On the Town: Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Can a movie be good if it is shallow? Surely, you have seen movies that a critic may have called shallow or without depth, but later thought you saw plenty of depth. But I feel rather confident in saying that Mission: Impossible – Fallout is a shallow movie. They spend maybe ten minutes developing a plot at the beginning of the film and let it hang there like a sign directing your path.

I’m not exaggerating either, it is a few minutes of Ethan Hunt’s mission briefing that basically marks the answers on a school worksheet saying. “These are the bad guys, check. This is how you save the world, check. This is the spy-girl of this movie, check. This is the bad guys again in case you missed it…”

As you may have realized at this point in reading my reviews, I like depth in my movies. I like to be immersed. Fallout doesn’t do that. What it does do is grab you by the throat and squeeze for two-and-a-half hours. The last thing this movie wants you to do is to take a breath and think about things.

I would agree in calling it a thrill-ride. I would agree with calling it intense. It is like a pure concentration of blood pumping action distilled from all five of the Mission movies so far. It is the first one I would call a real sequel instead of a new episode. The difference being that it doesn’t just rinse off the main characters and put them into a new situation, it brings back two characters directly from Rogue Nation,  the British agent Ilsa Faust, Rebecca Ferguson, and the Syndicate leader Solomon Lane, Sean Harris.

The movie premise plays off of the aftermath of Rogue Nation but doesn’t develop it much further. Ethan Hunt, Tom Cruise, wrestles with the consequences of, SPOILER, not having killed Lane in the last movie. Lane also wants Hunt to suffer as he watches the world he protects crumble around him. You know, basic ‘spy-stuff.’

The action kicks off with Hunt and his crew trying to regain three stollen plutonium cores. His core group sees Benji, Simon Pegg, returning alongside Luther, Ving Rhames, under the supervision of former-antagonist-turned-ally Alan Hunley, Alec Baldwin. After failing to recover the cores, the group follows the trail of an unknown person with only an alias to follow, John Lark. Believed to be a fundamentalist and leader of the Apostles, the bad guys, Lark is the mysterious expected double agent that doesn’t stay mysterious for long. Again, this movie has a very obvious path full of signs for you to follow.

It even openly makes the distinctions of its characters when it calls Ethan Hunt ‘a scalpel’ compared to new agent August Walker, Henry Cavill, as ‘a hammer.’ They do showcase this more in the way they fight as well. Hunt is a more martial flow kind of fighter with Cavill as a straight brawler. Walker is placed on the team after they fail to retrieve the plutonium cores earlier because Hunt chose to save his teammate instead of securing the package. It actually represents the deepest point of the movie as a moral decision over saving one life versus saving many lives.

Cavill’s play as Walker works well as the prevailing counterpoint to Hunt. From the way he fights to the choices he makes, he stands as the other half of the coin, the mirror image, the dark Hunt. Walker is Hunt if he would have killed Lane. He is Hunt if he had lost faith in the world.

While the movie blatantly holds your hand on plot and characters, I would probably call it clutching your hand while it drags you through the fast-paced action scenes, it seems to have reason to do so. Remember how I said the movie doesn’t want you to think? It gives you the answers on a platter because it wants all of your attention focused on the craziest stunts I’ve seen in a while. I swear, Director Christopher McQuarrie must have woken up one day and said, “I hung this character outside of a huge plane as it took off in the last movie, what can I try to do to get Tom Cruise killed this time?”

Okay, joking aside, the point is that the action and stunts of this movie are the main focus as it dashes from one piece to the next. Beautifully, there is such a variety of action scenes in this film. From skydiving to gunfights, from car and motorcycle chases to hand to hand combat, the film tries its best to leave you breathless and exhausted by the time you leave. They have helicopters, building jumping, a foot-chase, explosions, hangings, and even some rock climbing. I don’t know how to find Ethen Hunt in real life, but please send him to the Olympics for marathon running.

The one moment I had to think about a stunt being done was watching him learn to fly a helicopter while it was crashing. But, hey, movie logic, right?

One thing I did enjoy about Fallout is how self-aware it was. With the face-mask gag done so much throughout the film, it makes fun of itself several times and even has the bad guy figure out mid-rant that he was talking to a guy in a mask.

It also harkens back to its more Cold-War roots from the first film with a film-noir-looking Vanessa Kirby as the White Widow. While her character becomes more of a background character shortly after her introduction, she still manages to pull all eyes in her direction when on-screen. I’m not just she looks good, its the old school femme fatale aura she has that I might give just as much credit to costuming and the director for the idea as to her for pulling it off.

The movie also returns a character from the third film, Michelle Monaghan plays Julia, Hunt’s ex-wife, tying up the semi loose end by the credits. Playing on the role as Hunt’s ex, she becomes a symbol of Hunt’s past. Showcasing so many things from past films is a nice way to finally tie them all together as it connects the pieces in style as well as story. There is less intrigue in this sequel than in most of the others, but it trades off for the fun of the action.

So, “Can a movie be good if it is shallow?” Ultimately, sure it can. It may not be very fulfilling, it may not even be inspiring, but it is still riveting to watch. Its fun, its crazy, and its a step up from certain films in the franchise… Yes, I am looking at you Mission: Impossible 2.

On the Town: The Meg

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Do you like the SyFy channel? Do you like their “cheesy” sci-fi movies? If you do, it may help you enjoy Jaws 12… oops, sorry, I meant “The Meg.” But seriously, so many shark movies that all copied “Jaws,” this may as well be Jaws 12. As a bonus, I’m going to see just how many shark-in-a-movie references I can pull out of my hat while talking about this movie.

First off, I admit that “The Meg” had me very excited. I really have enjoyed Jason Statham in his quintessential “Statham” movies. I’m talking the Transporter series, his run in the Fast and Furious series, and sure, even the Crank movies. They all showcased this guy as the ultimate bad-ass, brawler action star. And for the most part, he has lived up to it.

Even thinking about this movie, I had to pause and say, “75-foot shark, eh? against Statham? Maybe you should give the shark some freaking laser-beams.” All in good fun though, I enjoyed Jaws, maybe I even looked for a shark or two in the last few tornadoes on the Weather Channel. I wanted this film to be good.

What I got was rather disappointing. The movie did the right thing and added in a good amount comedy alongside the thrills and spills. A few all-to-predictable moments of equipment failure and a slow start already hobble the movie, but I can get past that. We join the prologue as Jonas Taylor, Jason Statham, along with his rescue crew, are attempting to save men from a destroyed submarine. When the sub is attacked by something giant, Jonas must make the hard call to leave his two teammates to die in order to save the 11 men he rescued. Disgraced by leaving those men behind he drowns his sorrows in Thailand for years before redemption shows up in the form of a chance to rescue his ex-wife and her crewmates from a super-deep dive.

I won’t question how the submarine met the Megalodon shark, that is what the plot implies, before Jonas and his stranded ex-wife basically raise it from the bottom of the Marianas Trench. I’ll just toss that one over into “movie logic.”

Another logic problem I had was how easily this huge menacing shark could be distracted from its kill with some flashing lights. At one point on a beach scene, the shark is being led around by Jonas and Suyin, Bingbing Li, in two one-man submersibles. I did enjoy the cat and mouse action of the scene, but the shark avoiding the overcrowded beach because of some lights had me screaming, “Humans are friends, not food.” Thanks for setting me straight, Bruce.

One thing the movie did great was the character of Meiying, Shuya Sophia Cai. I don’t usually expect the cuteness factor in a monster movie. But this little girl cranks it out in spades. Adding a level rarely used in movies like this was refreshing. I’m not saying its never been done, I just don’t see it. Balancing her innocence against the rest of the crew in the Mana One Research Center exuding misfit vibes at least sets a variety of levels for its characters even if its development is short lived. And honestly, it’s a monster flick, if you want character development go find something else. We’re here to watch a 75-foot shark devour people without chewing. It is the cinema industry’s great obsession in the deep blue sea.

With far less suspense than the Jaws films, farm less jump scares than “Deep Blue Sea,” and far less plot than either, I can’t honestly say this film is good. But something holds me back from outright saying its trash. It does have great action sequences, though there are only a few. It does do well with its comedic parts, especially the dumb billionaire who funds the center. It does well with its premise, but it feels like a SyFy TV Movie that really wanted to hit the big screen. Would I watch it again, no. But would my girlfriend, who seriously live on the SyFy channel, watch it? Over and over and over again.

