Mission: Impossible - Fallout: Tom Cruise Must Have Sold His Soul To Satan

Take some notes, people who are responsible for Jurassic World movies. Actually take a second to pay attention to how one franchise, really the only franchise doing it at the moment, knows what its audience is clamoring for - knows how to deliver that - and knows how to improve upon its predecessor. In short, the Mission: Impossible movies are somehow getting better. It's a rare feat that a franchise that's run this long (22 years so far), with the same leading guy (he's probably a robot), is actually improving upon itself with each addition. Sequels have this weird tendency to need to TOP the action in the previous movies. The sequels feel that in order to impress an audience it needs to be bigger and louder and more expensive and all of that, yet the stories and the characters suffer because of it (cough, cough Jurassic World). These movies don't try to top the previous entries, they just try to make them fun and exciting and entertaining and something the audience actually wants to see - and they succeed every time. Even the Bond movies have a clunker every couple of films (I'm looking at you Spectre). The only other franchise that is doing something somewhat similar is the Fast & Furious franchise, but even they run into the pitfall of the toppers game. Seriously, in the last movie The Rock reaches out from the truck he's in and changes the trajectory of a missile with his bare hands. Fast & Furious movies are fun and dumb. Mission: Impossible is still smart, engaging, and an absolute blast.

I get that there are some action stars that transcend time. There are actors that can do this forever and we'll still watch most of their movies. Liam Neeson, no matter how old, can still draw a crowd. I just watched Denzel beat the shit out of like thirty dudes in The Equalizer II last week and actually believed he was physically capable to do so. Even Sylvester Stallone is still making Expendables movies well into his 70s. Tom Cruise is like 5'6'' with a dipshit face and a bit of an over-actor's mentality. Yet, for some reason, he's been able to keep a franchise afloat for twenty-two years and each movie makes more money than the last. It doesn't even seem possible. Hell, when the franchise started, the first sequel they made was so tonally off and unfocused (and absolute garbage) it looked like it was already the demise of the franchise. They couldn't even make the second movie in the franchise better than the first. So, how in the hell is the sixth movie probably the best one so far (and, let's be honest, the last three have been stellar). How is Tom Cruise doing what Sylvester Stallone isn't? And don't say it's because Tom Cruise still looks forty and Sly looks like a leather purse packed with pork. Whatever the reason is... these movies are fantastic and so very entertaining.

In a pretty cool move, director Christopher McQuarrie (who helmed the previous film) has decided to do an actual sequel to the last one. It's not JUST a new adventure, but the plot is a continuation of the last film, including bringing back the villain from the previous film, who is integral to the plot of this one. Most entries into the Mission: Impossible franchise don't exactly call back to the stories of the other movies and are their own individual adventures. This one is continues on with the story of villain Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) and his group of terrorists known as The Syndicate, who is looking to bring terror and destruction to governments and the world in order to bring peace (or something). After Ethan Hunt has captured Lane at the end of the last film, Lane's cronies have gone rogue - guns for hire - calling themselves now The Apostles. They've purchased some rare and expensive plutonium and have made some seriously massive nuclear weapons they can sell to the highest bidder or use to enact their vision of "peace". Ethan and his team - including Simon Pegg's character Benji, and of course, Ving Rhames' Luther - enact a plan to steal the plutonium and get the weapons out of the hands of The Apostles. Along the way, the CIA, who is now watching IMF's every move is sending along an agent to oversee the mission, Agent Walker (Henry Cavill). And, lastly, Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), manages to find her way into the mix.

Now, while every time a character in the movie said the word 'plutonium' with a serious face, it was hard not roll my eyes and giggle - the movie was actually very well plotted and planned. There's fun in the way the IMF team execute their plans as agents "in Halloween costumes" (as one character puts it), but in this film nearly nothing goes to plan and a lot of the action sequences come from characters having to improvise on the spot how to continue the plan, alter the plan, escape from a failed plan and everything in between. It's difficult enough to write an action movie with a clever plan enacted - what McQuarrie did was write a clever plan, give that plan clever obstacles, and write characters who have to change said plan in intelligent ways and then still get done what needs done. It's almost difficult to keep track of who is good and who is not and who is doing what in the film, but it's not a hindrance of the film either, it's part of the fun of watching the movie and trying to figure out the twists and turns.

The action sequences are something to behold as well. They're gorgeously shot and because Tom Cruise had to have sold his soul to the Scientology devil long ago, he actually does most of his stunts so the camera doesn't have to keep cutting away every 2.3 seconds and we get to see Cruise up close in the action. The difference between a Mission: Impossible movie and a Jason Bourne movie is in the latter the action is so frenetic and shaky because it needs to be stylized, but it also needs to conceal the stunt double. Tom Cruise is a fucking madman crazy person who does all his own stunts so the camera doesn't have to cut away. When he's leaping from building to building, we get to watch Cruise do it because he ACTUALLY DID IT. When he's hanging from a helicopter, we get gorgeous angles and shots we've never seen before in a movie because he's ACTUALLY DOING IT. There's a motorcycle chase in the movie that lasts a good ten to fifteen minutes that's particularly thrilling because it's Tom Cruise weaving in and out of traffic ACTUALLY DOING IT. The man is out of his mind (in the best way possible) and that's why we get these amazing movies from a franchise that, by all logic, should've died fifteen to twenty years ago.

There's also the smart moves the franchise has made with casting people who have good chemistry with each other. Your franchise is never going to get worse with someone as quirky and funny and likable as Simon Pegg. He always adds a breath of fresh air to any film he's part of. Ving Rhames isn't doing much outside the franchise, but as a part of the IMF team (an OG member) he's still perfect - and actually gets a couple of moments to show off those acting chops in this film as well. Rebecca Ferguson, the best female actor ever written into one of these movies, is back to showcase her badassery and hang in the boy's club - and even after two movies they STILL haven't tried to make her Ethan's love interest. She's such a smart character that's devoid of all woman-in-a-spy-thriller tropes. The only person who kinda stood out like a sore thumb, to me at least, is Henry Cavill. The dude has a hokey American accent. And while it works as Clark Kent and it worked in The Man From U.N.C.L.E., it's off-putting here. Physically he's a hulk of a man and his presence in action scenes is great because he's terrifying, but whenever he speaks it's a little more than awkward and feels forced where everyone else feels natural. I also did miss the presence of Jeremy Renner, who I felt fit in with this group of agents quite nicely, but his ties to Marvel unfortunately kept him out of this one. I did like that they didn't try to explain away his absence, because it's never a good explanation.

