Cars 2

RATING: C+

The first Cars movie was one of Pixar's more slower-paced movies--fitting, given that despite the NASCAR-like racing, the movie was about slowing down and enjoying life, among other things. It was also probably Pixar's most underrated film ever. As for the first sequel, Cars 2? Well, it switched gears entirely (no pun intended). Completely. As in... went from a simple tale about slowing down and sticking it to the Interstates to... James Bond, basically. With Mater as more or less the main focus. Pretty odd, right? 

Well, the film's plot deals with Lightning McQueen racing in the World Grand Prix. Mater, among others, comes along and along the way accidentally gets caught in a case of mistaken identity and ends up being stuck in the world of car spies and espionage and a ridiculous and convoluted bad guy plot. 

When this film first came out, it was considered to be Pixar's first flop. I guess compared to the material they had released before this movie, that's sort of true. It's definitely not as bad as some would have you believe, and it's not Pixar's worst film either. (That honor goes to Monsters University.) But it is still rather dumb at times. 

The decision to make Mater the main focus wasn't really a great one. It's made even worse by the fact that he's actually made even dumber in the sequel--going from silly but fun and endearing comic relief in the first movie to being painfully idiotic at times in this one. But there are other points of massive idiocy throughout the plot--whether it's the fact that the actual spy cars can't figure out that Mater's not a spy (they think his idiocy is his cover), or the fact that this movie does not know how electromagnetic pulses work, or how other characters aren't as smart as they once were (McQueen suffers from this too), or just the villain's plan in general. Can't say it without spoilers... but just know that it's a terrible plan and makes no sense. 

What actually does work about this movie, then? Well, even if it's a 360-turn genre-wise, the spy stuff is still kind of cool regardless. The action scenes are actually fairly fun to watch. Even if some of the characters' stupidity annoys you at times, most of them are still likable. Although there are some attempts at humor that fall flat, there is still some pretty funny stuff too--such as the wasabi gag, the disguise technology scene, or a gag involving a Gatling gun. Also, attention should be called to the animation, which is astounding--the Tokyo sequences in particular are breathtaking. The voice acting is still pretty good too--in addition to returning actors like Owen Wilson, Tony Shalhoub and Bonnie Hunt, we get newcomers Michael Caine, John Turturro, Emily Mortimer, Eddie Izzard and a sadly briefly used Bruce Campbell. Turturro in particular provides some more of the better comic relief. The film itself is still mostly a fun and entertaining ride, even if certain parts of it make you cringe a little. 

Cars 2 is definitely not as bad as many say it is. But it's still below average for Pixar (though a few years later, "average" doesn't mean what it used to for Pixar). And it's a bit of an odd film, given how insanely different it is from its predecessor. That said, you still could do worse both with Pixar and in the animation/kids' movie department in general. Even though no one will come away calling this a classic, it's not the kind of thing most will hate themselves for watching afterwards either. Even if it was still flawed, the biggest reason it got panned was because of everyone's higher expectations from Pixar at the time. Which is unfortunate, because this film is still a decently enjoyable (if not great) way to spend 105 minutes. 

Dunkirk

RATING: B+

Christopher Nolan has become the best director of our times--not just because of his classic Dark Knight trilogy, but because of his other works like Inception that showcased his creativity and ability to give us lots of plot twists. He's built his career on that kind of stuff. So seeing him switch gears to nonfiction for his next movie--a World War II movie, to be specific--is a little strange. 

This particular film concerns the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940--the time when Allied forces got trapped on the beaches of far northern France surrounded by the Nazis and they got transferred by civilian ships in addition to the destroyers that were available--and 300,000 men were rescued despite the Nazi air bombers' best efforts. It's quite the war tale that many of the younger generations may not even know much about. 

The film is presented in an interesting manner. We are thrust unceremoniously into the action right away. And it doesn't let up much for its 107 minutes--except for a few short breaks, there's always something going on. The narrative switches constantly between some random soldiers trying to survive in the Dunkirk battle in the sea, one particular civilian ship that civilians drive themselves, and the dogfights up above in the air. Those three narratives... and not much else. Well, save for Kenneth Branagh's role as a Commander, I guess. 