For a review, would you’re average moviegoer really enjoy the movie? I doubt it.

Ultimately, “The Meg” is a half-decent movie that really couldn’t stay afloat compared to the other big fish out there. Sorry Meg, you’re gonna need a bigger boat.

 

 

 

On the Town: Ant-Man and the Wasp

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

At what point does a joke become obnoxious? repetitive? It’s a problem I personally have with comedy that I can never quite grasp. If you do the same gag over and over, it loses some of its panache. The greats know that a key to comedy is timing. The right timing of a joke as well as the time spent on the joke. Is it too much build up for too little punch or, as previously stated, dogging the joke to the point of irritation?

I ask this question because of one character in this movie, Luis, played by Michael Peña. Almost the funniest part of the movie is a return of this character’s “stories.” It’s a fresh joke to me that I haven’t seen before in a movie, but I know all too well in my life. The guy whose stories are just something else. Ant-Man and the Wasp takes it so much further with the voiced-over scenes that are hilarious (understatement of the week).

But notice, I said almost the funniest part. There was a scene that I may not have laughed at as loudly, but I laughed inwardly and enjoyed even more. It made me see the film as a whole as a tray of several different types of humor. From a very surreal comedy of the action scenes like a car chase where cars and objects repeatedly change in size, to the anecdotal story comedy that Luis offers, to the physical and situational comedy that character Scott Lang, Paul Rudd, carries in spades.

Personally, I think we found better character development and a better plot in the original Ant-Man. that said, I can’t honestly say that its sequel loses because of this. The story is there, though it builds more off of Captain America: Civil War than it does on the original Ant-Man. And it just enough piecing together of its original film and the MCU as a whole to become a great connection point. However, I really believe the Ant-Man franchise is becoming more of Marvel’s intermission act than a mainstage film. Sure you really should see Civil War before you watch this movie, and as some have suggested, this film actually helps close up a couple questions from Civil War that really makes that a better movie for having watched the new Ant-Man.

Despite that, I can fully recommend this film to those who may not have seen Infiinty War yet. I would warn you not to watch the after credits scene, but the film itself doesn’t even need that movie. It’s like Scott Lang and Hank Pym are doing everything they possibly can to avoid an actual Avengers movie. Let’s be real, Captain America: Civil War was an Avengers movie, even if it wasn’t titled as such.

Ant-Man and the Wasp rekindles this path of the father/superhero Scott Lang who is living out the last days of a two-year house arrest sentence for helping Cap in Civil War. He hasn’t had real contact since then with his romantic interest Hope Van Dyne, Evangeline Lilly, or her father Hank Pym, Michael Douglas. With only days left in the sentence, something happens to reconnect these three as they search for Hope’s mother, Janet Van Dyne, Michelle Pfeiffer, who has been trapped in the quantum realm. Pay no attention to how someone could survive there for decades without food or water. Actually, the film tends to poke fun at itself in this pattern as well. You’ll notice a few quips here and there about the “science-y” stuff as the film asks you not to look too hard at the logic. But hey, we’re talking about superheros and magic and shrinking men, I think we’re all okay here with just looking past a few things that don’t make sense.

A great effort by the entire cast allows the movie to really shine as a whole rather than setting one actor or actress as particularly better than the others. The moments of innocence and emotion between Scott and his daughter or Scott and Hope balance the scales against ensemble action scenes or the funniest parts of the movie. Yes, I know I never told about the scene I liked more than Luis’ stories.

The funniest portions of this film all come from actors interactions. It never seemed to me that one person was the funniest character. Whether it was Scott asking a kidnapper to help him facetime his daughter or Scott’s tense moments with his almost-could-have-been mentor Hank Pym. The one scene I loved the most is such a scene when Scott’s suit malfunctions and leaves him… shall we say, “halfway” and in a very interesting location. He catches grief from Hope, of course, and the hilarity builds until he gets back to his getaway van where the scenes full punchline comes from the serious Hank Pym himself.

Despite all the comedy in all its forms, the film does lose something in cohesiveness as it progresses. The film almost seems to forget certain points at times, which may stem from its having several credited writers on the project. Still it all comes together in the end and collects its pieces into a finale. And again, you have so many talented actors and actresses that easily steal the scenes they are in, that you may not care. It becomes a bit of a non-sequitur as the scenes don’t always logically flow together, yet it still fits with a certain charisma.

The real question you’re going to have to ask yourself is if the lack of plot complexity and the incoherence of the scenes is really too bothersome to enjoy the comedy. Ant-Man and the Wasp is funnier than its original film, but less in terms of story. It’s lighter than most Marvel films, but disconnected. I won’t say every single joke works as some fell flat to me, but I still heard others in the theater giggle.

It’s funnier than Thor: Ragnarok, and more “aww”-inducing than a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. It’s a light-hearted comedy that defines an old adage but opting against it. Instead of the “Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none,” it picked the charismatic comedy route and mastered it.

On the Town: Solo: A Star Wars Story

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

What is the most important part of a film for you? Does it have to make you laugh? Does it need to touch your heart? Is there one thing that you need to enjoy it? Stop for a moment and really think about this. Surely, you’ve found yourself disagreeing with critics on certain movies. You may even have disagreed with me from time to time. Still, I doubt you rely solely on my opinion to decide if you watch a movie or not.

Seeing a Star Wars movie highlights this feeling of needing something specific. I saw it a little in The Last Jedi, and now I see it prevalently in Solo: a Star Wars Story. Seeing a movie labeled Star Wars carries a certain pedigree, an expectation. I really couldn’t list 1, 2, and 3 on that expectation, but I will say it slapped me in the face when I saw the standardized opening “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” that wasn’t immediately followed by the yellow scrolling text.

My automatic thought was, “Oh my, they changed it!?” Yes, I am a fanboy. No, you may not judge me for it.

I noticed my thought and asked myself if that really ruined the whole movie for me. Of course, I told myself it didn’t, it just surprised me not to see it. Though this thought struck me with the way I’ve viewed Star Wars movies, with expectation instead of anticipation. That said, I wholeheartedly subscribe to the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I believe if you change too much, you lose what people loved about the series. But this is an anthology film, not a mainline story sequel. I should allow them to be different. After all, Rogue One had only a short scene of a single lightsaber in the whole film, and I daresay it’s one of the greatest Star Wars movies since the original trilogy. It kept what it needed to and created the rest.

I honestly found Solo: a Star Wars Story fun and entertaining. The catch is that that’s as far as I can go with it. It felt like a decent heist movie, but not like a Han Solo movie. It’s a repeating message I have heard from people about the films that try to build upon the legacy set forth from previous films years and years ago. Perhaps that’s why Rogue One did so well. It took a plot point from the old films, not a character.

Still, I hold true that I did have fun with this movie. I enjoyed the subtle humor and the blatant jokes. I enjoyed the always popular balance of sad laughter at a Woody Harrelson character. In a role so classicly “him,” Harrelson quips and meanders around the film as Tobias Beckett bringing you along with a constant giggle under your breath that is so natural, it’s like you just exhale chuckles. Right up to the point where his role drops the plot twist so hard that the “aww” escapes your mouth before you even realize what happened. He kept me so close to his character that I may have considered cheering for him at the wrong moment of the film … I admit nothing.

On the other side of Han Solo is his “frenemy” Lando Calrissian. I give great props to Donald Glover for his charisma and a suave demeanor so thick you could spread it on toast. He exuded the perfect air of con-man and friend to befit his character’s gambler/scoundrel persona. It mirrored well against the Solo I know from the original trilogy.

It actually becomes one of the biggest problems I had with the movie that turned against me in the end. I didn’t see any of the classic Han Solo in Alden Ehrenreich’s Han. I struggled with it for a while before I came to a justification that he shouldn’t be the same Han. I’m reminded of a saying, “You become the people you hang out with.”

When I look at the movie as a whole, I see the Han Solo I know, I see his charisma in Lando, I see his smuggler roots in Beckett, I even see the small spark of the goodness inside the anti-hero through Qi’ra, Emilia Clarke. The movie shows his roots in the people that make him who he is.