Everything about this movie is a blast. It's thrilling, it's fun, and even if you despise Tom Cruise, you're going to be seriously entertained. The set locations only add to the beauty of the action sequences, and there's plenty of those throughout. One in particular is fascinating because there's no music to accompany it. There's a lengthy car chase scene that has none of that cliché action movie music attached to it. There's only the roar of the engine and the screeching of the tires and it somehow made the chase MORE intense and thrilling. The movie feels like one long action sequence, yet McQuarrie is still able to quiet things down for a bit and give us three dimensional characters that don't bog down the pacing of the film. And while there's no clear "set up" for another film, there are some unresolved issues in this film that will allow the franchise to continue. After four fantastic films in a row - with completely new and original storylines that don't repeat themselves - I'm on board for twenty more of these movies. And I think audiences will be as well. I can't wait to watch it again.

A

Eighth Grade: Painfully Beautiful

Here's the scene for you - I live in Pasadena. There are only two theaters in Pasadena (several more in the surrounding cities). There's the indie theater down the street from me, the Laemmle, and there's the Arclight. I've never seen a film at the Arclight because, while it does get some of the limited films that take a few weeks to reach mainstream audiences, they also charge nearly $20/ticket (and they don't accept Movie Pass). So, today my fiancé and I found ourselves standing in line outside the Arclight for a free test screening of the upcoming film Bad Times at the El Royale (if you don't know what it is - go watch the trailer right now.... then come back to this). However, once the screening filled up halfway, they started weeding out people waiting to enter looking only for the  "key demographic". My fiancé is 28-years-old. Not exactly the demo they're looking for with a film like that. So, once they hit their quota of females under 34 years of age, they didn't need/want anymore in to give their feedback. This sounds harsh, but the test screenings are for marketing purposes and, I guess, whatever, I understand. What they did do, however, is they handed out free passes to see any film at the Arclight for today only. Me being the movie guy that I am have already seen almost all the movies out. So, it was either Mamma Mia 2 (hell to the fuck no) or a film I'd only recently heard about - Eighth Grade. I hadn't seen a trailer for the film, but I knew it was getting some great buzz from Sundance. I knew it was comedian Bo Burnham's writing/directing debut. And I knew it had a 98% on Rottentomatoes. Figured we'd take a chance. Hell, it was two $20 tickets for a free movie at the Arclight. Might as well, right?

While I was extremely excited to get a sneak peek of (and lend my expert feedback to ;) ) Bad Times at the El Royale (seriously, the movie looks so freakin' cool), it was a blessing in disguise that we didn't get to see it and instead saw this film... because it's amazing. With as much as I read about and watch and research movies, it's not often that I go into a film blind. Eighth Grade blew me out of the water. What appears, on the surface, to be a coming of age film about a young eighth grade girl named Kayla (portrayed by the phenomenal Elsie Fisher), turns out to be much more. Kayla is a contemporary 13-year-old trying to fit in at her school in, you guessed it, eighth grade. It's the last week in middle school before going off to high school and Kayla begins the film like your typical middle schooler. She's constantly glued to a screen, she's awkward around her peers, she gets crushes on guys and practices kissing her hand while watching him flex in the mirror in an Instagram video, she's angsty toward her goofy father, and everything in her life is at life-or-death levels. However, who we see Kayla as first isn't exactly indicative of who she really is. We meet Kayla as she's recording one of her "self-help" YouTube videos (giving out teenage-y wisdom for vague life complexities like "how to put yourself out there" and "how to be yourself"). But, as we follow her through her school day, we see that the advice she's throwing to the YouTube masses is really advice she wants to give herself. She's quiet, she's awkward, she doesn't have many friends, and all she wants is to be considered cool by her peers. She even makes a list of things she wants to accomplish that is comprised of make more friends, make a best friend, and maybe perhaps get a boyfriend. But she's just too uncomfortable with herself and awkward as a person to really stand out of the harsh, judgemental, eighth grade crowd.

The plot itself is really just us watching Kayla in her final week of eighth grade, but it's SO REAL. Much like Boyhood does for men, showing the awkwardness and unpleasantness of being a pre-pubescent boy, Eight Grade does this for women. And while I didn't necessarily internally comprehend all of the struggles Kayla experiences (my fiancé REALLY did), I was able to empathize with her and remember moments of my life that were similar to what Kayla goes through. Every moment with her is very difficult to watch based solely on the fact of how uncomfortable it makes the viewer. You truly feel for Kayla and want her to succeed and want the other middle school girls to like her and give her a chance, but that's not real life. When she's dropped off at a birthday pool party for a popular girl who didn't want to invite her in the first place, watching her walk out to the pool alone (as the only girl in a one-piece bathing suit), jump in the pool alone, and remain entirely invisible to everyone around her, it's painful to watch. Seriously, the movie is like the 90-minute equivalent of watching the episode "Scott's Tots" on The Office. Much like a good horror movie, I found myself often squirming in my seat and constantly moving my hands around different parts of my face, it was so torturous. Every situation Burnham writes Kayla into is another moment of humiliation we're unprepared to witness, and these aren't humongous life-altering moments either. Even myself, a 30-year-old adult, knows that these moments don't matter at all in the grand scheme of life - FEEL like they do while watching the film. You don't want Kayla to get embarrassed by the gift she gives the popular girl, but when it's rejected as "uncool", it's a punch straight to the gut. If the point of a film is to make the audience feel and react to what's happening on screen, I felt more and reacted to more in this movie than any movie I've seen in recent memory.

The great thing about the movie, though, is that Burnham isn't doing this to torture his character - or his audience for that matter. He's showing what it's like for a young girl to grow up in the current social media dominated world. Yes, a lot of the movie involves Kayla glued to the screen of her phone or her computer or her webcam - but Burnham is less interested in exploiting the fact that teenagers live for this and more interested in WHY they are, and more namely, WHY Kayla is. By eighth grade, one hasn't fully discovered who they are as a person yet. Eighth graders are finally starting to take shape (both physically and mentally) but there's still a lot of living and experiencing to go through in order to discover their true self. When Kayla finally has a breakthrough that everything in her life isn't as important as she thinks it is, it's a true sign of growth and a wonderful change to be able to experience with her. Burnham exposes the good in social media, as well as the bad. The crush Kayla has is on a boy (with gorgeous eyes) who only gives her the time of day when she implies that if she ever got a boyfriend, she'd send him "dirty pictures" of herself. This immediately piques the boy's interest (an interest that was non-existent until that point), but Kayla is too young to even understand the implication of what she's saying. She just wants his attention, but this is the danger and the fear of social media around current youths today. It's difficult to watch and even think about, but it is very, very real.