The film certainly does manage to keep one interested. There are some rather harrowing sequences (a couple of ship-sinking and near-drowning scenes come to mind), and while some parts of the film are more exciting than others, it does manage to keep you on your toes for most of the way through--that is in part helped by Hans Zimmer's great score. The main highlights of the film come in the air battle scenes--which are great to watch. 

The biggest issue with this movie is that at times it can be a little hard to follow. First off, remember how I mentioned one of the narratives being "random soldiers trying to survive in the Dunkirk battle?" Well, good luck figuring out who's who among those random soldiers, because they pretty much all look and sound the same. And the British accents are quite heavy, so you have to listen carefully--and even then you will not catch everything without subtitles. Due in particular to the latter, there were a couple moments here and there where I thought for a moment, "Wait... what's going on again?" 

Though this next sentiment will come as no surprise, it still should be said that Dunkirk doesn't feel like a traditional Christopher Nolan movie. It's all too simplistic. That's to be expected, of course. It's an historical event. But in the past, Nolan's put something in each of his movies that's very different that blows you away--whether it's a crazy plot twist or a crazy plot device. You won't find any of that here. Again, that's no surprise. But when I go to see a Christopher Nolan movie, I expect a very different kind of film experience. I expect to get utterly blown away. I enjoyed Dunkirk, but I was not blown away by it. It goes more or less exactly how you expect it to--which of course many will prefer it that way, and it probably *is* better that way. But I guess my anticipation for Nolan's next fictional movie masterpiece is only even more heightened now by his presumably brief detour into nonfiction here. 

Regardless, Dunkirk is quite a well done war movie. It does what it's supposed to do and it does it well for the most part. While there are a few things that could've been done better, what's done well is done pretty well. I guess even if it's a very different kind of film for Christopher Nolan, it still shows some impressive versatility. It's a movie that most will probably like or even love. While I absolutely cannot describe this as being anywhere near Nolan's best, it still keeps his long streak going. 

War for the Planet of the Apes

RATING: A-

Who knew that the Planet of the Apes series could not only provide an actually *great* reboot--and one of the better trilogies in the last several years? It's crazy, but that's what happened. Rise gave us a surprisingly good start-up, while Dawn acted as the equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back--giving us a horrifying look at how wars start, with neither side is completely guilty or innocent in that case. And now, in the third movie, we get to see the result of that film's handiwork--the actual war, of course. 

The war's actually been going on for a couple of years when the movie starts, with casualties on both sides. The human side consists of a military group--led by a mysterious figure known only as the Colonel (Woody Harrelson). The apes--led by Caesar (Andy Serkis)--have been holding them off for some time, but not without losses. When tragedy strikes big-time, Caesar wrestles with his darker side and begins a campaign to destroy the Colonel, who is determined to wipe out the apes forever for his own reasons. 

This movie has a lot going for it, and on the whole it's pretty great. While the film feels slightly more slow-paced than the previous two, there are some very tense sequences (namely a long conversation between Caesar and the Colonel) and an "all-heck-breaks-loose" action finale. The direction from Matt Reeves overall is quite strong, with some brilliant set pieces. While there aren't a lot of non-extra human actors (most of the acting is motion-capture performances of apes), the acting overall in the film is still great. Andy Serkis really outdoes himself; perhaps in an extra effort to get his long-deserved Oscar?

While the story itself overall works just fine, there is one kind of glaring issue which I unfortunately can't go into much without giving away spoilers. There is a revelation midway through the film that attempts to connect things further to the original Planet of the Apes. But this "revelation" ends up contradicting itself a bit. I do wonder if they actually are setting up the exact events of the original movies, or if they were just making call-backs. 

Then there's also the ending. While none of it really comes as a massive shock, it still kind of leaves us with some questions--chiefly whether there are still other humans out there, and what their current state/condition is. Considering that we don't know officially yet if more entries are happening, that's a little bit of a problem. 

