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.