The Incredibles 2

RATING: B

The first crime about this film is that we had to wait this long for it. No other Pixar movie was as tailor-made for a sequel as this one; and yet in that time three other Pixar movies got sequels (or prequels), plus two "threequels." Heck, as time begin to wear on, few movie sequels in general were as highly wanted and anticipated as this one. And yet it took fourteen years. And considering the time gap between the movies and what's happened to the superhero genre since then--plus just how good and groundbreaking the first one was--boy, did Brad Bird have his work cut out for him. 

It was for these very reasons that despite the original Incredibles being one of my favorite movies of all time, I tried to keep my expectations as tempered as I could. And as it turns out, that was probably a good idea. Cutting straight to the chase, The Incredibles 2 is a pretty good and fun movie. But it pales quite a bit in comparison to the original. Now strap in, because despite the fact that I did enjoy this movie, I'm about to spend quite a bit of time tearing it to shreds. 

Let's start with the plot. The first Incredibles had a great plot with an excellent villain. And that movie was a lot more nuanced and complex in general, throwing in a bit of clever social commentary; really, it was one of the most intelligent movies of its type. This one? Well... pretty much the entire plot of this movie is the Supers trying to make being super not illegal anymore. And that's about it. The rest of the film is just the family trying to juggle hero work and raising a family--a case in which the roles of the last movie are reversed for the first half or so of this one. That's not to say the plot is bad, because it isn't. It's just not up to par with its predecessor's plot, or even most of Pixar's better plots in general. 

Oh sure, there's a new villain in Screenslaver, who looked rather promising in the marketing. However, that villain is probably actually the biggest disappointment of this whole thing. Syndrome was excellent because he was a former fan-turned-enemy that Mr. Incredible inadvertently created--a concept which was rather new and different at the time--and he was also quite the tech genius. However, the Screenslaver's motivations are far less interesting and even a tad more cliched. And really, in the end the villain does not even feel actually as threatening--like they're actually someone to be feared that much. The best thing about the Screenslaver is one or two thought-provoking speeches it delivers--which unfortunately are never really expanded upon and actually have little to do with the villain's main plan. 

Another problem is the lighter tone of the movie. I'm more inclined to blame that on Disney, because they decided they have to give everything as light a tone as they can nowadays. But the first movie had a relatively darker tone and higher body count than most kids' movies. While that did make it a riskier watch for toddlers, that "relatively darker tone" was still part of what made the first one stand out from the crowd. This one feels like it's holding back a bit more, and the action sequences are toned down as well. The end of the first one involved the family fighting a gigantic rogue robot in a downtown metropolis in a finale that would've fit right with any other superhero movie. This movie's final act? Stakes definitely feel lower. The only thing that one feels is at stake at that point is the reputation of the Supers, because given how the rest of the movie has gone, one knows that no one else is in any danger at that point.

While those are the biggest core issues, there are some other minor things as well. Let's start with the opening of the film (which is an awesome opening, by the way). Remember the Underminer? That's right, this film literally picks up where the last one left off. He's ridiculously one-note, unfortunately--and is quite literally forgotten by the movie eventually. Also, a couple of the main characters both have character arcs that aren't always at their best in the first half. They improve over time, though. And finally, Jack-Jack is kind of overused this time around. It kind of makes sense in context, but he's still strictly comic relief at this point and as such should be used sparingly instead of being part of the action. But oh wait, I forgot, we have to make even the action as light-hearted as possible because here at Disney we have to avoid taking a dark tone whenever possible. (Infinity War is the rare exception to that current rule.) 

I've spent quite a bit of time kind of tearing this movie to shreds by now. Unfortunately, that's kind of the way it is with a lot of Disney-made movies nowadays. Even if I'm enjoying them, there are still way more noticeable issues that warrant discussion here. Case in point: I was one of the people who liked Star Wars: The Last Jedi a lot (more than this movie), and yet I still spent an unusual amount of time discussing flaws for a movie that I ultimately really liked. The Incredibles 2 is not that much different. To be clear once again, this is a movie that I did enjoy. But its flaws warrant more discussion than usual, due in part to the inevitable comparisons to the predecessor. 