The downfall comes with a lack of subtlety in certain things. The entirety of the film seemed to be a linear progression of ticking fan-service and forcing it into a narrative. How did Han become a pilot, got it. Next, how did he meet Lando, there we go. Now, how did he get his blaster, check. Okay, how did he get the Falcon, point made?

It’s not a bad thing, I just wanted some newness to the plot instead of one throwback after another. I felt like Ehrenreich was so uncomfortable in the Han Solo skin, but he settles into in a few parts and fits better. While the plot seems regular, and sometimes pedantic, I can’t say it was a bad choice. I admit that I did enjoy seeing where all the little points of Solo’s past lead into his character in the original trilogy. I had fun with it.

That’s exactly my heart on the film. It was good, but not great. It was exciting, but not memorable. It was fun … but just fun. Was that enough? Well, I did have a pretty busy week, so fun was exactly what I needed. It didn’t have some things that I usually look for in films, but I didn’t care. So, it begged the question of me, is there ever one thing that a movie has to have for me to enjoy it? I guess not. I guess I just have to enjoy it.

 

On the Town: Tomb Raider

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourselves as the summer movie season is stepping closer daily. Strap in as the big names, big explosions, and big budgets gear up to fight tooth and nail for the top spot of the box office. That does raise a question, though. We’re not quite deep into that season yet, so we are still seeing some interesting moves in some movies. Tomb Raider moves to the newer versions of the video game as the basis for their reboot. The question, however, comes with their choice for Lara.

Alicia Vikander, a name most of you may not be familiar with yet, steps into the role that, regardless of your feelings of the first two films, has a large vacuum from a name like Angelina Jolie. So, my question is how to decide between paying for the established big name and taking a chance on a more unknown name. There has to be a point when the new names become popular. At one point, nobody knew who Harrison Ford was, nobody had heard of a lady named Jennifer Lawrence. I love when I discover new talents. I remember the first time I watched Daniel Wu and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

Back to Tomb Raider, Vikander may not be that unknown for those of you, like me, who saw a lesser-known gem titled Ex Machina. Knowing the acting talent I saw in that film, I am not surprised at the details that she brings to Lara Croft. She manages to make this smaller frame girl a real action star. She may even be a little too formidable in the story as the girl who takes a spike to the stomach and climbs a mountain right after as if it were nothing. But to Vikander’s credit, the realism comes with her responses. In fights, she highlights the vast disadvantage she has with some less than fair fighting. But more, she shows the pain, she screams when she gets hit, she grunts and snarls when she falls. It’s a direct take from the newer version of the video game when they show Lara Croft on her first tomb. She’s not the experienced femme fatale that can drop a platoon without hesitation. You see the pain in her eyes with the constant disasters, you see the clumsiness with her first outing. Even if it doesn’t last.

Lara travels to her first tomb in search of her father, who was the original tomb raider, following a comment that they as Crofts have responsibilities to follow. The ensuing chaos does somewhat contradict the whole “deserted island” preamble they set up, but hey, it’s an action movie. Not everything is going to make a ton of sense. Making it onto the island and several high intensity scenes seem to show that Director Roar Uthaug definitely played close attention to the newer games. They seem pulled straight from the source material in set up and execution with a fast-paced, high-adrenaline sequence that pushes and pushes until you finally think you’re actually done with it, but then pushes one last time to another catastrophe to survive. I must give credit that I saw great homage to the source and great adaptation across the two media platforms, something very rarely achieved in video game movies.

For all its glory and sparkle, I still feel the same problem with this film as I do many origin stories, especially in today’s world of comic book movies. I don’t think this film takes enough time to truly enjoy the clumsiness of origins. I love that Vikander expresses this raw, unrefined heroine who is learning what she truly can do. However, the movie makes the leap too quickly from a London teen, coping with life, family, and finances, to a cold-blooded tomb raider who gets impaled, shrugs it off, climbs a mountain, fights an army, unlocks a centuries old tomb’s puzzles, and generally wades through life-threatening, PTSD-inducing, carnage without flinching. You missed the beauty of the metamorphosis, the awesomeness of smoothing out those rough edges. I missed the growth.

I also missed out on truly learning to despise this villain. Forgive me if I nitpick here, because I do realize that we only have so much time in a movie. Still, from the time I meet Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins) I never truly see anything to stand out. When he is beaten by the end of the movie, I didn’t feel a victory. I didn’t see him separate from the numberless goons that surrounded him as the stereotypical “bad-guy henchman.” He was simply there, a face in the crowd, an obstacle to overcome.

The true villainy of the film comes from its lack of presence, a name on a box, a voice on a phone. A villain that is not really even named until the end when they, inevitably, set up for the sequel.

I see so much on both sides of this film. I can’t honestly say you should definitely drop what you’re doing and see it tonight, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy myself. It was fun. It was intense. It was finally a movie worthy of its source. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a step toward hope for future video-game-movies.

On The Town: The Black Panther

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

It’s no real secret from those who know me, I do not like politics. Now, before you start thinking What does politics have to do with this movie? I have to answer and say a lot, but not as much as I thought. As the Black Panther nods to some of the social issues facing the world today, it spends a lot of time speaking about global politics from a single man’s view. How would a king of a vastly advanced nation handle dealing with the rest of the world? It’s a puzzling question that I enjoyed exploring through the movie. It never sets aside today’s political issues, it merely shows how insignificant they are compared to a need for human cooperation. A simple thought, what if such a country existed without us knowing, will force you to take a different look at our world and what it needs.

I present Wakanda. It is an African nation, struck by a meteor of Vibranium long ago, that stands as an uber-advanced technological super-power against a world that is far behind them in their own tech.

What is Vibranium? Well, welcome to the Marvel universe where there exists a metal so strong that it can absorb kinetic energy. Think titanium, and then multiply by enough that you would laugh at how weak titanium is. That’s Vibranium.

I admit, I sat down to Black Panther thinking what’s up with this “Tony Stark wannabe” who thinks he can out-tech the master. I stand corrected. While Black Panther may not be equal to Stark on intelligence level, his tech makes up for it with an entire country of people and resources to shadow Stark. Yet, the beauty of this movie, and what saves it from the “knock-off Iron Man” label, is the way they meld the sci-fi genre’s tendency towards outrageous, over-the-top technology and pseudo-science, with a very grounded feel more akin to a cultural drama.

I often found myself enjoying more of learning about Wakanda and its culture and history than about the protagonist, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman). Admittedly, T’Challa suffers from the sheer immensity of his nation and doesn’t get developed more than one or two major decisions, which again have more to do with Wakanda than him.

You join T’Challa as he is preparing to be crowned king. If you haven’t watched Captain America: Civil War, then I highly suggest watching it first for context before this movie as (SPOILER) his dad dies and he inherits the mantle of the Black Panther.

Okay, done with the spoiler, the rest of you can start reading again. T’Challa gains the crown and begins tackling the real issues of running his country, but he doesn’t have long to rule before a challenge is made. Ritual Combat set to decide between T’Challa and Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan).

Killmonger quickly becomes a key to the story, but more, he establishes himself as an understandable villain. I felt just as bad for him and his pain as I did for the main character. Killmonger, in this movie at least, has become one of the better villains I’ve watched in superhero movies. Pause for a moment to realize that villains in stories are always more important than the hero. You never know, truly, who T’Challa is without Killmonger setting the counterpoint. A hero doesn’t grow without catalysts, a villain grows to be the catalyst.

Forgive me a little villain praising, but think from the dark side a moment. In every story, a great villain can be said to be the hero of his own story. Jordan successfully portrays this as Killmonger. He is his own hero. In his mind, he is liberating the world from the problem he sees. He is the valiant knight riding in to save his people from his pain.

Villainy is, at its core, a second side of the same coin in most stories. A phrase comes to mind watching Killmonger fight opposite the Black Panther, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Jordan doesn’t just put Killmonger forth as a great villain, but as the quintessential result of this world’s sins. He represents inevitability itself.

Black Panther hits on point with amazing visuals and colors to astound movie-goers. It steadily builds towards its ultimate climax rather predictably, but the ride is no less fun. With Director Ryan Coogler, several scenes, like both the hero and villain meeting their late fathers in a spiritual plane, cling to you like that annoying string you find on your clothes halfway through your day. Coogler shows genius with these scenes and simultaneously owes a lot to his costume designer who blew me away in the film. I’m not just talking colors and patterns, but each character’s outfit speaks with meaning. From functionality for that characters role to exuding emotion, like a mother watching her son be crowned king wearing headgear that shows the spreading hope and light. It becomes tangible as everyone shows their “true colors” through their costumes.

And that is the home run that Black Panther hits. It isn’t the best action I’ve seen from Marvel, but the meaning and the weight that its characters carry make it worthy of the attention it is getting. Coogler fabricates a true sense of peril to the story and to our world today.

Black Panther is a film many critics are toying with adding to the greatest Marvel films made yet. While I can’t honestly say I agree that is THE best, I also can’t say its not worth the discussion. More importantly for you, it’s a film worth seeing.

On The Town: Kingsman The Golden Circle

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

What is the mark of an enjoyable movie? Is there one thing that stands out above the rest that just let’s you know this movie is better than others? I’m not talking about critics who analyze movies. I am speaking of you, at home. When you watch a movie and think to yourself, “I liked that.” Was there one mark or trait which signaled that it was likable?

Maybe it was relatable, it touched home with you. Maybe it was a suspenseful, dragging your attention into it. Most times, I try to think if movies are memorable. I’ve watched numerous movies, and even some that I like weren’t that great of movies, but they stuck with me for one reason or another. You and your friends probably retell funny quotes from your favorite movies at certain times. Maybe I could say, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t…” and you could finish the quote.

Any way you take it, great movies follow you. Stories stick with you. The great ones are memorable.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle, tends to fall short on that point. I walked away from the movie thinking much of it was forgettable. Which is probably pretty bad for a guy writing a movie review, but here we go.

We join Eggsy, Taron Egerton, after the first film having vaulted him into a covert secret organization for security of England in an almost “Bond-esque” style film. The movie itself is very tongue-in-cheek parody of spy films and flaunts it with over-the-top action and comic book cheesiness.

Eggsy encounters the decimation of his agency and ends up requesting help from an American similar organization known as ‘Statesman.’ The ensuing antics take a vast number of movie tropes into a meat grinder for a rather fun concoction of jokes and situations that add the right amount of cheese to make it amusing.

From the ‘a-little-too-convenient’ gadgets to the larger-than-life evil supervillain and back to the crazy obvious names, the tropes make “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” easy to follow, ubiquitous, and rather shallow in the grand scheme.

However, that’s not to say a film like this doesn’t have it’s place. Watching a cowboy cut another man in half with a ‘laser-lasso’ is definitely something I haven’t seen, yet. The cowboys are part of the new allies Eggsy finds along with an old one to help him on his new quest to save the world. He also sticks with the princess that many will remember from the first film with a, now infamous, anal sex joke.

As you traverse the almost two-and-a-half hour plot, you’ll find the same style of humor spread throughout. Those obvious names? “Poppy” is the drug dealer/mastermind villain. But these things make the film fun and cheeky for the time you spend in their world.

Still, I could see how some people could find a bit of the humor tired and maybe stretched out too much. It’s not an awful movie, but like I said before, forgettable makes it suffer and miss the mark of a “good” movie. Still, I could have seen a bunch of the guys rolling into this film for a good laugh at the end of the day.

On the Town: Justice League

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Here we are. It has finally happened. The group movie to bring all your favorite heroes together in one film… the Aveng… wait a second. Sorry, fast forward to Justice League.

I make a joke of this, but really, it’s going to be incredibly hard for those of you who have seen the old movies, and even those of you who just watched Thor Ragnarok last week, to not compare the two Super Group films. Especially with Whedon’s previous experience with the other franchise. But we’re not here to talk Marvel. It’s DC’s turn. And Whedon  didn’t direct much of this film, it was Zack Snyder.

That said, I can see where Snyder took a lot of time with Whedon. I can see that he studied him. He studied the successes of previous Superhero films regardless of their company. Snyder manages to make great leaps forward on the Superman and Batman characters. Ben Affleck even surprised me with a much deeper Batman and Bruce Wayne than the one we see in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

While the movie goes that Bruce Wayne, aka Batman, begins recruiting for a team to defend a coming invasion, you begin to see a deeper undertone that Bruce is grasping at a team, anything to provide him a reason to keep moving. Is he recruiting the team to save the world, or to save his own sanity? A much older Batman starts feeling the pain catch up with him. A few key scenes drive this home with between Bruce and Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot).

I see a lot of good in the Justice League, a levity that lightens what could have been too much boring somberness, a misstep or two that save it from being too convenient of a team for the plot, and a lightness of the film that prevents it from taking itself too seriously. I see enough time given to Flash and Aquaman to show their importance without taking too much from the established characters. Sure, I wish it was longer, but I also see how much longer may have drug out this simple story line to the point of “beating a dead horse.”

I even feel like I should give a nod to Henry Cavill for taking a character I despise, Superman, and adding a little more vulnerability to him.

Oh yes, don’t hate me for saying it. I despise Superman. Justice League doesn’t manage to fully take me off that feeling. In the comics, in Man of Steel, in Batman v Superman, and in this film, Superman becomes an overpowered god figure who fails to show a humanity that makes him relatable. Batman v Superman explored the concept of Superman’s conflict better than some I’ve seen, but I’ve yet to truly feel that Superman struggles with himself over the power he has and when and how to use it.

Don’t think I blame this flaw on Directors or Actors, though. It’s a problem I’ve always had with the character. Although I would like to see more from Cavill to express this inner struggle that is supposed to be going on instead of joy at combat, I give him credit for a better showing at his weakness to humanity in general.

It wraps up a nice bow on the box of things I enjoyed in this movie. That said, I really want to describe the plot of this movie as Batman struggling to form a team of the World’s Greatest Warriors. Why? Well, to save the world from Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) who is attempting to connect three “mother boxes” to transform the Earth or something.”

I never get enough depth to the plot to feel like its anything more than just the excuse to build the team. Indeed, the team’s origins is the movie and the it gets topped off with a nice battle at the end.

While we all probably know the ceaseless issues that befell this film, I can’t give it a pass on it shortcomings. Wonder Woman opposites Batman as the Mother and Father figures of the group where Dad’s getting to old to play, and Mom is too nice to tell him so. While I found myself enjoying the idea of Batman showing a different side to set up as the brains of the operation, I feel it forced onto Wonder Woman. Almost as if the studio realized who made the biggest box office hit and wanted to capitalize on it.

In fact, the majority of the film feels like it was rushed to capitalize on different things. I wish that the Barry Allen, aka the Flash (Ezra Miller), and Arthur Curry, aka Aquaman (Jason Mamoa) had their solo flicks before Justice League released. Neither feels well established in Justice League. Victor Stone, aka Cyborg (Ray Fisher), seems the only one appropriately explained before the final battle ensues.

The humor also feels forced and a little childish at times. As if it was rewritten in later. Although, the actors roll well with it to create a few very comical moments and I applaud the studio for responding to what people have been saying about their other films, I encourage them to keep at it, make it a little more natural. Realize the great moments of Justice League and move forward growing those.

Overcoming a lot of issues, Justice League shows great potential even if it didn’t fully deliver on those promises. Let’s stop beating around the bush and get right down to it… Is Justice League worth seeing?

Yes, but just barely. Don’t let the barely part scare you. It is worth seeing, and it offers hope for the sequels and solo films coming for each of these characters. While it very noticeably falls short in some areas, it very noticeably excels in others. Throughout the troubles with shooting, re-shooting, and staffing, it comes out the other side far better than it should have been with so many changes. It needs work before a sequel, but I am still glad I watched it.

On The Town: Blade Runner 2049

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Why go to a theater? If you know you can get a movie later on DVD, what could possibly possess you to spend the money to go out and see a movie in theaters. Now let’s be honest, impatience probably plays a lot into this for some people. Still, there has to be something that makes you want the theater instead of your own big screen at home.

Blade Runner 2049 answers this question in a big way. The scope of the film not only lends itself to the theater experience, but its classic sci-fi idea of simple extravagance demands the size and “epic-ness” of the good ol’ silver screen. Even the score lends itself to the audio of a theater. Certainly, my own little excuse for a home theater could never properly compare to feeling the vibration of the deep bass and the loftiness of the horns that shine so bright in this movie’s soundtrack.

