Disney Sequel Showdown- "The Lion King 1 1/2"

Disney Sequel Showdown: Round #3

The Lion King 1 1/2
Directed By Bradley Raymond
Starring Nathan Lane, Ernie Sabella, Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller

So this just came back into my head. It's late, I can't sleep, so let's talk about another Disney sequel!

Well I've already knocked two Disney direct-to-video sequels, follows up to Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I did say there were some decent ones in the canon. The Lion King 1 1/2, despite that ridiculous title, is probably one of, if not the best of the Disney direct-to-video sequels.

Where The Lion King is an adaptation of Hamlet,  The Lion King 1 1/2 is sort of an adaptation of Rosencrantz & Guilderstein Are Dead. The film takes us through the original again, but from Timon and Pumbaa's point-of-view. But before the "Circle of Life" begins, we get to see what life was like for Timon (Lane) back in his meerkat colony, complete with his mother (Kavner) and Uncle Max (Stiller).

After botching up a stint on sentry duty involving some familiar hyenas, Timon leaves home to find his place in the world. Along the way, he meets his future best friend Pumbaa (Sabella), who joins him on his quest to find their own patch of paradise. From there, the events of the first film run its course, but again it's their side of the story. We see what they were doing during some of the original's key scenes, including some that we didn't even know they were around for.

Perhaps Lion King 1 1/2's greatest strength is that it doesn't take itself seriously, right down to it's Mystery Science Theater 3000 set up of Timon and Pumbaa watching the film in a theater. It's a sequel to one of the greatest animated films of all time, but it's not going try to match it. It's going to be it's own thing. That was a coming-of-age story of a young prince, this is a buddy comedy/satire, that actually has a lot of laughs at the expense of the former.

All that aside, there is still an emotional Disney core, and that comes from the relationship of our two leads. It's always nice to see filmmakers successfully take sidekicks, and make them three-dimensional characters. Of course, you know they didn't do that on their own. Timon and Pumbaa have been around for years, were already loved by the public, and had two other films and a tv show before this. While this is a Timon & Pumbaa film, Timon is the star. It's his hero journey, and while Pumbaa does go through his own emotional arc, it spawns from Timon's.

The animation here is rather good despite this being a direct-to-video release (This was around the time these films started getting higher in quality, and were no longer being recycled episodes from a cancelled tv show stapled together. Looking at you, Belle's Magical World and Cinderella II).
The music is fine, featuring some catchy original songs, reprises of ones from The Lion King, and some from outside sources that are used for jokes and pop culture references.

I'm not surprised that nearly every cast member from the original film returned for this, with the exception of Rowan Atkinson as Zazu (Seriously what the hell was he doing that he couldn't be bothered?). I mean this was a sequel to what was at the time, Disney's most successful animated film (This was all B.F….Before Frozen.) Anyway, they're all great. Disney always knew how to put together a good voice cast for a film. New additions Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller as Ma & Uncle Max provide a good amount of laughs, even though you can clearly tell that Kavner is the voice of Marge Simpson, and that Jerry Stiller is…well Jerry Stiller.

So to recap, if one should ever find themselves in a situation where you had to watch a Disney sequel, this is without a doubt your best option. I myself do actually get the urge to rewatch it from time to time, because it's just a fun, harmless film. The Lion King 1 1/2 is not one of those sequels that's better than the originals. Lord no. For what it is though, it's a fine film, and that's really nothing to fuss about. Hakuna Matata.

Film Review- "Kung Fu Panda 3"

Kung Fu Panda 3
Directed by Alessandro Carloni and Jennifer Yuh
Starring Jack Black, Bryan Cranston, Dustin Hoffman, and JK Simmons

Dreamworks Animation has always been hit and miss with their films. For a while back there, frankly the only good films they were putting out were Shrek and stuff they were distributing for Aardman Animation. Then in 2008 came the first Kung Fu Panda, and it sort of ushered in a new era of quality for the studio.

Six years later, and the quality of their output is still all over the spectrum. Blame it on financial troubles of the studio, poor creative decisions or some combination of both. Along side the How To Train Your Dragon's , the Kung Fu Panda film series remains their best work. Five years after the stellar Kung Fu Panda 2, comes the next installment, Kung Fu Panda 3. While the film only enforces my previous statement, I still found it to be the weakest of the three Kung Fu Panda's.

The film opens in the Spirit Realm, which apparently is where Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) went in the middle of the first film. Oogway is confronted by his old friend-turned-nemesis Kai (Simmons), who has stolen the chi from all the kung fu masters in the Spirit Realm. After stealing Oogway's chi, Kai gains the power to return to the mortal realm, where he plans to steal...even more kung fu masters' chi! Of course before he leaves, Oogway foretells of another warrior destined to defeat Kai. (Guess who it is?!?)

Back in the mortal realm, Master Shifu (Hoffman) tells his students he is ready to retire, and has chosen Dragon Warrior Po (Black) as his replacement. Po proves to be a horrible teacher. Shifu tells him if he wants to be a good teacher, he has to come to understand what it means to be him, to be the Dragon Warrior. Po's plate only gets heavier when his biological father (Cranston) returns and offers to take him back to a secret panda village, and teach him what it really means to be a panda. Then on top of that, Po must prepare to face Kai.

So while I do think this is a good story, I do wish they had taken one or two more passes at the script. The theme of Po discovering who he is, it's a bit of a rehash of his character arc in the previous film. I can see both sides of it though. While Kung Fu Panda 2 was Po discovering who he is, Kung Fu Panda 3 is more about what it means to be him. The former deals with more with the Po side of things, while the latter deals with the Dragon Warrior side. That's all well and good, I just wish the script in 3 did more to set it apart from 2.

The animation in this series has always been spectacular, and this film does not disappoint. The animators really craft a beyond beautiful Spirit Realm, which are the visual highlights of the film, and the Ancient China setting looks as good as ever. The fight scenes in the Spirit Realm look awesome, but ones taking place in other parts of the film never manage to match the grand scale of those in the previous films. The music is once again epic, particularly the theme for our villain, Kai.

The returning voice cast are more than comfortable in their roles by now, and all do great work, so let's focus on the new additions. Bryan Cranston as Po's father Li Shan…I mean it's Bryan Cranston. Has the man ever turned in a bad performance? JK Simmons is hard to recognize as Kai, except for a few moments, but sadly he's the worst of the series' three villains. His motivation and backstory sadly do not reach the compelling, emotional heights of Tai Lung or Lord Shen. Then there's Kate Hudson, playing like, kind of a new love interest for Po? Which is fine but she's just kinda there.

So while probably not worth the five year wait, Kung Fu Panda 3 is still a well-crafted film, and manages to still be one of Dreamworks Animation's best films in recent years. Never reaching the epic-ness of the first or the emotional gravitas of the second, it still retains the fun (If I could borrow from the film's dialogue) awesomeness of its predecessors. It provides a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, if this does prove to be the last film in the series. Fans of Kung Fu Panda and animation alike will not be disappointed, and I think will agree that this will go down in history as one of the best animated film series of our time.

Film Review- "Deadpool"

Deadpool
Directed by Tim Miller
Starring Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarain, and Ed Skrein


Like most of the general film-going population, I know that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was not a good movie. Back in 2009 though, I was not as Marvel savvy as I am now, and that was my first taste of the character of Deadpool. As time went on, I learned that iteration of the character was not the Deadpool fans know, love, and wanted to see. The more I learned about the character, the more I saw the idea of film adaptation really working. My reservations towards Ryan Reynolds notwithstanding of course, and the fact that Fox was refusing to green light production.

Then in August 2014 someone leaked the test footage, and I went, "Yes. I like that. Give me more of that!" Fox gave into the fans and a year or so later, after some really stellar trailers and one of the best marketing campaigns for a film I've ever seen, Deadpool is now in theaters. Folks, I can confidently say this is probably the best Marvel movie that-wasn't-made-by-Marvel yet.

