesn't have a whole lot to offer besides impressive special effects. It's very possible that fans of the series will enjoy it more than non-fans like myself, but even then that doesn't elevate the movie a ton because of its lack of noteworthy plotting or writing. If you're not into Pokemon that much, it's probably not worth it--but then again, one could definitely do worse this year.

Alita: Battle Angel

RATING: B

This is one of those movies where I'm not even going to try and pretend that I know anything about the source material. This movie is apparently based off a manga/anime, which is not something I've delved into very much. The first I heard about this movie is when I saw a trailer for it in the theater--and it was pretty clear right away that the main character was a CGI creation, particularly because of the abnormally large eyes that pushed it into the realm of CGI abomination. The good news? In the final product, the eyes look semi-normal--or at least less distracting.

For those not familiar with the manga (like myself), this takes place on a post-apocalyptic Earth; where humans and cyborgs live either on the sky city Zalem, or live down in the WALL-E-esque wasteland below. (No seriously, one of the early shots looked like it was ripped straight out of WALL-E.) Down on the surface, some scientist played by Christoph Waltz discovers a damaged female cyborg, who is mostly 100% robot--but has a human brain. The girl, who gets named Alita, has no memory of anything. And thus begins a journey to find out who she is--which involves her getting embroiled in the world of other cyborgs, the sport they (and humans) play called motorball, and also the evil ruler that watches and interferes from above in the sky city.

Probably the biggest hurdle in this is seeing if you can get past the fact that Alita, our main character, is completely CGI-created--even her head and face (to be fair, the rest of her is robotic). This seems painfully obvious early on when she is put alongside real humans, like Christoph Waltz and Jennifer Connelly. Even though there is motion capture involved, it's still a little odd at times. It is possible to get used to, and as the movie goes on, she ends up spending a lot more time with other cyborgs--who are arguably even more bizarre, since they're often just robots with human-like faces glued onto their heads.

If you are able to get past that, what follows is a fairly fun sci-fi post-apocalyptic movie with elements of cyberpunk. If you're hoping for battles involving the cyborgs, you'll get plenty of that--and those usually are the best parts in the movie. Alita's fighting style is actually pretty well done (even if it's not exactly choreographed, since she's all CGI). If you're also hoping for a decent story and good characters... the story works. Even if it's a little convoluted and has an overused trope or two, it keeps you interested and does go into some interesting directions down the stretch.

The characters are a bit more bland--it says something when one of the most memorable characters is a dog-loving cyborg who's on screen for 5 minutes tops. Still, they're helped along by decent acting. Even though Waltz feels like he's playing against character here, he does fine. Rosa Salazar does well via motion-capture. The real standout here is probably Mahershala Ali, who also seems to be playing against type a little, but does quite well at it.

All in all, this movie's nothing spectacular and some may have trouble getting around the whole "CGI protagonist" thing. But if you're a fan of sci-fi or cyberpunk or post-apocalyptic material at all, you'll probably want to check it out. There's a lot of fun action scenes here, and it doesn't feel like they're propping up a lifeless story. It does end as if there's a sequel expected, something that has become tiresome to some. Still, I would be interested to see where the story goes next if a sequel does happen.

The Lion King (2019), aka Possibly the Most Unnecessary Movie Ever

RATING: SYSTEM FAILURE

Okay, okay. So I haven't actually gone and watched this movie. As a matter of fact, you probably couldn't pay me to watch this, even if I was a paid critic. I would've just gone and instead watched--*checks the release schedule*--wait, the only other thing came out last weekend in the U.S. was a horror flick called Luz? Ugh.

But wait. Maybe I actually have seen this movie. Because like the vast majority of people, I have watched the original 1994 cartoon. And I have seen trailers/previews of this new one--where they literally compared the footage of the old and the new. And aside from the fact that isn't a hand-drawn cartoon and used photorealistic computer-animation instead, they looked exactly the same. Oh yeah, and the animals could not emote. So I guess I have watched this movie, in a sense.

I try not to gripe on here too much about what people choose to go and pay money to see. But I am truly baffled--no, flabbergasted--at why there would be so much interest in what is practically a shot-for-shot remake. (I know they said otherwise, but c'mon. They really did re-use a lot of the same shots and the plot appears to be exactly the same.) Heck, I am baffled as to why there would be any interest in Disney remaking all their old classics if the originals are so beloved.

Now this may seem slightly hypocritical, given that just last week, I gave a somewhat positive review of this year's Dumbo remake. But there is a *vast* difference between remaking a movie from 1941 that wasn't even all that great to begin with, and remaking a movie that is only 25 years old *and* universally beloved. There's no purpose to serve here (except making money). There's no need to remake a movie that most people feel is basically perfect.

This is creative bankruptcy at its absolute peak. And to me, it is a truly horrifying prospect for cinema when one of the most anticipated movies of the summer not made by Marvel is a remake of a movie that wasn't that old and more importantly, didn't need fixing.

And though I would like to point the finger at Disney (and still will, to a certain extent) for continuing to spit out lazy remake after lazy remake, it's not 100% their fault. They wouldn't keep making these movies if people didn't keep going to see them. Case in point: the new Lion King movie made $191 million on its opening weekend, the biggest opening in July history.

And I ask: why? Why do people go and pay money to watch such a pointless remake like this? If it's because of nostalgia-related reasons, just go and watch the original that you loved so much again (and save money, especially if you already own it). And don't they realize what's happening and what they're doing? By paying money to see a needless remake like this in the theaters, they're just approving and bankrolling Disney to make more of them. And eventually and inevitably, they will screw up one of them super badly and ruin everyone's childhood. Of course, I guess the new Aladdin was close to that for some with Will Smith's genie. But apparently it didn't matter enough, given that it's close to hitting a billion dollars as of this writing. Maybe next year's Mushu-less Mulan will do that instead? Regardless of when it happens, the people will shake their fists at Disney, failing to realize that they brought this upon themselves.

But also what this does is it gives studios like Disney even less incentive than they already have to do more original things--whether it's making an adaptation out of a book or book series that hasn't been done before, or--perish the thought--making a completely new original idea all on their own. Heaven forbid... apparently. And the idea of *remakes* possibly becoming a regular staple of the summer is... nauseating.

Now to be clear, I'm far less concerned about the overabundance of sequels/franchises than I am about remakes. Because while the former can also easily just be a cash grab, there's more potential to do something good and "original," and to do something well-done--even if you're just using the same characters and universe you used in a previous movie. Cases in point--we've sat through six Mission: Impossible movies, and they're only getting *better.* We've sat through 20 MCU movies, and almost all of them have been great.

Obviously examples like that are typically more the exception. And your mileage may vary. And there really are some movies that just don't need sequels, and some "cinematic universes" that just don't need to be. But there's more potential with sequels/franchises, even if it's limited, than there is with this:


Exec 1: "Hey, let's make the exact same movie we made 25 years ago, only this time we'll make it live-action!"
Exec 2: "You're a *genius!* Ideas like that are how we are going to keep making money."
Later: 
1: "Okay, so we're not actually going to make it live-action, we're going to make it photorealistic computer-animation so that it *looks* like live-action, but it actually isn't. Like we did for The Jungle Book."
2: "Even better! You're going places at this company."
Exec 3: "Okay, I have a question. How the heck are we going to make the characters in this movie emote?"
2: "Why does it matter?"
3: "How are we going to make little Simba look sad during the famous 'you've gotta get up!' scene? I mean, we can't do that with a non-cartoon lion.
1: "But it'll look like real lions this time! That's what important here!"
3: "And also... I know this is supposed to be longer than the original, but at its core, is there anything different about this movie from the original?"
2: "Not really, but who cares? The people will line up to see it anyway."
3: "This is starting to sound like a stupid idea."
2: "*You're* stupid. You're fired. Run away and never return."


Bow down to your Disney overlords.

Shazam!

RATING: B+

If you thought Aquaman was an odd choice for the DC Extended Universe to go next after the failure of Justice League, their next stop is even weirder in theory. This superhero movie centers around a hero who was once known as Captain Marvel back in the comic-book days... until Marvel Comics got more popular and they had their *own* Captain Marvel, whose movie we also got recently. Then he became known as... Shazam. 

Yup, what a heck of a superhero name. Actually, that's not really his name... it's the name of the "wizard" who bestows the powers on the main character, Billy Batson. And the ridiculousness of all of this is noted by the movie. The idea is that you say the word "Shazam," and then suddenly you get embodied with various superpowers like super strength, flight, and being bulletproof. Yeah, that sounds a bit like Superman, but "Shazam" isn't quite as invulnerable... and he's a character that's more easily identified with. And this guy can also shoot lightning out of his fingers. Oh yeah, and if you're a bit young for the whole hero thing--14, for example--saying "Shazam" transforms you into a physically perfected adult version of yourself. 

Yes, our main hero character Billy Batson is actually a 14-year-old. And he's a foster kid who's been in and out of a bunch of them. In this latest one (a group home), he gets paired with Freddy, a guy who's a total superhero nerd. And then one day he gets approached by the aforementioned "wizard," who is actually dying and passes on his abilities to Billy. And now Billy, who knows absolutely nothing about superheroes, needs Freddy's help to figure out the whole superhero thing. Eventually, he'll have to face down his first foes... in the form of one Thaddeus Sivania and... the Seven Deadly Sins. Yes, *those* Seven Deadly Sins. More on that later. 

This movie is quite a bit of fun. There's plenty of humor to be had--whether it's Billy and Freddy testing out possible superhero abilities, or the film poking fun at its own concept occasionally, or just other amusing things. However, there are a couple of key differences here between this and the last couple of DC films which tried to insert this. It's more organic, for one thing; the light-heartedness does not feel out of place, like it sometimes did in Justice League. But this one also becomes the first installment in the DC Universe to adequately balance the light-hearted material with some of the darker material that they're known for. Justice League failed at this, and Aquaman didn't really even try, choosing to opt for the former instead. 

