REVIEW: X-Men: Apocalypse

Have you ever gone out and purchased just one heck of a marvellous cheese?  I'm not talking just about your generic cheddar, but let's say it's aged ten years.  Or even, and one of my favourites, jalapeño havarti.  Now it's a blessing to have such a wonderful treat, but what you have on your hands can be instantly ruined and rendered moot.  If you slice it up and put it on the cheapest hotdog you can find, accompanied by a stale bun, you may have just as well used something else.  What you have done is wasted that cheese.

I understand that it is not the greatest analogy, especially for those who don't roll the dairy, but that is how I felt when it came to the main villain in X-Men: Apocalypse.  What the film makers did was take Oscar Isaac, who is one of the best acting talents of today, and put him in a roll that could have easily been filled by anyone.  There was nothing about Apocalypse that allowed for any subtle nuances from Isaac, who was destined to just deliver monotone lines and show limited facial expressions.

Does that mean the movie as a whole is bad?  Not at all.  What it does mean is that the main source of tension in the film drags and adds little energy, which does affect the film as a whole.

As the movie begins, we find director Bryan Singer hurling visuals at us, almost as though the movie is setting a tone that it is going to flex its CGIed muscles throughout.  It felt a little overkill and distracting, especially when it went into a Monster Energy Drink lead-in to the opening title.  There was worry, I am not going to lie about that.  I asked, 'what have I gotten myself into?'  Luck would have it that the computer generated pace of the opening sequence was disingenuous to the tone of the rest of the movie and things died down until the third act when it turned once again into visual effect soup.

They looked pretty enough, but they were massively abundant and took away a lot of the intimacy that the story deserved.  The cast of characters involved was deep, and the talent selected to play each part was well thought out.  Each of the X-Men felt like there was some attention paid to them to create heroes that we could root for.  The same could not be said about the mutants that were enlisted by Apocalypse to help him.  For whatever reason, the man needed help.  Even though he was near all powerful.  His character and the reasoning for his actions were most certainly underwritten, once again making me ask why Llewyn Davis (or, to use an example that may be better known, Poe Dameron) himself was cast for the role.

It was the quieter moments of the film where I felt the true story was being told.  There were enough of them to make me happy, and I enjoyed the inclusion and story of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee).  Both are incredible young talents who brought depth to their characters enough to stand properly alongside other brilliant cast members, such as James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence.

Possibly the most underplayed aspect is the time period.  It is set in the 1980s, and we are more shown that, rather than truly feeling it.  The previous movies focused greatly on playing into the emotions and feelings of their times, giving the viewer a rich environment in which to watch the story roll out.

Ultimately, there are enough decent aspects of the film to bring even keel the downside of a villain that lacks charisma and understanding.  It is not the strongest of the new X-Men movies, but it does hold a character of its own.  During a summer that is filled to the brim of special effects spectacles, it is X-Men: Apocalypse's shortcomings that will keep it from being too memorable.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars

Should I Trust Rotten Tomatoes?

This is a question that a lot of people do not ask, at least the folks that I have come in contact with.  For some, the aggregate score of a film is enough to dictate whether or not to watch a movie.  With others, they don't pay attention at all or are unaware of the service.  I sit here thinking about it as I am about to see X-Men: Apocalypse tonight and the current rating for the film is sitting at forty nine percent.

For those who don't know, the website rottentomatoes.com posts a percentage of how many critical reviews were in favour of a film.  This can be a helpful tool for people who want to save their hard earned (or lazily earned, I'm not going to rule that out) dollars on something worthwhile.  Seeing that a movie was a hit with a large percentage of critics could be enough to make the decision to spend the bucks on a theatre ticket.

However, it is incredibly subjective.  The percentage is only on a scale of whether or not a film was recommended, not how good it is.  As someone who doles out film ratings on a weekly podcast, my magic rating for something being 'recommended' is three out of four stars.  However, there have been plenty of movies that get the dreaded two and a half stars, thus falling short of the glorious recommendation, that will still hit a target with a great number of people and I found fun to watch.

What am I saying?  Essentially, I am saying that a simple yes or no on a movie doesn't really mean squat.  What helps is following certain critics and seeing over the long haul if you have a similar view to movies as her or him.  That means when they like something, you have a good chance of liking it as well.

The notion that a site like Rotten Tomatoes is the end all of quality rankings is something that we should not fall into.  There have been a number of low rated movies that I like (it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen), and there are also numerous times when something that is rated highly bores me to sleep.  Gathering anecdotal evidence from friends and the random passerby (I say random because someone with anxiety issues like me tends not to stop and hold cinematic court with people I don't know), this is the case with many people.

Once again, what am I saying?  That while there is some value to be gleaned from sights like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, they shouldn't be the one stop shop for deciding whether or not something is worth seeing.  Taking the time to actually read reviews goes a long way, as something that is a sticking point for a critic may not be one for you and you can feel comfort knowing that you will see the movie differently.

