The Tomorrow War

Spoiler-free!

Chris Pratt's first time producing a film is exactly the sort of movie we'd expect him to produce. It casts him as a nice but slightly malcontented suburban dad, wishing for a little bit more to life in the year 2022. Then people from 2051 show up, saying that they're losing a war with evil aliens in their time, and ask for help fighting them. It's not long before a worldwide draft is instituted... and we all know Pratt eventually gets his chance to "be more" as he wishes.

Wish granted! You get to risk your life to save humanity itself! Probably more than he had in mind...

This is a blockbuster flick, no doubt about it, and the movie is proud of that fact. But it's also a time-travel oriented scifi movie, and it takes pains to explain itself on those fronts. It includes neat details in its worldbuilding, like, the people who travel back in time are young (not born yet in 2022) and they only recruit people who die before 2051. Cuz, you know, the space-time continuum. It's explains its time-travel method succinctly, and it's not without holes and paradoxes, but the rules are clear, and that's all we ask for.

Scientific explanations breezed-through, the movie gets right into the action. It's about sending nearly-untrained civilians into battle with animalistic aliens that shoot spikes out of tentacles (not to mention their sharp teeth) so there's a lot of general mayhem, but fortunately Pratt's character served in the army before, so he takes the lead and is assigned a mission, which leads to more specific encounters catered to the movie's needs of plot-momentum, and memorable action set pieces. None of the action was outstanding, but the aliens were cool and frightening, and the characters fighting them weren't cardboard cutouts, so it did the job being entertaining.

Surprise surprise, stakes that are imbedded in the plot are more effective than tacked on ones!

I can take or leave action most of the time. Unless it's Tom Cruise doing impossible feats on screen, it's hard to impress me. But no matter the genre I always go in for characters. And it's been a while since a brazenly extra-buttered-popcorn blockbuster presented characters that I cared two straws about. It helps that Chris Pratt is Chris Pratt. His acting consists mostly of hamming dramatic looks for the camera, but his own genuine personality bleeds through so well that it works anyway. Next to him, Yvonne Strahovski and J.K. Simmons are good and fantastic actors respectively, and they bring their characters to life as well. Between the three of them (and Edwin Hodge who was good but needed more screen time) they imbed the action with stakes worth caring about.

It got to the end, and I really was leaning closer to the screen, wondering what was going to happen. Most of the plot was predictable—I'm proud of myself for calling one slight twist early on—but the way they do the predictable things were always fresh and unexpected. The predictability played into the traditional blockbuster feel. It had a Cowboys and Aliens vibe to me, another movie that knows how outlandish it's being, but still goes in 100% and makes it all work. The three-act structure is clean and by-the-book which I love to see in movies like this, and it doesn't fall apart in the final act. In fact, the final act was my favorite section of the movie altogether.

Sad that cliché has become a dirty word. I want to say this movie was cliché and mean it as a recommendation!

Every blockbuster should go out on a bang. Even if it drives home its message with a heavier, less nuanced hand, that's better than having no message, or having a pandering sermon instead of something uplifting. And pulling off a few clichéd maneuvers is infinitely preferable to robotically manufactured originality. This movie goes by an outdated playbook, and I couldn't be happier. There's heart, humor, characters with arcs, a plot that a human person with human feelings made up with their human imagination, and Chris Pratt lends his warm affability to the whole ordeal. A genuine blockbuster in 2021. Time travel is real after all!

Onward

Spoiler-free!

In a fantasy realm where magic had faded from popular existence, two elf brothers, Barley and Ian, get a present from their father, who died before Ian was born. In the package, a wizard staff, a Phoenix Gem, and instructions for a spell -- a spell that will bring their dad back for 24 hours. Barley is a history buff and obsessed with magic, but it's Ian who makes the spell work... well, halfway. The gem explodes and their dad is just a pair of khakis, so the boys set out on a quest to find another Phoenix Gem and finish the spell before their time is up.

DID SOMEONE SAY "QUEST"??? SIGN ME UP.

