Men in Black Trilogy Ranked

 

Believe it or not, the Men in Black film series is almost 20 years old. Loosely adapted from the comic series of the same name, Men in Black was a huge commercial and critical hit back in 1997. It’s the reason a whole generation fell in love with both Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. A lackluster sequel followed in 2002 and ten years after that, another sequel followed, and it was awesome. With all this talk of a fourth film, one that might crossover with the Jump Street series, I decided it was time to revisit the Men in Black trilogy.

Men in Black (1997)

This was one of my favorite films growing up as a wee lad. I immediately fell in love with it after I saw it in the theatre and re-watched it numerous times on VHS. Everything works in this film, the pacing, the humour, the acting, the action, and the effects. Smith and Jones play off each other well in the lead roles and Vincent D’Onofrio makes for a bumbling, yet somehow terrifying antagonist. The supporting cast is great too, especially Linda Fiorentino as Dr. Weaver (who later becomes Agent L). She was at her prime here and it’s unfortunate that she didn’t return for the sequel. In terms of replay value and quality, this one remains the best of the trilogy.

Men in Black 3 (2012)

A lot were weary about this one (including me) and for good reason. However, it turned out to be way better than anyone was expecting. The time travel element works and it isn’t over complicated. The addition of Josh Brolin as a young Agent K is the film’s strongest point, but Michael Stuhlbarg is just as great in his role as Griffin, an alien who can see multiple realities. He’s such an endearing character and he adds so much to the film. Jemaine Clement makes for an entertaining antagonist as Boris the Animal too. The film also has a surprising amount of emotional weight, especially at the end. There’s an emotional gut punch you should see coming, but you don’t. Like the first, it moves along at a brisk pace and it does a great job of further developing the characters of Agent J and Agent K.

Men in Black II (2002)

I enjoyed this one a lot when it first came out, but it hasn’t held up well. It’s not terrible and I don’t hate it, but I feel as a whole it’s lackluster and that it was a missed opportunity. Although it has solid pacing like the first, everything else doesn’t feel right. The humour is inconsistent and sometimes cringe worthy (especially those moments with Frank), the story is rushed and underdeveloped, and it feels like both Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones weren’t too thrilled to be there. As far as the positives go, both Rosario Dawson and Johnny Knoxville are good in their roles, but they feel wasted at the same time. Rosario Dawson is set up as Agent J’s love interest, but it feels forced and falls flat because it’s not developed. Johnny Knoxville also just completely disappears from the film in the second act. I guess he was busy doing Jackass stuff or something? Lara Flynn Boyle makes for a potentially good villain as Serleena, but she feels underwritten. It almost feels like this sequel was made more to appease the studio than fans, which is a bummer.

Ghostbusters (1984), Ghostbusters II (1989), and Why No Ghostbusters III?

The Ghostbusters remake has finally hit theatres after about a year of online bitching, whining, moaning, fighting, and trolling. It became the most polarizing film of all time before it even hit theatres! There was so much hate for the remake from the get go and the poor quality trailers only fueled the hatred of the haters. The supporters of the remake, mainly feminists and SJWs didn’t do much to help matters by playing the “if you're against the remake, then you’re sexist” card. Personally, I believe that both sides had their share of general douchebaggery. However, I won’t discuss the remake any further in this post, because my focus is on the original, its sequel, and the third film that never materialized.

Ghostbusters (1984)



It’s pretty much been one of my favorite films ever since I was a wee lad, Hell, I even tried to make a proton pack out of Legos during those years! In my opinion, the film’s only gotten better with age largely due to the memorable characters, the comedic chemistry of the cast, the unique, paranormal premise, and the fact that the film is just so damn fun. Venkman is a lovable wise ass, Egon is a lovable nerd, Ray is a lovable, overly enthusiastic geek, and Winston is a lovable average joe. The supporting cast is great too, especially Sigourney Weaver as Dana, Rick Moranis as Louis, and Annie Potts as Janine. The effects still look solid and convincing over 30 years later too. Certain moments actually frightened me as a wee lad, but it was all part of the fun. This is one of those films that made me fall in love with film in the first place, so it’ll always have a special place in my heart. Also, I didn’t know till I was older what Ray was really busting in that dream sequence.

Ghostbusters II (1989)



The hate is strong with this sequel for some understandable reasons, but it’s still far from being a bad film if you ask me. Is it basically a retread of the original plot wise? Yes, but is it boring? Hell no, it’s just as entertaining as the original. The comic chemistry between the actors is still there even though Murray doesn’t seem too thrilled to be in it during certain scenes. Is the cynicism and skepticism of the people of NYC confusing? Yeah, they’re really shitty to the Ghostbusters early on, but it adds to the film and the negativity that’s feeding the slime under the city! The best moments in my opinion are the ones with Louis. I’ve been a huge fan of Rick Moranis ever since I saw the original Ghostbusters and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, and it was great to see him return. He’s hilarious, especially during the courtroom scenes. He proves himself to be an inept lawyer, but his heart is in the right place the whole time, which adds to the humor. Also, he suits up at the end! Speaking of the ending, I quite enjoyed it. Sure it’s a rehash of the ending from the original, but seeing the crew come to the rescue and walking around NYC in the Statue of Liberty is a pure geekgasm moment, dammit! Even though it’s not an entirely creative sequel, it’s not deserving of its negative reputation either if you ask me.

Why No Ghostbusters III?