Another area where this movie is an improvement over previous ones in its villain; some people griped about Marvel villains for a while before Thanos showed up, but DC's actually arguably had a much worse rut. Steppenwolf was a complete failure. Aquaman's best villain wasn't even the primary one. And don't get me started on Suicide Squad. But while Sivania isn't spectacular or anything, he's a lot better than anything DC's had in quite a while. This in part because Mark Strong brings a certain presence to the role, but it also helps that this villain has a well-done backstory that helps explain his motivations--or at least, why he's as twisted as he is. 

However, one of the main issues with this movie is the side antagonists--the Seven Deadly Sins. I'm aware that they were part of the comics that this is based on, but given their religious origins, their presence in this is kind of bizarre. Here, they're essentially just generic monsters that are indistinguishable from each other. And there's not exactly a whole lot of connection to the vices whose names they share (although someone does get consumed by Greed--literally). I get that they were a part of the comics, but they could've made these "Deadly Sins" monsters more coherent--or just replaced with them with other supernatural baddies that still turn Sivania to the dark side. 

There's another part of this movie that's a little head-scratching. Basically, Freddy tries teaching Billy how to be a superhero, as previously mentioned. However, in the application of using the newfound powers/testing them up, the two divulge in some non-heroic silliness, taking advantage of the situation (played mostly for laughs as well as part of "the hero's journey"). However, later Freddy calls Billy out on his actions and recklessness--which makes no sense because earlier in the movie Freddy was encouraging (or at least not discouraging) these actions in the first place. 

Despite some such misfires, Shazam is still one of the best things to come out of the DC Universe--and even though that might not feel like saying much, this is still genuinely a good movie. It's fun and exciting, and doesn't stink of mediocrity (Justice League), silly writing (Aquaman), or incoherence (Batman v Superman). The DC Universe now has one more good thing going for it besides Wonder Woman. The DC Universe still feels like it's in a bit of limbo, but it does seem at this point like they're better at stand-alone movies than at trying to rip off The Avengers. 

Dumbo (2019)

RATING: B-

There are few things I despise more coming out of Hollywood these days than this string of Disney remaking all their old *and* still relatively recent animated classics. It's creative bankruptcy taken to levels of insanity. But I will rant more about that later in a separate post... trust me. (Next week, actually.) 

Anyway, there was *one* remake in the list that caught my mild interest--and that was Dumbo. Why? For starters, because it's a Tim Burton movie. And while not all of his movies are my cup of tea, he is one of the most creative and imaginative minds in Hollywood, so I usually try to give most of his works a shot. 

The other thing is... the original Dumbo actually isn't all that good. It wasn't without a couple good moments, but it's ludicrously short (64 minutes!) and despite that short length, there's still not very much happening in the movie. Dumbo doesn't even learn to fly until near the very end. And it also contained some really annoying side characters. 

Dumbo was one of the very, very few Disney animated classics that could've actually used a do-over. And they got Tim Burton to direct it, which was quite fitting--the story of a character born with some kind of mutation that is actually a gift, but he is an outcast for it. Edward Scissorhands, anyone? 

So yes, this is still the story of the baby elephant (*not* delivered by storks this time--I think) who is born at a traveling circus (led by Danny DeVito) with unusually large ears; and he discovers that somehow with these ears/wings, he can fly. And that's one thing this version gets right--Dumbo flies much, much earlier. The immediate difference here is that instead of being helped out by a talking mouse, Dumbo is helped out by some humans--namely, a pair of siblings whose mother is dead and whose father has just come back from WWI with a missing arm. 

This version does seem to get a lot right particularly in its first half. The story and plot move along more organically. Sometimes it's a little by-the-numbers, but there's never really any annoyances along the way. And some impressive CGI gives us a baby elephant with very expressive eyes, which helps us be endeared to the little guy quickly (if the eyes aren't too "uncanny-valley" for you, that is). 

Of course, given how short the source material is, this version was bound to have make up some completely brand new material. And that--in the second half--is where things get a little off the rails. Michael Keaton shows up to buy Danny DeVito's circus, and then proceeds to play a megalomaniac entrepreneur so cartoonishly villainous, the only thing he was missing was a mustache to twirl. While Keaton does alright at hamming it up, the character is annoying because there doesn't seem to be much motivation behind a lot of his evil actions--not even money at times. 

The other main issue with this film is the fact that they felt the need to re-do the famous/infamous "pink elephants" sequence for some reason. Except this time, it's not an acid trip; it's some bubble-blowing sorcery, and it somehow feels even more pointless. At least this is fairly short, though. 

Still, the film kind of gets its act together again towards the end when it sort of mirrors the end of the cartoon. The result is a short genuinely feel-good sequence with a human element added to it. There seems to be some belief among some that this movie doesn't have the heart of the original, but there was enough for me. And to be frank, I don't remember the original having a dramatic amount of heart aside from that one heartbreaking scene we all remember (which is also kind of repeated here). 