There are still some pretty good action scenes. The opening is one of the best ones, and there are some other good ones throughout. My personal favorite is probably one where Violet brawls with a brainwashed superpowered person, in one of the few battles that doesn't feel like they held back much. Violet shines a bit more in action in this one in general compared to the first one, mainly because she's learned some more creative things to do with her force-fields, with often awesome results. Still, the others get their fair share of good moments as well. Frozone seems to have a little more screen time here, and it doesn't go to waste. And while I noted earlier that one source of comic relief was a little overused, this movie is still undeniably pretty funny. 

And really, it's just great to see these characters again after all this time. In general, they still are what you'd expect them to be. While the marketing kind of painted Elastigirl as the main focus this time around, that's really only the case for the first half. As with the first one, part of the main draw of this franchise is the family dynamic tying in with the superhero deal, and that is still indeed the case. The Incredibles are still The Incredibles, and as long as that remains true, this film still carries merit--even if elements of the plot and setting these characters are put into are not what they could be. 

So to sum up, this is a sequel that definitely is not up to the standards of the original. The characters are as good as ever, and anybody who loved the first one will be glad to see them again and enjoy their return. The deal is: the first movie had excellent characters put into an excellent superhero movie. This one has excellent characters put into an average superhero movie. I suppose that's kind of enough, and this will still probably still be a movie I return to now and again. But I have to admit, I couldn't completely shake the feeling of "...that's it?" when the credits started rolling. 

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

RATING: B-

Some movies get sequels that they shouldn't; or they get way too many sequels. Then there's always some movies that maybe could've done with a sequel... but it never happened. This is one of those such movies. This one has a rather odd source material; it is indeed based very loosely off of the old Fantasia cartoon. Which does sound like a pretty dumb idea. I mean, how can you make a movie based off a 10-minute cartoon that's not even related to said cartoon? 

The only thing the movie shares with the cartoon is a scene where the "apprentice" in question uses magic (without a hat, mind you) to make brooms and mops clean up the place for him. It's really just meant to be a parody homage sequence and while it's kind of amusing, it also doesn't really fit in that well with the movie. 

This movie has more in common with Harry Potter than anything. However, it is more based off Arthurian legend... to a limited degree. Merlin and Morgana le Fay exist, but that's about it. Balthazar Blake, the "sorcerer," has been looking for a long time for his apprentice--the Prime Merlinian, who can wear Merlin's ring and is thus (somehow) a descendant of his and the only one who can keep Morgana and her minions (mostly Horvath) from carrying out a generic "destroy the world" plot. The only problem? The "apprentice," awkward college student Dave Stutler, isn't entirely a willing apprentice at times. 

This film is kind of an interesting case. It's a fantasy-action-adventure flick, but it's also kind of a comedy in some ways that doesn't always take itself seriously. (Heck, one of the best scenes in the movie is a self-aware Star Wars reference.) And there's also the romance subplot involving Dave and his crush which is kind of corny, but it works given the intended parallelism with Balthazar's own past/backstory. 

As both an action and comedy, it generally works. The action is pretty fun, with the highlight being a car chase scene that involves magic (namely the sorcerers being able to turn their cars into other cars). There are a good handful of pretty funny moments as well. And the plot, while having some narrative issues here and there, is still engaging enough.

Part of the strength of this movie is some of the casting. Nicolas Cage is the main star, and this is one of his more laid-back performances--but he does it pretty well. However, Alfred Molina gives the best performance, playing Horvath with a certain mustache-twirling quality and the occasional hamming it up (no, seriously: Molina hams it up more than Cage in this movie, the latter of whom only does it once), while still imposing himself as a threatening presence when needed. I prefer Jay Baruchel's voice acting in the How to Train Your Dragon series, but he still has his moments here. Monica Bellucci and Toby Kebbell are also in this and aren't half-bad. 

Aside from a few slower or cornier moments, one of the biggest problems here is some narrative mistakes (as mentioned earlier). The first mistake is actually doing the flashback backstory as the very first scene; it would've been more effective to have us learn the story as we went. Then there's some further expansion on the backstory not included in the flashback that's reflected on very briefly and then totally forgotten; and a couple of throwaway lines that feel like they should be pretty significant but also aren't brought up again. And then there's a couple of other mistakes. One is Horvath getting dismissed way too easily in the final act in favor of Morgana and oddly not showing up again until a post-credits scene. Then there's Abigail, another minion who appears rather briefly and is way underused, despite being a historical adaption figure (yep, it's *that* Abigail from Salem) and being rather creepy. (But perhaps they wanted to keep the PG rating and using the "creepy child" more would have been too much--which is odd, considering this movie already straddles the PG line as it is.) 

Despite those issues, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is still a surprisingly decent and fun movie which unfortunately went rather unnoticed at the time of its release. Getting a sequel out of this doesn't feel like too bad of a prospect, especially since they could've expanded more on the backstory a bit that way. But while that will likely never happen, we still have this movie; flawed yet quite acceptable. 

Black Panther

RATING: B+

While this may be Black Panther's first solo movie, it's not the first time we've seen him. We were introduced to him before in Captain America: Civil War, and that intro worked out pretty great and helped to create interest in his upcoming movie. (Obviously a lot of people were interested regardless, but it's difficult to deny that seeing him in action in a separate movie helped--much like with Spider-Man's intro in that same movie.) The result here is a kind of Marvel movie that in some ways is different from any of the others--but in other ways still kind of features more of the same. 

It's unclear just when exactly this takes place after Civil War, but at the beginning of this movie, T'Challa--the "Black Panther"--is ready to assume the throne in Wakanda after his father was killed in that other movie. Here we find out more about this mysterious Wakanda--it's actually a secret location hidden from the rest of the world, and is also essentially the home base of all the vibranium, a material that Marvel viewers should be pretty familiar with by now. As a result of them utilizing this vibranium, Wakanda is very technologically advanced. 

Anyway, T'Challa faces some tough times in his leadership pretty quickly. For one, he has to deal with Ulysses Klaue, a former foe of Wakanda who is out stealing vibranium objects and who his people have a heavily vested interest in. Then, another enemy by the name of Killmonger shows up, wanting to take the throne from T'Challa for his own goals. 

What we get is overall a pretty good movie. Being a MCU movie, most all of their films are this way, but this one still finds a few ways of its own to stand out--kind of. Like most Marvel movies, it has some pretty fun action sequences in it--the Black Panther is a pretty fun fighter to watch. Probably the most memorable scene is the car chase in South Korea (which we already saw parts of in the trailers), but the final act is pretty fun as well. While at times the plot is a bit predictable (there's a pretty ridiculous point where they try to fool us into thinking someone's dead), there's still a few surprises here and there and overall the product works well. 

As a character, T'Challa lacks the wit that many of his peers in the MCU have to help bring them charm (not even really any dry wit), but he makes up for that with convincing stoicism--which Chadwick Boseman portrays quite well, stepping firmly into the role. However, the other star of the show is Shuri, T'Challa's sister--who is a tech genius and provides much of the comic relief in place of her brother. 

There are still some issues. The CGI is all over the place. While Wakanda generally looks quite nice, there are still some points where that place or other places have an overuse of CGI--or just poor CGI altogether. Also, the character of Klaue is tragically underused. Andy Serkis has an insane amount of fun playing the character, hamming it up like we've never seen him before--and yet he does not have nearly as much time as he should, giving way for Killmonger to be the main antagonist. (Which is okay, Killmonger's a good antagonist... but still.) Also, certain parts of the first half of the film are a little more unevenly paced. 