The score draws you in deeper with another sci-fi classic trope that provides a sub-plot that comments on the colloquial society. It’s the juxtaposition of that non-literary commentary against the very fictional world that allows people to take a stark look at themselves as a society without realizing it at first. Science Fiction has become my favorite genre throughout my life for this reason.

Those who recall the first Blade Runner will catch several references to Rick Deckard and the original movie. As they move later into the story, the twists not only reference, but tie this sequel so to its predecessor so tightly that I do sort of regret taking a friend with me to see it. She had not seen the first one.

The movie follows another Blade Runner. Instead of Rick Deckard, We get ‘K.’ That’s right, ‘K’ is a replicant. Because instead of realizing our mistakes with the creation of replicants, society just built different ones that are, supposedly, more obedient. Sound Familiar?

The story reminds me of an old quip about the abominable idea of “robots building robots.” However, this film offers the aberration of that quip as “Replicants killing replicants.” Let’s not mistake, replicants aren’t robots, or androids, or cyborgs. They’re synthetics. The humans, minus something. Another debate the movie subtly asks, “Can these ‘skin jobs’ have a soul?”

Some of the best sci-fi stories ask really hard questions that bear no meaning to today’s world. Stories like Mass Effect, I,Robot, Ghost in the Shell, 2001 Space Odyssey, and even Aliens have explored the sentience, feelings, and ‘humanity’ of non-human entities. The original Blade Runner’s thoughts on this continue to its sequel to create what I can only refer to as the pure quintessential sci-fi movie of the new millennium.

This claim builds on all these things I’ve discussed as the foundation of the film, but further into what it adds. Ryan Gosling does well with his role as K. I think I would have liked to see a little more emotion later in the film as his character starts discovering things about replicants, humans, society, and his role in them all as a replicant Blade Runner. However, this does allow his humanity to be shone better through the character of Joi, Ana de Armas, as a mirror of the humanity he feels placed into a separate representation. The interplay between these two immersed me into this unspoken battle to create a life, a soul, out of nothingness. The final act in the story pairs this well against the original Blade Runner movie and Rick Deckard as a human Blade Runner.

This is what I lack in so many other remakes. I don’t want a remix of the same thing, I want to continue the debate. I want to continue my feelings. Director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t rest on the previous movies accomplishments, he pushes forward, presses the envelope, expands the universe, and challenges the established foundation. It is a dangerous attempt as so many fail. Not here, though. Villeneuve delivers on everything I wanted when I watched.

I also have to praise an amazing special effects trick regarding these two characters and a third. I don’t want to spoil the scene, but you’ll know it when you see it as I say it involves interplaying a human and a hologram. I want to watch the behind the scenes footage just to see how they made this scene that plays such an integral part in K’s growth, or descent depending on how you look at it. This scene alone makes me hate my decision to try not to spoil things as it demands thoughtful discussion and exploration. To not do so is a cinematic treason. And yet, here I sit, screaming at my computer for every living person to see this film so I can talk about it.

Discussion has also arisen on another character’s return to the story. Harrison Ford reprises his role as Rick Deckard.

He quickly proclaims to the world, which he has been doing with his numerous remakes, that he is as ready to act, as good at it, and as capable of playing his old roles now as he was when they were new. The plot utilizes Deckard so naturally, his integration so fluid.

Many people have questioned remaking all of his older films, but the plot here demanded his character. And rightly so, I don’t believe the film would have been successful or as powerful without this character. It sits so naturally as a sequel, the lines between the two plots blur several times. It connects so well because this is the one. This is him, the legendary actor, Harrison Ford. So many quiet subtleties allow the beauty of his acting to speak volumes in the moments between his spoken lines, and all the more when he does speak.

With all the good in the movie, it’s almost heart-breaking to point out flaws. I don’t want to ramble on and make you think that any movie exists without something to improve upon. I wanted so bad to see a little more exploration of the rift between humans and replicants. I can’t honestly say it isn’t explored, its there underwriting every scene with tension. However, later in the movie, you don’t see some of the very obvious slights against replicants as second class, sub-human. The tenseness of the separation becomes less overt as you start exploring replicants as human. It seems to lessen the human hatred of ‘skin-jobs’ as they call them in the latter parts. A small detail that many may chastise me on for pointing out, but like I said, just something to improve upon for the next sequel. Let’s pray they get Villeneuve back for that one, too.

Another small issue detail also stands as a classic sci-fi and horror movie trick (Spoiler Here, I can’t help myself) by the time you finish the movie, you sort of forget about the one other bad guy in the background. I have to do an “on-the-other-hand” moment here as I say Jared Leto’s character, Niander Wallace, doesn’t overplay his role. His right-hand-replicant named Luv, Sylvia Hoeks, stands as the main antagonist. Leto establishes that extra background that adds depth to the world they create and shows another comment about society, there are bad men everywhere. I just feel there could have been more done with this character.

You may be laughing at how trivial these issues are, but there they are. I think it stands as a testament to the sheer force this film holds. Not only am I still begging people to go watch this film, but watch it now, on the big screen. Do not wait, do not pass go, do not collect $200, drive down to East Towne Cinemas right now and buy a ticket. Seriously, why are you still reading this, go buy a ticket.

On the Town: Thor Ragnarok

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Are parodies real entertainment? After all you’re taking something established and tearing it down, aren’t you? Are you? What if you owned the original? What if you weren’t making fun of something else, but making fun of your own past?

Does that make it okay? Parody, by definition, is a sort of comedic imitation. And the infamous “they” tell me that imitation is the highest form of flattery. So, are you creating something new with parody? What an artists debate this could be.

Thor Ragnarok dives headfirst into this debate as it presents a FAR more comedic take on Thor’s part in the greater MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe).

In what harkens back far more to the recent Guardians of the Galaxy movies than it’s own predecessors, Ragnarok presents a very tongue-in-cheek story where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) rallies defenders to save his home realm of Asgard. I cannot overstate how well Director Taika Waititi took the funnier parts of the first two stand-alone Thor movies and grew them into Ragnarok.

What I can say is that even as I write this, I still haven’t decided if its pure genius or not my thing. I greatly enjoyed the first two Thor movies. Though an understanding that Thor: the Dark World is widely viewed as, to date, the weakest of all of Marvel’s movies. I love the comedy and I loved the execution. I’m still trying to come to terms with the “parody-like” role that this film has taken. The cast and direction of the movie obviously understands the pitfalls its previous films had, and unashamedly points them out in great detail.

Hemsworth shines in the film for a very unusual reason. On one hand he is sort of the unmanageable “god” sterotype.

As I watched, I felt myself remembering times with my closest friends when we break down into hysteric fits of laughter and the one guy is the only thing keeping us on track of conversation and not digressing out of control. Hemsworth is that guy that manages to link the absurdity with a viable plot against the vile vixen Hela (Cate Blanchett).

In fact, Hela is the completed other side of the coin as she shows little comedy and more of the regular, if a little underdeveloped, evil villain of Marvel’s films. It’s all revenge and murder with that lady. However, Blanchett adds a certain elegance to Hela that not only makes her fierce, but unstoppable in both story and presence.

The real gem shining in the background comes from one lesser villain, Ragnarok has a few, known as the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). This character might just be one of my favorites in this film. He stands out in exactly the way you’d expect from Goldblum hitting all the right notes on the off beats of rhythm in the movie. It’s a different kind of ego/insanity that makes me enjoy that Planet Hulk storyline.

Oh yes, fans of Marvel Comics will very easily delineate two different comic events in this film. Planet Hulk and Ragnarok see the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) join Thor to become quite the pair as they add Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) into the group.

They join up on Sakaar, a most wretched hive of scum and villainy. Oh… pardon the copyright, I’ll just call it a parody. Anyway, Sakaar becomes a character on its own with an inspired art direction, and Goldbloom’s personality. It heralds the MCU’s exploration of more territory than the nine realms previously mentioned in the franchise. From the fields of otherworld trash to the arena fights at its center, Sakaar is far different than any planet we’ve been to in this universe.