Even though some of the human characters are forgettable, there's still some good performances. Danny DeVito particularly stands out; Colin Farrell and Keaton are fine as well. However, child actress Nico Parker is also notable as of one two siblings who befriend Dumbo. 

Burton's version of Dumbo isn't outstanding or anything, but it's a very rare (almost nonexistent) breed among the Disney remakes in that it actually outdoes the original. And again, it's also a very rare breed among the remakes in that its existence feels more justified. This is worth a watch if you're a fan of Tim Burton movies at all. 

The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part

RATING: D+

It's been five years, but we finally got a sequel to The LEGO Movie, which was one of the biggest surprises of "wow this is actually really good" movies in recent memory. Since then, we got a couple of spin-offs--once centered around LEGO Batman, which was quite hilarious and memorable as well. Then there was the LEGO Ninjago Movie, which was quite a bit more forgettable. But now we're going back to the characters we know and love from the original LEGO Movie, and as that movie would say, everything is going to be awesome! Right? Right...? Oh dear.

This movie starts off by picking up literally where the first one left off; however, after about five minutes, we have a time-skip of five years. Now the former Bricksburg (or whatever it was called) is basically a post-apocalyptic wasteland due to the attacks of the Duplo aliens. Everyone has had to adjust to a tougher life, and toughen up themselves in the process. All except Emmett, who is still convinced that "everything is awesome." However, things get crazy again when a new alien connected to the Duplo lot shows up--General Mayhem--and kidnaps most of Emmett's friends, who now must go after them and save them.

Let's cut to the chase: this movie is not that good. This is the second animated movie sequel I've seen recently which really was a huge step down from its predecessor and also went bizarrely off the rails (Ralph Breaks the Internet being the other). There are a ton of problems with this movie, some of which I can't go into very much without revealing spoilers.

First off... the plot. It does start off pretty promising with a post-apocalyptic version of Bricksburg, but once we go into space, it goes downhill from there. Like the first one, the events of this movie are basically in the imaginations of a real kid--only this time it's two kids. And this brother and sister have very serious differences on how to play with LEGOs. Those differences are solvable in real life, but in a movie, those differences are irreconcilable. I mean, how are you supposed to mix a sci-fi/post-apocalyptic adventure with an elementary girl's imagined LEGO space wedding? (Yeah, I know... they're both space-related. But trust me, they do not mix.)

But the real problem is that the movie tries to make the sister out as the victim of having her LEGO toys messed up when she tries to play with her brother... but the problem is, she actually *steals* LEGO toys from her brother. (I don't consider this a spoiler, because if you saw the first movie, you know about the events of these movies just being imagined... and it's kind of easy to see what Mayhem's capturing of Emmett's friends symbolizes.) While that doesn't justify the brother's response (which I won't reveal), I find it difficult to have much sympathy for the sister.

This is another big issue with the movie, though: there's very little subterfuge or surprise this time. Possibly because we already know that these movies take place in the imagination of children, they don't even bother trying to hide it this time. Most namely, the name of an actual LEGO apocalypse is clearly a reference to a real-world character as well. So it's pretty easy to guess what's going to happen in that regard. There are other twists that you don't necessarily see coming, but the problem is... they're not good ones. Namely in who the identity of the real villain is.

There are two more key things I take incredible issue with in this movie. First is what happens to LEGO Batman. He's quite dumbed down in this one and doesn't actually do much memorable... except do a musical number with a shape-shifting alien queen. Yes, seriously. And that's memorable for all the wrong reasons, which segues into the second other key issue I have with this movie -- there are a few musical numbers in it. I am honestly befuddled and confused as to why musical numbers (which we also saw one of in Ralph Breaks the Internet) are suddenly making a comeback. Maybe they appeal to certain people... but I just find it annoying.

After four paragraphs of explaining why this movie is really not good, you'd think there would not be much positive to say. But there are still some good moments. Probably the best part is actually the first action scene after the five-year time skip, which basically feels like a LEGO version of a Mad Max: Fury Road chase. And that's actually pretty awesome. And there are still several laughs to be had; some of them are related to the other LEGO Justice League members. Also, there's the character Rex Dangervest, and while his character is a separate can of worms, he has pet LEGO raptors... and those are cool.

But ultimately, we have another failure of a kids-movie sequel--just like Ralph Breaks the Internet, which this movie actually has a few subtle things in common with. This movie does have a certain message, and I get what it's trying to say. But it is executed so, so poorly. I'm not sure how the makers of this movie thought this was supposed to be entertaining; and heck, the laughs even generally disappear in the second half. And this is all the more bizarre because the first LEGO Movie was inventive, surprising, and generally a joy to watch. The only thing of those that this movie is would be maybe inventive. But it's possible for a movie to be inventive and still be terrible.