Despite those two main flaws, they don't hold the film back from being a strong third entry. The film continues the dynamics found in the last film (only this one is even darker), and Andy Serkis helps strongly with that--almost carrying the film by himself. It's certainly a memorable ride, and while it may not have the same impact that Dawn did, it still gets the vast majority of things done right. If it is the ending of the series (though I personally doubt it), it's a pretty good one. 

Jack Reacher 2: Never Go Back

RATING: D+

The last time we saw Jack Reacher, he foiled a plot involving... um... actually, I already forgot what it was exactly. I only remember minor specifics. Something involving an assassination. Something involving a group of bad guys with agents everywhere trying to cover it all up and frame people who get in their way. A good car chase scene. A few cool fight scenes. A little bit of amusing dialogue from Tom Cruise. And not much else.

Yeah, despite being a somewhat intelligent thriller, the first Jack Reacher movie was still quite slow and quite forgettable. In my mind, there wasn't a whole lot of hope anyway for a good sequel. I'll start with this: most of the better parts were in the trailers. And if you hated the trailers, boy are you in for a rough ride.

Unlike its predecessor, this movie was quite disliked--even though in some ways it's a bit more like the first one than many would care to admit. Something involving an assassination. Something involving a group of bad guys with agents everywhere trying to cover it all up and frame people who get in their way. Not really any proper car chase scenes, but still a few cool fight scenes. A little bit of amusing dialogue from Tom Cruise. And not much else.

In this particular installment, a military contract of Jack Reacher's--Major Turner (Cobie Smulders)--is framed for the murder of two of her own guys. Reacher gets involved, and the two end up working together on the case as fugitives. And this rather annoying teenage girl named Samantha gets involved as well--because she might be Jack's daughter. 

Here in this one, they made a bit of a bigger deal of there being some kind of dark conspiracy; which does sound interesting, but then the reveal about the identity of the evil group is rather underwhelming. The conspiracy is unmasked, the "big bad" is taken into custody... but there's still 20 minutes left. Why? Well, because this random hitman goes after Samantha. He really, really, *really* wants to get back at Reacher because... why, exactly? It seemed as if the hitman just wanted to do it for kicks. Which, in this particular scenario, is rather stupid. But we do get a pretty sweet fight scene out of it, so there's that I guess. 

One thing that this movie *does* differ from its predecessor on is that it's less intelligent. It's a much more by-the-numbers action/crime/thriller movie. (Well, there is a surprising twist in the final few minutes... but at that point no one really cares anymore.) Also, the dialogue in general got worse. There are still a few fun moments--such as the perhaps infamous "telephone scene"--but once again they're not enough to elevate the film.

Ultimately, this movie is just as forgettable as its predecessor. And slow-paced again, too. (Seriously, almost literally nothing interesting happens during the entire first hour.) But at least the first one was more smart. At least it was trying. Here, we just have a cookie-cutter "action/thriller" movie. And I use those two genres rather loosely. Ironically, this sequel's subtitle actually applies rather well to most people's feelings about this movie. Indeed, let us "Never Go Back" to this franchise. 

Monster Trucks

RATING: D

When you think of monster trucks, you probably normally think of jacked-up pickup trucks with ridiculously large wheels that are able to handle pretty much anything. People were probably wondering when this movie was first announced what they were going to do with it; it would probably be dumb, right? Just a movie about monster trucks? Well, as they found out when the trailers showed up, they should've looked at the word "monster" and taken it more literally. (And then some people decided that was even worse.) 

Yes, this film does include "monsters" of a sort. But not really. They're just creatures from a whole different ecosystem that an evil oil drilling company stumbled upon in the midst of their drilling. And they're in the way. And being the typical evil movie oil company that they are, of course they don't care. One of these creatures escapes and a high school kid finds it... and then it gets in his truck. As in, it goes under it and actually becomes/controls the truck. If that makes any sense. So yeah, this movie really is about "monster trucks!" Get it? Because they're trucks and they have monsters in them? It's funny, right...? 

Well, at least we can give them credit for a creative idea. It's a bit of a goofy and silly one, for sure. In fact, this almost feels at times like a movie that was made in the wrong era. It might've done better in the 70's or 80's and then *maybe* been a cult classic. Because the general premise isn't unlike E.T. And the goofiness of the whole thing does kind of feel like something that maybe would've been more accepted then. 