Credit where credit is due though - Bo Burnham doesn't shy away from taboo problems involving tweens, but he doesn't linger unnecessarily long on them either. And how he was able to get inside the mind of an eighth grade female and write her and direct her as accurately as humanely possible is also something I'm having a difficulty understanding. It's no easy feat, yet he's crafted a film and a character the audience can sympathize AND empathize with, whether you're male or female. But the shining star of the film is Fisher. She's so good in the film, it feels like there wasn't even a script for her to reenact. She's so natural it feels like Burnham just followed her around with a camera for a week and edited together a movie. It's amazing to watch someone so young go through all of the complexities and awkwardness of a person her age - especially as someone she claims is virtually opposite her normal personality. I wouldn't have felt half the feels I felt watching the movie if her performance wasn't so tragically wonderful. And I hope there are many more great things awaiting her as an actor.

Eighth Grade isn't available in wide release yet. But it's earning a lot of buzz and making quite a bit of money in its limited showings. Hopefully, with much positive word-of-mouth, it'll find its way to a theater near you and you can experience all of the emotions and heartache and straight up mental and physical discomfort as I did, but leave the theater appreciating what a wonderful and beautiful piece of art you just witnessed. It's a magnificent film.

A

The Equalizer II: All Hail Denzel

As much as I can enjoy and appreciate movies like Phantom Thread and Manchester By the Sea and The Shape of Water and Boyhood and all the movies that are supposed to be considered great... I'm a 90s kid. I grew up watching action movies like Face/Off and Con Air and True Lies and Bad Boys. I will always rave about the "artistic" films when they're good, but they're not the movies I get excited to see, excited to re-watch, excited to show and share with others. I love mindless action movies. I can award a movie like The Shawshank Redemption an A grade and still feel justified in giving Face/Off an equal grade. What each movie set out to accomplish, they succeed in. In 2002 Bad Boys II entertained me far more than About Schmidt did - even though that film was fantastic. Had I a movie blog sixteen years ago, I probably would've rated BBII an A, and About Schmidt an A-. That doesn't mean that the quality of About Schmidt wasn't up to what BBII presented, I just had more fun watching the latter (and I was also twelve years old). I also seriously love Denzel Washington. He's MY Tom Hanks. I will watch the dude in anything. And what's great about him is he understands this divide between art and entertainment (though one could argue they're one in the same). For every Malcolm X and every Fences and every Philadelphia film he makes, he also makes a Safe House and a Man on Fire and a Deja Vu and an Equalizer. He just makes GOOD movies. But, if that means I get to watch him act his heart out AND kill the shit out of some bad guys - that's the ideal scenario for my ultimate movie watching experience.

I love that Denzel had never made a sequel before. It said to me that if he was ever going to do one, it would have to be a combination of a great character, a great story, great writing and a great director. And I couldn't be happier that he went with The Equalizer. The first movie is a blast as big D portrays Robert McCall, an ex-badass who is presumed dead by the world and acts as a vigilante for people who are criminally and violently wronged. He's very methodical in his action and nearly always gives the evildoers a chance at redemption (something they never take - and is always a mistake). This time around McCall is a Lyft driver, still keeping his head down and still fighting crime without a cape. When his longtime friend Susan (Melissa Leo) is killed while investigating a murder in Brussels, he takes it upon himself to solve her murder and bring her killers to an untimely demise. The Equalizer II does cut back on the violence as opposed to the first film. Don't get me wrong, dear friends, the moments when McCall has to kill someone - he makes YOU feel it. They're fleeting moments of violence (save for the last twenty minutes), but they weight heavily on the film. The rest is McCall solving the murder as well as mentoring and trying to straighten the path of a teen who lives in his building (Moonlight's Ashton Sanders). There's never a down moment, either. For those looking for a constant shoot-em-up will be surprised by the lack of action sequence frequency, but will never be looking at their phone, bored, waiting for the next one.

Denzel reunites for the fourth time with director Antoine Fuqua, who first directed him in Training Day and also helmed the first Equalizer. The two really are in sync with the type of movie they set out to make. Denzel wants to do an action movie, but he doesn't want it to be without substance. And it appears, neither does Fuqua. Fuqua is also very keen on making the most tension out of a scene. There are some slow and tense moments in the film that take the place of mindless action and these scenes find themselves to be just as thrilling as when you know Denzel is about the beat someone to a bloody pulp. The scenes with Denzel and Sanders are also very good. It's not an Equalizer film if Denzel isn't trying to save a troubled youth. There are a couple of really powerful moments between the two of them that you don't often find in action fare. Denzel knows what he's doing. And of course, there are the moments of violence that most moviegoers are paying for. And they're awesome. Denzel is pushing 64 years old and I still believe he could beat the crap out of everyone he faces in this film. The man is a true actor and he gives it his all no matter what type of film he's setting out to make. The Oscar movies are great, but movies like this one, they have to be the most fun.

Yes, I'm looking through Denzel-goggles when watching the film and I can excuse a lot more of the not-so-perfect moments that I may not forgive other actors for, I understand that. But when you get to the level of Denzel Washington, there's a certain amnesty we all afford. Sure, there's some bad green screen moments. There's a few bad lines. There's a handful of plot holes, but they don't detract from the film hardly at all. They were moments where I noticed something off or thought about how easy it would be to track him through being a Lyft driver and all that - but these ideas quickly left my mind because I was enjoying the film so much. Both films in the franchise compliment one another very well. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, they're just complimentary. They're the same in a few aspects, but very different in a lot of others (something that is pretty uncommon in sequels). It's not just a carbon copy of the first movie and you can bet that's exactly why Denzel, after his long and beautiful career, finally decided to agree to do a sequel. And anyone who watches this movie (other than nose-thumbing critics) will very much appreciate it.

A-

Ant-Man And The Wasp: Terrible Premise, Decent Movie

I don't understand Ant-Man. As a character, as a comic book, as a movie - I don't get it. Sure, I know a lot of superheroes are kinda stupid when you think about it. I mean, really, what's the difference between a Spider-Man, a Batman, and an Ant-Man? Well, for one, Spider-Man doesn't ride actual Spiders. Batman doesn't fly with a hoard of bats. Ant-Man is probably the most ridiculous Marvel (or any) superhero and there's no reason for him to exist. I never saw Ant-Man in theaters. For one, one of my top three favorite directors, Edgar Wright, was booted from the film when it had been his lifelong passion project. That turned me off completely. And second, I just didn't buy into it based off the premise and the trailer. Paul Rudd is extremely affable, but just the idea of Ant-Man is so ludicrous, without Edgar Wright attached, I had no desire to watch it. However, I finally got around to seeing it - when I learned that Adam McKay took over the writing duties from Edgar Wright - and I gotta say it perplexed me. All of my predispositions about the film were still correct. It's a stupid idea. It's a stupid character. But I actually kind of enjoyed the movie. I giggle even when thinking about how I didn't hate it and how impossible a feat that is. I didn't love it either, so I wasn't one of those crazy tent-dwellers camping outside the theater three days before the premiere of Ant-Man and the Wasp, but I did finally make my way to seeing it and I gotta say-- however you felt about the first film is exactly how you'll feel about the new one. 

Other than pure concept and storyline, the filmmakers of Ant-Man and the Wasp did nearly everything right. It's a very funny and fun and enjoyable movie - once you get over the fact that Paul Rudd plays a character who can control actual ants and Michael Douglas has the power to train ants to act like humans. I can say that I've never seen a movie where I've watched an ant take a bath or play Rock Band drums. I never asked to see that, but I can't say there's another film like it. Ant-Man and the Wasp hits a lot of the same Marvel sequel notes. All of the major players from the first film return. We don't get any further backstory because we already got it. The "new mission" the first film ended with is the mission they're working on in this film. And it ties in nicely with the other 19 films. It's two years after the events of Civil War. Scott Lang (Rudd) has been on house arrest for violating the Accords and is three days from getting his ankle monitor taken off. Hank Pym (Douglas) and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lily) are on the run from the government, trying to get Hank's wife/Hope's mother back from the Quantum Realm - where she's been trapped for the last 30 years. While trying to get the parts to make a device to allow them entrance into the realm, they cross a black market weapons dealer (Walton Goggins) and a new foe they've dubbed "The Ghost" (Hannah John-Kamen) who has her own plan for the parts they're trying to acquire. Things go south, all the characters converge, CGI action occurs and you should already know the rest. These Marvel movies, while really good the last few years, still have the same paint-by-numbers structure to them. The ingenuity and the originality comes from the colors used to draw within the lines. 

The fun of these films comes from the humor within them. They also have a lot of fun changing the size at rapid pace of its heroes. This is where Ant-Man flourishes. When we're watching what could be just another BAM! POW! BANG! Marvel action sequence, it can get a little stale. But with the Ant-Man character and his new partner, The Wasp, these scenes can be a lot of fun. Jumping in and out of miniaturization in the action sequences, hitting people with enlarged salt shakers or Pez dispensers is actually a blast to watch. The first Ant-Man pulled me out of the movie every time Scott has interactions with actual ants. It's brushed over so quickly how he's able to train and utilize actual ants in his missions that it never felt justified or real and so the absurdity made it feel off-putting and cartoonish. Ant-Man and the Wasp does away with a lot of this stuff. There's no scene where Scott is running at full speed with an entourage of ants, but his mode of transportation is now a flying ant. THAT I can live with. They do train a large ant to copy Scott's every move and wear his ankle monitor so the FBI doesn't notice he's gone. These scenes are terribly unfunny (even though they're used mainly for laughs), but there's only two or three of them and can be forgiven. Otherwise, the movie is a lot of fun. A lot of the good that comes from the film is because of the casting. While I don't necessarily buy Paul Rudd as a superhero/action-star, they use him well. He's not trying to be Captain America, he's still Paul Rudd if Paul Rudd just so happened to be put in this situation Scott is put into. He's still very likable and has a good chemistry with Evangeline Lily. Lily also gets a lot more screen time than the first movie and she lends a much-needed female presence to the Marvel universe. Michael Peña, T.I., Michael Douglas, Randall Park, Laurence Fishburne, and even Michelle Pfieffer (in her limited role) all add to the fun of the film. The cast LOOKS like they're having a good time, which lends to the audience's fun as well. 

The only character I didn't really buy was The Ghost. The Ghost is the "villain" of the film. Her character is sorta kinda trapped kinda in the Quantum Realm, but in our universe. She's the product of a science experiment gone wrong so the atoms in her body are constantly re-aligning themselves causing her endless amounts of pain. It also allows her to walk through walls and defy matter the way we can't. Her priorities lie in fixing herself so she can live a normal life. When she was younger she was captured by SHIELD and turned into a weapon, so that's why she's able to fight Ant-Man and The Wasp. But I never really bought her as a villain. Yes, I pitied her and I empathized with her character, but I've been able to do that in other Marvel movies and feel actual terror from the villain like this person might actually KILL the hero (like Killmonger in Black Panther). The stakes of the movie lie more in getting to Pym's wife in time than it is stopping the villain and without the stakes of a villain the movie doesn't have that tension most superhero movies thrive on. Even Walton Goggins' weapons dealer character feels more like a dopey prick than an actual threat. But, it is impressive that with low stakes, it can still have that big Marvel feel to it without an impending apocalypse plot. The movie is low-stakes, but it does have enough charm and humor and overall breeziness to stand among the Marvel greats as of late.

Like I said, I'll never buy into the idea of Ant-Man and is army of actual ants. Plus, all the science lingo is used so irresponsibly, you never really understand what they're doing and why they're doing it - you just accept it. It might as well have been spoken by the teacher from Charlie Brown. But I can stand beside a movie led by Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily as long as it keeps its eye on what works. Shrinking them down to ant-SIZE works. Watch an ant lazily sit on a cough eating Fruit Loops from the box does not. I also like that we get an explanation as to where Ant-Man is during the Infinity Wars and that the movie fits nicely into the universe. For those who don't know - and this is not a spoiler - the events of this film take place right before Avengers: Infinity War and it ends right when that movie does as well. If you just can't get past the ridiculousness of the character and didn't enjoy the first film, then this one isn't for you. It's for established fans of the series and those people are certainly not going to be let down. 

B-

Sorry To Bother You: A Smart Movie That Will Be Lost On Most Audiences

This is a very difficult review to write. Reviews are here to provide judgement of a movie and convince the reader of whether or not a film is deserving of their money and time and attention. A review serves to give a brief plot synopsis, a bit of analytical insight of the film, and breaking down what made the film good, bad or middling. I can't really do any of that with Sorry To Bother You. Plain and simple - this movie is smarter than I am. Yes, I am able to see the messages behind the film, but much like Get Out there's an overall theme that's being explored, but the bigger theme is pieced together like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and each piece has its own social commentary to compile the bigger picture. That's what Sorry To Bother You is like. After I finally understood what rapper and now writer/director Boots Riley was conveying with his "big picture" commentary, I kept looking for the little messages in individual scenes and I'd say more than half of them went over my head. Sorry To Bother You is not your typical Hollywood summer fare and the movie will be lost on most audiences. But for those it can actually speak to, it's a very important film. 

Sorry To Bother You, much like Get Out, is going to stay with you for a long time. I've been reading interviews with director Riley ever since walking out of the film to get more explanation of scenes that may have gone over my head, or I simply just misunderstood - and it turns out there's a lot. You remember when you realized in Get Out that the simple scene of Alison Williams' character eating dry Fruit Loops and sipping a glass of milk meant she was literally separating colors from whites? Yeah. That sort of subtle imagery is layered throughout nearly every scene of Sorry To Bother You (and it is, by no means, a subtle movie). It's fascinating to read Riley's explanations for certain scenes and directorial decisions. However, some scenes, he doesn't explain. Some scenes he simply WON'T explain because he needs it to mean something different to each viewer. There's an artistic beauty to the film that requires your own brain to think critically about what the director has conveyed to you. For me, I keep thinking about it. For others, (like the couple walking out of the theater next to us discussing the film--), it's just "a dumb movie" that you can't "unsee". 

I absolutely refuse to reveal anything about the movie to you. And if you've seen the trailer, you might've already seen too much. There's certainly an expectation you'll have entering the movie that will be demolished within a half hour of watching the film until it makes a hard right turn into what-the-fuck's-ville. The thing about the movie is it has a lot to say, but it doesn't say it lazily. It uses satire and an absurdist point of view to represent these impassioned views Boots Riley has. If you take what you see at face value - yeah, it's kinda dumb and doesn't make any sense. But to those people, Andy Warhol just liked to draw soup cans and Bansky is just a glorified tagger. If you haven't seen a trailer, I encourage you to enter it blindly. That's what Riley himself wants. He's even quoted in an interview in The Wrap as saying, "there are a lot of movies where people say you enjoy it more if you know as little as possible, but I really want that for the audience.” For one, this will limit your expectations and a lot of scenes that are in the trailer will be fresh and hit harder for you. 

Here's the even more difficult part for me - there's a difference between something being important and smart and subversive and culturally relevant and insightful-- and being enjoyable. I didn't really ENJOY this movie so much as I was fascinated by it. Most of the "laughs" (because it's being marketed as a comedy - but it's more of a dark satire) are in the trailer and the rest of the subject matter is a little David Lynch-ian to go "Man! I can't wait to see that again!" (Please don't let the comparison to David Lynch deter you from the film, it's just got that kind of stomach-churning weirdness to it that's common in Lynch movies... understand that this movie is wholly Boots Riley's.) The film is a different approach to a message about disenfranchisement told in an original and absurd way, but I don't know if I really enjoyed watching it. I appreciate it, I think it needs to be seen, and it certainly deserves the praise it's received thus far, but if I ever plan on watching it again, it'll be so I can challenge myself to find the understanding that Riley wants me to have with the film. I encourage you all - if you're up for your own challenge - to check it out so I can hear what interpretations you had while watching what I can certainly call the most original movie of the entire year. 

B

Skyscraper: The Towering Die Hard Inferno

You may not remember... or you might not be old enough... or it's just been too long... or maybe you do remember... but Summer used to be the TIME to go to the movies. They weren't just movies. They were events. Summer packed people in shoulder to shoulder to see the new action epic or high concept comedy. Yeah, I know Summer is still kinda like this, but back in the 80s and 90s these big budget epics were wholly original films. Summers lately have been pervaded by sequels and comic book adaptations and prequels and spinoffs and rarely is there a brand new concept like Summer movies used to be. It's July and people are standing in long lines waiting for The Rock or waiting for Independence Day or waiting for Twister or Men in Black or Liar Liar or Air Force One. It's a rarity that people gather in droves for the newest action or comedy in Summer that doesn't have a familiar title attached to it. There also aren't many stars in Hollywood that can bring audiences out by sheer fame of name alone. However, The Rock is one of these people. Attach his name to anything and you'll literally cough money into the hands of a box office attendee. One thing you can respect about Dwayne Johnson is he's willing to take risks. He's willing to take a spec script with no franchise attached to it, and agree to star in it - knowing full well it'll make a truckload of money because he's the face of it. Skyscraper may not be the best movie DJ has attached himself to... but it FEELS like a Summer movie from the 90s. And for that - I heartily recommend it.

I know it looks like a handful of different movies - Skyscraper is, indeed, an original film. I wouldn't say it "rips off" these movies, but it certainly pays homage to terrorist/disaster movies of the 70s and 80s, namely The Towering Inferno and Die Hard. DJ plays Will Sawyer, an ex-cop who lost a leg in the line of duty, runs an independent security company. He's brought in to oversee the security of The Pearl, the tallest man-made building of all time. Once there, terrorists break in, set the building on fire and enact their contrived evil plot. Sawyer is the man on the ground and the man inside. He's there to single-handedly take down each of these bad dudes one at a time and save his family trapped inside. The movie has a myriad of plotholes. The movie has some pretty corny dialogue. And the movie may not be the most original thing you'll ever see - but damn, if it's not fun. Johnson has enough charisma and is a big enough of a star to be able to keep the wheels turning in the film. The stakes are always high and while, in the back of your mind, you know he's going to succeed, writer/director Rawson Thurber injects enough conflict that it will legitimately keep you on the edge of your seat. Especially if you are afraid of heights. The scenes outside the building and up on the crane feel almost VR in nature and had me gripping the seat rests with the full force of my cringed fingers. The angles, the wind, the noise... all of it had my heart in my throat.

What's cool about Skyscraper is it's got that modernized remake feel to it. The technology is smarter. The action is bigger. The building is... taller. And it's fun to see what these movies Skyscraper is paying homage to would look like if they'd been made today. And while none of the original movies are without their own faults (except Die Hard... Die Hard is perfect), Skyscraper isn't perfect either. It's got some serious flaws. The two biggest ones include no formidable bad guy and no one for The Rock to talk to. What makes Die Hard or Air Force One or Under Siege or any movies with that formula good is you've got a big movie star facing an equally big foe. John McClane isn't as cool without going toe-to-toe with equally cool Hans Gruber. In Skyscraper the villains don't have that magnetism that DJ brings and therefore don't seem like much of a threat. I never once though that if they went one-on-one with The Rock that he would lose - and he's only got one leg! The other biggest problem is that The Rock spends a lot of the movie alone. This is a mistake because his on screen charisma is wasted without someone to spar lines with. And the other reason is that he is now forced to speak his plan out loud-- to no one. And it's jarring. There's a reason Sgt. Powell is such an important character in Die Hard. It gives McClane someone to talk to which organically allows him to explain his plans, as well as give more life to his character. The Rock can do a lot, but when he's alone and explaining to the audience himself what he's going to do next - the movie loses some of its life. Long story short - he needed a partner, or a the very least, some comic relief.

My final complaint with the movie is a small one, but it bugged me nonetheless. Most of the characters throughout the film are going through an inferno of fire and debris, and no one sweats. There are a couple of times you'll get a shot of The Rock with some soot and some moisture on his forehead, but it's hardly what I'd label sweat. Occasionally, it took me out of the film. Other than that, I had a really good time. Writer/director Thurber has got a good thing going with The Rock and seems to be making movies that not only audiences will enjoy, but movies that he WANTS to be making. If I was a writer/director, I'd be wanting to make movies like the ones he makes. He began with Dodgeball, following it up with We're The Millers, began working with The Rock in Central Intelligence and now Skyscraper. He's also just inked another deal for a high concept, big budget action thriller with The Rock for next year as well. The guy makes entertaining and fun movies. And with a background in comedy, he's able to breathe some extra brevity into these movies that could get stuck too dark and too serious for its own good. He also gives The Rock a lot more fun stuff to do. Skyscraper doesn't take itself too seriously and it knows what it's trying to do. There are subtle and not-too-subtle nods to the movies it's honoring and it's a good reason to head to the theater. I do wish Hollywood would make more movies like this because with the saturation of Summer fare we've learned to live with over the past decade or so, even a flawed movie like Skyscraper feels like a breath of fresh air.

C+

The First Purge: A Misguided Indictment, But An Indictment All The Same

By the time a fourth entry in a franchise is released - no matter what franchise - everyone watching the movie should know what to expect. The Purge franchise is no different. The only exception with these films is that the quality of the movies do seem to get a tad better with each entry. The acting improves with each one, the stories, the characters, and the tension. But... the structure of each movie remains the same. The first film (which I consider to be the weakest entry) centralized on a single house with a single family being terrorized by purgers. The second film expands to the city with several different groups dealing with the Purge (this movie is barely better than the first). The third film, which I still believe to be the strongest entry, is focused on a politician up for election who is running on a platform of ending the purge once and for all. Now, with The First Purge - it's the same thing once again, except it's not a sequel, it's exactly what it sounds like-- it's the first purge. We get to see the inception of it and how it came to be the country wide phenomenon it becomes in the first three films. And it's... exactly what you'd expect. If you've enjoyed any of the other films, this will be enjoyable for you. Even though it's a prequel - it's the same structure. And while it is better than the first two films, it still falls short of its message and goal.

The problem with The Purge movies - that has pervaded every one of them - is that they've got a GREAT concept. And a terrifying one at that. But, they've never really been able to capitalize on the concept. The first movie used it as a guide for the thrills. The next three have used it as the actual plot. After the first two films, it seemed like the filmmakers realized they had a film that could reflect the current political atmosphere and could do what a lot of horror films don't - actually have something to say. So, while The Purge: Election Year was basically just an indictment of conservatives... The First Purge is now able to comment on hot topics in our current political landscapes, especially the marginalization of people of color. In its creation, Dr. Updale (Marisa Tomei) uses it as a purely social experiment to study. However, the "new" government calling themselves The Founding Fathers have a more sinister plan behind it. The first Purge - called "The Experiment" is tested only in low-income areas of Staten Island while the whole world watches. Low income families and individuals are offered $5,000 just to stay on the island for the Purge. They're offered more money if they "participate". When people aren't killing each other left and right (like the Founding Fathers had expected), they send in Mercenaries disguised as gangs to begin wiping everyone out.

This film follows a couple of protagonists - first there's Nya (Lex Scott Davis) and her little brother Isaiah. Nya is an activist against the Purge and Isaiah wants the money to get him and his sister out of the slums they live in. As good as his intentions are, Isaiah causes more trouble for the two of them than he means to. Then there's Dmitri (Y'Ian Noel), a local drug kingpin with his own small empire, trying to hold down the fort with his lackies, attempting to make sure no one tries to bring his empire down. Luckily for us, Dmitri is the criminal with a heart of gold. He's a Staten Island boy and he cares about the people around him, so when shit hits the fan - he reacts in the name of good. Now, here's where The First Purge could've really said something with substance. It's a real opportunity to comment on where we're at right now as a country. However, while its heart is in the right place, it never truly finds the best way to go about making these moments of commentary. Every image that reflects real-life instances are too overt to make any real impact. Sure, there is a scene where a purger tries to attack Nya and actually "grabs her by the pussy"... to which she screams: "pussy-grabber". Yes, there are purgers dressed in cop uniforms with scary masks beating down a black man. Yes, these images do conjure up feelings of real life instances, but they never really have anything beyond the image to say about them. I do think it is important for these filmmakers to try and make statements beyond just creating a horror movie, but the handling of these statements feel very amateur. Like if a college filmmaker grabbed a bunch of headlines from the past two years, didn't delve into the real stories of them, and attempted to make what he or she thought were astute observations. The one thing The Purge movies have never really taken into consideration is subtlety. And subtlety can make all the difference.