I've been tired of Disney Pixar for about ten years, so it's about time for a revival! I knew the moment I saw the poster -- where high fantasy is blended with urban fantasy -- that I had a great chance of loving it, and I was right. Even if the story wasn't great I would have still enjoyed the distinctly fantasy world building, down to things like small dragons kept as pets instead of dogs, Valor being a van model, and angry fairies in motorcycle gangs eating Pixy Stix by the straw-full. That stuff was creative and fun, and the exact kind of attention to detail that I love to see in Pixar, but this is, in my opinion, the best Pixar fare since 2008, and has more working for it than an exciting and fleshed-out world.

Tom Holland plays Ian, and Barley is Chris Pratt. Two charming and talented actors, and their characters are the main reason this film works as well as it does. The way they're written and played. Pratt has first-rate hilarious line-delivery, and if anyone can make awkwardness likable, it's Tom Holland. The way the two characters' personalities clash and complement each other is heavenly, and you get lost in their easy conversations, whether they're arguing, having fun, in the middle of action, or anything in between. Ian is the main protagonist, and he makes a check list of things he wants to improve about himself.  Then, each stop along their quest pushes him unaware toward his goal.

I found it pleasantly predictable in many ways, but it had some wonderfully unexpected moments too, when it needed them.

And Barley could have easily fallen into the comic relief character trap (considering how effortlessly hilarious he is) but instead the character is fleshed out in some unexpectedly mature ways. He seems like the kind of guy that doesn't take anything seriously, but then there's the bridge scene -- or the hilariously epic "Rise to Valhalla" moment -- where his seriousness is truly serious, but still funny. Humor isn't something you turn on when it's comedy time and off when it's serious time. He's just genuine, and therefore can be both. And that's how the whole film is. It never announces it's time to switch gears; it's a constant flow of adventure, with all the ups and downs it needs present, but not showcased or ballooned to unnatural proportions.

Pixar has finally come up with an original story that appeals to me as an adult. Sure, it's still a kiddie film, not intellectually complex, and follows a basic and straightforward story structure, but every beat it hits is earned. It got a toe in the door with the fantasy world, then swept me up for the ride in a way I haven't allowed myself to go on with Pixar since Toy Story 3 introduced me to the gross feel of emotional manipulation. But Onward feels right in every way: The quest-style structure of little adventure vignettes built on top of each other... the way every detail is set up for later but not in an obvious way... a conflict that comes naturally from the core of the characters -- and a resolution that hits home because the story speaks for itself and doesn't need to be forced.

I see people dismiss it as "B-tier Pixar" and wonder when they forgot to value stories for the joy they bring.

I'm happy to know Pixar is still capable of winning storytelling along with its usual features of unique premises and beautiful animation. Onward is everything a great and worthy adventure should be -- full of Heart's Fire, you might say; and light, charming humor; and warm characters; and sweeping glorious fun; and inspired world building. And no, perhaps it won't appeal to everyone as strongly as it does me. But that, I think, is the great thing about Pixar. At their best, they send risky, niche stories out into the wild, and every once in a while, we wind up with something magical.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

I did go to the theater in February... to see 1917 again. I may or may not have a problem. But I didn't go for anything else only because Emma doesn't have a wide release until next weekend. So I'll definitely see a 2020 movie this month, and very much looking forward to it!

I also caught up with Parasite just before it took Best Picture at the Oscars. A fascinating film, if not one I feel in love with on a personal level. You can read my review of it here!

I think I might be sliding into 2020 mode now. So let's got to those March movies! What are you planning to see this month?



Onward
In theaters March 6th; PG
Between the releases Toy Story 3 and Toy Story 4, I've been interested in exactly one Pixar film: Incredibles 2. So I'm surprised that they have my attention again with the original Onward. I hear tell it's not as "great" as Pixar is known for, but I've been disenfranchised with the franchise for roughly 10 years. So either this is even worse, or maybe everyone else not falling for it is a sign that I will. Because I really love fantasy. And adventures. And this has both in spades -- and flaunts it. I don't think the plot will need to be fantastic for me to enjoy it, which is all I want. I also like the cast of Tom Holland and Chris Pratt in the leads. Maybe it won't be Great Pixar, but it at least looks like Pixar that's successfully catered to me.