Black Panther isn't quite in the top echelon of Marvel movies--but it's not too far off either. It works on its own merits, and it's about as fun and entertaining as any Marvel movie and also has a couple of different angles that help the film stand out a little bit from its crowd. While this movie could potentially have been more difficult to pull off due to the audience's unfamiliarity with the character before Civil War happened, Marvel has already pulled off so much (with some of those feats being arguably more difficult) that there was little to worry about anyway. It's another average success for Marvel: nothing more, nothing less. Not overly special, but absolutely no disappointment either. 

Non-Stop

RATING: D+

I kind of wish there had been a bit more truth to the title of this movie. Sure, I get what it's technically referencing to. This movie takes place on a plane, and a terrorist situation happens on said plane. And the plane cannot stop... therefore... non-stop. But what I'm referring to is that I kind of wish there had been a bit more non-stop action. Instead, for the most part until the final act, this film attempts going the thriller and suspense route. And mostly fails. 

This is one of four (!) action thriller movies that director Jaume Collet-Serra has done in the 2010's starring Liam Neeson. Evidently, he's been trying to cash in heavily on the recent turn in Neeson's career that started with Taken. Since then he's been getting typecast as gruff current or former cops who is typically pretty good with combat skills. These particular movies never make a ton of money or win over a lot of fans--but just enough to allow studios to keep investing in it, hoping that they'll have the next sleeper action thriller blockbuster that just so happens to star Liam Neeson. 

This particular one takes place almost completely in the air--save for the very beginning and end. That does at least lend it a certain amount of focus. Neeson's character, Bill Marks, is a U.S. Air Marshal, and thus he does a lot of flying. And on this particular flight, he just so happens to get a message from a terrorist who threatens to kill someone on the plane every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred to a certain account. Chaos ensues... slowly. 

This movie is actually stunningly tedious for much of the run time. Much of it centers around Marks trying to figure out "whodunit." And things are actually pretty tense at first. But later the results often end up making him look bad instead--and he starts getting framed instead. Ultimately, the whole thing just gets tiring to watch as it goes on for some time. And it doesn't help matters that Marks is not much of a protagonist that we want to root for--the sad thing is, you can't entirely argue with some of the passengers' reasons for suspecting him (even though we know he is not the perpetrator). That is not good. 

Luckily, the film kicks up a bit in the final act, but it's a bit of a bonkers final act at that. Sure, there's more action, but the antagonist's plan really is not that good of one (despite the person's protests otherwise). And when you think about it, the outcome the person hoped for after the occurrence of his plan probably was not going to happen. And also, after not really doing hardly anything to suspend disbelief most of the way through, the final act ends on a bit of a ridiculous note that really should have resulted in a lot of deaths--but doesn't. 

Non-Stop unfortunately is not really a movie that had potential to be much better. It was going in the wrong direction from the start. Going the "let's frame the good guy" route for the majority of the run time is quite tedious. And not nearly enough is done to make the film redeem itself in the end. I often end these more critical reviews lamenting about "what could have been," but it's difficult to see where this film could have gone to make it any dramatically better. 

Eagle Eye

RATING: B

I'm actually at a bit of a loss on where to start with this one. I know what has to be discussed eventually about this movie; but what comes first (and what was actually marketed) is a bit more difficult to find a starting point to go on. With little option, we'll just throw caution to the wind: this is an artificial intelligence action-thriller that is disguised for the first half or so as *just* an action thriller--with maybe some kind of conspiracy involved. And it was marketed as the latter as well--which wasn't entirely a bad idea, but it's rather difficult to review this film without bringing up the second half at all. 

This film starts out with one Jerry Shaw having some weird things happen to him--he gets a crap-ton of money deposited into his account, he comes home to find all kinds of military hardware and ammonium nitrate in his apartment. And then he gets a phone call from a mysterious woman who leads him to escape the authorities and meet up with a woman named Rachel who's also been contacted by this mysterious caller. This strange caller has plans for them--and threatens their lives and family (well, the latter in Rachel's case anyway) if they don't comply. Oh yeah, and this caller seems to have control over basically everything electronic. 