Otherwise, the movie succeeds in being a pretty tense action-horror. There's still the suspenseful scenes and a few scares. There are terrifying costumes and masks and fear-inducing villains. There's some cool action - though this one did try to be a little bit too John Wick-esque, which felt a bit bizarre in this franchise. The acting has gotten much better. I like that The Purge films do find unknowns to lead the films since Ethan Hawke in the first one - but some of the acting in the other films have been sup-par. This one, everyone is great. I could see both Davis and Noel going on to do great things. I'll give The First Purge this- it's really trying. One can see that they're not JUST going for the cash grab. Yes, it's a franchise that could've ended with the last one. And yes, they're doing a ten episode miniseries of it later this year. Yes, these are all cash-grabby things to do. But they're at least trying to say SOMETHING in these movies. They're exposing the ugly in our country right now - a country that doesn't even have a Purge. The ways in which they're trying to do this may be misguided and a little bit too on the nose - they're trying. And I can respect the films, especially this one, for that. There's nothing new under the Purge-riddled sun... but they're not getting worse either.

C+

Sicario - Day Of The Soldado: Benecio Del Toro Is So F&$#ing Cool

This is a tale of two very different movies. The first Sicario was a tense political thriller that took an in depth look at law and morality. Is it okay to break the law if it means getting the bad guys? Is it okay to torture the hell out of the bad guy if it means getting the worse guy? The fact that the men are the ones doing all of the immoral and unethical actions while the woman is the voice of reason is another layer to an already subtextually riddled film. Sure, on the surface it's a small little action thriller set in the Mexican desert. But, below that surface are several commentaries about our government's involvement in things we may or may not have the right to be sticking our noses into. When I first saw the film I thought it was decent, but I never really understood Emily Blunt's role. She's constantly used and undermined by her male counterparts, and is never allowed to do anything exciting in the movie except protest these immoral actions of others. The first time I saw it, I felt like her role was a fault. After watching it again, I realized that her character is us... the audience. She's left in the lurch, like we're left in the lurch. She's used and manipulated just like we are used and manipulated. We don't get the full comprehension of what's going on in the film... until she does. And it's a really smart way of writing what could've otherwise been just an average action thriller. But that was Sicario. Sicario - Day of the Soldado is a different story.

This next film does away with the Emily Blunt character completely (which I think was the right move. As much as I love her as an actress, her character's arc was finished and complete with the first film). Now, we're following Brolin's Matt character. After a series of suicide bombings on US soil, the government has figured out that these terrorists are shipping into Mexico and crossing the border with help from the cartels. Matt is brought in and asked to start a war between two rival cartels. That way the two cartels will take each other out and the US has complete deniability. Matt, of course, recruits his best man and sicario - Alejandro (Benecio Del Toro) to help. Their plan involves kidnapping the daughter of the head of one cartel and blaming it on the other. Once across the border, the kidnappers  become the heroes who, now acting as DEA agents, must go back into Mexico to return the girl and complete the circle that spins into inter-cartel war. However, things don't go to plan and Alejandro and the girl are separated from the rest of the group during a firefight. When the US government has seen this fuck up... they decide it's best to cover their tracks and Matt is tasked with taking out Alejandro and the girl.

Here's the difference between the movies-- the first film had a good guy. The first film had a voice of reason and a true moral center. This film-- there are no good guys. There's just guys we root for. Sicario started out with Blunt as the protagonist and ended with Del Toro's character as the one we were most interested in. He's an awful, awful, violent, scary character, but we can somehow empathize with him. He's also the character it makes most sense to center a sequel around. And while this film does kind of deal with the same themes from the first movie, there is no real commentary in this movie. There is nothing really extra being said about the state of the US and their unnecessary political involvements. Most of that is either carried over from the first film and not explored any further, or just put on the back burner in favor of story. And this is where some people (a good handful of critics) will find the movie to be significantly lacking. Sicario - Day of the Soldado foregoes any subtext and goes straight for the action-thriller throat. And while it may not have anything to truly say about the ethics and morality that was explored in the first film - it excels everywhere else. Where Sicario was tense... this one is TENSE. Where Sicario was nerve-wracking, this one is NERVE-WRACKING. Where Sicario was exciting... this one is EXCITING.

There's a certain grime and seediness to Taylor Sheridan's writing. Each of his films (Sicario, Wind River, Hell or High Water) have this constant feeling of dread even in the "safest" of scenes. And I think, while this isn't his best movie, it is his most suspenseful. You don't so much as watch Day of the Soldado as you do FEEL it. The writing, the constant tension and lingering feeling of dread along with the most guttural soundtrack makes this film a successful thriller. While I think the first Sicario has a lot more to say and contribute to society and real social issues... Day of the Soldado is a much more entertaining film. I actually found that I enjoyed it more than the first one. And the first one is brilliant. It may have something to do with the fact that Benecio Del Toro is just so fucking cool. I could've watched Alejandro bake a cake for two hours and would've been riveted as well as gripping the arm rests of my seat anticipating something horrible happening. We get a little deeper into the character of Alejandro and his relationship with Matt. His interactions with the kidnapped girl explore his humanity a little further, which is even more of a mind fuck considering we know what a complete unrelenting psychopath the dude is and can become at any second. Del Toro brings such a quiet and understated performance to the role of hitman that it's almost intoxicating. Brolin, whose name is definitely on the cool-guy scale, but not nearly up to Del Toro status. His character is a hot-headed American who's more in-your-face with his tactics instead of calculating. He hurts you with a shit-eating grin on your face, which IS cool. But there's something about a dude with zero expression on his face unloading a gun into someone - feeling absolutely nothing. The two of them, however, form one damn watchable duo on screen. One that I could continue watching in several movies if offered to me.

You know how I know Sicario - Day of the Soldado was a great film? I saw it at a 10:30pm showtime on a Tuesday... and the theater was packed. Rather than return my ticket and see it a different day, I resigned to sit in the second row from the front. These, as everyone knows, are the worst seats in the house. But, I really did want to see the movie. About five minutes into the film until the very end of the film - I completely forgot I was sitting up front. I was so glued to the action, to the characters, to the story, I forgot my neck was turned in an awkward direction and that I was probably very uncomfortable. If a film can make you forget about these things-- it's probably pretty decent. So, for those looking for another *smart* political commentary involving Americans conducting their shady business across the Mexican border, it's not the same as the first movie. There isn't anything new to discuss morality-wise. But it is a very capable action thriller that's upped the ante with the entertainment factor and badass character factor. Don't go for the analysis, go for the Benecio.