Why did Ghostbusters III never materialize? Well, technically it kind of did, in video game form in 2009. I never played the game myself, but I’ve been meaning to for seven damn years! And why did it never materialize on film? Perhaps it was never meant to be. Murray was never interested in doing another one (unless they killed him off early on) and it felt like us fans were merely getting trolled with all the rumors and “promised” shooting dates. One rumored idea for a sequel that they should’ve gone with was the older Ghostbusters passing the torch to a new, younger generation of Ghostbusters. It didn’t come to be, and the death of Harold Ramis in 2014 made the possibility of a third film even more unlikely and unnecessary. Doing a sequel without Ramis and possibly Murray just wouldn’t have worked. There’s a lot more to the production hell that was Ghostbusters III, and maybe that would make for a cool documentary someday?

Independence Day (1996) & Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

It’s 20 years later, and the aliens are back and looking to start another fight. I’ve always been a fan of ID4 because it left a lasting impression on me. I enjoyed it immensely when I first saw it as a wee lad. It’s fun, cheesy, and a good summer popcorn flick. I remember being ecstatic when my folks picked it up on VHS from Walmart many years ago when they were selling off all of their VHS tapes. For about a decade or so it sat around collecting dust, that is until I decided to find it, dust it off, and pop it in my newly acquired VCR for a re-watch, because it helps to revisit the first before you see the new one, right?

Independence Day (1996)

It’s the prototypical summer blockbuster/popcorn flick that’s more focused on spectacle than substance, but damn is it entertaining. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, and Will Smith are all great and charismatic in their respective roles. Will Smith must have had a thing for aliens back in the mid-90’s, because he starred in Men in Black just a year later. Brent Spiner is great in his small role too as the geeky Dr. Okun. Also, who can forget Judd Hirsch and Randy Quaid? The effects were great for the time and have held up mostly well 20 years later (some of the CGI looks a little cheesy, but nothing awful). The aliens themselves look really cool too. As for the story, it’s not particularly great and there are plot holes galore and elements feel contrived, but the fun factor kind of makes you overlook them. There’s a lot of cheesy dialogue too, but damn if Pullman’s empowering speech doesn’t get you excited and pumped. Overall, it’s just a fun alien invasion flick. If you like 50’s sci-fi films, you’ll more than likely enjoy this one. Also, it wouldn’t make for a bad double bill with Tim Burton’s purposely cheesy Mars Attacks!, which was released the same year.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

The aliens are back for round two, and it’s mostly unimpressive and cheesy as hell (like that cheap spray cheese you buy in the can, not the higher quality stuff). Like with its predecessor, it’s more focused on spectacle, and the story suffers because of it. Also, was there a need for so many characters? There’s nothing wrong with introducing a few new faces, but at least develop them. Jeff Goldblum and Brent Spiner return and give solid performances, as does Bill Pullman. Will Smith’s presence as Captain Stephen Hiller is missed, and Jessie Usher doesn’t quite step up to the plate as his stepson, Dylan Dubrow-Hiller. He lacks the charisma of Smith, but to be fair, matching the charisma of Smith is no easy feat. Maika Monroe is good as Patricia Whitmore, but why/how Mae Whitman didn’t return is a bit of a head scratcher. Also, this film suffers from the “let’s set up future sequels” formula by including some contrived story and plot elements. There’s absolutely no subtly. Are the effects good at least? Yeah, they’re good, but they lack the “wow” factor like the effects in the first one. We as filmgoers have grown accustomed to seeing overblown CGI summer blockbusters, so it’s nothing special anymore. Is it entertaining at least? Of course, but it lacks the charm of its predecessor. If you liked the first one you’ll probably enjoy this one, but don’t expect it to leave a lasting impression, because it won’t.

What Went Wrong With X-Men: Apocalypse?

So far, 2016 has proven to be both a great and disappointing year for superhero films. Four of the six 2016 superhero films have already had a theatrical release, and honestly, only Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War were great. The other two, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and X-Men: Apocalypse were underwhelming and lacking. As a huge fan of Batman, Superman, and the X-Men, it’s a huge disappointment to me that these films weren’t better. They certainly had potential, but it was squandered. As a summer blockbuster film for the casual moviegoer, X-Men: Apocalypse is sure to entertain, but for a fan of the comics, it sucks and is sure to disappoint. What exactly went wrong with X-Men: Apocalypse? Well, read on and find out, but only if you’ve seen the film, because there are a butt ton of spoilers ahead!

The main problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that the film didn’t even live up to the “Apocalypse” part of its title. Yes, the mutant Apocalypse is in the film, but does he ever feel like a genuine threat? The answer is: not really. The pre-credits scene set in ancient Egypt does a solid and respectable job of setting him up, but it’s all downhill from there. He just rambles on about how he wants to take over the world and how he despises humanity. Makes for a complex and compelling villain, right? We’ve never seen a villain with motivations like that, right? Ugh, what a waste of Oscar Isaac. To be fair he does a good job given what little he has to work with, but he’s one of the best actors currently working. Almost anyone else could’ve played such a generic and lazily written villain. Also, it’s hard to take Apocalypse seriously when he looks like a lousy Power Rangers villain. If they had made Apocalypse more layered and complex, he would’ve made for a much better villain, and the film would’ve been much better because of it.