The Way Back
Normally I'd write this kind of film off instantly; sport plots rarely appeal to me. Sport dramas even less. And if it must be sport dramas, basketball is not recommended. I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And I do not care for Ben Affleck. But. The director is Gavin O'Connor, who made Warrior, a sport drama that broke the mold for me, so despite all the marks against this one, I'll keep an eye on it because of that.




Bloodshot
In theaters March 13th; PG-13
I will watch anything with Toby Kebbell in it, and that's as complex as this needs to get. If the plot, action, and Vin Diesel are good that'll be nice, but it doesn't really matter to me. But... I kinda wonder how this premise could be any good without a R-for-violence rating. And for some reason I thought it was a Netflix film, and so I'm disappointed that I'll have to wait to see it streaming. And Toby Kebbell doesn't even appear to be the main villain. But like I said, those things are irrelevant to whether or not I'll see it.





A Quiet Place Part II
In theaters March 20th; NR
Do I wish they'd have just stopped, left great enough alone and not made more at the risk of ruining everything? Of course I do. I will I see this sequel anyway? Yes. Yes, I will. And what's more I will be relatively excited for it -- because John Krasinski must have heard about my reservations and decided to distract me from them by adding Cillian Murphy to the cast. A cheap trick, that is working beautifully. I'll probably see it in theaters. But gosh I hope it's a worthy sequel. Those things are a rarity these days.




Mulan
In theaters March 27th; PG-13
Until the remake Atlantis: The Lost Empire or Treasure Planet, I will not be excited for a Live Action Disney Remake. But this has potential to be the best one since Cinderella -- simply because it doesn't appear to be a paint-by-numbers copy of the animation. It still looks like a Disney movie, but also like it'll maybe try to be a good film, too. So hey... maybe it will be. I won't get my hopes up. But it has a better chance than most, I think.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

Wow, March already. February went a little crazy with my expectations. First I saw Velvet Buzzsaw even though I was on the fence about it. I decided it didn't look too scary and went for it -- and now it's my current favorite movie of the year! It was devilishly funny and smart and I read a lot into the themes that I adored. And the horror was perfect for me: not too scary but very cool. (Read my review here!)

The next unexpected thing was that I actually went to the theater to see Alita: Battle Angel, and I'm so glad I did. I fell in love with it. The world was every bit as cool as I wanted and Alita herself was magical. I said I thought she looked inexpressive in the trailer, but in the movie, she was perfect. Wonderfully animated, acted, and written! (Review here!)

I didn't go see The Lego Movie 2 though, even though I thought that was a sure thing. And last night I streamed The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot. It surprised me the least but that was probably because I was expecting good things. So I should get a review for it out soon.

March movies always seems to have a lot of promise to me. It's like the wild-card month, where the best and the worst movies of the year are mingled together and you have to sort out which is which. What looks good you y'all?


Captain Marvel
Mar 8th; PG-13
Here's an opening statement for you: I'm actually kinda excited for this movie. About as excited as I was for Spider-Man: Homecoming anyway, which is definitely more excited than I usually am for MCU installments. Usually, I dread them. Still, the push-back and push-back-on-push-back over this movie is ridiculous. I wish everyone would chill, because if this movie sucks, guaranteed it's going to be for the exact same reason that every recent Marvel movie has sucked. Anyway I'm still looking forward to it because I've always enjoyed Larson's acting, it's set in the 90's and supposedly has an appropriate soundtrack, is a space-y movie, and Ben Mendelsohn is the bad guy. What's not to like? Well, there's all the Marvel stuff that I'm sick and tired of... but I'm giving it a fair chance.




The Kid
Mar 8th; R
Chris Pratt plays a bad guy in this. Like, a seriously, really bad, bad guy. So I'm sold on that alone, I've always wanted to know if he has chops to play against type. Very interested. Then approach it from another angle: Ethan Hawke western movie. Sold all over again! It's directed by Vincent D'Onofrio, and all those guys were in The Magnificent Seven remake together. I can just see them sitting around on set and planning this movie -- though logic doubts that happened. Throw in Dane DeHaan and a more R-rated, gritty tone, and I've lost count of how many times I'm sold. At this point I'm basically sure that I'll be hitting the theaters for it if I can. It kinda snuck up on me, and suddenly I'm eager to see it! The music usage in this trailer is seriously on point.




I'm Not Here
Mar 8th(limited); NR
One of those actor movies. It's got J.K. Simmons and Sebastian Stan and Maika Monroe, and the plot looks, well, I can't even remember at this point and I only watched the trailer a few hours ago. It looks boring but well-acted. I dunno, I'd consider watching if it came to a steaming service near me.




Triple Frontier
Mar 13th; R
It's a Netflix movie, so, basically... I'll watch it. I don't even really need to know anything about it. I know it'll be there, it has an appealing cast of Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam (who I like now for some magical reason???) Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal, and that's all Netflix needs to attract me. The plot is one of those situations though where it's so clearly a bad idea yet the characters go for it anyway, so unless the movie itself makes it make more sense why they'd all agree to that plan -- it may ruin the whole thing even if the action is cool.




Starfish
Mar 13(limited); NR
Streaming May 28th, but I guess I'll put in here, so I can remember it once May rolls around. She's ostensibly the last person on earth and find a tape left for her by a friend, with clues on how to... solve something? Save the world? The movie looks pretty crazy but it's probably mostly a cerebral thing. Still, could be cool.




Five Feet Apart
Mar 15th; PG-13
I'd be kidding myself if I didn't include this one. I don't think I've ever seen a Sprouse brother act before. I never watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but I've always known who they were because I was a part of a Narnia fan forum back in the day where people would regularly fan-cast them as the twins in The Horse and His Boy. That's a rabbit trail but the point is this is a cute dumb teen melodrama that's trying to bank off The Fault in Our Stars 5 years after the fact and I will probably watch it the absolute second its available for free because why the heck not? It also has the best friend girl from Edge of Seventeen, which I just watched the other day. So that's cool.




Captive State
Mar 15th(limited); PG-13
This looks like it could be absolutely awesome. I'm always down for a nice hardcore scifi movie and this alien takeover plot could definitely do the trick. It's like 1984 or something but with extraterrestrials. John Goodman is there, Vera Farminga, and it looks like the main character is Ashton Sanders, who I've not seen in anything yet, but he was the middle version of the protagonist in Moonlight so I expect he can do that acting thing. The only thing I'm not sure about is, it's proudly by the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and... I did not like that movie. So if this follows it's footsteps too closely I can imagine it getting all the potential joy sucked out of it. Probably worth the risk though I'd say.




The Aftermath
Mar 15th(limited); R
Ugh, I dunno about this one, I'm on the fence about even including it in this post. Fox Searchlight seems to do a good job consistently picking up good movies, but even the appeal of hearing Alexander Skarsgård speak German doesn't seem worth sitting through a movie with this kind of frustrating "romance" plot, starring Keira Knightley.




The Mustang
Mar 15th(limited); R
This is different. Also, it's a horse movie. Last year, when a horse movie came out in March it wound up being my favorite movie of the whole year! That probably won't happen again, but this does have the same sort of simple, small and intimate tone. The reforming inmate and his horse. It looks good, it seriously does. Matthias Schoenaerts stars.




Us
Mar 22nd; R
I'm so scared of this movie, I can't even watch the trailer again. How in the world can I possibly watch the actual movie?!? Last time a trailer was too scary and I somehow got myself to watch the movie anyway I regretted it a bit. More than a bit. Ugh, it looks great, it looks terrible -- I think I'll leave it to the professionals for now. Maybe I'll ease into it and see Get Out first anyway. Same director. And if I like and can handle that, then we'll see.




Triple Threat
Mar 22nd; R
And it's streaming same day. Never not watch Iko Uwais movies -- ever since I finally buckled down and watched The Raid. I don't even need to see the trailer. Don't even need to know the plot. The action in this guy's movies are everything they need, and everything else is just a plus!




Dumbo
Mar 29th; PG
Disney's first live-action remake of the year, and the one getting the least flack. Certainly from me and here's why: It appears to be the least of a shot-for-shot remake of the three. It's got added characters and a seriously expanded plot. Human characters, and new human characters that aren't desperately trying to look like iconic animated characters. I also recently realized that I kinda enjoy Colin Farrell now (I think it was In Bruges that did me in) and he and his kids seem to be even more the leads than Dumbo himself. Ostensibly, they're changing it enough so it can be a worthwhile story in its own right. I'm surprised at how okay and hesitantly on board with this movie I am. They may reveal how they've ruined it soon enough, but as it stands I'm rather curious. Also Michael Keaton is the bad guy? Sounds good, solid plan.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

First month of 2019: done. I saw: Escape Room (review) and it was good! As I hoped, fun, involving, neat characters. Nothing groundbreaking but I had a fantastic time with it. And Io (review), which was a Netflix release, and that's the only reason I watched it, and it wasn't a total waste of time, but you know, I watch too much scifi anyway.

I didn't get to Glass because I never found a reasonable way to watch Split, so I guess I'm waiting on both of them. And I still do want to see the Kid Who Would Be King, but it seems only borderline worth a theater trip so I dunno.

Here's what looks good to me this month. Nothing I'm extremely excited for, but we'll see how it goes! Hope y'all's 2019 is off to a great start!


Velvet Buzzsaw
Feb 1st(netflix); R
I'm not sure I'm ready for another horror movie that has Toni Collette in it. Even if it is also a dark comedy and I definitely like those. I expect I'll get around to this one soon enough... but... not today. The cast is a big part of the appeal -- Toni, plus Jake Gyllanhaal, John Malkovich, Natalia Dyer of Stranger Things, Billy Magnussen... and the trailer at least has great style. Plus I'm always down for a movie that pokes fun at modern art.




The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part
Feb 8th; PG
No way I'm not seeing this, but I'd be shocked beyond belief if it has the same huge heart of the first one. It probably won't even be as original or as funny, but it can be comparatively lacking and still be an awesome movie, because the original left a ton of room below it! Whether they're great standalone films or just a fun Lego time, I'm glad to participate. The best part is probably going to be Chris Pratt also playing an amalgamation character of Star-Lord, Owen, and... Indiana Jones for some reason? That, or Lego Batman, cause he's the greatest.




The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot
Feb 8th; NR
This is so strange yet it really looks like a genuinely good movie. Almost like it's ridiculous camp, but played ultra cool and seriously. Like a hardcore version of Big Fish. I dunno, I mostly want to see it just to see how it works! Sam Elliott and Aidan Turner play the man, and Ron Livingston is also there.




Cold Pursuit
Feb 8th(limited); R
Look I'm sure this movie will be fine -- in fact I'd bet it's going to be a ton better than most of what Liam Neeson has been putting out recently, but I would like to take this opportunity to do a PSA: That this movie is based on a Norwegian film called In Order of Disappearance, and it stars Stellan Skarsgård, and it's available for streaming on Netflix... and it was pretty darn good. But this'll probably be worth watching too. It's got good visual style and is keeping the dark comedy tone which is, ah, cool.




Happy Death Day 2U
Feb 13th; PG-13
Haha, well I haven't seen the first one yet, but now that they've made a sequel, and given it THAT title, I think I'm gonna have to watch both at some point. Looks like a fun time anyway. And it's got Josh from To All the Boys I've Loved Before in it! Was he in the first one too? I guess he had to be.




Isn't it Romantic
Feb 13th; PG-13
Rebel Wilson, who I pretty often find funny is a girl who hates rom-coms, hits her head (classic) and wakes up in a rom-com. This is the perfect movie for the rebirth of the rom-com we're witnessing right now. What I'd love to happen is for it to play out like a classic rom-com right through the end. She ends up with Adam Devine instead of Liam Hemsworth of course, but doesn't see it coming because she hates rom-coms so she doesn't understand the tropes well enough. So it's meta and can make fun of rom-com silliness, but ultimately embraces the light, sweet romance aspect that makes rom-coms great. If it does that, I'm there. I'm kinda there already anyway.




Alita: Battle Angel
Feb 14th; PG-13
I don't want to pass this one by just because the girl's face looks weird -- though it is very distracting in the trailer and inexpressive -- because I really, really, like scifi worlds like this one appears to have, and the whole movie kinda feels like a throwback to the best scifi actioners the early 2000's had, and I don't know, but it's all kind of appealing to me. Rosa Salazar leads, with Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly, and Mahershala Ali. Kinda an old-school style cast too.