Ultimately, I cannot fault this film for it’s parody style. It more than makes a good movie of itself, and I laughed throughout the entire movie. It provides a whole new take on Thor and marks a big step forward for Marvel as the MCU continues to distance itself from other films and from its comic book heritage. It deserves a right to stand on critic acclaim and doesn’t disappoint on all the hype it received. In fact, I’d say it Ragna-ROKS the expectations I had for it. Okay, you’re right, too cheesy, I won’t say it again.

Avid readers may notice a distinct lack of introduction to the story of Thor Ragnarok. No, I’m not going senile… yet. But I am avoiding this for a reason. I will tell you that Thor starts the movie searching for more Infinity Gems, but gets called home by dreams of Asgard’s fall, but I don’t want to reveal a few things early in the film that have a larger take on the latter half. Suffice it to say that the comedy relies a great deal on timing and surprise, I don’t want to lessen the movie from telling you anything risky. That’s right kids, NO spoilers today!

All in all, a great work by Waititi who shows that with great talent to support you, taking risks and changes in films can be rather rewarding.

I leave you with two pieces of advice. Look deep in between the cracks of the “rocks” and you might see Waititi acting in the film, and when you see the mid-credits scene and you are thinking about getting up and leaving, Don’t.

On The Town: The Dark Tower

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

There is always a question in my mind when I go see a movie based off of a book. That questions shifts slightly if I’ve read the books.

I must honestly admit that I have not seen a lot of movie-from-a-book titles be as successful as I wanted them to be. The Dark Tower, however, is one that I have not read. Yes, you may begin sending me your hate mail for not having read it before. I know I should be chastised and told how horrible my life is without having read the books.

I will admit one thing for this movie, if nothing else, it has sparked me to really want to read the series now. The world renowned author Stephen King’s masterpiece series finally gets a big screen adaptation, but that question still lingers. “Does it do the books justice?” if I have read the books or “Does it make me want to read the books?” if I haven’t.

We’ve all heard the tired phrase from other films, “It’s not as good as the book.” Honestly, I doubt any two-hour movie ever completely encapsulates the feeling fans get from reading through a book or series. It’s so incredibly hard to translate that into a film. Those of you who read my review on “The Shack” know that we have had this conversation before.

However, it really arises here. Those I’ve spoke to who have read the books were largely disappointed with the film. Flipside, those who haven’t read the books really enjoyed the movie to an extent.

The Dark Tower, On the Town Movie ReviewWe join Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) late after he has lost a dear family member, dealing with emotional turmoil and having visions of doom. Naturally, all the ‘normal’ adults do the absolutely wrong thing and seek psychiatric help for the issue. What kind of fantasy story would it be without the lone hero standing against the disbelief of the world?

Still, Jake begins trying to find out what the meaning of his visions are, and winds up kicking off his grand adventure in the process. He joins up with Gunslinger Roland (Idirs Elba) to fight the man in his visions, the Man in Black. It all sounds great as Jake just happens to find the last of a great, powerful, and slightly mystical group called the Gunslingers. Okay, okay. yes, you can definitely see a lot of inspirations that King had for his series in the plot of the film, things like the Dark Tower itself strangely missing a flaming eye at the top or the idea that Walter, aka the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) has a super laser that destroys planets, I mean a tower… just a thought.

Push past that and I’m sure you wind up having a great story in a wonderfully created universe, or so I am told by fans, but you really don’t see it on screen. It all happens a little too fast to fully explore this world and its machinations. Walter, honestly, why destroy the one thing keeping out all the uncontrollable bad monsters that would just a soon kill you, too? Now, I hear the screams of all you fans yelling the answer at your computer, but, seriously, several things get overlooked in the films haste to get the great action scenes and fantasy-style-physics-bending-fights that play so well here.

Major kudos to Elba and McConaughey as they bring real star power to the roles and add a certain gravitas to their characters. I almost followed his commands and McConaughey’s Walter uses sorcery to lithely spew words that are automatically obeyed, like walking to a screaming woman and just whispering “be quiet” and she suddenly can’t make noise. You sir, are more snake-like that Voldemort himself as you slither across the screen.

On the other hand, Elba draws me in as this paragon of honor and nobility who has lost his light. He shines as a beacon of humanity itself, so desperate for redemption, but believing it constantly beyond his strength. The man exudes the fatherly feel for Jake and Elba expertly portrays the battle inside him alongside his battle against Walter.

The movie has so much going for it, that it hurts all the more for its shortcomings. It stalls in development, creating an almost too easy story line that lacks complexity or depth. While explaining an expansive universe full of parallel Earths, it only shows you two. I barely learn anything about the Gunslingers other than their chant and a strange, convenient, rule that you can’t disobey a gunslinger in one point of the movie.

Maybe I am jaded by the hype the movie received. Maybe it was built up too much as people went nuts when they heard it was happening. Sure, there were lots of rumors and gossip about bad test audiences, trouble with shoots, and issues with editing, but people still had me far more excited about the potential of the film than what you actually receive.

That said, I’d still tell you to go see the movie, Elba and McConaughey make up a lot of slack, and the premise is there for an excellent film, even if it was weak on the execution.

On The Town: Transformers The Last Knight

News
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

In a world where movies come out in massive hordes, one tends to stereotype movies on a range of things.

It may be certain actors, certain studios, a genre, or even a director. If you’re going to see a Michael Bay movie recently, you may be going in with a certain expectation of what you are going to see. Transformers does not change this formula as most of the movie tries to blend a science fiction, action, war, romance movie that cranks out more explosions than a Fourth of July fireworks display.

Transformers is, at its heart, giant robots and explosions. Ever see Sucker Punch? This movie not only is okay with its own stereotype, it embraces it with open arms. And to its credit, Transformers has learned from its previous films. It is far easier to follow the action than you may have noticed in the first two Transformers. I remember the very first movie thinking, “I can’t even tell who is who. Jazz, Megatron, Ironhide, Barricade? Outside their car forms, there was no easily distinguishing between them as details were sacrificed for action.

In The Last Knight, however, each transformer doesn’t just portray its own personality, but its own style and form that makes it much easier for the audience to follow with each of them. Which is nice considering the numerous cast changes this film has gone through between its robots and actors both.

Still you must ask yourself if you’re expecting a decent plot flow in this movie? Don’t. Look at Bay’s resume with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and Pain & Gain. I won’t lie and say I haven’t enjoyed either Transformers or TMNT, but Pain & Gain almost made me turn off the movie. I don’t mean to rag on Producer Michael Bay, it’s just that his recent films, while not bad, always lack something that his earlier films delivered. Remember Armageddon? Pearl Harbor? Great action and great stories both. Most of the faults in movies may fall on Directors more than most of the other talent involved, but this is just becoming a trend with this Producer.

But you know what? I stayed. I watched this whole movie. I didn’t walk out. It’s like a great roller coaster you’ve ridden a hundred times. It’s all predictable beyond belief, but you still ride it because it’s thrilling and fun. Like a child playing with action figures, I don’t care about why my GI Joe is fighting a Power Ranger, I just care that that Power Ranger just is flying through the air doing Martial Arts.

An easier way to explain this, usually I watch a movie and I want to talk to someone about it. I love taking people to the movies because of the conversations afterwards. I walked out of The Last Knight alone and I didn’t care. I didn’t want to talk about it because I didn’t think there was much to talk about.

Transformers The Last Knight is over two hours of sensory overload that kick-starts your adrenaline with giant robots, war, lasers, swords, and magic and sprinkles in the stereotypical ‘guy humor’ as a sweetener.

My favorite part of this film was a character, Cogman. Think of your old comedic, uptight, British Butler mixed with C-3PO. He is seriously the best character in the movie, like Cogsworth (Beauty and the Beast) as a Ninja-Transformer.

Ultimately, I can’t say 100% that The Last Knight is a bad movie. It’s not. The action pans out to make a thrilling movie. However, when I compare it to other films, especially Bay’s older productions like Pearl Harbor, I just can’t say it would be a first pick for me to watch in theaters. I could find a number of other films I’d rather see.

On The Town: Spider-man Homecoming

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

At some point, you are going to make a decision that upsets people. I hate to be the one who is maybe being rather blunt to you, but it is going to happen. A famous-to-me quote once said, “You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time. But, you cannot please all the people all the time.” I can see a lot of avid Comic Readers looking at certain parts of this movie and gagging on the decisions they made. Let’s case and point with MJ. Even if you only watched the other Spider-man movies, you’ll know who MJ, Mary Jane, is. However, let’s push past that noise people.

I see so much in “Spider-man: Homecoming,” boy I hate that title, that is so different. It highlights some things while failing in some basic principles, or does it actually fail? I think most people who watch this movie will want to make three comparisons. First, they’ll compare it to the other Spider-man Trilogies. Second, they will compare it to the other Marvel Movies. Finally, they’ll compare it to other movies in general as they do most movies. I don’t think you can get past those questions.

Ultimately, we’re looking at another superhero movie. As Marvel, under Disney, continues to build a film kingdom… no, empire? Maybe Dynasty is an epic enough word for what they are doing with the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Anyway, as they continue to conquer the summer movie blockbusters battlefield, one may begin to see a pattern throughout their films emerging. I would go so far as to say since the original Iron Man movies, Marvel really hasn’t made an actual ‘bad’ movie. Not to say there isn’t faults in them, but I’ve never walked away saying I wouldn’t buy the DVD. I feel the same way with this installment, but the trend leads into our first question.

Spider-man Homecoming On The Town Movie ReviewSo, first question is how does “Homecoming” stack up to the other Marvel films? It’s… different. It’s blatantly obvious that this is on purpose, I mean they screamed it at you in the plot as we join Peter Parker, Tom Holland, and that’s high school version Parker for you Comic book readers, being sequestered from the Avengers in favor of dealing with the ‘little stuff.’ Parker is restless, wanting to rejoin the Avengers on a big adventure like he did in “Captain America: Civil War.”

His mentors/handlers Tony Stark, Robert Downey Jr., and Happy Hogan, Jon Favreau, still question whether a child should be shouldering such a large responsibility. Even in the Comic Books, Spider-man joins a bunch of teams over the years, but never really feels like he fits on any of them. Spider-man is always his own character separate from any team. But in this film, it highlights that especially. And the film itself longs to be different from the Avengers and other movies in how it handles the Superhero genre.

“Homecoming” adds a subtle underpinning of a High School drama along with the Superhero aspect, and with that, you see Peter Parker a little more than his alter ego, Spider-man. As he juggles the costume, a high school crush, an overbearing friend, attempted popularity, and a national debate competition, you even begin to feel a little of his stress as he explores his priorities and awkward teenage years. It establishes Spider-man as a disparate entity that makes me excited to see what the future holds for this series.

As for the other Spider-man trilogies, I think many people may find this iteration far superior in both material and execution. I do miss the funny quips of Andrew Garfield’s version, anyone recall Spider-man’s weakness to small knives, but you do still get a little comedy in Holland’s take. Holland excellently portrays Parker’s confusion about superhero duties and abilities while dealing with trying desperately to have some kind of personal life.

I think you lose some of the seriousness from the original trilogy in this newest take. “Homecoming” avoids the deeper ideas of keeping loved ones safe like the original trilogy did with the ‘Hero’s Choice’ between a personal loved one and a tram full of people on the bridge. Instead, “Homecoming” focuses more on the question, “What kind of hero do you want to become?”

As for the final comparison in general as a movie. I can see some downfalls in the special effects department with some CGI that was noticeably an issue. Before people start quoting my Transformer’s article to me about CGI, I bring this up with Spider-man because the quality jolted me that the characters looked awkwardly different in a few parts. I do say only a few parts because it wasn’t overwhelming. The story it has to tell takes some great risks in the later parts of the movie when, spoiler here, Peter is forced into a far lower-tech costume for a climactic battle. This is one of those interesting decisions that sets Marvel’s take on Spider-man different from a lot of movies I’ve seen.

You can also see the character development throughout the film, even if it is a bit on the nose. I point out a couple flaws to sort of balance out what I am about to say that this could be one of the better summer movies of the year. The story’s duality works well to compliment “Spider-man: Homecoming” as a superbly different film from the usual Marvel action movies. Michael Keaton’s character Adrian Toomes, aka the Vulture, outperforms many other movie villains with his ‘believability’ when the beginning of the movie sets him up as a salvage company who got ousted by a Government/Tony Stark group entity. Toomes responds as a family man who would do absolutely anything to support his wife and daughter.

It’s not just that bit, however, as Keaton’s expertly displays a tension with what he is doing until late in the film. You can almost see him break at one point when he truly embraces the villain persona, and after that when he’s caught. He plays a villain that you want to cheer for and begs the question, “Could he be saved?”

Basic principles of movies suggest that people hate it when you stray from the source material. If that is all you care about, then let’s stamp a big red F on this one. Throw out a vast majority of what you ‘know’ about Spider-man from the comics or the older films. But, sit for a moment and let this new Spider-man, an alternate universe in the vast Marvel multiverse. You may find yourself very happy with the decision to fail at that aspect. New avenues open for exploration with these changes, new ideas and new connections between people that really make it stand out instead of falling to mediocrity. If you are unfamiliar with the source material, well then why did you read this paragraph anyway?

By all means, I highly suggest “Spider-man: Homecoming” to any looking for a good movie this weekend. As it handles a series that many may have lost faith in, I actually did enjoy the other trilogies, you can’t go wrong here so get down to East Towne Cinemas in Ellijay before you miss your chance at this movie. It hits all the right notes with established fans of the MCU and those who may not be so familiar with the character.

On the Town: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Sequels, sequels, sequels! We arrive again at a movie sequel of a franchise of a major part of a major movie company. Shocker, right? Now before I go down the rabbit hole of sequels claiming that they don’t change too much from the first one, they keep on keeping on, the cast does it again, blah blah blah. FAST FORWARD!

Let’s skip the stereotypical crap that you’re smart enough to know by now. Yes, this sequel is a sequel and I will momentarily say that this repeats the superhero-franchise-mistake just like you read in my review of Logan never quite giving you closure on the whole story. However, it does do a little better in that it answers more questions from Volume 1… Part 1… whatever, the first movie. Let’s skip this track and move on.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - Movie ReviewWe join Star-Lord and his ragtag family of misfits who are preparing to defend a cache of batteries from a huge monster for a planet of golden people, the Sovereign. Let me joyfully spoil this for you and say this is one of the best movie opening-credits sequences I have seen in awhile. You get to see Baby Groot dancing through the openers as the Guardians fight the massive monster in the background CGI Fight. Once you get past your oo-ing and aww-ing from watching the Groot dance, seriously people I thought the trailers got that out of your system, this turns out to set the hilarity meter for the whole movie. Even the most serious parts of the film, I found myself waiting for the Quill one-liner or the social faux pas from Drax.

In fact, prepare for the sequel cliche, Director James Gunn took what everyone liked about the comedy of the first film and cranked it up. Vol. 2 is funnier, wittier, and more slap-stick than the first Guardians of the Galaxy. One change I did enjoy for Vol. 2, however, is that it didn’t seem like an episode of “Peter Quill and the Guardians.” No, this time it really felt like a movie about the whole family. Every player had their screen time, their growth, their own spotlight. Even Drax, who really highlights the comedy of the “socially inept” as he sort of gets his own socially awkward partner to banter with and build family.

You seem to see pairs form in the film as the family dynamic gets explored more than Vin Diesel’s last racing movie. Coincidentally, Diesel still plays Groot in this film. Maybe its a theme for all the movies he is a part of now. Family. Seriously, you’ll hear family through this movie more than you’ve read it in this article. Don’t get me wrong, it makes for a nice serious balance to bring you down to a breathable level of laughter before the next joke. It also became the sort of serious plot that kept the movie going. But lets be honest here, you came to see the comedy. Still, you got to see some good character growth and oh my if you don’t maybe shed a solitary tear by the end of the movie. So, I can’t fault the movie for having a weak story line, even if it does beat the family drum quite a lot.

Family.

As comedic as the movie is, it feels much more controlled than the first one. Whereas some comedies get a little full of themselves which tends to cause them to lose the spark and devolve into dumb humor, Vol. 2 seems to have a better handle on things and mixes in different types from slap-stick to one-liners, farcical, and even parody of old tropes.