In addition to Apocalypse himself being underwhelming, the Four Horsemen are also underwhelming, with the exception of Magneto and arguably Storm. Psylocke and Angel are completely wasted because they’re given no development. Olivia Munn is gorgeous as Psylocke and she looks like Psylocke from the comics, but she only has ten lines of dialogue max. Also, after the climatic battle, she just walks off the screen and has that “screw this” look on her face, which is highly appropriate. As for Angel, we see how he lost his wing and Apocalypse repairs it for him, but once he joins up, he doesn’t do much else. He’s supposedly killed in the third act climatic fight, but ultimately, his fate is left up in the air. Essentially, Angel and Psylocke are just lackeys of Apocalypse. As for Storm, she’s a little more developed, but it felt like she was too easily convinced to join Apocalypse. Also, you know she’s going to have a change of heart anyway given how she’s been portrayed in the franchise before, so ultimately it doesn’t feel genuine. Magneto is really the only Horseman who’s turn feels genuine because of what happens to him and what we know about his character. He settles down and starts a family, but after he’s betrayed and his family his killed, he loses trust and faith in humanity once again, so he becomes one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. However, his turn at the end is predictable because of the deep-rooted love and respect he has for both Mystique and Professor X. If the other Horsemen had been more fleshed out and developed, it also would’ve made for a better film.

Another problem with the film was the script and the plot holes, or how I like to call them; “How the hell does this make any sense?” The glaring problem with this new X-Men timeline is that nobody ages! They all look the same as they did in First Class, which was set in the 60’s. This film is set the 80’s. Are these mutants doing yoga in their free time or something? Also, what the hell’s up with Mystique? She’s great as a character, but in this new timeline, her loyalty is so back and forth between Charles and Erik. At the end of the film, her loyalty is with Charles once again, but for how long? As for Havok, did he really serve any purpose in the film? Sure, he’s the older brother of Scott Summers (Cyclops), but his death in the film is ultimately meaningless. Scott mourns over him for only one scene and then he forgets about him. As for the Wolverine as Weapon X bit, it’s an awesome scene and is the kind of the Wolverine we need to see more of the screen, but it makes no sense for him to be in the film. At the end of Days of Future Past, we clearly see that Mystique has impersonated Stryker, which gives us the fair assumption that Wolverine hasn’t fallen into the wrong hands after he was fished out of the river. However, Stryker still managed to capture Wolverine and experiment on him somehow. It’s obvious the makers (not to mention the studio) felt obligated to have Wolverine in there just because it’s an X-Men film, so they just shoehorned him in. Great sequence, but it was unnecessary and it felt forced. Also, what the hell happened with all of those nuclear weapons that Apocalypse had fired off? Are they just floating around aimlessly in space, or did they get stuck orbiting the Earth? It was just glossed over and not brought up at the end. As for the romance between Charles and Moira, it’s laughably bad. He’s more creepy in his attempts to woe her than charming. And lastly, the whole subplot with Magneto being Quicksilver’s father falls flat on its ass. There are a few moments of dialogue here and there that touch upon it, and it pays good lip service to the comics, but it just doesn’t go anywhere. It ends up just being played for laughs, and the end Quicksilver’s just like, “Eh, no big deal.” Talk about lazy writing. With a more focused script, it would’ve been a better and slightly more entertaining film.

As a whole, X-Men: Apocalypse is a hollow and underwhelming film, but with some good elements that deserve a mention. The acting is solid, especially from the actors playing the younger versions of the popular X-Men characters, and Michael Fassbender. He’s made the role of Magneto his own just like Hugh Jackman has done with Wolverine. The Quicksilver scene at the Xavier mansion is awesome, and Evan Peters kills it in the role once again. Also, the climatic fight is fun enough, but the end result is predictable. Charles going into the mind of Apocalypse was a nice touch, though. Although it wasn’t an overstuffed, incomprehensible mess like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was, it’ll leave you highly disappointed if you’re a fan of the comics and the franchise as a whole. Fox seemed to have corrected the course with First Class and Days of Future Past, but now they’re making the same mistakes again. Mutant lives matter too!

Everbody Wants Some!! (2016)

Two years after the release of his highly ambitious and engrossing film, Boyhood, Richard Linklater is back. Linklater’s work has been fairly consistent, especially these past five years. Every film he’s made in this five-year period has been of exceptional quality, and Everybody Wants Some!! is like a gift to us filmgoers. It’s a spiritual sequel to Linklater’s 1993 cult classic Dazed and Confused, and it’s a film that has a lot of heart, humor, and intellect.

Everybody Wants Some!! is set in 1980 Texas, and it follows a group of college baseball players trying to navigate their way through life and have fun the weekend before classes begin. One freshman baseball player in particular, Jake (Blake Jenner) is given the full experience of college life.

Although it’s not a straight up sequel to Dazed and Confused, Everybody Wants Some!! is still very much in tone with Linklater’s previous film, and in the best kind of way. Everything you loved about Dazed and Confused is here: drugs, partying, booze, socializing, period appropriate music, and philosophizing. The only difference is that it’s all within a college setting as opposed to a high school setting. Like with Dazed and Confused, it all feels true to life. These characters are believable, and the interactions they have feel true to life. Blake Jenner is great in his role as Jake, the film’s protagonist so to speak. He’s like a fish out of water when he arrives at college, but over the course of the weekend, he becomes one of the guys. He even sparks up a romance with a cute girl, Beverly (Zoey Deutch). The two have chemistry and because of that, the romance that forms between the two feels genuine. When it comes to writing sharp dialogue and characters, Linklater is one of the best.

In regards to the supporting characters, they’re all great. The two standouts are Willoughby (Wyatt Russell) and Finnegan (Glen Powell). Willoughby parallels Wooderson from Dazed and Confused in the sense that he’s a free spirit. He just wants to get high, play baseball, and live it up while he’s in college. He’s just an awesome character and Wyatt Russell totally kills it in the role. Finnegan on the other hand is kind of a dick, but he’s a fun dick. He gives Jake and the other freshman a hard time, but his heart is always in the right place at least. He’s a fun character and Glen Powell totally runs away (or runs home?) with the character. If you loved Powell in first season of Scream Queens, you’re going to love him here. On the other hand, there’s McReynolds (Tyler Hoechlin), and he’s a legit dick. He parallels O’Bannion from Dazed and Confused. He’s still an entertaining character however because he’s realistic! Overly macho and confident athletes are like a dime a dozen in real life.

As for the look and the feel of the film, it’s a total nostalgia trip. It captures the late 70’s/early 80’s perfectly. The clothes, the hair, the music, the environment, it’s like a stepping into a time warp! It was also a smart decision on Linklater’s part to explore the various music genres that were popular at the time such as country, disco, and punk rock! The punk rock club scene especially is a lot of fun.

Overall, Everybody Wants Some!! is signature Linklater and some his best work yet. It’s the best kind of spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused because it hits the same emotional and intellectual chords. It’s a film that touches upon how to enjoy life, question it, but not take it too seriously either. Remember, we’re all here for a good time, not a long time!

What Went Wrong With Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? (Spoilers!)

It’s been close to a month since Batman v Superman hit theatres, and it’s proven to be one of the most polarizing superhero films ever made. Critics for the most part hated it while fans and moviegoers have been divided. One side of the extreme absolutely loathed the film, and some have even gone about starting a petition to have Zack Snyder removed as the director of the upcoming Justice League film. The other side of the extreme has been praising the film as being “great,” and those folks are more optimistic about the future of the DC cinematic universe. And where do I stand? Honestly, I’m right in the middle. I didn’t hate the film, but I didn’t like it either. Overall, I thought it was a mess with some bright spots here and there. What exactly went wrong with the film? Well, read on and you’ll find out.

The first and most blatant problem with Batman v Superman is that it was simply too big of a film. What do I mean by too big? I mean too big in the sense that there was way too much going on. It felt like four films rolled into one two and a half hour film. It’s like it wanted to be a Man of Steel sequel, and a Batman vs. Superman film, and a stand-alone Batman film, and a Justice League set up film. The end result was a film that as a whole felt overstuffed and often incomprehensible. How could this have been avoided? Well, WB could’ve gone the better and more patient route by making this a Man of Steel sequel, or a film solely focused on the conflict between Batman and Superman. Personally, I thought it would’ve been cool if they had made this a straight follow up to Man of Steel with Clark Kent/Superman having to face up to the consequences of his actions. Lex Luthor (or Lex Luthor Jr. technically, I suppose?) could’ve been introduced too. Then they could’ve followed this up with a stand-alone Batman film, one that could’ve been like Burton’s Batman, not a reboot like Nolan’s Batman Begins. Clark Kent/Superman could’ve had a minor role in this, which then would’ve led up to the big Batman vs. Superman film with Lex as the main villain. This approach in my opinion would’ve made more sense and made the character motivations better because quite honestly, the character motivations in Batman v Superman made no sense. Also, there should’ve been a stand-alone Wonder Woman film before she was introduced into the DC cinematic universe. That’s not a blow to her as a character or anything because she was well portrayed by Gal Gadot and kicks some ass in climatic battle, but already having her established as a character before she gets involved in the action would’ve helped us understand her motivations better. We also would’ve been a little more invested in her too. Also, the introductions of the other Justice League characters such as The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman were laughably lazy. I mean a flash drive of video footage? What the hell WB? Overall, the point I’m trying to make is that WB got impatient solely because they’re trying to play catch up with the MCU, which is a shame because it ruined what could’ve been a great superhero film.



Another problem with Batman v Superman is that it had too many damn dream sequences! There’s nothing wrong with a few here and there, but damn, they were excessive here. One of the dream sequences in particular was a bizarre and sloppy one thanks to some poor editing. Bruce was doing something on the computer (some private stuff maybe?) and out of nowhere, it becomes a dream sequence. In said dream sequence, it’s the future, and Superman has become evil for reasons unknown. Bruce has to fight off his goons, but he’s simply outnumbered and he gets captured. He eventually wakes up back in the bat cave only to have The Flash appear and tell him not to let Louis die (I think?) or else Superman will turn evil. Then Bruce wakes up. So basically he was having a dream within a dream? What the hell was up with that? Also, there was all that flashback stuff about Bruce’s parents being killed. Not like we haven’t seen that before. What pissed me off personally was how they had Thomas Wayne take a macho swing at the mugger who had them all at gunpoint? That’s not how it happened in the comics, plus that’s a dumbass move that puts everyone in danger! It’s hard to believe David S. Goyer wrote such unfaithful crap. Also, there was a dream sequence where Clark visited his dead adoptive father on a mountain that was rather pointless and didn’t fit in at all. I don’t even know why I’m mentioning it actually. And the solution to the dream sequence problem? Cut out practically all of the dream sequences.

Yet another problem with Batman v Superman is the lack humor. Granted, DC comics have always been more serious than Marvel comics, but it’s nice to have some humor here and there to lighten the mood. The jabs Perry White made against Clark throughout the film where the only moments that seemed “humorous,” but they weren’t particularly funny and they felt more forced if anything. Also, there was that whole bit with Lex telling the senator (played by Holly Hunter) about how you shouldn’t “piss in a jar and call it granny’s peach tea.” Was that supposed to be funny? I don’t know, it was more of a “what the hell?” moment if you ask me. The solution? Add more humor, and don’t force it either. You don’t have to go overboard like they did in Batman & Robin, but it’s nice to have a little so the film as a whole doesn’t feel so brooding and depressing.



A final problem with Batman v Superman is that the script honestly kind of sucked. As I previously mentioned, at least four films worth of material was crammed into one two and half hour long film, so the film as a whole was overstuffed. In addition to that, there were plot holes galore and character motivations made no sense. What the hell were Luthor’s motivations exactly? Why was his plan to make Superman so damn convoluted? Why was his plan to make Superman and Batman fight each other so nonsensical? What was his next step after unleashing the practically unstoppable Doomsday upon the world? It was all rather murky. Also, why the hell did Superman choose to stop Batman when he was in that car chase and not take the time to see whom exactly Batman was chasing after? I mean Batman chases after criminals after all, was that not worth at least a quick look, Superman? Also, Wayne’s motivations were quite murky too. It’s understandable that he was pissed at Superman for all the destruction he caused at the end of Man of Steel, but it’s not like the Bruce Wayne/Batman they’ve introduced in this cinematic universe is a white knight either. He kills people and brands criminals with the bat symbol, which is effectively a death sentence for those who receive it. So both Batman and Superman are flawed heroes in this universe, which is fine, but it makes the conflict between the two peculiar. Then there was that whole “Martha” coincidence, don’t even get me started. Talk about some terrible writing there. The solution? Write a better script that’s more focused!

However, despite of all the problems with Batman v Superman, it is worthy of some praise in my opinion. First of all, the visuals and action sequences are phenomenal. They typically are in Zack Snyder film, although they tend to take front seat to the other important element a film should have: a good story. Second of all, the acting in my opinion was actually damn good. Henry Cavill has been criticized in his role as Clark Kent/Superman, but he’s fine if you ask me, and so is Amy Adams as Louis Lane. Ben Affleck made for a good Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jesse Eisenberg made for a great Lex Luthor. Eisenberg’s portrayal of Luthor has polarized both audiences and critics alike for good reason, but I dug it. A lot of it might have to do with the fact that I’ve been a fan of Eisenberg since his Adventureland and Zombieland days. I really related to the characters he played in both of those films, so I found myself liking him as Luthor. Gal Gadot was great as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, although her accent slipped in a few places. It’s still awesome that she finally appeared on the big screen, and her first stand-alone film that’s hitting theatres next year is something to look forward to. The supporting cast is once again solid like it was in Man of Steel. Newcomers Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons are both great as Senator Finch and Alfred respectively. Also, the suit Batman wears to fight Superman looks phenomenal, exactly like it did in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. Excellent job there!

Overall, Batman v Superman is a flawed and underwhelming film that didn’t work, but it’s still nowhere near being the worst superhero film ever made. WB being impatient and overzealous is really what did the film in. Batman and Superman are two of the greatest comic book superheroes ever, and they always will be. I was a huge fan of the both of them growing up, and I’ll always remain a huge fan of them. I also think Superman gets too much flack these days. Yes, he’s overpowered to an extent, but he’s still a great character who’s been well portrayed on both paper and screen. I loved the way they portrayed him in Man of Steel sans the Jesus imagery. The dude’s basically an alien struggling to find his place. He’s like a metaphor for those of us who struggle to fit in period. They definitely deserved a better film, but not all hope should be lost quite yet. Let’s hope that WB learns from this and corrects the current course, so that we can have a DC cinematic universe that’s on par with the Marvel cinematic universe.

Deadpool (2016)

Fox really pooped the pool seven years back with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This was of course after they pooped the hot tub three years prior with X-Men: The Last Stand. Yeah, those were bad and stinky times. When all hope seemed lost, 2011 rolls around, and they instantly redeemed themselves with X-Men: First Class, a superb superhero film in every respect. Then 2013 rolls around and we got The Wolverine, not the greatest superhero film by any means, but still a good one. Then 2014 rolls around, and we got X-Men: Days of Future Past, and there was much rejoicing. However, something…or should I say someone was missing to complete this turnaround. Who could it be? Perhaps it was that character in Origins Wolverine they totally butchered? Perhaps it was the merc with a mouth, or the merc without a mouth (am I right?). Nah, they totally did him justice then, right…right? Yeah, I’ll leave someone else to try and defend that “portrayal” of “Deadpool.”

The film follows Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), a wise-ass former Special Forces op who undergoes a secretive medical procedure to treat his terminal cancer. The result: A wise-ass anti-hero with regenerative abilities, with a face that looks like the inside of a butthole. Yeah, he was pretty pissed about the face.

So, how did Fox do this time? Well, there’s a merc, and he does have a mouth, so thumbs up to them in lieu of another middle finger. In fact, give them two thumbs up because this film is awesome, sixteen walls and all. It’s funny, clever, action packed, and romantic? Yes geeks, it is the kind of film you can take your girlfriend to see in case you’re wondering. And if you and your significant other are both geeks, then many envy you.

As for the R-rating, do they take advantage of it? Indeed they do. Having previously demonstrated how suited (no pun intended…or was it?) he was for the role, Reynolds absolutely kills it every moment he’s on screen. Like him or hate him, he IS Deadpool. The supporting cast is quite impressive too. Morena Baccarin makes for one of the more unique Marvel love interests as Vanessa, Wilson’s girlfriend. It’s clear early on that these two have chemistry, bizarre chemistry might I add. TJ Miller kills it as Weasel, the comic relief, and the best kind of comic relief. The film’s villain Ajax (Ed Skerin) isn’t particularly memorable, but his banter with Wilson sure as hell is. Gina Carano once again flexes her muscle as Angel Dust, Ajax’s strong arm so to speak. They also were also able to spare two mutants so the film could conveniently be tied into the larger X-Men cinematic universe. Oh, Fox, you’re so thoughtful.

Overall, it’s a hot load...of fun! Fox has finally righted their biggest wrong. If X-Men: Apocalypse is as stellar as Deadpool, Fox just might trump Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers' DCU in the 2016 superhero race. Wade Wilson for president!

Is Her the Best Romance Film of All Time?

Considering Valentine’s Day is coming up, I figured I’d touch upon a few romance films on my blog this week, with the 2013 Spike Jonze directed film Her being the first. Personally, I’m not really a fan of romance films. It’s not because I’m a heartless jerk or a guy who just can’t “appreciate” them, it has more to do with my own romantic experiences (and lack thereof) and my general beliefs regarding love. Love is complex, and because of that, it’s a momentous challenge to depict on the big screen. Most mainstream and Hollywood romance films tend to be formulaic, over reliant on tropes, and pure escapism. Since film is essentially make believe, there’s nothing wrong with liking those types of romance films for escapist reasons, but it’s important to remember that those types of romance films will never appeal to everyone. Why? Well, as I previously stated, love is complex and more importantly, experiences and beliefs in regards to love differ. Those of us who have never been in love, or who have been in love and/or felt a strong, personal connection with another only to get hurt in return are going to have a hard time relating to the typical mainstream romance film. Love isn’t all sunshine and flowers; people get hurt and many struggle to connect with others on a deep and intimate level. It’s rare when a romance film like Her comes along and depicts love and the desire for connection with such brutal honesty.

Set in future Los Angeles, the film follows Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix), a depressed and lonely man. He works as a professional writer, composing profound and thoughtful letters for people who are unable to compose similar letters themselves. After the purchase of an advanced operating system with advanced AI that Theodore names Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), the two develop a deep relationship.

Her is a unique mix of romance, comedy, drama, and science fiction with an undeniably original premise and is gorgeous on visual terms. It’s also the best film of recent memory to depict loneliness and the desperation that comes with it thanks to a strong script written by Spike Jonze, who also directed. His Academy Award win for Best Original Screenplay was well deserved too. Joaquin Phoenix gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Theodore, a character any lonely or heartbroken person can relate to. He’s the sensitive, romantic type who experienced a failed relationship with his sweetheart Catherine (Rooney Mara). The flashback structure employed to show how their relationship failed is both creative and effective. Do we ever truly forget the moments, both good and bad that we experienced with a person we felt a genuine connection with? Although Theodore’s subsequent relationship with Samantha is appealing on both visual and emotional terms, there’s still an underlying feeling of doubt present as their relationship progresses and grows. It asks one of the most intelligent questions a romance film has ever asked: Is deep, emotional companionship with advanced AI a suitable replacement for human companionship?

In addition to Samantha, Theodore is also close with Amy (Amy Adams), a girl he once dated and remained friends with. Amy serves as a female equivalent to Theodore in a way because she experiences a failed relationship of her own and bonds with an operating system to cope, showing how loneliness and the need to be wanted affects both sexes. Chris Pratt also has a strong supporting role as Paul, a co-worker of Theodore’s who admires Theodore’s sensitive side and a character who embodies the potential future acceptance of human and AI relationships. Theodore’s moment of vulnerability with Samantha after a failed blind date is hauntingly profound and emotional. It’s one that really touches upon the human condition and again it asks the question mentioned in the previous paragraph.

So, is Her the best romance film of all time? Well, how you like the film is largely dependent on how you view Theodore, the film’s protagonist. Is he a lonely, sensitive romantic, or just a lonely creep? How you view him will be mainly dependent on your past experiences and if you can accept the admittedly bizarre premise of a man falling in love with an operating system. To me personally, Her is the best romance film of all time because of how smart, emotional, and brutally honest it is. Its depiction of loneliness and the struggle to connect are hauntingly accurate, and it raises some troubling questions about the human condition and the advancement of AI. However, that final image before the end credits suggests that there might be hope for us yet.

Sound City (2013)

Dave Grohl, front man for the Foo Fighters is one of the best at his craft and one of the best in the industry. His love and appreciation of music always shows in his work. With Sound City, Grohl takes on a new and ambitious role as director. Thanks to Grohl’s passionate approach, Sound City succeeds in being both a compelling and informative documentary.

The documentary focuses on Sound City, the popular recording studio that was located in Van Nuys, California. The history of the studio is explored and various musicians who recorded at the studio are interviewed, and so are the people who ran it.

Sound City is a documentary that benefits from having not only a musician’s perspective on the recording process, but also the perspective of the producers and technicians too. They each have a huge role in the recording process, and they’re all co-dependent on one another. From a technical standpoint, it’s cool to see and learn about the equipment that the studio used, like the Neve console for example, which was originally developed by Rupert Neve. While the film doesn’t go totally in depth in regards to the recording process, it still covers a lot and offers more than just a brief glance at it. What really makes the documentary a lot of fun is seeing musicians such as Trent Reznor, Lee Ving, and Stevie Nicks record with Grohl and the Foo Fighters on the Neve console in his very own private studio. All of them worked and recorded at Sound City, and it shows love for both the studio and the recording process itself on their part.

Sound City is a compelling and intriguing documentary overall. It documents both the good and bad times of the studio. Even in the bad times, it still stood strong because the owners and technicians refused to compromise the signature analog sound they created in face of the digital revolution. A strong and poignant statement is made in this documentary in regards to the digital landscape that music is today: It’s passion and patience that make a quality musician, not the manipulation of music tools and software.

The Revenant (2015)

Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Academy awarding winning film Birdman from 2014 is a masterpiece on both creative and technical terms. It’s also a film that garnered him a lot of deserved attention and praise. How does he follow up such a profound and enthralling film? With another profound and enthralling film of, The Revenant, one that takes a methodical approach to revenge.

Partially adapted from Michael Punke’s The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge and inspired by the true story of fur trapper Hugh Glass, the film follows Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) on an expedition in the Montana and South Dakota territories in the 1820’s. Left for dead after a bear attack, Hugh Glass treks through the harsh wilderness to find Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), with revenge in mind.

On technical terms, The Revenant is a worthy follow up to Birdman largely thanks to Emmanuel Lubezki, the director of photography. He captures both the beauty of the landscape and the atrocities committed by the men who occupy it with his unique eye. The long takes during the violent moments give the film an authentic feel and make for an intense viewing experience. The smooth and fluid camerawork during those long takes prove just how proficient Lubezki is at his craft and the effectiveness of him and Iñárritu as a duo. On top of the strong direction and cinematography, the musical score adds to the tension, and also gives it a surreal quality.

As with Birdman, the acting in The Revenant is remarkable. Leonardo DiCaprio gives his most committed performance to date as Hugh Glass. He’s so immersed in the role and because of it, the film succeeds and is enthralling. As a viewer, you want to see Glass survive and continue along despite the odds. Will Leo finally win his Oscar? Only time will tell. Tom Hardy gives an equally committed performance as Fitzgerald, the man Glass is after. Hardy’s perfectly selfish and callous in the role, and makes for a great antagonist. Rising actor Domhnall Gleeson shines in his supporting role as Captain Andrew Henry, the leader of the trapping expedition. What could’ve been an easily unlikeable character is made likeable thanks to his compassionate quality and concern he has for Glass.

Overall, The Revenant is another impressive film from Alejandro G. Iñárritu, and one that succeeds on both a creative and technical level. The tension never lets up until the very end thanks to an enthralling story, a committed performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, and top-notch cinematography. It’s one of the best films of 2015, and certainly the most intense too.

 

Foo Fighters: Sonic Highways (2014)

Dave Grohl, front man for Foo Fighters is not only one of the best musicians currently working, he’s also one of the best musicians of all time. Time and time again, Grohl has demonstrated his musical talent not only with Foo Fighters but also with other bands, including: Nirvana, Scream, Them Crooked Vultures, and Queens of the Stone Age. His love of music is evident, and his fame is well deserved. With Sonic Highways, Grohl goes one step further, proving that not only does he love music; he understands that every city has a sound, and that every sound has a story.

The 8-episode mini-series documents the recording of the Foo Fighters album Sonic Highways, with each track on the album being recorded in a different U.S. city. Each episode explores the history of music in that city and features interviews with musicians, record producers and other key people that shaped that city’s sound. The featured cities are: Chicago, Washington, D.C., Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Seattle, and New York City.

Sonic Highways is not just a superficial glimpse into the history of music in these cities. The impact of the music and how it influenced musicians from each of the respective cities and what it means to them is also explored. Each episode is a compelling and often, an emotional journey. The mini-series also gives viewers an in-depth look into the recording process of an album, something that can often only be imagined, complete with an in-depth look into every studio they record at. A lot of respect is shown for the technical and production side, especially the engineers and producers who keep the recording studios running, the end result being crisp and quality sound. Each episode begins with a quote from the song that was recorded in the respective city that’s being covered and culminates with a music video of the song. The visuals complement the music, and the cinematography courtesy of Kenny Stoff and Jessica Young capture both the beauty and grittiness of each city.

Chicago is the first city that’s covered in Sonic Highways and the album’s title track “Something From Nothing” is recorded at Electrical Audio studios. The city while known for its rock bands such as Cheap Trick and The Smashing Pumpkins is rooted in the blues from the likes of Muddy Waters and Buddy Guy. Punk rock took a hold of the city in the 70’s and 80’s, and musician/producer Steve Albini emerged from it. His importance to the Chicago music scene is well covered, and so is love for music, which is why he founded Electrical Audio. The profound statements made in regards to inspiration and the great work that follows is perfectly fitting for the opening episode of the mini-series too. Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen joins the band to record “Something From Nothing,” the album’s title track.

Washington, D.C. is the second city that’s covered and the album’s second track “The Feast and the Famine” is recorded at Inner Ear Studios. The city has had its share of diverse acts and the style of go-go emerged in the early 70’s, it’s birth credited to local funk musician Chuck Brown. Go-go would also be popularized by Trouble Funk, a band that originated in the D.C. area and one that is still currently active. Hardcore punk also emerged from the city in the late 70’s, as did politically and socially charged music in general. Local musician Ian MacKaye of Minor Threat and Fugazi fame is interviewed, as are members of the local hardcore punk band Bad Brains. Their insight into the city’s music scene is nothing short of intriguing. Don Zientara, owner of Inner Ear Studios also provides insight into the city’s music scene and past. This episode also has a deep emotional aspect to it because Dave Grohl was raised in Virginia and was shaped and influenced by the bands and music scene of Washington, D.C. Peter Stahl and Skeeter Thompson of the D.C. punk band Scream, a band that Grohl himself was once a member of join the band to record “The Feast and the Famine,” the album’s second track.

Nashville is the third city that’s covered and the album’s third track “Congregation” is recorded at Southern Ground studio. The city’s gospel and country roots are explored, with musicians Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, and Tony Joe White discussing the city’s sound and what influenced it. Country’s evolution into more of a pop sound and it being forced to appeal to the mainstream is also examined and critiqued. This episode shows that country has respectable roots, and is a genre that should be held in higher regard than it currently is. The emergence of the singer/songwriter is discussed, a role that was unfairly shunned in the context of the recording industry. The city’s recording and producing history is also explored, which makes for an informative and insightful look into the recording process itself. Zac Brown of the Zac Brown Band and owner of the Southern Ground joins the band to record “Congregation,” the album’s third track.

Austin is the fourth city that’s covered and the album’s fourth track “What Did I Do? / God as My Witness” is recorded at the Austin City Limits Studio. The city’s diverse, almost bizarre musical roots are examined. Musicians Gary Clark Jr., Rory Erickson, and Billy Gibbons are interviewed and give heartfelt insight into the city’s music scene. Terry Lickona, the producer of Austin City Limits is also interviewed and discusses the positive impact the show had on not only the city’s music scene, but also music as a whole. If a band is need of a good city to make their name, Austin is the obvious choice. Gary Clark Jr. joins the band to record “What Did I Do?/God as My Wintess,” the album’s fourth track.

Los Angeles is fifth city that’s covered and the album’s fifth track “Outside” is recorded the Rancho De La Luna studio, located in the desert just outside of Los Angeles. This episode explores the city’s glam, classic and punk rock scenes along with the desert rock scene that emerged outside the city, largely thanks to the band Kyuss. This episode proves to be quite dark and emotional as Foo Fighters guitarist Pat Smear looks back on his time in L.A. and his time with the punk rock band the Germs in the late 70’s. Darby Crash, the lead vocalist of the Germs and Pat Smear’s close friend committed suicide via an intentional heroin overdose in 1980, which led to the band breaking up before they could achieve greater fame. Crash’s death being overshadowed by John Lennon’s death immediately after paints a grim picture of the world and how musicians are perceived. KROQ disc jockey Rodney Bingenheimer is also interviewed and gives insight into the city’s glam rock scene. The history of the Rancho De La Luna studio and its impact on the city’s music scene is also covered in fine detail. The life and death of one of the studio’s founders, Fred Drake gives the episode a lot of emotional depth. Despite Drake’s deteriorating health, his love and respect for music and the Rancho De La Luna kept him going until the very end. Joe Walsh of The Eagles fame joins the band to record “Outside,” the album’s fifth track.

New Orleans is the sixth city that’s covered and the album’s sixth track “In the Clear” is recorded at the Preservation Hall. Following in the footsteps of the HBO series Treme, this episode captures the rich and vibrant culture of New Orleans and its powerful music scene. The music having jazz and Cajun roots makes for the most upbeat of music, which encourages bystanders to dance along with it. The devastating damage done by Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 is also explored, and the musicians interviewed give harrowing accounts of the aftermath. Despite the damage that was done, the city’s music community lived on and played a huge role in the recovery. It goes to show just how powerful music is and how it can bring people together even at the worst of times. The Preservation Hall band joins the band to record “In the Clear,” the album’s sixth track.

Seattle is the seventh city that’s covered and the album’s seventh track “Subterranean” is recorded at Robert Lang Studios. The city’s grunge scene is explored, which Grohl was a part of. He was Nirvana’s drummer up until Kurt Cobain’s suicide in 1994, which is also covered. Cobain’s suicide and the negative effects it had on the city is touched upon, which goes to show how much of an impact one musician can make. Grohl’s decision to go ahead and record some songs that ultimately ended up being the first Foo Fighters album serves as an example of how music can get one out of a dark place. Chris Cornell of Soundgarden fame and Ann Wilson of Heart fame both give compelling and intriguing bits on the city’s music scene too. Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie fame joins the band to record “Subterranean,” the album’s seventh track.

New York City is the final city that’s covered and the album’s eighth and final track “I Am A River” is recorded at The Magic Shop. The various music genres that emerged from the city are explored, rap and hip-hop being the two biggest. The popular CBGB club is also covered, as is its impact on the city’s music scene. The 9/11 attacks are touched upon, but as with New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina, the city remained strong and moved on thanks to the music scene. President Barack Obama makes a surprise appearance at the end of this episode, and his insight into music and the effect it’s had on the U.S. and will always have is both profound and honest. Musicians Tony Visconti and Kristeen Young join the band to record “I Am a River,” the album’s eighth and final track.

Sonic Highways is a mini-series that’s as intriguing as it compelling, and as intelligent as it is emotional. Dave Grohl proves yet again that he’s one of the best and brightest musicians in the industry. It’s easily one the most ambitious musical efforts of all time, and one to be appreciated. Simply put, it’s remarkable.