Having mentioned that this is a film involving artificial intelligence, it's not difficult to guess where the film goes from there. Ultimately, what we get is a pretty doggone exciting film that almost never lets up in pace and that also has a point to make--not just about A.I., but about mass surveillance in general. The action scenes are pretty fun--we get two car chase scenes, the latter of which includes a drone (and ends in spectacular fashion), as well as an airport package processing scene which starts out a little silly but ends pretty well too.

While the dialogue/script isn't always the best, the casting often helps make up for it. Shia LeBeouf does quite well here, while Michelle Monaghan is serviceable. Billy Bob Thornton also stands out, delivering his often silly lines properly (although I get the feeling that they intended to cast someone else first). Julianne Moore alternates pretty well between being appropriately monotone and genuinely creepy. Rosario Dawson and Anthony Mackie (Falcon from the Marvel Universe) are also familiar faces. 

This movie isn't without its issues. The film makes a big deal about how the A.I. can control a ton of things--from traffic cams to traffic lights to cell phones. And that all is quite believable. But I do have a hard time believing that it could make a city train come to a screeching halt and go backwards, or somehow take control of power lines in the middle of nowhere and use them to electrocute a man to death. The point is, sometimes this A.I. does things that are straight up impossible. And there are just some other little things that don't make much sense either. Also, there is a key plot point that involves the use of a sonic detonator to set off a bomb that I wasn't really a fan of (not to mention they never tell us where the actual bomb that is to be detonated even is). 

Despite some issues, Eagle Eye is a movie that was actually kind of ahead of its time (though not by much). While it isn't entirely original (the A.I. sometimes brings HAL 9000 to mind), it does have the benefit of being released in a time period where other issues like surveillance can come up (as opposed to years before). Oddly enough, this movie was not well liked when it came out--it was regarded as ridiculous and unbelievable. Maybe the plot felt a little more far-off then, but I'm not so certain that people would take that same attitude five to ten years later. If you're a fan of this particular subgenre, it's definitely worth a spin. 

The Commuter

RATING: C

Remember when Liam Neeson wasn't being typecast as gruff ex-cop or maybe current cop types with "very particular sets of skills?" Yeah, me neither. Ever since the Taken trilogy started, Neeson has been getting cast in all kinds of action thrillers -- which typically involve him beating the snot out of random goons despite his age. 

This particular Liam Neeson film is actually his fourth collaboration with director Jaume Collet-Serra. Never heard of him? Well, he's been the main guy spitting out these various Liam Neeson action thrillers besides whoever's been doing the Taken trilogy. One of those films was "Unknown," which was basically a Bourne rip-off. The other two were Non-Stop and Run All Night, both of which I have yet to see (although I may give Non-Stop a whirl soon, just for kicks). Then there's this one. When I first saw the TV commercials for it, without watching the full trailer, I immediately thought, "It's just Taken, but with trains." And it was a January release. And pretty much all January releases stink, right? Well, maybe not totally. 

In this one, Liam Neeson's character is an insurance salesman who's... you guessed it... a former cop. At least until he gets fired from his job, anyway--at basically the worst time financially. Oh yeah, and the movie makes this big deal about how this character (Michael MacCauley) rides the same commuter train every day to and from work. So he's down in the dumps. And then he gets approached by some odd woman on the train... who offers him a heavy amount of cash if he can find a certain person on the train. And then suddenly he finds himself an unwitting party to a murder conspiracy. 

One might actually be surprised to find that this film does not involve as many scenes of Neeson beating up thugs as they'd expect. This film focuses more on the thriller end of things. There still is a fair share of them, though -- viewers gotta get their money's worth somehow. There is one particular awesome fight scene that stands out dramatically above anything else in the movie--because it involves Neeson, a thug, and a guitar. You do the math. 