For a movie that has kind of an interesting (albeit silly) one, it hits a lot of the wrong notes. It tries to be a fun popcorn movie geared towards kids, but it's not really even good at that. The characters are quite uninteresting and have very little development. In fact, we kind of come to appreciate the monsters themselves more than the humans. And a few scenes just feel ridiculous; probably the worst offender is the one where the kid and his monster truck race alongside his love interest on her horse with a country pop (I think?) song in the background. It's just terrible. 

Among other issues are some rather illogical moments where you have to suspend your disbelief more than you probably expected from a movie about monsters (mostly regarding how civilians/mercenaries are blind as heck to the monsters in view), and the acting. There's not that much good in there. Lucas Till is actually kind of annoying in his role; and everyone else is just kind of there. Rob Lowe and Danny Glover are in this movie, but they're not given a whole lot to do. 

But there's got to be some action involved, right? Well, there is. Most of it just isn't that good. There's a car chase about halfway through, and not much of note happens--except a "driving on rooftop" bit that could've been awesome... but somehow looks dumb instead. They save all the actually cool stunts involving the "monster" trucks for the bonkers and admittedly fun final act, which involves a truck chase on a mountainside with a lot of fender-bending. This climax was actually fun, and it makes me wonder why the rest of the movie couldn't have been like that--especially considering they had a pretty good budget. 

It's not a total disaster, ultimately. There's a few decent moments here and there, and it's not really unwatchable (even if there are a couple awful moments). It could've definitely come out worse, but it also could've come out a little better too. This isn't a movie meant to be taken seriously, obviously, but even when you're not doing that, it just isn't fulfilling even in a "stupid fun" way at the end of the day.  

Warcraft

RATING: D+

Movies based on video games have never generally done well. There'll be a few fans of said video games here and there that maybe do like it, but mostly no one likes them and they end up bombing. Thus, there is actually apparently such a thing as the "video game movie curse." And in 2016, there were *two* movies that were supposed to break it--this and Assassin's Creed. The result of this particular one?

Well, it actually depends upon who you are. If you're a World of Warcraft fan to begin with... apparently you'll love it. Everyone else? Not so much. 

The single greatest flaw about this entire movie is that it actually assumes you're a World of Warcraft fan and that you're more or less caught up on the lore. The guys who made this apparently actually thought literally everyone on planet Earth plays World of Warcraft. Either that, or they deliberately made this movie just for the fans... which is rather pointless in my opinion if you could just make another video game or "MMO" story line for it. In other words, that's a lot of wasted money. 

This movie is quite frustrating for someone who hasn't played the games/online franchise. It starts off utterly incomprehensible. You do begin to pick up the basics of what you need to know over time, but there's still some things that you never do figure out. The plot goes something like this: this race of orcs (different from the Lord of the Rings orcs, mind you) are leaving their destroyed world, and this evil warlock of theirs uses evil green magic to build a portal to a human world *not* called Earth. Said evil warlock intends to purge the land of humans and use them as fuel for... more evil green magic stuff, apparently. One orc clan chief does not agree with his leader's plans. He wants to team up with the humans, who are just kind of caught in the middle of all the crazy stuff going down in their world. There's more plot beyond that, but do you want to know any backstory? Yes? Well, forget about it, because there is none. 

It's quite unfortunate the path this movie takes, because there actually are traces of a good movie in here (perhaps due to director Duncan Jones?). There's a couple surprising plot twists, and there are some dynamics about the orc race that actually are kind of interesting, and there's a nice surprise non-orc antagonist thrown in as well. Despite the sometimes-iffy CGI, some of the action scenes are decent as well. 

But there is also constant frustration as you try to keep up with all the lore and places and names and things and... yeah. Among various questions you'll likely have: what happened to the orcs' original world? How did this extra-evil orc find and start using this evil green magic? What is this evil green magic anyway? And how did the non-orc antagonist revealed later get infected with the evil green magic *before* the events of the movie start? And loads of other ones that I can't really say because either it would require more explaining on my part, or there would be spoilers. 