Just as mercenary Wade Wilson (Reynolds) prepares to take the next step with his girlfriend Vanessa (Baccarain), he is diagnosed with terminal cancer. Shortly after that, he is offered a chance to be a part of a shady but experimental program that could cure him. Wilson agrees after some hesitation, only to find the program is not what it seems. He is injected with a serum and put through a series of excrutiating tests to trigger his mutant genes. He soon develops the ability to heal from everything ("They didn't just give me the cure to el cancer. They give me the cure to el everything!") but his body is also left horribly scarred.

After escaping a fierce confrontation at the program headquarters, Wilson dons his infamous red suit and sets out for revenge against the program director Francis/Ajax (Skerin), despite the interjection of  two X-Men, Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Stefan Kapicic and Brianna Hidlebrand).

What sounds like a fairly simple origin story is brought to a whole new level with heaping amounts of crude, laugh-out-loud humor and non-stop action. The filmmakers were really given the chance to make a proper adaptation of Deadpool, packed with pop-culture references and fourth-wall breaking. There is real heart to this film too. The relationship between Wade and Vanessa is at its core, and makes it more than just a raunchy superhero comedy.

I've said before that Ryan Reynolds can be a great actor but he wastes his time making the wrong films. I'm not saying that right now. He was born to play Deadpool, and naturally, is the highlight of the film. Everything he says, everything he does, is pure gold. Morena Baccarain brings a lot of spice to the role of Vanessa, a role that could very well have been just a bland love interest, if not for the combination of her and the screenwriter's talents. She's given plenty of jokes to crack as well, and has great chemistry with Reynolds. Skerin is perfectly despicable as Francis/Ajax. Kapicic and Hidelbrand are given some juicy material in their X-Men supporting roles, while never overshadowing our hero, and finally TJ Miller gets some laugh's as Wade's buddy Weasel.

If I did have to pick one flaw with the film, it would be that some of the origin story flashbacks tend to be a little slow, as is expected with most of these superhero films. Thankfully, this problem is minuscule  compared to the rest of this awesome film.

Deadpool has definitely met expectations after all the years of anticipation and hype. In a world where the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe stand tall and proud, this outside-the-house production leaves a real lasting mark on the superhero genre. A truly faithful adaptation, and a real work of passion by its creative team, I feel as though we already have one of the best films of the 2016. I know it's only February! How crazy is that??

Oh yeah, and I'm still going to do a Top Films of 2015. Still got some more to see….Oh and just so we're clear they're my top films of 2015….Mine. Not yours…

...chikka chikkahhh.

Film Review- "The Good Dinosaur"

The Good Dinosaur
Directed by Peter Sohn
Starring Raymond Ochoa, Jack Bright, and Sam Elliot

Two Pixar films in one year you say?? How awesome can that be?? Well, it's not double the amount of awesome Pixar you're probably hoping for. It's more like at the level of awesome and-a-half. That's not to say The Good Dinosaur is a bad film. It's just not going to break any ground like Wall-E, Up, or the studio's other, more superior offering of this year, Inside Out.

The Good Dinosaur takes place in a world where the asteroid never hit Earth, and the dinosaurs were never wiped out. Arlo (Ochoa) is the youngest of a family of apatosaurus. Both small and very skittish, Arlo struggles to "make his mark" on the family farm and the world. Arlo's assignment to take care of a pest on the farm, a thieving, feral cave boy (Bright), combined with a series of unfortunate events, leaves him lost and far away from home.

The young dinosaur must learn to survive in the wilderness and find his way back to his family. Along the way he gains the assistance and friendship of the cave boy, whom he nicknames Spot. Together, the two encounter a gang of savage pterdactyls, a family of T-Rex "ranchers" (Elliot plays Butch the father), among other surprises and perils of this prehistoric wilderness.

The film's story is nothing new or special. It's a "boy and his dog" story, which have never done too much for me (Probably because I've never had a pet that wasn't a fish). There's also the obvious comparison to The Land Before Time, and the keen eye can also spot (no pun intended) that the film borrows a little bit from The Lion King and Bambi. Baring all that in mind, words like "predictable" and "cliche" might be applied to The Good Dinosaur.

Don't get me wrong though, you still can get invested in the story, and the relationship of our two main characters. The two young boys voicing them deserve some credit for that. Ochoa gives an emotional performance as young Arlo, and Bright manages to bring Spot to life only through howls, growls, etc. Combine their performances with spectacular character animation, and you have another winning Pixar bromance on the screen.

To further expand on the animation of the film, it's gorgeous. At times I wasn't sure if I what I was looking at was animated or live-action. The design of the characters are more cartoony than the scenery, but they blend together in a strange, unexplainable way.

The rest of the voice cast does good work. Sam Elliot is playing to type (perfectly) as Butch. Jeffrey Wright and Frances McDormand give small but strong performances as Arlo's parents. Steve Zahn's performance as lead pterodactyl Thunderclap is probably one of his better and more tolerable characters. At this moment I can't seem to recall John Ratzenberger's cameo. I can remember the character by looking at the IMDB page, but not the voice. Part of me still wonders what the film would be like with its original voice cast (and story), that included Neil Patrick Harries, John Lithgow, and Bill Hader, but que sera.

Some stylistic decisions the filmmakers went with left me scratching my head. There are hints of a western motif, but it's never really established outside of some parts of the score, and the T-Rex characters. The filmmakers also designed it so when the T-Rexes run, they look like they're cowboys riding horses, which just looks…strange. Then, there were some very surprising jokes and sight gags that left me going, "Is this really in a Pixar film?" The best example would be at one point, Arlo and Spot eat some "bad berries"...yeah…

I feel like I've knocked the film as much as I've praised it. To summarize, there is nothing bad about The Good Dinosaur. There's just nothing new. It still has plenty of eye-watering emotions and stellar animation you'd expect from Pixar. While you definitely can get invested in the characters, particularly Arlo and his relationships with Spot and his father, the story is nothing unique. It's good but not great. I'd put it on the same level as some of the studio's lesser efforts like Brave or Monsters University, and like Brave, part of me feels like the right audience for this film is probably back in the nineties. But it's 2015, and The Good Dinosaur lives up to the "Good" part of its name.

If you're a diehard Pixar fan, you should still give this film a chance. If you only want to see one Pixar film this year, well I guess be glad you already saw Inside Out.

Film Review- "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"

Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, and John Boyega

This summer, I jokingly told my friend Tom that my favorite character from Star Wars was Jar Jar Binks. He then proceeded to try and suffocate me…

Point being, a lot of people are very passionate about Star Wars, and are still very bitter about the last trilogy. The franchise has never been at the top of my list of obsessions, but I was as excited for this as most people. I'm hear to tell you to wash away the pain of the prequel trilogy, Star Wars is back in true form.

Now to avoid giving anything away, I'll give you the barest of a bare bone summary of the film. Okay here goes…taking place thirty years after Return of The Jedi, a new threat has emerged in the galaxy known as The First Order, with the menacing Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) as one of its key figures. Old heroes are joined by new faces, including scavenger Rey (Ridley), rogue storm trooper Finn (Boyega) and pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), as the battle begins and a new chapter unfolds.

First off, the film uses the nostalgia of the original film heavily to its advantage, to the point where The Force Awakens is almost a retelling of A New Hope. Some would say the film plays it safe by doing this, but it's actually a winning formula that gives the film enough legs to stand on its own.

A lot of this is credit to the writers allowing the new characters to shine, and for the most part carry the film. Daisy Ridley is a charming and compelling lead as Rey. John Boyega plays the part of a reluctant hero perfectly with Finn. Oscar Isaac is sharp and charismatic as Poe Dameron, but isn't given as much to do as Ridley or Boyega. Driver is nearly perfect as our new villain Kylo Ren, and our new droid character, little BB-8, is a real scene stealer.

Then there are our old friends. Harrison Ford is our glue to the original trilogy, and is at his best once again as Han Solo. Carrie Fischer settles back into the role of Princess-now-General Leia Organa, playing her with just the right amount of attitude and wisdom. Old friends like R2-D2, C-3PO, and Chewbacca are as good as ever. What's that? Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker? Yeah I can't talk about that.

I don't often discuss sets or locations in my reviews, but the ones in The Force Awakens are beautiful. The filmmakers definitely took time and effort crafting the look of every scene on every world, so this would look and feel like a Star Wars film is supposed to. 

It's hard to review, let alone talk about the film when so much of its plot has been kept deep under wraps since day one. To tell you what happens in the first three minutes is practically a spoiler. Trust me when I say though, this is a really good, really fun film. Die-hard fan or not, you're going to enjoy it. I'll tell you when I was in my seat at the film's start, I felt as though I was transported back in time, and watching one of the original films back in the seventies. I had a huge smile on my face, and that's coming from a guy who never saw Episode II, only the important parts of Episode III, and had only just come to own his own copies of the original trilogy last month.

The force is strong with The Force Awakens. It's breaking all the box office records, it's probably going to be on hundreds of "Best Films of 2015" lists, and it just might walk away with a few awards by Oscar Season's End. This is a must see in my opinion, wether your a fan of Star Wars or just cinema in general. The force, it's calling to you dear viewers. Just let it in.

 

Film Review- "Mr. Holmes"

Mr. Holmes
Directed by Bill Condon
Starring Sir Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, and Milo Parker

I don't think I need to remind the general reader that the character of Sherlock Holmes has been around for a long time. Though there has been a bit of resurgence of the super sleuth in recent years. We've had the gritty, semi-direct adaptation in the Guy Ritchie films starring Robert Downey Jr. Then there's the BBC miniseries starring Benedict Cumberbatch, which sets the Holmes stories in modern day. So now one must ask, what's there left to do with the character?

"Set it in the future! The year 3015, where-" *slap*

Show Holmes in retirement! As an old man! Where his greatest adversity is…his deteriorating mind….

No but really, that is the premise of the film Mr. Holmes. Now stay with me, because as dull as that may sound compared to a Cumberbatch-packed hour of suspense or a Downey-charged blockbuster, this film is really good.

Like I said, Mr. Holmes focuses on the famous detective (McKellen) in his retirement, at age 93 to be percise. Now living with Mrs. Munro (Linney), his put-upon housekeeper, and her son Roger (Parker), Holmes has taken it upon himself to right an accurate account of his final case, as the one his late part Watson wrote was fictionalized. The only problem is Holmes's memory is failing, and he can't remember much at all of the case. Meanwhile, he begins to bond with Roger, and Mrs. Munro grows more and more tired with their current living situation.

A simple story enough, but there's plenty of drama and emotion that makes this as thrilling as any other Sherlock Holmes story we've heard before. This is probably the most unique Holmes story we've ever had, because it shows the character to a point in his life we've never seen him before. It's truly compelling to see one of literature's greatest heroes deal with his own mortality, while at the same time grow beyond the iconic character we've come to love. It really is almost perfect. Throughout the film I kept saying, "This. This is what Sherlock would be like as an old man."

A lot of that is credit to his portrayer, Sir Ian McKellen who gives a brilliant performance, that's as memorable as his Magento or his Gandalf. Young Milo Parker begins to make his mark on Hollywood, giving a breakthrough performance as Roger, and Laura Linney does her usual good work as Mrs. Munro.

I saw this film (and started writing this review) back in July. Back then I said this is going to be that one film that isn't released at the end of the year, that manages to defy the stereotype and gnab some awards/nominations. The Golden Globe nominations have now been announced, and Mr. Holmes has been completely snubbed, which is a shame because it's a wonderful film. Blame it on the fact that the critics/voters of Hollywood have the same short-term memory as Dory from Finding Nemo I suppose.

If you're a strict lover of the action-packed suspense of other Sherlock Holmes adaptations, this may not be your cup of tea. If you're not, then I'd give this film a watch. It may not become anyone's favorite film given it's a relatively slow paced drama, but it definitely leaves an impression, and showcases a top-notch performance from its lead actor.

PS: McKellen is set to re-team with Director Bill Condon in 2017, when he takes on the role of Cogsworth in Disney's live action remake of their animated classic Beauty & The Beast. My thoughts on the very existence of the project, and the trend of animated-to-live-action remakes it's now apart of aside, Mr. Holmes does give me slightly higher expectations for the project...


                                        

Film Review- "Ant-Man"

Ant-Man
Directed by Peyton Reed
Starring Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lily, and Michael Douglas

Not just two months after Avengers: Age of Ultron took the Marvel-loving world by storm, here comes Ant-Man. The actual end to Phase Two, though it almost feels like the beginning of Phase Three in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's in an odd spot in the franchise, but it's an odd film…an odd film that proves to be another strong entry into the Marvel canon.

The film opens on Scott Lang (Rudd), a recently released con-man, trying to do right by his daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Fortson). Unable to find steady work, he agrees to pull off another heist with his old partners. Stealing what he believes to be an old motorcycle suit, Scott discovers it's the technical wonder, that we the educated know as the Ant-Man suit.

It is then revealed the heist was all a test, orchestrated by Dr. Hank Pym (Douglas). Pym tells Scott he needs him to pull off a heist unlike any he's pulled before. Pym's former protege, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) has successfully recreated his formula for the Ant-Man suit, and is planning to sell his own version of the suit, the Yellowjacket, to the highest bidder. Armed with the Ant-Man suit, Scott is tasked with breaking into Cross's lab and stealing the Yellowjacket technology, before he can sell it to the wrong people, and unleash utter chaos. With the help of his con buddies, and Pym's daughter Hope (Lily), Scott sets out to save the world, and become the Ant-Man.

Ant-Man is probably one of Marvel's most unique outings, from the zany visuals, to the outrageous humor. It definitely pushes some envelopes that haven't been pushed before by Marvel, from a climatic battle atop a toy Thomas The Tank Engine, to a slightly disturbing scene with a sheep that I'm sure PETA will have something to say about. The film probably also has the most swear words dropped in an MCU film, just a fair warning for people bringing younglings with them.

It also has a bit of "anti-MCU" tone to it, poking fun at other Avengers (One in particular, in probably the best scene of the film) and events in other films. Again, an odd film, but Ant-Man is an odd hero with odd powers, so it all blends together. Somehow Peyton Reed manages to blend his vision for the film, Marvel's vision, and Edgar Wright's vision (This is the one and only time I'll be bringing Edgar Wright up here, got it?) into a balanced, entertaining film.

Paul Rudd is almost playing to type as Scott Lang, but still gives a very engaging performance. Michael Douglas is a great addition to the Marvel universe. I would like to have seen Evangeline Lily's Hope Van Dyne get a bit more depth as a character but she still works the role. Corey Stoll is deliciously smug as Darren Cross, but like some other Marvel villains, doesn't get much development. Michael Pena steals every scene he's in as Scott's partner Luis, and Bobby Canavale gets a few good scenes as Scott's ex-wife's new fiancé Paxton.

If I had to pick one bad thing about the film, I guess I found the first act to be a bit slow. I almost found myself getting bored, and arguing with my subconscious "Is this it? Is this Marvel's first dud?" Thankfully I was proven wrong, because once Scott gets the Ant-Man suit and things start getting weird, that's when the fun begins. I guess you could say Ant-Man falls victim to the tropes of any origin story, but hey if you're gonna tell an origin story…

With the release of both Age of Ultron and Ant-Man this summer, Phase Two of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has come to a close. Consider this, if Age of Ultron is like a thick, juicy steak with all the trimmings, than Ant-Man is the light but delicious dessert that follows it. Strange, funny, and a feast for the eyes, it's one of the most endearing and unique entries into the franchise.

Now, how many months until Captain America: Civil War? Nine? Shit…

Film Review- "Ted 2"

Ted 2
Directed by Seth MacFarlane
Starring Mark Whalberg, Amanda Seyfried, and Seth MacFarlane

We meet again, MacFarlane.

After the disappointing A Million Ways To Die In A West, I wasn't quite sure what to expect here. I know the "Family Guy" mastermind can do as much bad as he does good, but the first Ted is one of my favorite films. The reviews started to come in, and they weren't good. Then I saw it for myself…and I was pleasantly surprised to find I disagreed with the critics.

Ted 2 opens on the marriage of Ted (MacFarlane) and Tammy Lynn (Jessica Barth), while John's (Whalberg) marriage to Lori (The absent Mila Kunis) has fallen apart. I don't love the way they wrote Mila Kunis out of the sequel but let's move on. Ted and Tammy Lynn decide they want to have a baby. For obvious reasons they can't conceive, so they try through other means, such as sperm donors and adoption. This unearths the startling revelation that in the eyes of the government, Ted is not a person with civil rights, but property.

Unable to adopt a child, his civil rights non existent, and his marriage to Tammy Lynn annulled , Ted sets out to for justice. He hires a young, inexperienced lawer (Seyfried), named "cleverly" Samantha L. Jackson, whom John starts to get smitten with. Ted begins an uphill battle to get his life back, against the likes of a cutthroat lawyer played by John Slattery, and the vengeful return of that creep Donny (Giovanni Ribisi) from the first film.

I don't think anyone expected this to be the story of this sequel, but that's a good thing. It's creative, and it's not a rehash of the story of the original. I mean if you're going to do a sequel, make sure it's a story worth telling, right? Like the original, this film has plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, although a few gags are either A. Recycled from Ted or B. Recycled from "Family Guy". MacFarlane is at his best here, managing to leave moments for heart and sincerity here, which is what made the first Ted such a success. It's not constant crude humor like A Million Ways To Die In The West, thought there are some jokes that made me cringe (It's Seth MacFarlane remember). To be honest I think MacFarlane knew what made Ted work so well, so he made sure to stay reserved for Ted 2.

Whalberg and MacFarlane resume their roles in true form, and once again have great chemistry. Seyfried is a welcome new addition, and does a fine job filling in the lead female role for Kunis. I'd actually argue this one of her better performances. Jessica Barth is given more to do as Tammy Lynn, and actually becomes a real character. There are plenty of hilarious cameos in this film that I'd dare not spoil for you.

Ignore the critics, folks. If you loved the first film, you'll love Ted 2. It's another mark in the good column for Seth MacFarlane. Grab your thunder buddy and head to the theatre.

Film Review- "Inside Out"

Inside Out
Directed by Pete Docter
Starring Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, and Mindy Kaling

I can't believe it's been two years since I reviewed Monsters University. It feels like an eternity since we've had a Pixar film. Some would go further, and say it feels like an eternity since we've had a good Pixar film. I am not one of those people. I enjoyed both Brave and Monsters University (not Cars 2), but not everyone else did, but that's besides the point. Now with Inside Out, I think everyone can agree Pixar has triumphed once again.

The film opens on the birth of a little girl named Riley (Kaitlyn Dias), and the creation of her first emotion, Joy (Poehler). As time goes on and Riley grows, Joy is joined by other emotions, like Sadness (Smith), Disgust (Kaling), Fear (Bill Hader), and Anger (Lewis Black). The self-proclaimed leader of Riley's emotions, Joy struggles to keep Riley happy through all of life's challenges.

Joy finds her job even more difficult when Riley and her parents pack up their beautiful life in the Midwest for a new one in San Francisco. Things go haywire on Riley's first day of school. During a conflict over Riley's core memories, Joy and Sadness get sucked out of headquarters (Get it?), and lost in the other regions of Riley's mind. The two have to make their way back, while the other emotions try to navigate Riley through this tough period of her young life.

Such a bizarre concept, that works so beautifully. The way the writers formed the inner workings of the mind is so creative, and it brings a bunch of fun and laughs to the script. It's been a few weeks since I saw the film, and I still believe there are little emotions running around in my head. You would think characters that are just singular emotions would be so one dimensional but they're not. The highlight of this film of course is Joy. Through all her hardships, her deep connection to Riley keeps her strong and positive. Amy Poehler, giving an almost Leslie Knope-like performance, is perfect casting. This role was made for her.

I think one of the film's greatest achievements is while we spend more time with Riley's emotions than Riley herself, you still feel for Riley and her struggles. Even though this whole movie is taking place literally inside her head, you know and feel the stakes being raised. Her story is one anyone can relate to, and once again, Pixar provokes tears.

In addition to Poehler, all the other emotions are perfectly cast. Smith, Hader, Black, Kaling…I can't even begin to express how well these actors fit their roles. One character that's been left out of the trailers and commercials is Riley's imaginary friend, Bing Bong, played by Richard Kind. He ends up being a big scene stealer, and one of the film's highlights, in ways I can't go into. When he joins up with Joy and Sadness on their journey that's when the sparks really fly.

Pete Docter has already won two Oscars for the two films he's done with Pixar (Monsters Inc and Up), and it's a safe bet he's going to get his third from Inside Out. Creative, thought-provoking, fun, and emotionally uplifting, it's everything you would hope for in a Pixar film.

Film Review- "Tomorrowland"

Tomorrowland
Directed by Brad Bird
Starring George Clooney, Britt Robertson, and Raffey Cassidy

Disney's made films around attractions in their theme parks before. Some of them turned out fine (Pirates of the Caribbean), and others not so much (The Haunted Mansion). A film based off Tomorrowland though? The futuristic section of Disney Land/World that's home to Space Mountain and...crap what else is there? I know The Avengers have meet & greet's in Tommorowland, Disney Land now. Man I got to check that out. Anyway, if anyone could pull off a film like this, it'd be Brad Bird, acclaimed director of The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

Does he? Umm, kinda...

The film opens with a choppy opening prologue where a young Frank Welker (Clooney in the present, Thomas Robinson here) makes his way to the New York World's Fair to show off his self-built-but-not-really-working jet-pack. Brushed off by fair judge David Nix (Hugh Laurie), he then meets a young girl named Athena (Cassidy). She takes a shine to Frank and his enthusiasm, and gives him access to something extraordinary (I'll let you guess what that is.).

Jump forward to the present, where a young girl named Casey (Robertson) is constantly sneaking out at night to sabotage the construction equipment set to tare down a launchpad at Cape Canaveral, where her father (Tim McGraw) is an engineer. One night when Casey is caught by the cops, who but Athena, who somehow hasn't aged a day since 1964, gives her the same gift she gave Frank (Again, I'll let you guess).

This attracts the attention of some bad...cyborg cops? I don't know. Casey is soon on the run with Athena. Together they set out to find the now older, bitter, Clooney'd up Frank for help, which starts their adventure that will lead them all back to Tomorrowland.

Here's the main problem with Tomorrowland, and it's a pretty big one. That little summary I just wrote for you? Reads like act one or the first half-hour right? Well that's the first half of the film. When it comes to narrative and pacing, the film is a bit of a mess. A lot of questions are raised and aren't answered fast enough. As soon as one question is answered, three more or poised. Chunks of expository dialogue sprinkled throughout don't make it any less confusing. I haven't been exposed too much to the works of Damon Lindelof, but from what I've heard a lot of this reads like his work on Lost.

The film looks pretty enough in terms of production design. Tomorrowland looks like Tomorrowland, but frankly we've seen these sets over and over since that section of Disney Parks opened up, from The Jetsons to Meet The Robinsons. Unfortunately, we don't get to learn too much about the inner workings of Tomorrowland, which is a bit of a letdown.

How about the cast? First off kudos to the studio for having George Clooney take a backseat to two young, female, relatively unknown actresses, who clearly have bright futures ahead of them. Clooney and Laurie, are Clooney and Laurie. Good as they've ever been, and do the best with the material given to them.

Now as messy as this film's script is, I think it's important to note that's its message is clear, and it's an important message. Laurie's character believes society has given up, and fallen in love with the idea of the apocalypse, of the end. Now look at some of the most popular film series out right now: The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, Divergent, the list goes on. We really almost have given into the notion that things will get worse. It was in this moment I went, "Wow. This film might be onto something." Robertson, Clooney, and Cassidy's characters are the opposite of Laurie's. They're the optomists. They believe things can get better.

The message to hold onto optimism, that we can make things better, is an important one. Some critics argue that Tomorrowland shoves that message down the viewers' throats. I don't agree, but maybe that's the idea, dammnit. In a world, in a culture, where it's almost instinct to go straight for the negative, the idea of staying positive has to stay alive. If we want things to get better, we have to do something, we can't just complain. That's a great message for a film like Tomorrowland to have, but unfortunately, it's message is skewed to a sloppy narrative.

If you'd like to read more into the film, or you've seen it and are still pondering it like I was, I recommend you read Haleigh Foutch's article on the film over at Collider. Her write-up definitely gave me a better appreciation of the film.

As the old Disney song says, there's a great big beautiful tomorrow. Tomorrowland doesn't quite get us there, but it's a step in the right direction.

Film Review- "Avengers: Age Of Ultron"

Avengers: Age of Ultron
Directed by Joss Whedon
Starring Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and James Spader

It's hard to believe that a sequel to The Avengers could live up to all the hype. It did what no superhero film had done before, teaming up multiple characters from multiple films. It became beloved by fans and critics alike, and is now the third highest grossing film of all time.

So after the months of epic trailers and juicy gossip, how does Age of Ultron stack up alongside Avengers, and other films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? After seeing the film for a third time in theaters (Judge me), I say it falls in the…upper-middle of the pack. Let's begin.

After going their separate ways for another round of solo films/adventures, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Steve Rogers/Captain America, Thor (and the rest!) have reassembled to take down Hydra (Who you'll remember reemerged in Captain America: The Winter Soldier). While raiding one of the last Hydra facilities in Sokovia, Tony (Downey) makes a startling discovery, and shown a very grim hallucination via Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen). This leads him, along with Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to jumpstart an artificial intelligence, word-peace keeping program Ultron (Spader).

Unfortunately, Ultron becomes a little too smart for his own good. The menacing machine soon sets out to put an end to The Avengers, and all of mankind. The team sets out on an worldwide mission to stop Ultron, while also dealing with the super-powered siblings of Wanda and Pietro Maximoff (Aaron-Taylor Johnson) aka Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

It may not seem like it based on that short summary, but there's a lot going on in this film. A lot of story, and a lot of characters. A heavy burden falls down on Age of Ultron. It has to act as a sequel to not just The Avengers but in some respects to Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Then it has to continue to set-up this ever expanding universe, as we prepare to go in to a huge Phase Three of the MCU, which will culminate in the third (and fourth) Avengers film, Infinity War.

Age of Ultron manages to balance a lot of its story elements...for most of the film. Some things at times are left unattended or under developed. There's so much going on you might find yourself scratching your head saying, "Wait when did that happen?" or "Wait how did we get here?" That being said, there's so much awesome, fan-pleasing moments here you might forget your concerns, because you're so enamored with what's on screen. The action scenes are some of the best in the franchise. Your eyes will be glued to the screen in awe.

Somehow, all the characters old and new, get their proper chance to shine. The one exception would have to be Thor, who halfway through the film is subjected to an underdeveloped subplot that factors into where this massive franchise is heading. Hawkeye truly get his due in this film, and is one of the best parts of it. What they've done to explain where he's been through all of Phase Two is beautiful. Hulk and Black Widow are given a romance this film. You wouldn't think it'd work, but it really grows on you, and it gives some great material to Ruffalo and Johansson. The new characters, The Vision (Paul Bettany) in particular, are great additions. I won't go into everyone's individual performances, because I think you all know by now how great this ensemble is.

Some people would say Ultron succombs to the cliche that Marvel can't make a good villain. I am not one of those people. Much like Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy, while his motivations are one-dimensional and his character development is rushed, the actor behind the performance accelerates the character to a higher level. James Spader is at his very best as Ultron.

It's already been revealed that Joss Whedon's original cut of the film was about three and-a-half hours long (That means we missed out on an hour of footage, for those trying to do the math.), and that an extended cut will be featured on the Blu-Ray release. Hopefully this extended cut film and Whedon's original cut are one and the same, because I really feel like adding some of that hour's worth of footage would really strengthen the film.

Let me be clear, I really do enjoy Age of Ultron. It's as funny, action-packed, and fan pleasing as Marvel gets, and is arguably one of the better films in the cinematic universe. I loved it the first two times I saw it, the third time I was starting to see the cracks in the foundation. Another draft of the script, another hour in the editing bay, something could have been done to flesh the story out a bit more.  That being said, do not let that dissuade you from seeing it. It's still a wonder to see all of your favorite characters together again, and the good outweighs the bad here. No doubt Age of Ultron will still become one of the best films of the year.

Film Review- "How To Train Your Dragon 2"

How To Train Your Dragon 2
Directed by Dean DeBlois
Starring Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, and America Ferrera

It may not mean much for me to say How To Train Your Dragon 2 is one of the best animated sequels ever made. The likes of Disney direct-to-video aside (Not quite done talking about those by the way), many are quickly pumped out of a studio for a cash grab, and are often a significant downgrade in quality compared to their predecessors.

Regardless, I still say How To Train Your Dragon 2 is one of the best. If I had to list the top 3, it would definitely go Toy Story 3 and 2, and then Dragon 2.

Set a few years after the first film, the village of Berk has fully accepted dragons into the community. While many vikings enjoy the sport of dragon racing, Hiccup (Baruchel) and his dragon Toothless are out exploring the world outside their island. Hiccup's father Stoick (Butler) is eager for his son to take over his place as chief, but Hiccup would much rather be out with Toothless.

It's while out on one of these explorations that he and his girlfriend Astrid (Ferrara) are ambushed by a gang of dragon hunters, led by the dragon trapper Eret (Kit Harrington). They soon learn of Eret's employer, Drago Bloodfist (Djiimon Hounsou), and his plans to take over the land with an army of dragons. Hiccup and Toothless set out to confront Drago. It is then they uncover a secret dragon oasis, protected by Valka (Cate Blanchett) who is revealed to be Hiccup's long-lost mother. I'm not spoiling that by the way. They haven't made any effort to hide it in the trailers.

Dragon 2 goes bigger in emotion and action, and the animation is once again spectacular. You'll be on the edge of your seat, while at the same time reaching for some tissues. The story isn't too heavy, and it continues the "coming-of-age" tale that began in the first film. It's the characters that really drive the script. They're well-crafted and performed. This is one of the best voice casts I've ever seen in an animated film. Props to Jay Baruchel and Gerard Butler for being as incredible in their roles as they were the first time around. Once again Craig Ferguson as Gobber is one of the funniest things in the film.

One thing brings the film down though, and that's its villains. Eret is a very annoying character. Maybe it's Kit Harrington's voice, maybe it's how he was written, but I didn't like him nor did I see any real purpose for him in the film. Drago, is a weak villain. While he does do some horrible things that make you hate him, we learn virtually nothing about him. There's a few lines of expository dialogue in a scene with Hiccup, but it's not enough for the audience to connect with the character.

Weak villains aside, I still give How To Train Your Dragon 2 a 9 out of 10. It's a more than worthy successor to the original, and builds wonderfully off the foundations it set. It is definitely one of the best animated sequels ever made, and maybe even one of the best sequels ever made, in general.

Film Review- "A Million Ways To Die In The West"

A Million Ways To Die In The West
Directed By Seth MacFarlane
Starring Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Liam Neeson, and Neil Patrick Harris

I guess you could say in the debate of wether to like or dislike Seth MacFarlane, I lean more towards like. I lost interest in Family Guy a long time ago, although I do enjoy the older episodes. Ted is one of my favorite films, I thought his album "Music Is Better Than Words" was good, and I know I'm in the minority when I say I thought he was good hosting the Oscars.

However, I know that MacFarlane can do as much bad as he does good. I'm looking at you The Cleveland Show, American Dad, and short-lived Fox sitcoms Dads and The Winner. After the success of Ted, combined with my love for Blazing Saddles (The original western-comedy), I had high hopes for his next feature film, A Million Ways To Die In The West.

It goes without being said, but A Million Ways is no Blazing Saddles.

The film centers around Albert (MacFarlane), a sheep farmer in the old west. After chickening out on a gunfight, his girlfriend (Amanda Seyfried) leaves him for mustache aficionado Foy (Harris). Shortly afterwards, the wife of an outlaw (Theron) comes to town. She takes a shine to Albert, decides to teach him how to shoot, and hopefully win his girl back. Of course they start to fall for one another, which of course is a problem, seeing is how Anna's husband, outlaw Clinch Leatherwood (Neeson), is on his way to town.

It's a unique enough story for the western setting, but what about the comedy? Where Ted was  charming, outrageous and crude, A Million Ways is outrageous and crude, sans charm. A lot of the jokes seem like they were scrapped from an episode of Family Guy. There is plenty to laugh at, but I found throughout the film I was chuckling and smiling to myself, more than laughing out loud.

At some points, MacFarlane is definitely at his crudest. I never thought I'd see a Neil Patrick Harris take a dump in a hat, or a sheep's penis in a film, but there it is. That's not a spoiler by the way, no, that's a warning. Speaking of spoilers, while one great cameo was given away in the trailers, there a few more that are just fantastic.

This is an impressive cast as you can probably tell. The big problem is they aren't really given the chance to exercise their funny bones. Most of the comedy is given to MacFarlane, who as a leading man, is just okay. Charlize Theron get some laughs. Sarah Silverman and Giovanni Ribisi get their fair share of the comedy, but others like Neil Patrick Harris, Liam Neeson, and Amanda Seyfried are criminally underused.

A Million Ways To Die In The West is not Seth MacFarlane's best, but it's also not his worst. The good outweighs the bad, and you'll definitely laugh. But the cast isn't giving the performance you'd hope they would, and the script isn't as well polished as Ted was. If you see it once, that's probably enough. If you don't see it all, no big deal.

Film Review- "Maleficent"

Maleficent
Directed by Robert Stromberg
Starring Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, and Sharlto Copley

There are villains, and then there are Disney villains. A delicious gallery of rogues that have stood the test of time and become some of cinema's most captivating antagonists. Quite possibly the most popular of all Disney villains is Maleficent, from the animated masterpiece Sleeping Beauty. Logically, if one were to make a film based around a Disney villain, Maleficent would be a wise choice. She's an iconic villainess. The self-proclaimed mistress of all evil.

Unfortunately, in Walt Disney Pictures' Maleficent, the mistress of all evil is nowhere to be found amidst this frustrating mess of a film.

The film begins by telling us Maleficent's previously unknown origins. As a young fairy living in the mystical land of the moors, alongside a population of CGI rejects from The Lord of The Rings and the Neo-Pets, she meets an orphan boy named Stefan. The two grow closer and closer over the years, and eventually fall in love.

Time passes, and as Stefan (Copley) grows he distances himself from Maleficent (Jolie). He works his way up to becoming a trusted knight of the king, who is ought to destroy Maleficent and the moors, fearing her power. After a rough battle, the king declares whoever can kill Maleficent, shall be his successor to the throne.

Stefan returns to the moors, and although he doesn't kill Maleficent, he does drug her and cut off her wings. He presents the wings to the king (claiming Maleficent is dead), and the king appoints him the new king. This all sends Maleficent down the dark path that transforms her into the villain we all know…or at least thought we knew, as this film claims…horribly.

Right after this point is where the film progresses into its own twisted version of the original Sleeping Beauty narrative, and into a downward spiral. This is not the Maleficent old fans have come to expect, and the filmmakers completely ignore what made the character great, and what drew audiences into the theater into the first place. Because of this, as they try to make Maleficent out to be this "misunderstood" character, they in turn tare down what the original Sleeping Beauty established.

The original characters you know and love aren't in this film. If you're a fan of Sleeping Beauty, then you'll be rolling your eyes, groaning, and even tempted to leave the theater at every change in the story. Even the littlest changes that make no sense. Why only change the three fairies names when everyone else keeps their names? Why make the green one the idiot and the blue one ditzy and sensible one when it was the other way around? Why??

Everything in Sleeping Beauty is brought down, to build Maleficent up into this hero character. She's not plotting to find and get Aurora. She's…getting to know her and watching over her? What?? I'd love to list all this film's sins, but I respect the sanctity of spoilers. But this film is afraid to make Maleficent the real villain she is. The best example that come to mind right now is The Lorax, where The Onceler is made not the greedy business man from the book, but the Lorax's conflicted "bro". Ugh. Let the villains be villains!

Maleficent is a perfect example of a film that goes for style over substance. The visuals are nice but the script isn't strong enough to justify them. The script is underdeveloped, which is a shame considering it's written by Linda Woolverton. I mean this is the woman who wrote Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King! Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland too but…come on! Again, the first act is the strongest, and builds up a lot of wasted potential in a rush to get to the "meat" of the film. We barely get to touch on Maleficent and Stefan's relationship so we really don't have time to get caught up in their conflict.

The effects are nice and the world they create in the moors is pretty enough, but essentially they're just trying to do what every fantasy film since Avatar  has done. Imitate Avatar's effects. I already mentioned The Lord of The Rings and Neo-Pet rejects (Seriously what are they doing in this film??).

However, amidst all this, are instances of a good film trying to get out. The saving grace of it all is of course Angelina Jolie. She is Maleficent, and gives a great performance. Even when she's not playing the Maleficent we know, she still gives an emotional, compelling character. I must say, despite this film's flaws, the recreation of the scene where Maleficent crashes Aurora's christening and curses her as a baby is great. Jolie's performance, supported by the practical and visual effects, make it like the scene from the original has literally come to life.

Elle Fanning is good but not great as Aurora. Sharlto Copley almost looks like a real-life version of the animated King Stefan, and he works in the role. Sam Riley, who will forever be known now as Discount Orlando Bloom, plays Dival, this film's version of Maleficent's raven, here her shape-shifting servant. He's alright, and the adaptation of the character is creative, but he also pulls in my opinion the biggest middle finger of all (You'll have to watch and see).

Prince Phillip is nothing but a footnote here, and played by who looks to be a lost member of One Direction that missed his tour bus. I've heard the three fairies in Sleeping Beauty be called annoying before. Well wait til' you see them here.

Starting out with a strong and compelling first act, Maleficent soon degrades itself into a film that's difficult to watch, despite a wonderful performance from its lead actress. If you're not a fan of Sleeping Beauty, or willing to ignore its existence for two hours, maybe it's a better film for you. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that it's underwritten, over-stylized, and ignorant to its own source material. That last part being the biggest offense of all, considering the original was made by the same studio. I can only hope parents of younger children will show their children Sleeping Beauty, and not just Maleficent. That way they can see what true evil looks like.

Disney Sequel Showdown- "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II"

Disney Sequel Showdown: Round #2
*Spoilers included in this review*

The Hunchback of Notre Dame II
Directed by Bradley Raymond
Starring Tom Hulce, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Haley Joel Osment

Remember how I said maybe part of the reason Pocahontas II was made was to give Pocahontas the standard Disney-ending, complete with handsome prince-type character? Well, The Hunchback of Note Dame II  was DEFINITELY made to give Quasimodo the standard Disney-ending, complete with beautiful princess-type character.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame definitely doesn't get the credit it deserves, and has always been overshadowed by more popular films from the Disney Renaissance period, like The Lion King and Beauty & The Beast. It's a great animated film, and one of my favorites. It's sequel, not so much.

Quasimodo (Hulce) has been fully accepted and integrated into Parisian society. The Festival D'Amour (Festival of Love) is approaching, and Quasimodo wonders if there's someone out there to love him. A circus comes to town, led by a wicked conman named Sarousch (Michael McKean). He's out to steal a famous, jewel-crested belle named La Fiedele from Notre Dame. He sends his assistant Madeline (Hewitt) to case the joint. She runs into Quasimodo, they hit off, but she is frightened by his appearance. Personally, I don't know what her deal is. Especially when this little…guy, was hanging around her boss the entire time:

Where is his eyes?!?

Anyway, you can pretty much guess where the story goes from there. Slowly but surely, she starts to fall for him, but she still has her ties to Sarousch and his plot, eventually she'll be exposed, they'll have a fall-out, then they'll make up, typical romantic-comedy bull.

Let's discuss this whole "Quasi gets the girl" angle for a bit. I understand maybe audiences were upset Quasimodo and Esmerelda didn't get together in the first film. It's one of the ways the film stays true to the Victor Hugo novel (For those of you that don't know, the original novel is far more darker than the Disney adaptation, so obviously there were a few liberties taken). You could say, "Well if they changed so much from the book, why couldn't Quasi get the girl too?" Well to that I say, why not?

Stepping away from the book, let's look at the Quasimodo we're presented with in Hunchback. This isn't a character desperate for love. This is a character who wants to get out of his home/prison and explore the world. By the end of the film not only does he accomplish this, he discovers, as an old trailer for the film states, "the magic within himself".

Story-wise, it's not a huge deal for this guy to find a girl. Sure, it's nice to see him find one, and it's nice of Hunchback II to give its younger audience the message that there's someone out there for everyone. Well, Disney did another, much better film, that carried that same message…called Beauty & The Beast. 

Wanting to give Quasimodo a girlfriend isn't a good enough reason for this film to exist, and the whole "steal the bell" subplot doesn't do much to buffen up this scrawny script. The film barely hits the one-hour mark. Not to mention the film does a lot of treading on what Hunchback did. Quasimodo goes through another "I'm not good enough" episode and it hurts to watch. Gypsies/circus/street performers, which were fighting unjust persecution in Hunchback, are bad guys here. Then on the flip side of that is Pheobus, who was intelligent and non-prejudice, is now dense and suspicious of these people.

The animation is simply not good. It pales in comparison to that of Hunchback's. There are moments where they try to recreate shots from the first film, and it just doesn't work. Quasimodo, who was drawn rough on the edges but easy on the eyes, does not look good at all here. At some points he resembles a melting Peter Griffin, but maybe that's too harsh. The songs fail to reach the emotional heights of the ones from Hunchback, but "Ordinary Miracle" is a nice little number. Sarousch is not a compelling villain, and unworthy to hold Frollo's giant hat. In fact, it's a little weird how much he fawns over himself in the film…

But…there is some good in this film. All the returning cast members do a good job, and you can tell they still care about these characters. More importantly, you still root for Quasimodo and connect to him, and I think a lot of that is due to his voice actor Tom Hulce. You do want to see him get the girl. Jennifer Love Hewitt does fairly well as Madeline, and while her and Quasi's "flirting" does get kind of annoying, you still want to see them get together. One more bad note,  Haley Joel Osment as Pheobus and Esmerelda's son Zephyr is the most annoying thing ever. That is all.

Hunchback of Notre Dame II doesn't do enough to justify its existence. If this were an hour-long series finale to a Hunchback of Notre Dame animated series (Thank God there was never one of those), maybe audiences could have passed better judgement. But it's not, it's a direct-to-video sequel with weak animation and a weak script, to an animated masterpiece.

I haven't seen every Disney sequel, believe it or not, and I'm sure there are worse ones out there (I hear Fox & The Hound 2 is a midquel about Todd and Copper joining a band. Ugh.) If I took the time to watch them all, and do a "Top 10 Worst Disney Sequels",  I honestly think this one would end up lower on the list. Unfortunately, that's still not enough for me to recommend a viewing of it.

Oh, one more thing…

It escaped imprisonment?!?!? Five buck says if there was to be a Hunchback 3, that little Gollum wannabe was going to be the villain….*shudders*

Disney Sequel Showdown- "Pocahontas II: Journey To A New World"

Disney Sequel Showdown: Round #1
*Spoilers included in this review*

Pocahontas II: Journey To A New World
Directed by Tom Ellery & Bradley Raymond
Starring Irene Bedard, Billy Zane, Donal Gibson, and David Odgen Steirs

As much as I love Disney, I know not everything they do is great. The thrity-something direct-to-video sequels, midquels, threquels and spin-offs in particular. There are very few films in Disney's main animated feature canon, that haven't had at least one follow-up produced by the now closed Disney Toon Studios, which was shut down by John Lasseter a few years back.

Now to be fair...not all of them were bad. There were some diamonds in the rough, that while in no way can be compared to the originals, were decent and enjoyable. Pochaontas II, somehow falls in-between the two categories of "Decent" and "Unwatchable".

Some time after the first film, Governor Ratcliffe (Steirs) has convinced King James (Jim Cummings) that John Smith (Gibson…no not, Mel. His brother) is a traitor to the crown, while covering up his own crimes in the process. Ratcliffe leads an assault on Smith's home with a warrant for his arrest, and Smith dies in the ensuing pursuit (Yeah. Sure he does.)

Some more time passes, and as Pocahontas (Bedard) tries to put Smith's death behind her, diplomat John Rolfe (Zane) arrives in Jamestown, hoping to bring Chief Powhatan (Now played by Cummings in this film) back to England to speak with King James, and hopefully prevent Ratcliffe and his armada from declaring war on the natives. But Pocahontas volunteers to go in her father's place.

Rolfe brings Pocahontas back to England, along with her animal friends (Who just are not enjoyable to watch as they were in the first film) and a silent bodyguard, with hopes to educate her in British etiquette, and together prevent Ratcliffe's armada from sailing to Jamestown.

Well you can probably already see the first problem with this film from that summary. Within the first two minutes of this sequel, nearly everything that was accomplished in the first film is undone. The villain is absolved of his crimes with literally just one line of dialogue, and the settlers and natives are at odds again. Not to mention the film also destroys the relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith.  I mean, they literally put Pocahontas in a love triangle….I'll say that again. Pocahontas in a love triangle. Doesn't sound right does it? It also doesn't help that her new love interest John Rolfe, is downright annoying for the first half of the film.

Probably the biggest fault in this film is what they do to Pocahontas's character. She is so willing to change who she is to impress the British royalty in this film, rather than share her ways, like she did in with John Smith in the original film. You could argue that she had to in order to get her point across to the king, but in the end she decides to be true to her heart, so it's all a waste of time and a complete u-turn of her characterization.

Now to be fair, Journey To A New World does something that most other Disney sequels don't do, and that's progress our protagonist's story. It's not "The protagonist's child goes through a smiler experience as they did" or "Something that happened to the protagonist, taking place somewhere in the middle of the first film, but we didn't see it" as most Disney sequels (or midquels) are. Pocahontas's story goes on in a unique, logical way in this film.

Heck it even kind of tries to rectify the historical inaccuracies of the first film, putting her with Rolfe and having her go to England, and it is sort of realistic that the natives and settlers wouldn't immediately go from enemies to allies. Nevertheless, the damage is already done, and all the film accomplishes by doing this is tare down a far superior film.

I'm not going to discuss the downgrade in animation because it's not really fair. The songs aren't bad for a direct-to-video film, but they are nothing compared to the songs of Pocahontas. The voice acting is fine. Almost all of the original cast members return and you can tell they still care about these characters.

I'm not sure what the filmmakers intentions were when they set out to make Pocahontas II (Money earnings aside). Was it to rectify the historical inaccuracies of Pocahontas? Was it to give Pocahontas her standard Disney-Princess ending, complete with handsome prince/nobleman? Who knows? I can see there are good intentions behind this film, but the badness in it overshadows them, leaving Pocahontas II somewhere in the middle of the Disney-Sequel spectrum.

Like I said, at least it continues the protagonist's story in a logical way. Sort of like The Hunchback of Notre Dame II but…umm give me a few days on this one...

Film Review- "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Directed By Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Dane DeHaan, and Jamie Foxx

It always amazes me, when at the end of, or during a film, the theater audience breaks out in applause (There was a lot of applauding throughout my showing of Captain America: The Winter Soldier). It's not like they're watching a show on Broadway, and the actors are their to receive your praise, as they come out for a curtain call. It's not like the theater projectionist is getting anything from the applause (He just pushes a couple of buttons. I've seen him do it). In the end, I guess it just comes right down to the enthusiasm of moviegoers, which is great.

My question though is, and this may sound kind of dumb, what does it take for a film to get an applause? "Well obviously if it's good!" you might say. Well I've seen plenty of great films, but there have only been a handful of times when I've witnessed applause in a movie theater. More than often it's been for a comic-book film like The Avengers, and The Dark Knight series. On rare occasions it's been for an animated film like Finding Nemo, or an awards season film like Zero Dark Thirty. Then last week, there was The Amazing Spider-Man 2. That was the first time I looked around the theater and said to myself, "Really?"

I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a bad film, but it has its problems, and I don't think it deserves applause. The film obviously takes place some time after the first one. Peter and Gwen (Garfield and Stone) are together and graduating high school. Peter is still haunted by the promise Gwen's father (Denis Leary) had him make before his death. This causes a lot of strain on his relationship with Gwen, and puts a lot of uncertainty in their future together.

Meanwhile, Peter's old friend Harry Osborn (DeHaan) returns to visit his dying father Norman (Chris Cooper). Harry finds out he has the same disease as his father, and that the cure may lie in Spider-Man's blood. Also meanwhile, lonely and Spidey-obsessed Oscorp employee Max Dillon (Foxx) has a tragic accident that turns him into the super villain Electro. Also ALSO meanwhile, Peter is still trying to uncover the secret past of his long-lost father.

So yeah, there's a lot going on in this film, and it makes for an uneven script. It's unfortunate, because while one plot line can be interesting, another can be very boring. At times in the film you may be asking yourself, "Hey what happened to Electro?" or "Hey isn't Harry Osborn supposed to be doing something?" Regardless, when this film works it works. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are again the highlight of the film. Their chemistry is spot-on, but I just had to roll my eyes when I found out that we were going to go through another "Maybe we shouldn't be together" storyline…especially when we did that in the last Spider-Man trilogy! In the second film of that trilogy, too I might add! Thankfully though, Garfield and Stone's acting salvages it.

What's happening with Harry, Oscorp, and the mystery of Peter's father is definitely the most interesting
part of the film. Everything with Electro however, falls flat for me. Personally, I felt Jamie Foxx was miscast. Maybe not as Electro, but as Max Dillon. I found Dillon to be a very annoying, unlikeable character with little to no development. Sure, he's lonely, he's obsessed with Spider-Man, but why? If you cut the Electro stuff out of this, I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 would have been a better film. I guess they're really rushing to form that Sinister Six team-up though. By the way, did I mention Paul Giammati is in this too as The Rhino? Jeez…

You can see hints in the trailers of this film (and the last one) that there were some "big picture stuff" cut out. For what reason is unclear, but maybe there are some things in this franchise that shouldn't have been left on the cutting room floor, and some things that should have.

While The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an uneven film, that sadly only offers more of the same in the comic book-film genre, there's plenty to enjoy. Our two leads are again great, with a (mostly) strong supporting cast. Plenty of stellar action, heart twisting drama and emotion, you can still see the good in this film. Unlike the enthusiastic crowd I saw the film with, I'm probably not as eager for repeat viewings. No applause from me, but a tip of the hat there, Spidey.

Film Review- "Rio"

Rio
Directed By Carlos Saldana
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, George Lopez, and Leslie Mann

Our story begins in the land of Rio De Janeiro, where a tiny orphan blue macaw named Blu (Played by Jesse Eisenberg) is poached and taken to Minnesota, where a young girl named Linda (Leslie Mann) promises to always take care of them. Years later, an older, flightless Blu is living happily in his owner's bookstore when an ornithologist named Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro) arrives and informs them that Blu is the last male of his kind, and if he does not meet and mate with the last female of his kind, Jewel (Anne Hathaway), the species may become extinct.

At first reluctant, Linda and Blu decide to travel back to Rio with Tulio for our feathery friends to meet. Naturally, Blu and Jewel's first encounter does not go well, and it only goes downhill from there, when they are kidnapped by poachers, chained together, and lost in the Brazilian jungle. Blu and Jewel must work together to get free of their chains, and reunite with Linda, with the help of Rafael the toucan (George Lopez), Luiz the bulldog (Tracy Morgan), and two samba-loving birds named Nico and Pedro (Jamie Foxx and Will.I.Am.), all the while avoiding the poacher's pet cockatoo Nigel (Jermaine Clement) and his gang of monkey henchmen. Oh, and of course through all this Blu tries to learn how to fly, and win Jewel's heart (That's kind of important lol)

Rio runs short of the usual animated-feature time-length at 82 minutes, but it's an enjoyable 82 minutes nonetheless. The animation is beautiful and I think captures the scene of Rio, Brazil exceptionally, and every member of the voice cast is spot-on.

Rio also has some really great music in it, although some of the songs are too forgettable. The opening/closing number and Will.i.am and Jamie Foxx's duet in the bird's samba club are the greatest of the playlist. Anne Hathaway proves that she in fact can sing, and that her number(s) at the Oscars were no fluke, given the fact she sings for about 30 seconds the whole movie. I feel like if the producers put more emphasis into the musical aspect of this movie, given it more of a "Disney musical" edge, extended and had the characters sing more of the songs, this movie would have had a better lasting impact.

All in all, Rio is a beautiful film, just more mediocre than it should of been, due to the typical love-story (Even though it was still very touching), it's short run time, and the underplayed music. But despite all that, I still highly recommend it.

So next week I will DEFINITELY have a Weekly Episodes post, because there's a lot to look forward to, such as:
-A bachelor party episode of "Chuck", which will also reveal the mysterious Agent X we've been hearing about for awhile.
-A beloved character from "How I Met Your Mother"'s past returning.
-A mother's day episode of "Modern Family"
AND, the first of a two part "Community" Paintball War, which is sure to be just as epic as the "Modern Warfare" episode from last season, possibly even more epic.

So stick around, because May is upon us, and Season Finales are fast approaching!

-Chris