For me, the excitement that I have for X-Men: Apocalypse has not wained.  It is not reviewing well, but this has been a solid franchise since Matthew Vaughn reset the story with X-Men: First Class.  There is a deep well in my soul that warns me that I will not like it because of the rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes, but I am keeping that bastard tempered.  The best thing I can do is remain positive that I will like it, and then go and let the film speak for itself.  A lot of times, that is the best that anyone can do.

Disclaimer - the thoughts and opinions on Rotten Tomatoes do not apply to Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.  That movie is horrific.  Full Stop.

REVIEW: The Nice Guys

When I first got into podcasting about movies with Christopher Spicer just over three years ago, he was adamant that Ryan Gosling was someone that I should be adoring as a talent.  I had not seen many films of his, and I was not easily swayed that the former Young Hercules and alum from Breaker High was all that intriguing an acting prospect.  To set me straight, we decided to podcast a noir film staring Gosling called Gangster Squad.  I, with all conviction, can say that my opinion did not change the day that we visually ingested that lumpy and lukewarm dish.

I have to admit that since that time I have been won around on Gosling through films like Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Blue Valentine.  The man can act and throws himself fully into his rolls, but would I find him appropriate in the comedy genre?  That is what The Nice Guys would answer.  Once again, I went to the theatres to see a Gosling noir film and I was hoping that my eyes would be opened to another aspect of his talents.

There was no disappointment with The Nice Guys.  From Gosling's tremendously in-depth and well rounded comedic chops, to the tight script that plays out like an old school mystery, this was a film that happily ate my admission price and made me more than willing to quickly tell others about it as soon as I left the screening.

The film is set in 1977 Los Angeles, with Gosling playing a private detective (Holland March) and Russell Crowe playing the part of an enforcer named Jackson Healy.  Circumstances bring them together as they have to solve the case of a suicide of a famous porn star.  It is the typical place setting for a buddy cop comedy, except these two are neither cops nor are they buddies.  The ground that this film embarks from may feel familiar and comforting, and that's because it is.  It is the type of film that we have seen before in the past, back before everything in the theatres was about reboots and sequels.  The pure energy of this film is the old friend that we have been missing for the past twenty years, and meeting up with them for two hours in the theatre is pure joy.

Much of the enjoyment comes from the interactions between Gosling and Crowe, who play off each other as though they have been in many films prior to this one.  Crowe plays the straight man, and delivers his lines with the steadiness and stone face needed to juxtapose the antics of his co-star.  Not only are they funny together, but they are captivating as well.  From beating up bad guys to talking about Richard Nixon and how he relates to angels, it is entertaining to see the two actors playing off each other.

Behind the two stars, you have a fast paced plot penned by Anthony Bagarozzi and director Shane Black.  There are no wasted scenes to be found in this film as it flows and delivers the unfolding of the mystery at a steady pace.  A lot of times I can predict what the final outcome will be, but that didn't happen in this case until the movie was wrapping up.  It was a breathe of fresh air in today's cinematic climate.

One thing that needs to be mentioned is the great detail that is paid to the wardrobe, hair, and set pieces.  This truly does feel like a well done period piece.  It goes a long way in taking the audience to 1970s Los Angeles, immersing the viewers in the sights and sounds of the location.

The film may not be for everyone.  I found that out when an older couple got up and walked out during the screening I was in.  It is an R-rated film, and movie goers need only look at the plot synopsis which mentions the porn industry to get an understanding of the type of content that will be in it.  There is nudity in the film, but it is not gratuitous in the way that an 80s Jean-Claude Van Damme movie would use it.

If you are looking for something that is geared towards adults and feels like a blast from cinema past, The Nice Guys is just waiting for you to get your ticket, park your arse in the seat, and enjoy the ride that it will take you on.  It is a terrific blend of comedy and action, with Gosling's performance being the standout.  The man can do comedy, there is no doubting that.  And there is no doubting that you will love your time spent with The Nice Guys.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Money Monster

George Clooney plays Lee Gates, a charismatic and over the top host of a high energy financial television program.  Sound delightful for a movie?  Maybe not, but things quickly go haywire as the television show is high-jacked by someone who lost all of their money based off of a tip that Gates gave on his show.  Drama is sure to ensue, and the set of the show, named Money Monster, becomes the backdrop for a realtime story directed by Jodie Foster.

The mad-man high-jacker, played by Jack O'Connell, interrupts the live broadcast of the show and demands answers to the sudden failure of a stock that Gates had said was safer than a savings account.  Armed with a gun and an explosive vest for Gates to wear, he wants to keep the cameras rolling so that his voice can be heard and so that people can get an explanation to what happened to $800 million dollars that disappeared overnight.

Normally the idea of a movie about money does not excite me.  I can be surprised by good ones, however.  I was a big fan of The Big Short, and I quickly became a fan of Money Monster.  Foster does not waste time doddling around before the action begins, foregoing a fully introductive first act in a similar way that Hush did in its home invasion movie earlier this year.  Even the ten minutes or so of set up is interesting to watch as it is done at a fast pace and we get a perspective of what kind of person Lee Gates is.