Change tracks for a minute and step away from the comedy, I have to give this film major points for some of the best scenescapes. Not just beautiful scenery like Ego’s Planet, but the contrast between sets presents a beautiful and stark difference between locations. Going from the Rigid technology and controlled science of the Sovereign to the beauty and idea of creation enveloped in Ego’s planet and back to the drab patchwork gear in the Ravagers’ ships allows a varied visual display that adds a little extra to the film.

There is a lot I like about this movie, there is also some that got in the way and kept it from over-the-top greatness, but you won’t care about those things because you’re probably going to be laughing to hard. Gather some friends to see this one people. It’s not to be taken alone because it’s the summer kickoff movie that you will still be quoting with your friends in November. Not just a worth-seeing movie. I may have found my first “Must-See.”

On The Town: The Shack

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Controversy is something this world has way too much of. It is the bread and butter of many entertainment, and even news, networks.

Maybe you have heard of the controversy from the 2007 novel entitled “The Shack,” and maybe you’ve even heard someone spouting something they heard or read but don’t really understand. Controversy tends to make some people very apt to anger without full understanding. Likewise, maybe you have never heard of the Shack and are just wondering about this movie you saw a trailer for online.

In any case, take a closer look at this movie with me as a story, as a film. We find Mackenzie “Mack” Phillips, the main character, with a good suburban life and family with three kids. He admits he doesn’t really feel his relationship with God is all that great. In fact, he compares it with his wife’s relationship as nowhere near the same level. She calls God “Papa” and talks to him “like an old friend.” A nice sentiment, but Mack feels distant as he still carries tragic memories from his childhood as his father was abusive to him and his mother and the one time he tried to tell someone, well let’s just say it backfired in a very painful way.

The-ShackAs overall themes for movies go, this one focuses largely on Christian values and thoughts. Forgiveness and the path to it weigh in the storyline while understanding and pain provide the broad-stroke color of the film. Mack is in pain, but never fully deals with it. It only gets worse as the film’s main plot point occurs and Mack loses one of his daughters. I do have to give the Shack a bonus point for dealing with something in our society that is very dark and gruesome. While it never fully shows exactly what happens, child abuse and even sexual abuse are heavily alluded. The bonus point, though, is actually showing the agony and anger that Mack feels as a parent, even taking him to the extreme once as he considers suicide.

The main part of the story comes as Mack gets an invite to a weekend at “the shack” where they found his daughter. However, the invite is signed “Papa.”

Its going to be very difficult to explain some things about this movie without exposing serious plot points. So, while up to this point I haven’t really said anything you wouldn’t find out from a trailer, I should probably warn you that there might be a spoiler or two ahead.

One of my favorite things about this movie is the depth of thought and theory in it. This is very much a dramatic movie and it takes you to some very deep parts of human emotion. Some theories of who should ultimately judge people, even more as to what you don’t understand when you judge people, are very blatant in the story. Look closer and you find how one persons sadness can infect a family, how one may experience a time between life and death, how truly hard forgiveness is, and a thought on accepting and experiencing things unbelievable in our world. While there aren’t any really tense moments that hold suspense for the film, the emotion can build through several different situations and as you come face to face with some very hard truths.

The film provides a few small moments of comedy in an effort to balance out its own “heaviness” dealing with sorrow and pain, but there really aren’t many and they usually don’t last long, a choice I approved of as the film really sets its foundation in the seriousness of this situation.

However, I never felt like there was enough time given to each situation that Mack encounters at the Shack. I never got a chance to fully explore any thoughts that Mack may be dealing with as the film moved on to the next scene. Some points felt as if Mack may have accepted certain things “too quickly” missing the chance to expose the inner struggle the character was feeling. The very thing I loved about this film seemed to weaken it as it may have tried to hit too many ideas in its allotted time. But isn’t that always the way with movies based on books. I have never read “The Shack,” but I could almost feel the directors anxiousness at trying to fit a novel into just over two hours.

Make no mistake, the movie was definitely not shallow, but I found myself wanting more depth. I wanted to see more from Mack and his interactions with the people he meets at the cabin. One of the best ones you see is, this may be one of those spoiler moments, when Mack meets “Wisdom” and gets a chance to sit and formally judge the people he has been silently judging his whole life. Mack gains insights that he never thought about, gets shown situations he never considered, and is forced to make a choice no parent could.

As you watch it, this movie will tear at your emotions and make you want to jump to Mack’s defense. Actor Sam Worthington does a good job making him a relatable character, as does the Director developing his actions and choices as not only understandable, but engaging and empathetic. While most of the film works on Mack, you see some changes towards the end. You see how he would change, how he could help his family, but again this gets cut short and leaves you wanting more, never fully engaging the impact on the other characters.

All in all a worthwhile movie. I find myself on the fence about whether you should go see this one in theaters. As much as I loved many aspects of the movie, I couldn’t help but feel let down with the development. Many avenues never get explored and those that do never get enough explanation. However, on the whole, the movie performs well in all it tries to accomplish and even gets bonus points for a few things I haven’t seen in other movies.

Ultimately, I may have to say go see this one. Although, if I were giving stars, it may sit at only three stars. The one thought I’ll leave you with is to follow my review’s example. If you do go see it, watch it as a story. Don’t take it as a statement on theology. Don’t get bogged down with the controversy and miss a good storyline because of it.

On The Town: Boss Baby

Community
On The Town with Lonnie Adams

Have you ever watched a movie and thought, this had to have been a bet? I can see a couple of producers or directors sitting around playing games when one of them says, “I’ll bet you a hundred grand that you can’t make a decent movie around a title I make up.”

Boss Baby tells the tale of young Tim who loves his life and his parents. He feels like they love him as well. That is until they bring home a new baby, his little brother. The movie manages to simultaneously be a comedy about family and siblings as well as a commercialized corporation. Tim makes a deal to get rid of his little brother by helping him accomplish his “mission” he was sent for. It seems that people have grown in their love for dogs and that means less love for babies, or so his corporate office says.

Boss Baby Movie PosterOne of the creative things that I really enjoyed in the movies celebrates children and their imagination. Many scenes cross over into fantasy as Tim’s imagination takes control and he sees and remembers things in his own way. Perhaps this goes throughout the whole movie as he is imagining his little brother can talk and is part of a corporation and so on. The movie never fully explains this or tells you one way or the other. It doesn’t really need to as its not super important.

Along with those fantasy scenes, the movie takes a chance to showcase some of the studio’s animation power and succeeds magnificently at it. Each little scene adds a weight to the film. Even though it is animated, things like little puffs of powder become very tangible and natural in the film through the details the animators put into it.

These things tie together to add a lot of laughter to the film, and I did laugh. I laughed in a way I laugh watching baby videos on the internet.

The laughter couldn’t cover up the thin story though. However, with animated comedies, do we really go to them expecting a great plot line? Maybe? Well, you have to answer that yourself. I’ve come to love kids movies over the years because I always find things that obviously go over the kids heads and are meant for the parents or other “non-kids” watching. Boss Baby tries to hard in this aspect. A few things hit home like Alec Baldwin’s Boss Baby character telling another baby to put a cookie down because “Cookies are for Closers,” but most of the movie comes off quite forced and stale. I can see kids getting a kick out of some of the scenes, but I seriously doubt this is one of those they’ll ask you to play five times in a row.

On a separate, but related, note, have you frown super tired of watching trailers? This isn’t just Boss Baby I’m talking about, but it is the newest culprit. I, regretfully, watched the trailer for this movie, and I am all the worse for it. Maybe I would have liked the movie a little more if all the funniest parts weren’t in the trailer. I see so many films now where I don’t actually need to watch them. I just go watch the trailer and I can probably pick up the best parts of the movie.

It’s irksome to the point that my favorite movie franchises, and literally anything super-hero related, I will actively avoid the trailers for these films. I understand you have to show some great stuff to get people interested. But so many times these studios overplay their hands and ruin the films. Let’s just say “Spoiler Alert” and “Trailer Alert” have become interchangeable to me.

I’m not going to tell you the movie was an absolute waste of time, I’m not even going to tell you it’s not funny. It is. I just can’t tell you this movie is worth going to your theaters to see. It’s worth a rental, but don’t waste movie-money on this one in theaters or full-price for the Blu-Ray. There are better movies out there, funnier and less-generic and shallow. I’m sorry Boss Baby, but I’m with Tim trying to return you.

Back to Top