I'm sure, of course, that there are reasonable explanations in the canon for everything I just asked and other non-WOW fans will ask when watching this movie. But if I have to go through years of games and online play just to understand it, then it's not worth it and I don't care. A video game movie like this should strive to make newcomers to the franchise understand everything without them having to go through all the lore. If they actually *want* to go through the lore afterwards, great, but the movie shouldn't depend upon that. 

While this movie is not truly awful, it is quite frustrating. As I mentioned earlier, there are traces of a good movie in here and I could see how WoW fans would actually probably like this. But this movie not only assumes we're already gonna know a lot, it also assumes it will have a sequel, which means there isn't really an ending. I doubt I'll care much about a sequel if it does ever happen--unless they actually decide to explain the lore a bit more next time around. 

Wonder Woman

RATING: A-

The DC Extended Universe had a bit of a rough year in 2016. First, Batman vs Superman received mixed reception and disappointed many; then the dumpster fire that was Suicide Squad happened that no one but hardcore DC fans liked. At this point one would probably be skeptical of any future entries in the series, especially if they also disliked Man of Steel (which I actually really liked). 

Interestingly enough, Wonder Woman (aka Diana Prince) was actually one of the better things about Batman vs Superman (even if she wasn't in it a ton). So despite the mixed bag of a movie she was in, she gave us a pretty good intro to her character already. Now, we get an origin story for her--which takes place in World War I--which helps us learn even more about her and see her even more in action. 

Unfortunately, the movie actually gets off to a bit of a slow start--not much really happens before Chris Pine shows up except for Hippolyta being an overprotective mother of Diana. And probably one of the dumber things about the "origin story" of Diana is the fact that it ties in with Greek gods and their mythology... except for when it doesn't and ignores the normal mythology you'd expect. It's really better to not think about all of that much, even if one of those said Greek gods (Ares) is actually heavily involved in the film. 

Elsewhere, the "origin story" centers around Diana being stuck on an island with her fellow Amazons, and she's constantly training for something. That something happens when a WWI skirmish is brought to Diana's doorstep, and the British pilot Steve Trevor who's left behind warns the Amazons of the "war to end all wars," which Diana believes has Ares's fingerprints on it. (It's actually not as stupid as it sounds from this outset.) So she joins Trevor and heads to Europe, believing she can end the war for good. 

There are a lot of fun action sequences in this movie--particularly in the second half. Wonder Woman gets to go rampaging past hapless minions a few times times, and those are probably the most awesome scenes--though watching her going up against a more powerful opponent in the explosive finale is pretty great as well. There is a lot of great use of slow-mo, and the action throughout the movie shines all the more for it.

There's quite a bit of substance elsewhere, though. The movie is essentially about Diana learning about humanity--and the good and bad things that come with that. It works quite well, especially in the context of a war. Diana's a fish out of water who doesn't fully understand some of mankind's idiosyncrasies and straight-up evils, but she still feels the need to "fight for those who can't fight for themselves," even if she comes away disgusted with us on occasion.

At this point, the character of Wonder Woman in general is easily the best thing about the entire DC Extended Universe. While I like the new take on Superman more than most, he still can't carry this universe that well. And Batman? Well, even if Ben Affleck turned out better than expected, it's still too soon since the Dark Knight trilogy and too tough an act to follow to really make him a good point about this franchise. Wonder Woman, however, is not only exciting to watch fight, but she's a character that is much easier for anyone else thus far to root for. She's kind of the equivalent of Marvel's Captain America, and while I enjoy a hero with human flaws and dark sides, I also can definitely find a more morally strong hero like Diana or Cap quite refreshing. 

If anything, perhaps the greatest flaw about this film is that Diana's way ahead of everybody else; aside from the main antagonist and maybe Trevor, none of the other characters in this movie are noteworthy or even really likable. It's surprisingly easy to forget about that though; the movie carries itself well regardless. 

Wonder Woman's solo movie isn't without its flaws (that first half does drag at times), but it's still an exciting superhero movie that's not nearly as cliched as some of its peers, and there's more going on than just the awesome spectacle. While obviously the jury's still out as to whether the DC Universe can fully get its act together, it's clear they've got at least one character done right.