B+

Incredibles 2: The Views And Opinions Of This Review Do Not Necessarily Reflect Those Of The General Public

The Incredibles came out 14 years ago. Fourteen. Doesn't feel that long ago, does it? Fourteen years ago I was 16 years old, still young enough to enjoy animated films, but felt old enough to have outgrown them. My twenties would teach me that I'd never be too old for cartoons. I remember we all went as a family to see the movie because Pixar was the best thing in animation (much hasn't changed, but their resume was prefect-- this was before Cars). After watching the film I remember stepping out of the theater and just feeling... underwhelmed. It was the first time I'd been disappointed by a Pixar movie and I seemed to be the only one. Everywhere I went people were talking about how much they loved The Incredibles and critics were praising it as Pixar's best film ever even though this was after two Toy Story movies, Monster's INC., and Finding Nemo. I thought I was crazy. The Incredibles didn't hold a candle to these movies. And it's not like like I hated it either-- I was just underwhelmed. It was the first time I'd ever felt... bored... during a Pixar movie. And honestly, that was the last time I saw it. I've seen nearly every Pixar movie more than once (including Cars), but I've only watched The Incredibles that one time. So, here comes the sequel a decade and a half later and the reviews are just as praising of this one as they were the first film. Pixar has been on a TEAR lately, so I was excited to see it. They had to have fixed the faults of the first movie and with their track record what it's been lately-- it's gotta be good, right?

So, I obviously didn't remember a lot from the first film because I had some questions about this one. It starts a few months after the events of the first film and superheroes are illegal. However, our Incredible family pop up to stop a villain from robbing a bank and tearing up the city. But, the city gets torn up anyhow because of the destruction from the fight. Enter Winston Deavor and his sister Evelyn, the heads of a gigantic telecommunications company, DevTech, who are ready to put superheroes back on the map and show the world just how much good they accomplish. They select Elastagirl to be the face of this venture, much to the chagrin of Mr. Incredible. He feels it's his duty to be the leader and head of the household, but after discussing this with his wife, relents and she becomes the breadwinner, while he stays home to take care of the kids. And that's what 75% of the movie is. She's out fighting crime and being the face for all superhero-kind, and he's at home trying to learn new math and take care of the baby. Things I didn't remember about this world-- that superheroes were illegal to begin with, that it's set in some sort of cross between our time and the 50s (seriously almost all the set pieces, cars, TVs, radios are all 50s... yet they have cell phones and advanced technology and all that), and that the baby, Jack Jack has powers. I remember him having powers, yet everyone seems to be shocked that he does, including his parents. Did he not have powers in the first one, people?!

The first Incredibles movie, to me, felt too slow moving in the first half. Even as a sixteen year old it didn't grab my attention the way most Pixar and most animated movies do. But then, I thought, it probably was because I was a sixteen year old and was nearing the height of my douchery as a human being. However, now, as a thirty year old man, I felt the same way about Incredibles 2. I was bored. Several times. My fiancé was bored. Several times. There was a packed theater of children and the three or four next to us, when there weren't bright colors or action sequences... they looked bored. Several times. I don't know how to explain it because it's a decent story. One that normally wouldn't bore me. And I'm not the type of moviegoer who needs constant action and punch punch pow. But for some reason the Incredibles movies just don't speak to me. And just like the first film, from what I can remember, once we get over that first half hump and the real fun begins, I got a little bit more into the movie. The back nine of both Incredibles movies are fun, funny, and action-packed and very, very enjoyable, but the first half, to me, just feel lifeless. They're supposed to be showing the monotony of working a dead end job or the difficulties of staying home and raising a family when there are other desires tugging at your mind. But these scenes really do feel monotonous. There's hardly any humor or heart or fun to be had and as an adult I was fighting boredom, I can't imagine what that must be like for a child. So, once again, Incredibles 2 didn't really speak to me.

These movies also don't feel like Pixar movies to me. We have an established expectation from Pixar films. They have to be original (even the stories of its sequels), it has to have vibrant characters, it has to look better than any animated film around it, it has to be fun, it has to be funny, and it most likely is going to make you cry buckets. Incredibles 2 only has some of this stuff and the stuff it lacks feels like what most non-Pixar movies shoot for. First of all, it's gorgeous. The animation in these films are one-upping the last one with each entry. I marvel (ha!) at the effects of the live action superhero movies, but watching even crazier superheros do their animated thing is somehow even cooler. And it is a lot of fun in the second half, most of which comes from the storyline of Elastagirl trying to figure out who this new super villain is who is about to take over the world. And then, of course, the climactic fight at the end. But as far as characters go-- I didn't feel like there was much in the way of further development. It felt like this movie assumed you knew these people if you'd watched the first movie and that's all you needed to know. No more faults or traits needed to be explored in this one and you should just accept them because you should know them. And I didn't. Especially the kids. Violet is a teenager anxious about a date. Dash needs help with math. That's pretty much all you get in the way of character. And since there is hardly any character development, we don't get close to these characters, and there's no room for that Pixar heart we desire when we attend one of their films. I didn't expect Incredibles 2 to make me weep my guts up like Coco or Inside Out, but the creators at Pixar are so clever with their writing, I'm on tear-alert when I purchase a ticket. However, this time I was left face-dry. And! Speaking of clever writing-- the twist-- or like the reveal of the villain-- saw it coming a mile away. That's not the Pixar I expect. Incredibles 2 is more akin to Despicable Me 2 than it is to the quality of movies they're known for making.

I don't know. It's not a popular opinion to state that I'm just not a fan of the Incredibles films. This is the one contrarian review you're going to see and as a budding critic of film, my job is to guide my readers to see or not see a movie. This time I feel like my personal feelings, while valid, somehow aren't going to be yours. I'm going to nudge you in the direction of maybe wait until RedBox, but still somehow I feel like that's the wrong decision. I could tell you that if you had kids to definitely take them to see it, but now I feel like I'm doing a disservice to your children who will, most likely, be bored for a good portion of the beginning of the film. So, here's what I can say to you to decide (which, chances are you already know if you want to see this movie anyway without my input)-- to me, Incredibles 2 is a damned mirror image of the first one. Slow to start, gets exciting by the end. So, if you tolerated/liked/loved the first film, then chances are you will tolerate/like/love this one. And that's the best I can do with what they've given me.

D+