Beyond that, this film is just alright. The pacing is a bit inconsistent--sometimes it moves fast, sometimes it moves slow. Sometimes it gives you surprises (and even a jump scare or two), and a couple of times it seems like they're just stalling, even though this movie is not that long. There is a pretty good climactic act. But there are parts of the attempt to solve the "mystery" that are just kind of annoying and feel a bit drawn-out (identifying the wrong person). 

The biggest problem, however, is that there is not fully proper closure. I mentioned earlier that there was a big murder conspiracy involved here. And while a lot of questions are answered in the final minutes, the biggest one of all is left unanswered: who the heck is this shadowy organization that set up this whole mess? We find out who the villains are, but even they are seemingly answering to something higher up--and we never find out who or what that is. Some TV reports at the end say some things, but they're deliberately blurred together so there's no definite answer. Surely they weren't expecting to make a sequel out of this, were they? That's kind of a massive hole. 

The Commuter isn't a bad film at all. As far as action thrillers go, it's decent enough--and fans of these kinds of films with Liam Neeson in them will probably want to give it a whirl. And while it's certainly tense at times, it doesn't always do enough to stand out from the crowd--and it doesn't help that there's a couple things that are never really explained (or even ones that are, but that just make no sense). The scene with the guitar alone might be worth the rental price. But that rental price is probably about as much as this film is worth--at best. 

Geostorm

RATING: D-

I don't think hardly anybody goes to watch a disaster movie expecting greatness out of it. Sometimes the very nature of the genre depends upon suspending your disbelief, much like sci-fi (hence why the two have crossed over on occasion). What one does hope for out of such a movie like this are great visual effects, and characters/writing that even if they aren't good, have just enough charm to distract you from the often idiotic plot (sometimes good casting can help with that). You also need good pacing to make this work in any way. 

This particular movie centers around a world where natural disasters got so bad that the nations of the world decided they needed to control the weather--by building satellites out in space that can somehow do that. (And don't even bother asking how any of that's possible.) All seems to be going well--until the system of satellites starts getting sabotaged and freak accidents start occurring on the station and down on Earth. Someone is using the system against them--to basically wreak havoc upon the Earth. 

This disaster movie is unfortunately not even that original in its own genre. It's kind of a cross between The Day After Tomorrow, Armageddon, and a little bit of 2012. The latter was the only I didn't actively dislike. The other two suffered from insanely dumb plots, unlikable characters, and bad writing--but worst of all, bad pacing. There wasn't even that much proper action in either of those movies proportionally. Guess what? This movie suffers from basically all of those flaws. 

I actually don't think my suspension of disbelief has ever been stretched so far in a disaster movie. Controlling the weather with satellites? I have to wonder how the director/writers ever came up with that ludicrous idea. The characters are either annoying or just kind of there. Gerard Butler's character is basically the metaphorical punching bag for most of the movie and it gets old fast. And the script is often comically bad. It's not good when unintentional comedy (even though there's not a lot of it) starts to stray into a disaster movie like this--this isn't supposed to be Sharknado. 

And finally, the pacing. This movie is surprisingly slow, and it makes me glad the run length is a lot shorter at 109 minutes than most of its disaster movie peers. One doesn't watch a movie like this that's marketed the way it is to watch people do some detective work--in space. (This is where the Armageddon comparison comes in.) And yet, we're stuck in places other than the action for probably a good two-thirds of the movie. That especially does not work when your characters are unlikable. 

Is there anything salvageable about Geostorm? Very, very little. The visual effects are good, but not groundbreaking. People could perhaps see the film as a "so bad it's good" film and enjoy it that way. I know I was snickering at the idiocy now and then. Perhaps if the film had fully embraced the nonsense that it was instead of actually trying to be dead serious much of the way through, it might have worked better. But in this case... even "working better" probably is not saying much.