Gaining this perspective is crucial to the rest of the film, because it sets us up for understanding the character arc that he goes through.  He is a loud mouth who can't keep his words to himself, and he needs to transform to someone who listens when his life is threatened.  Clooney provides a solid performance here, as the character of Gates feels legitimate and authentic.  Adding to the transition of Gates is the show's director, played by Julia Roberts.  The chemistry between the two acting veterans is undeniable and it alone is enough to carry the film.

The first two acts of Money Monster take place in the television studio, and this is where the film shines the most.  Foster keeps the dialogue and scenes flowing, making great use of the dynamic score by Dominic Lewis which fuels the tension that is unfolding.  The small area in which they are confined is used well as showing that there is no escape for Clooney and demonstrating the power that O'Connell has over the situation.

Things do degrade a bit when the third act comes around.  There is a change in the tone of the story, and there is a bit of a leap in Gates' character that feels as though it is rushed and not properly developed.  The movie goes from story telling to making a statement, and while I am not against films making a statement, it did not come off as earned as it was such a change in the voice of Money Monster and feels a tad bit preachy.

With that said, it is a satisfying time in the theatre.  For people who are looking for a thriller that is more adult based, they will find solace in the arms of the Money Monster.  As we sit and watch the movie, we are witness to audiences in the film take time out of their day to pay close attention to the story as it unfolds.  If anything, the movie nails the fact that once the news cycle is done, people go back to their lives as though nothing has changed.  Perhaps that is the biggest difficulty for change, the short attention span of human beings and the clinging to only what is hot and making current headlines.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Captain America: Civil War

Plot, plot, plot.  Sometimes you never even really notice it as a movies leads you through twists and turns, and other times it can really hurt your head.  When you take a second to think about the plot structure of some films it can be like eating every morsel of chocolate from a Snickers that has sat on the dashboard of your car on a hot and humid July afternoon.  No matter how hard you try, you may not be able to get everything off the wrapper, and you will be making a mess of your hands and mouth.

Captain America: Civil War has both of those.  The film moves at a brisk pace with fun action scenes and entertaining dialogue, but if you dare take pause to dissect the story you will end up with the same frustration as trying to solve a Rubik's Cube in the dark.  We are talking about a scale of convolution that is reminiscent of Skyfall.  But, much like the James Bond blockbuster, there is enough of a flow to the film that can distract you from the reality of what you are watching.

In the movie we find our heroes facing scepticism and outrage over the collateral damage of their crime fighting antics, with the world wanting them to be held accountable.  This is not something too crazy to ask, and the team is divided over whether or not it is a good idea.  Scriptwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely do a great job at allowing the audience to see both sides of the argument, which goes a long way in justifying why rifts begin arising between The Avengers.

When a nefarious plot (enter the convoluted nature of the film) begins unfolding, the divisions grow even more.  Captain America (Chris Evans) does not believe events at face value and feels there must be more to what is happening.  Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is more hard lined about it all, and the team finds themselves picking sides.  Eventually there is a showdown where many super powers are wielded, and audience members looking for a sensible pee break are out of luck for a good long while.

This division among the superheroes was to me the most entertaining and fascinating aspect of the movie, and I felt that it was handled very well.  The increasing tension and stakes at hand played into it well, and directors Anthony and Joe Russo handle the material with precision.  We find that there are personal reasons for each of the heroes to act and behave in the ways that they do, and nothing really felt forced to me.  This is the hallmark of a great film, when we can connect with differing stances.

Captain America: Civil War also marks the re-launching of the Spider-Man franchise.  He is recruited to assist in the happenings, although (thanks to the convoluted plot) we never really know how Tony Stark is able to figure out that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is the web slinger.  I was ever sceptical over having yet another Peter Parker on cinema screens, but, and this is confession time, Holland may be my favourite Spider-Man yet.  He was nerdy and insecure without the suit, and overly talkative and happy-go-lucky while in it.  It was a bright and colourful addition to the film, and added a lot of humour.

From a technical standpoint, there is a lot to praise with this film.  The sets looked great, the action sequences were tight and fun to view, and the score went a long way in building the excitement.  While I was a big fan of how it looked, I would have preferred to see it in 2D.  There was not a lot of reason for the 3D screenings in this one, as it did not use the third dimension as a story telling technique, relegating it to the ranks of many other films that seem to do it just because.

With all of the enjoyment, come the end I could not help but realize just how messy that damned Snickers was.  In the final climax that had been masterminded by the villain Zemo (played well by Daniel Bruhl) I could not help but continually think of just how silly it was that the plan worked out and the coincidences that got us there.  I should not have been thinking about it, but there I was with chocolate all over my hands and/or face.  It really was a mess and I found that I could not get into the climax in the way the filmmakers intended me to.

Still, that's not a huge drawback from the film.  The rest of it was golden goodness.  You just really need to shut your brain off to enjoy this movie.  Even with mine working at full speed, it was still well worth the price of admission.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars