Ant-Man (2015)

One of the funnier Marvel films to date. I can see why James Gunn gave it such high praise. It's one of the lightest in tone of all their films. I laughed out loud during Ant-Man almost as much as I did during Guardians. It's a shame I saw this on such a small screen with only about 15 people.

Ant-Man is also another good example of great casting (something Marvel seems to keep nailing). If you don't cast someone as funny and charismatic as Paul Rudd in the lead, it's likely the whole film doesn't work. I'm a huge fan of Michael Pena and he worked great as additional comic relief. Evangeline Lilly was great as well. It's ironic that she's an actress that's actually athletic enough to pull off a superhero role, but yet still doesn't get to play one. It looks like she might get her chance soon though.

I'd say Ant-Man's biggest fault is that it's yet another origin story, and it's pretty formulaic as far as that goes. Also, in a lot of places it feels like it exists just to bridge some of the other Marvel films together. Fortunately, the bridging is done in an entertaining way, and some of the flashbacks and cameos made me geek out. Ant-Man doesn't require that you've seen all the other movies or are super familiar with the MCU. It's pretty accessible compared to some of the other MCU films.

I don't know the reasons why Edgar Wright left the project, and one can only imagine how this would have turned out had he stayed on. You can see his fingerprints on the final product in a few places.

I did see this in 3D, which of course, was a total waste of time and did nothing for the film. It was unfortunately my only option, but I advise you to skip it if possible. Visually the effects were good though.

There are two post-credit scenes, so get comfortable during the credits if you don't want to miss them.

Ant-Man isn't the strongest of Phase II, but it's one of the most fun. Those looking for some late summer entertainment won't be disappointed. Totally worth the price of admission.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

Has it really been nine years since Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy?  I have to give them credit for not rushing a cash-grab sequel out immediately after.  Believe it not, I actually didn't like Anchorman all that much the first time I saw it.  I can only remember laughing once or twice in the theater, but a lot of that was due to my mood (and being on a bad date).  It wasn't until I watched it a second time that I really started to love it.  I think that's the case with a lot of comedies though.

With so much time passing between films, can Anchorman 2 live up to the expectations?  Let's see...

Since Anchorman, Ron (Will Ferrell) and Veronica (Christina Applegate) have moved to New York and are anchoring a weekend news show.  Their boss and legendary reporter, Mack Harken (Harrison Ford), offers Veronica a promotion while firing Ron.  As you'd expect, this doesn't have a good outcome for their relationship and Ron dives into another tailspin.  Eventually he's offered a job by Freddie Shapp (Dylan Baker), who offers him a job at the Global News Network, which is trying to become the first 24-hour news network.  Ron assembles his old news team, and they head back to New York.  There's not much more to the plot than that, and it can be kind of a mess at times.  In fact, much of the story feels like a remix of the first, hitting many of the same beats.  Let's be honest though, is anyone watching Anchorman 2 for the plot?  We all just want to laugh, right?

Anchorman 2 is a little rough in the opening minutes.  Many of the jokes were landing with a thud, and I was concerned they were trying too hard.  I've said this before, but it's really hard to recapture that same lightning in the bottle, especially where comedy is concerned.  Fortunately after it settles in, there are plenty of good laughs to be had.  Having said that, there are a few gags that go nowhere or outright don't work, and more than a few times, they are basically recycling a joke from the first.  They can't be all gems though, and I was pleased that some of the better laughs weren't spoiled by the trailer, so if you're concerned about that you should rest a little easier going in.  Another thing that you'll notice is that this installment isn't quite as quotable as the first, although subsequent views once this hits blu-ray may prove otherwise.  I still think Anchorman will be the winner in that category though.

It's all the same silly stuff you've come to expect from Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.  So, if you're not a fan of the overgrown, man-child act, then this is likely not going to be for you.  Will Ferrell portrays Ron again with the same over-the-top buffoonery, but he might have dialed it up to 11 this time.  If you're a Champ (David Koechner) fan, he seemed to take a back seat, as well as Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), who played more of a voice of reason this time around.  As much as this is Will Ferrell's show though, you'll likely notice there's a lot more of Brick (Steve Carell).  He has an oddly sweet, but funny, courtship with Chani (Kristen Wiig).  I can only describe it as watching monkeys learn how to use tools.

There are lot of new members to the cast, such as Dylan Baker, who's primarily a straight man to all of the antics.  Meagan Good joins the cast as Ron's fiery and sexy boss.  Films need more Meagan Good.  Greg Kinnear also has a few funny moments.  I was very happy to see James Marsden finally getting a chance to show mainstream audiences that he can be a funny guy.  I've long felt he was an underappreciated actor who usually ends up playing the other guy in romantic comedies or even in action films (like his role in Superman Returns or Cyclops in the X-Men series).  Here he has a central role that I hope gets him the recognition he deserves.  Another interesting performance was the kid (Judah Nelson) they had playing Ron and Veronica's son.  At times, he's delivering lines like an inexperienced. overly enthusiastic child actor, but then there's a scene towards the end that made me think this was an intentional direction and make it that much funnier.

I was surprised to see this was two hours, as I often complain that comedies have no business being that long, but I didn't notice the length at all.  Time flies when you're having fun, eh?  I also applaud the movie for getting away with just a PG-13 rating.  Anchorman 2 doesn't get its laughs from being vulgar or gross.  I don't have an issue with that normally, but it's nice to see a comedy not going for shock value.

While not as funny as the first film, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues has enough of the same absurd and silly humor that made the first so enjoyable and fans will have a good time watching.  I can't say it was worth waiting nine years for, but in a weak year for comedy it'll do.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Admission (2013) - Movie Review

Just for the record, Princeton was my safety school, but I chose to go the Jedi Academy instead...

Tina Fey stars as Portia Nathan, a Princeton admissions officer.  As you'd guess, getting in is pretty competitive, and there's even competition between other admissions officers.  Portia's boss (Wallace Shawn) is stepping down soon, and she and her rival (Gloria Reuben) are the top candidates to replace him.  There's a subplot in there about Princeton's ranking dropping and it's implied that whomever does a better job will take over, but it's really not a main thread of the film.

Portia goes on a recruiting trip to an alternative high school ran by John Pressman (Paul Rudd).  He introduces her to a gifted student, Jeremiah (Nat Wolff), but the twist is that John reveals that Jeremiah might be the baby Portia gave up for adoption back in college.  Portia takes an interest in Jeremiah and tries to help him through the process. In another 'surprise' twist, Portia and John start to fall for each other.

If this doesn't sound like the setup to a hilarious comedy, well, that's because it isn't. Admission is another example of a movie where the trailer really lies to you about the type of movie you're going to see.  If this had been billed as more of a straight up drama, or even a dramedy, then perhaps it wouldn't have been such a disappointment.  The disappointment is compounded by the fact that the comedic elements are sparse to begin with and really uneven.  It ranges from subtle to very broad and silly in parts. It's interesting to note that the dramatic elements of the film were the more interesting parts that worked.  Jeremiah comes off as a bright and earnest kid, which is a credit to Nat Wolff's performance, and Portia's struggle with her own relationships and whether or not to reveal her relation to Jeremiah seemed genuine.

There is good chemistry between Paul Rudd and Tina Fey, but again, it's a shame to get such likable comedic actors and not really give them much to work with.  I think it would have helped to let Rudd improv a little more, and Fey should have taken a pass at the script to punch it up a little.  I think their pairing is the only thing that keeps you watching the movie though.

The script by Karen Croner is based off the book of the same name by Jean Hanff Korelitz.  Another strength of the story were the elements that detailed the arduous admission process.  The film could have been a bigger indictment of the process, but it never quite goes there.  Overall, Admission had a little too much going on, and would have been better to pick a consistent direction.  It's close to two hours, which was excessive and could have used some tightening up.  For example, there's another plot involving John's and his adoptive son (Travaris Spears), that I'm sure they thought added depth to John's character, but it really just added to the number of threads that needed to be trimmed.

Another element that seemed out of place was the inclusion of Portia's mom, played by Lily Tomlin.  Initially, her character was funny, but got sillier the more she was used.  There was also a weird gag involving Portia's ex (Michael Sheen), that wasn't funny in the first place, but then they ran it into the ground.  Then again, I shouldn't be surprised at the inclusion of silly, unnecessary comedy from the guy that directed Little Fockers.  Director Paul Weitz started off great with films like the first American Pie (although it doesn't hold up all that well if you watch it now) and About a Boy, but there seems to be a steady decline since then.  Admission isn't the worst film he's directed, but he really needed to make some stronger choices with the story, or brought someone in (you've already got Tina Fey) to punch up the script.

Admission isn't a terrible movie, but it's hard not to look at it as a missed opportunity.  They brought together Paul Rudd and Tina Fey, but had them work off a really inconsistent script that just couldn't settle on a tone.  As a drama, it's not the worst thing out there, but if you're looking for a good romantic comedy, then you're going to be disappointed.  Stick to rental on this one.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

This is 40 (2012) - Movie Review

Was the working title of this film "This is Misery"?

I say that because if there was ever a movie where I felt the message they were trying to tell me that marriage and having kids is a miserable experience, it would be This is 40.  Billed as the "sort-of sequel to Knocked Up", we catch up with Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) a few years after the events of Knocked Up.  I thought it was odd that there was no cameo from either Katherine Heigl (you do see a picture of her on the wall though) or Seth Rogen, which seemed like a missed opportunity. Granted Heigl is probably on Judd Apatow's shit list after what she said about Knocked Up, but Rogen is still in Apatow's camp.  Also, as the movie centers around the relationship with their families and their 40th birthdays, it seems odd that known family members would have no mention or involvement in the film.

One of the biggest issues with This is 40 is that there's really no plot at all.  It's the Seinfeld of movies in that it's a movie about nothing.  You're just watching a short snapshot of these people dealing with their issues.  The other odd part was that the movie takes place over the course of a single week.  I only know this because the movie begins with Debbie's birthday, and they say Pete's birthday is in the same week (the film ends with Pete's birthday party).  Despite the short time frame of the film, I felt like I watched several months of their lives.  At one point you see their living room and notice there's a Christmas tree and wonder how much time has passed.  Were we in December the whole time?

Even with no plot and only a week elapses, I felt like there was too much going on and too many side characters.  How many issues do these people have?  You're watching Pete deal with the lack of success of his independent record label, and how that's causing financial strain he hasn't shared with Debbie.  Debbie owns small boutique store that seemed to have huge sales numbers, and they are alerted to a missing twelve thousand dollars, but didn't have any urgency over finding where it went.  This leads to a side plot involving an unnecessary Megan Fox and Charlyne Yi. Their oldest daughter Sadie (Maude Apatow) for some reason has a fascination with Lost even though that's been off the air for a few years, and never stops yelling.  There's a side plot involving the mother of a boy (Melissa McCarthy) after the boy and Sadie have a Facebook fight.  Debbie is dealing with the resentment she feels towards her absent father (John Lithgow), and Pete's father (Albert Brooks) has been guilting them into lending him money constantly.

In typical Judd Apatow fashion, the film is way too long and really needed to be cut down.  I don't understand why a movie with no plot needed to be over two hours.  Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a long movie, and I normally love Judd Apatow's style, but this is the first of his films where I really felt the meandering length of the film.  It just kind of ends without any resolution to any of their issues, and it doesn't cover enough time in their lives to show any growth of the characters.

Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad.  There are many hilarious moments, but the movie was arranged where all the laughs came in blocks or montages of funny scenes.  When there aren't laughs though, everyone is fighting and yelling and nobody seems happy.  Katherine Heigl had a complaint about Knocked Up where she said, "It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys,"  After watching This is 40, I have to say I understand what she was saying.  I couldn't help but think that Debbie was always bitching and shrill, where Pete was always made to look like a nice guy.  I find it odd that Judd Apatow would make a movie about marriage and family life that paints it in such a negative light and cast his own wife and children in the movie.  I hope he's not making a commentary about his own personal life.

For the most part the performances are all fine, even if I didn't necessarily love the characters. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are good as the leads and do the type of work you normally expect out of them.  I actually got more out of a lot of the supporting characters, even though there were too many of them.  I thought Albert Brooks was funny every time he was on screen.  Melissa McCarthy had the funniest moment of the film (stay for her scene during the credits).  Jason Segel has a good sequence involving Chris O'Dowd and Megan Fox, but again, many of these characters just seemed unnecessary or underdeveloped.

This is 40 is an uneven and overlong film.  It's a mixed bag of funny or insightful scenes, but then times that make you never want to get married or have kids.  If you're a Judd Apatow fan, I think it's worth a watch at some point, but save it for rental.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) - Movie Review

This one is for the misfits...

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is beginning his first day of high school.  He narrates the film through a series of letters written to an anonymous friend.  Despite his sister being a senior, and his older brother being a popular football player, Charlie doesn't expect that he's going to fit in very well and dreads it.  He goes as far as to have already counted out the number of days left until he's done with high school.

On the outside, there's really nothing wrong with Charlie. He's smart, but introverted, kid.  Even he thinks it's pretty sad that his only friend is his English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd).  Mr. Anderson has more of a mentorship role with Charlie, who encourages his reading and to become a writer.  One day, he meets seniors Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson), who he initially mistakes for a couple, but learns there are really step-siblings.  Patrick is an eccentric class clown who is called "Nothing" by his classmates after an old joke, but still embraces his outsider status.  Patrick and Sam introduce Charlie to their circle of friends, and take a liking to him once they realize there's more to him. Sam accepts him into the group by saying, "Welcome to the island of misfit toys."

As Charlie hangs out with the group he comes out of his shell and his confidence grows.  The world kind of opens up for him, going to parties and experimenting with drugs, among other things. This isn't a wild party movie though, it's a realistic look at high school.  It captures all those feelings and events that you remember: being awkward, first love/crushes, being picked on, going to dances and football games.

One thing that caught me off guard was the movie's setting.  You see many exchanges of mixed tapes throughout the film and I thought at first that this was some sort of hipster thing.  I realized as the movie went on that it's actually set in late 80's or early 90's.  Nobody has cell phones and they drive older cars that you'd expect a high school student without a lot of money to drive.  It's done well and doesn't slap you in the face with it's time period.  Plus, I was never bothered that the exact time wasn't clear.  It didn't really matter, as a movie like this feels timeless.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a familiar story, yet still told in a way that feels fresh and authentic.  That's due in large part to the great performances.  Everyone in the cast is sympathetic, likable, and not a bunch of high school stereotypes.  There are many things that all of the characters go through that will feel familiar to you.

I've never really paid much attention to Logan Lerman before, but I really enjoyed him here.  He plays the shy, quiet kid so well that you're in his corner right from the beginning.  When you see people be mean to him it makes you mad.  You get excited about his first crush, and when he goes to prom.  You really are along for the ride with him.

While the story is about Charlie, the breakout star of the film is Ezra Miller as Patrick.  If you remember his creepy performance in We Need to Talk About Kevin, this is a complete 180 for him.  As you'd expect as the class clown, he's very funny, but there's more to Patrick than being the clown.  The movie explores that, as well, without it feeling like a thrown in plot point.

It's nice to see Emma Watson moving on from Harry Potter.  She had a small, almost forgotten, role in My Week with Marilyn last year, but has a more substantial role this time around.  Sam is a sensitive, yet damaged young woman who admits her issues with picking the wrong men, and you really feel the vulnerability in Emma's performance.  Plus, I almost forgot Emma Watson was British, as she pulls off a pretty good American accent.

Adapted from his novel of the same name, writer/director Stephen Chbosky wrote a wonderful story.  I can't think of too many times where the writer of a novel ended up writing and directing the movie as well, but it worked here.  Obviously, it's a faithful adaptation, but it doesn't feel indulgent. The movie isn't melodramatic or cheesy, but rather very sincere and realistic.  It's also much funnier that I was expecting without being too indie or quirky.  Just when you think it's going to end, it takes a darker turn and gives you more insight into Charlie's past that makes it all that much more poignant.  I heard many sniffles in the audience in the third act and it was earned, rather than something that was contrived.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a very heartfelt and honest look at friendship, first love and finding yourself.  "Perks" is well written, directed and acted.  It's a very nostalgic look at high school, and if you've ever felt shy or out of place I think this will really speak to you.  I strongly recommend checking it out.

4.5 (out of 5) Death Stars