Glass

RATING: B-

If one is familiar with M. Night Shyamalan at all, then they've probably heard of Unbreakable--which was probably his most popular film after The Sixth Sense. It was a pretty unusual superhero movie that didn't rely on source material, and had more in common with the thriller genre than with action. Still, it was pretty good and some who watched it hoped for a sequel... which never happened. Then Split happened, which was sort of a resurgence for M. Night, and it was revealed to take place in the same universe as Unbreakable. And because of the success of Split, M. Night was able to make a final chapter that acted as a sequel to both Unbreakable *and* Split... as well as a final entry in a trilogy of sorts. And thus we have Glass. 

This takes place shortly after Split (which I actually never watched), and Kevin/The Horde/The Beast/James McAvoy's character is still on the loose. And at this point, David Dunn is trying to hunt him. However, both of them end up in the hands of a psychiatrist named Dr. Staple who already has Elijah Price/Mr. Glass, and she is out to prove that in fact they do not possess superhuman abilities. All the while, Mr. Glass, being the super-genius he is, has something up his sleeve for the occasion.

I am left with kind of mixed feelings on this movie. First off, it moves rather slowly at times during the first half, although this is a common trait of Shyamalan movies. But the bigger issue is the whole "you're not really superheroes" game Dr. Staple tries to play with the three main characters. Even though it does kind of serve a purpose, it's still rather irritating at times to see her attempt to twist events of previous movies when we *know* for a fact that at least David and Kevin *are* superhuman. It also comes off as kind of silly when, after a rant by Dr. Staple, her motivations seem for a moment to basically be "I hate Comic-Con." (This is not the case, but it's kind of a bizarre dig.)

The second half is certainly a lot more interesting. It's also a lot more bonkers, resulting in an ending that's insane even by Shyamalan standards--both in good and bad ways. There's a bit of pretty awesome payoff, but there's also a sense of disappointment. Whatever the case, the ending probably isn't what you may expect.

M. Night seemed to be tasking himself with going against normal superhero conventions (while still making a sly wink here and there to superhero clichés), which had to be quite tough in a Hollywood environment that is heavily saturated with superhero movies--much more so than was the case when Unbreakable was released, when Spider-Man hadn't even hit the big screen yet and the X-Men would only do so for the first time that same year. M. Night does kind of succeed at that task... but it does come at a little bit of a cost.

What does work without a doubt is some of the acting. James McAvoy and Samuel L. Jackson are both superb. In particular, McAvoy's ability to convey different personalities so well is insane. You probably already knew this if you saw Split, but it's worth mentioning anyway because he's just that good. Bruce Willis does seem to be unfortunately phoning it in a little bit this time... but on the other hand, that could just be because of who he has to share the screen with.

Glass is a movie that both works quite well in some ways and then kind of doesn't in some others. To a certain degree, it's typical Shyamalan pulling out the rug from under us. The difference is that unlike in some of his other endings, this one isn't altogether satisfying. As previously stated, it still works in some regards. But I find it hard to imagine that there won't be some people who are disappointed. Still, this is a generally pretty interesting follow-up to Unbreakable and Split and a unique installment in the superhero genre, so it does deserve some credit--even if it never really stands out the way Unbreakable did.

Avengers: Endgame

RATING: A-

Here we are at last, at the end of it all--at least until Marvel starts another new saga in their massive Cinematic Universe, anyway. But this is the final movie of the saga that started with Iron Man, Thor, and The Avengers. After about 20 or so movies and 10 years, and after basically giving us The Empire Strikes Back (and then some) of superhero movies last year with Infinity War, Marvel's ready to give us the close to the Infinity Stones/Thanos arc.

When we last left the Avengers, they were in pretty bad shape--since they had not only lost to Thanos, but lost half their comrades and in the process half of all life in the universe had died. And yet, the surviving Avengers (mostly just the original Avengers, plus Rocket, Rhodey and Nebula) aren't ready to give up yet. For one thing, they want to make Thanos pay. But if there's a chance at all that they can reverse what he did... they want to take it as well. But as one of them points out, that's not going to be easy--even with a few extra hands they didn't have in the last movie, namely Ant-Man, Hawkeye and Captain Marvel. 

Little more can be said about the plot than that, because the marketing deliberately did not reveal very much. And because of the extra outcry from folks (including the directors themselves), I'm going to try harder than usual to avoid even vague spoilers. So I'll just say what I can. 

First off, this is certainly a great movie and a mostly satisfying conclusion for sure. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Infinity War, but that's simply because IW took risks and did things that hadn't been done in the genre before. Hence why earlier I called it The Empire Strikes Back of superhero movies. Endgame isn't without such moments either, but some of the plot devices it *does* rely on feel slightly more familiar... and also a little more flimsy at times. 

Yes, Endgame is slightly more sloppily plotted at times. Regarding a certain plot device which shall be unnamed, there are a couple contradictions and just some things that make no sense. But often during these moments I often found that I just didn't care. Those are more heavily invested in this series and not more casual viewers may feel the same way. And for the most part, the general plot/idea works--even if it feels like it literally would not work anywhere else than a comic-book movie. 

And even if one finds themselves a little frustrated with a couple of the plot devices used and some of the pacing, they still ought to find themselves quite fulfilled by the final hour. The final act is basically the single biggest comic-book nerd/geek fever dream ever brought to life, and so much awesome stuff happens during that part that even I were writing a spoiler-filled review for some reason, I could not possibly cover it all. 

Beyond that, a lot of character arcs are pretty satisfyingly handled. Some fare better than others, but namely Iron Man's, Captain America's, and (surprisingly) Hawkeye's stand out. On another note, while some may be disappointed to find that Captain Marvel really doesn't play as big of a role in this movie as you'd expect, she still shines when she is present--and doesn't feel *too* overpowered versus the general competition here.

Elsewhere in the movie, I liked how they took some time to shed light on the effects of the Snap on Earth--and just how devastating it would be in general. One scene in particular of Ant-Man wondering his old neighborhood, which now looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, stands out. But even amidst all the tragedy, coping, and action, there's still a good amount of levity--particularly in the first half. In general, it does not feel out of place and they tone it down a bit for the more serious final third of the movie.

Endgame is not a perfect concluding movie. But it's still pretty doggone good and generally satisfying, and it's difficult to see scarcely anyone who's been invested in this series for a while being disappointed. Some may like it more than others, as some will be more forgiving of some of the plot holes. And even if I felt a little annoyed with a couple parts here and there, it's all worth it purely for that final battle--because that bit is about as awesome as anything you will ever see in a superhero movie. 

Aquaman

RATING: C+

When we last left the DC Extended Universe, they were truly on life support. The last movie they'd made before this was Justice League--which was a mess of a movie in multiple facets. At that point, the only good thing about the DCEU was Wonder Woman. So what's next for the DCEU? Apparently, it's making a movie about your dumbest superhero. Sure, they made Aquaman somewhat passable in Justice League, but he was still probably the least-needed hero of the bunch. Why would we want a movie about the guy whose abilities are breathing underwater and talking to fish? 

The premise of this movie is that Arthur Curry/Aquaman is the heir to the throne of the underwater kingdom Atlantis. Yup, Atlantis is a thing in this movie. What complicates matters is that he is a "half-breed"--child of an "Atlantean" and a human. Which kind of makes him an outcast from that underwater world. But he's kind of okay with that. Until his half-brother and current Atlantean king Orm decides he wants to unite all seven of the underwater kingdoms and lead a war against the surface world. So how is Aquaman and his compatriot Mera going to stop him? By finding a mythical trident MacGuffin that would make Aquaman "the one true king." Or something. 

Probably one of the biggest problems with this movie (aside from its unnecessary length) is that the plot, while not bad, is quite derivative. This is basically Black Panther and Thor, but underwater. But also let's include the whole "chosen one" trope crossed with the "half-breed" trope, and also the quest for the mythical MacGuffin. Like I said, it's not really a bad plot--it's just unoriginal and completely devoid of any surprises or twists. And the dialogue that comes with it is often pretty poor or just silly. The phrase "one true king" is repeated too often, and these underwater societies are so annoyingly obsessed with pure blood that you might think you're in a Harry Potter movie. 

With all of this (and more to be mentioned), it's kind of amazing that this movie sort of works--or at least, it's not bad. For one thing, the visuals underwater are often pretty astounding (and perhaps a bit overwhelming) to look at. They put a lot of detail into the places and creatures down here. While not all of the action scenes work, a couple do; namely the extended fight with Black Manta about halfway through, who really should've had a bigger role in this (more on that later). The opening scene where Aquaman infiltrates a submarine and decks pretty much everyone on there is also quite fun. Elsewhere, our two main leads Jason Momoa and Amber Heard play off each pretty well, which leads to some decent banter at times. 

The final act is a mixed bag--at first, we get a pretty awesome colossal war between various underwater factions. But once Aquaman shows up, it's over all too quick. He defeats his enemy too easily. It doesn't help that Orm isn't really as interesting a villain as Black Manta at all. The latter has more interesting motivations and also a cool villainous outfit during the signature fight scene with him. Orm's motivations are limited to "I don't like humans because they pollute the water." He's supposed to be a cross between Killmonger and Loki, but he's not as effective as either one. 

Some commentary on the length needs to be made as well. I'm not often one to complain about movies being too long... but this one is definitely longer than it needs to be at 143 minutes. While Justice League was too short, this one is just too long and probably should've been cut down by about 20 minutes. This along with the derivative plot makes it feel like DC really has no idea how to make a truly good movie. It seems like Wonder Woman was not good because of DC, but despite them. Man of Steel is the only other one they've made that was above average. 

While Aquaman is fairly entertaining and a bit of a step up after Justice League, it's still weighed down by DC shooting themselves in the foot too much. And while I suppose they deserve credit for making their worst superhero passable, this is still merely average material. If you're a big fan of DC or the superhero genre in general, I suppose this is worth a watch. But probably only the one. 

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

RATING: B-

Look, I'm going to give full disclosure here: this movie never had a chance of 100% working with me. Allow me to explain why. You know how some people these days are feeling superhero-movie fatigue, and have been grumbling more and more about the Marvel Cinematic Universe lately? Well, generally this is not me. Except for one category: I have Spider-Man fatigue. There have been three iterations of Spider-Man in the past two decades, each one feeling less inventive than the other (though each actor has brought something good to the table, in their defense). 

And now we're going to make a cartoon animated version? Where we're going to introduce the multiverse and have multiple Spider-Men/People on at the same time? To me, this was literally the worst idea they could've had. In a time where we've already had two many versions of Spider-Man in a short span of time, the last thing we needed was a movie with *multiple* people wearing the mask. And if you *were* excited about this prospect from the beginning... then you're probably better off not reading the rest of this review and finding a review from someone who actually was excited about this from the get-go. 

I'll give them credit for at least trying to do something different, which the previous reboots have struggled to do. And that includes using a different Spider-Man--Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker. (It helps that it is canon in the comics.) This at least gives them room to do different things with the character of Spider-Man. Those things may not necessarily be that much better... but at least they're trying. The problem is, as passable as Morales is, he's not one of the most memorable things about this movie. 

But before we get that far... let's do the quick premise. In this Spidey universe, Miles Morales--a young teenager struggling to settle in a new boarding school and not feeling totally on the same page with his father--gets bitten by the famous radioactive spider and becomes Spider-Man. Thing is, Peter Parker actually did exist in this universe as well--he's just dead. (The fact that he's dead is not a spoiler, because it was advertised... but *how* he came to be dead would be a spoiler, because that was not advertised.) Miles doesn't quite have the natural penchant for this Spider-Man business that Peter did, so he needs a mentor. Fortunately, he's about to get plenty of help there--because the Kingpin is opening a dimensional portal which manages to suck in other Spider-Men/People/Things--but not much else (don't ask why or how). And they all need to go back and the Kingpin needs to be stopped--along with his minions the Prowler, and... a female version of Doc Ock? Why is she not the one in charge here? Feels to me like she could kill the Kingpin easily if she wanted to and just run the multi-dimension project herself if she wanted. Oh well, whatever.

One of my biggest concerns about this movie was just how many iterations of the Spider-Whatever they were going to jam in here. The impression I got was that there was going to be a *lot.* However, much to my relief, it's only six including Miles--which is easier to keep up with. Three of them actually work better than Miles does. There's an older and more jaded version of Peter Parker, who has an interesting character arc of his own. There's Gwen Stacy/Spider-Woman, who actually has a pretty good backstory and is one of the more appealing characters here. Then there's Spider-Man Noir, who is voiced by Nicolas Cage. Perhaps the biggest problem with the movie is that Spider-Noir is not in it more, because every moment he's in it he steals the show--probably in part because it's Nic "Not the Bees" Cage voicing him. 

It's the remaining two iterations where this movie gets really weird. There's a weird Spider-Pig like thing--and yeah, many of you are probably thinking of The Simpsons right now. "Peter Porker," as he's called, is probably also the most useless of the bunch. And *then* there's an anime girl version--complete with a mecha suit. Yes, seriously. Her presence definitely feels the most jarring here. 

Probably the best thing about this movie is the humor it brings to the table. This film's pretty funny at times. From some slapstick to an amusing homage to the previous Spider-Man movies to every time Spider-Man Noir speaks to some fourth-wall leaning to one of my favorite post-credits scenes ever. Seriously, watch through the entire credits for that scene--especially if you keep up with memes. 

The plot is alright, if nothing to write home about. It has a nice few tricks up its sleeve, such as a stunning twist regarding the identity of one of the baddies. But while the multi-dimensional thing makes enough sense at the time, it makes less sense the more you think about. And for a movie that actually has some pretty doggone good action sequences, it's rather unfortunate that the final act descends into incomprehensible madness for a fight in the midst of an unstable multi-dimension portal. 

I guess I haven't commented on the art yet. While the comic-book style animation can be a little jarring at times due to it being quite fast-paced, in general it actually is pretty great. There are some parts that are just gorgeous. And it emulates an actual comic book pretty well--even including yellow thought panels and large words appearing out of thin air like "Boom!" when explosions happen. 

This movie definitely has some interesting ideas and I do want to give it credit for at least trying to do something different. But the only thing that really sticks out about this movie to me is its humor... and this iteration of Gwen, I suppose. And of course, Spider-Noir... but he falls into the "humor" category. And even if I think that spin-offs for Gwen or Spider-Noir might be a better idea than an actual sequel to this... there's still a part of me that wishes they would just stop making anything Spider-Man related for at least a couple of decades. 

Look, this movie is fairly hard not to like. Somehow they made this idea sort of work and not be a total disaster. And I'm sure anyone who's a Spider-Man fan and who's *not* Spider-Manned out will enjoy this. But at this rate, the character's going to be run into the ground eventually. Maybe not on the next installment, maybe not for a few years yet. The issue is that I'm already in that process of feeling some Spider-Man fatigue--just as some are feeling the MCU fatigue. All of that said, if they can keep writing good humor for these "Spider-Verse" movies (assuming there are more of them) then they might at least be good for the laughs--if not a whole lot else. 

Ralph Breaks the Internet

RATING: C-

Ever since it was announced that there was probably going to be a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph, most of us were pretty excited. Wreck-It Ralph was one of a couple excellent Disney Animation movies that *almost* got lost in the shadow of Frozen (the other being Big Hero 6). It was a quite creative movie with strong character development arcs and plenty of action, humor, and fun video game references. 

From the outset, it's admittedly not a movie that necessarily needed a sequel; but given how well they were able to pull off a tough concept about video game characters coming to life and living in a giant surge protector and traveling between games, I had hope that lightning could strike twice here. 

This time, instead of staying strictly in the gaming world, the film introduces our characters Ralph and Vanellope to... the Internet. The owner of the video game store sets up a wi-fi connection there, and due to Ralph and Vanellope needing to get a "part" for the latter's game Sugar Rush following an incident which leaves the game unplugged, they end up travelling there... and getting a lot more than they bargained for. As does the viewer. 

There is a *lot* to unpack here, so let's cut to the chase--this movie is not that good. It is a perplexing big step down from the predecessor. There are multiple reasons why; but there are two critical ones that stand out above the rest. Let's start with Ralph himself. Rarely have I seen a character regress as badly as he does in this sequel. For one thing, he's oddly more useless action-wise here. Remember, he has "freakishly large hands," as Vanellope called them once before--and those actually have quite a few good uses. But he scarcely uses them at all, except for towards the beginning. He doesn't do much "wrecking" in this movie, if you will. 

But the real problem is Ralph's character development takes a huge dive. He's quite insecure about his friendship with Vanellope for some reason--and this ends up being a major plot point. And while this does lead to a lesser-used message about friendship (which is still delivered without subtlety at all), we have to deal with Ralph making some shockingly bad decisions just to try and save his friendship and keep things going his way. Ralph had issues in the first movie too, but they felt more justified because of all the abuse he was taking. But he still grew as a character, and learned to become quite content with his life. His new issues in this movie are way more unjustified, and often feel out-of-character. (Unfortunately, Vanellope's not free of dumb decisions either. Basically, there are a lot of dumb decisions made by characters in this movie.) 

And that issue of Ralph's character taking a nosedive leads directly to the second major problem with this movie: the final act. Obviously, not too much can be said here without a spoiler warning. But I will say this: there are some parallels with the first movie in terms of Ralph's actions accidentally causing chaos, only this time... there is no big plot twist regarding the villain. Instead, we're given one of the dumbest climactic acts that Disney has ever written. There's potential for massive stakes, but it all gets shot as the focus becomes more on the main characters instead of the implications of what's happening around them. 

But there's plenty of other problems with this movie. They kind of ignore the rules of the previous movie at times; Fix-It Felix says he'll cover for Ralph during the day while's gone in the Internet. But wasn't his absence during the day what caused the game to almost get unplugged last time? And Vanellope is considering joining another racing game called Slaughter Race (basically a PG post-apocalyptic version of Grand Theft Auto... I think?), despite the big deal the last movie made about "game-jumping." 

And then there's the "Disney" section of the Internet, which feels kind of shoehorned in. I'm a little conflicted here, because there's a few funny jokes in here--namely the Groot cameo. But this is part of where the movie loses focus for a little bit, especially once the Disney Princess team-up happens. Obviously some will enjoy that part; not really my cup of tea, though. But I could've probably overlooked it a bit more if it hadn't led to Vanellope having a silly musical number. Yup, that actually happens. 

Also, if you had any trouble wrapping your head around the concept of the first movie... you're gonna have a bad time here. Remember, this is basically an anthropomorphic of the Internet. And though much of what you see your brain can probably accept in the moment, when you think about questions like how in the world is this Internet world interacting with the real world, and how can our video game characters even really be here... it kind of blows your mind a bit. 

After all this, it may seem amazing that there is anything positive to say about this movie. But there actually is some funny stuff in this movie. Despite the overwhelming nature of this virtual Internet world, it's actually not that bad during the first half. There's amusing characterizations of a search engine and an algorithm. And there's also just some amusing Internet jokes/references. Also, the car chase that takes place in the "Slaughter Race" game is actually pretty fun. Even though the film can feel implausible at times during that first half, it's really not until the second half that things really start to go truly off the rails. (And when they go off the rails... boy, do they ever.) 

This is one of those movies that I didn't dislike too much at first despite the ludicrous final act and Ralph's character regression, but the more I thought about other issues with the movie, the more it infuriated me. I don't know what I'm more confused by: how the same director/writer who made the superb first movie gave us this for a sequel... or how this movie actually got well-received. But then again, I'm also among the minority of people who didn't care for Frozen and thus isn't interested in the upcoming sequel either. So what do I know?