Mega Time Squad
Feb 15th(limited); NR
New Zealand sure does put out a special brand of comedy. It's like they relish how incredibly dorky they can be, and it makes everything cool for some unexplainable reason. In this one a guy is cursed with a time travel device, accidentally meets himself, and then keeps meeting himself until there's a whole bunch of them... and then they team up to fight the bad guys or whatever. I'm in. (Language warning for this trailer.)




How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
Feb 22nd; PG
Love the first one, second one's okay; this one's getting just as good reviews than the second so maybe it'll end satisfyingly. I'm kinda tired of watching the trailer which isn't a good sign, but the animation is as beautiful as ever, and if they story is good I'll be happy. I don't think anything could match the first one -- and it seems like they agree with me, since they put that bit from the first one in the beginning of the trailer.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Spoilers!

So now the island that housed the disastrous theme park Jurassic World of the last movie has a volcano on it, and it's going to explode. Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), turned from prim and proper business woman to free-spirited animal lover in the last film, is heading up an organization to save the dinos. The government decides to stay out of it, so she jumps at the opportunity when a private company run by Rafe Spall offers to help her relocate the animals. Then she ropes in Owen (Chris Pratt) because his favorite Raptor, Blue, is still on the island.

Should've bombed the island as soon as all the humans got off. Then they wouldn't have this problem.

But surprise! Rafe Spall isn't actually relocating the dinos to another safe island -- he's bringing them to the mainland and keeping them in the cellar of a massive estate that belonged to John Hammond of the original, original film. What could possibly go wrong? Oh and Dr. Wu (BD Wong) helped him and Toby Jones create a new, new dino by mixing Raptor with the Indominous Rex of the last film. The Indoraptor. Super creative name, yeah? They plan on bidding all of them off to the wealthy and ill-intentioned of the world. Things go exactly as you imagine they will.

And that's not really a bad thing in itself. The giant house wound up being a fun set piece for the last act; the first was getting on and off the island, and the second was adventures stowed-away on the transport ship. With a little tweaking it could have been a rollicking and pure-blooded adventure. But it gets distracted, by focusing way too hard on... trying to teach us a lesson? They were pushing us to feel sympathy for the dinos, which I guess they didn't realize is something we naturally feel. Dinosaurs are freaking awesome, and unless they're actively portrayed as evil beings, we not going to be eager to see them die.

I mean seriously -- look how freaking cute she is!

But they went all ham-handed on the tragedy of their situation anyway, and went so far overboard with it. At the end of the first act as they sail away on the ship, a Brontosaurus is left behind, literally calling to them from the dock as the ash and lava catches up to it. The music swells dramatically; the cloud engulfs the majestic creature; the fire lights its silhouette as it rears and seems to dissolve away.... and I was about to roll on the floor laughing. Feels bad. The harder I tried not to, the funnier it became. I did manage to laugh quietly, so hopefully I didn't annoy the person next to me.

There's also a big plot line involving Blue being a good dino, and one secondary bad guy (Ted Levine) who pulls teeth out of the dinos to collect for a necklace. In case the point about him being evil wasn't clear enough. But guess what they neglected to do? Yep, create sympathy for any of the humans. Maisie (Isabella Sermon) is the most because she spends time alone figuring out the bad guy's evil plot and running for her life. Claire and Owen are complete blanks except that they care about the dinos, which doesn't help me much. They had a bad break and allude to that, and by the end they're kissing again, but nothing happened to get them there.

If one shared near-death experience couldn't keep them together, why should a second? 

And the two sidekicks, Franklin (Justice Smith) and Zia (Daniella Pineda), I actually forgot existed whenever they disappeared from the screen. Everything they did could've been accomplished by Claire and Owen, or was unnecessary in the first place. Like, they have a whole sequence where they reboot the ventilation system to save the caged dinos from poisonous gas, but later their efforts have only stalled for time -- so the leak could've been slower in the first place with no different outcome. They didn't annoy me particularly, but were blank too, and if their time had been redistributed through a smaller cast -- but the problem wasn't lack of screen time, but of attentive writing.

The poisonous gas bit was inter-cut with Claire, Owen, and Maisie hiding from the Indoraptor, in what is probably the best extended sequence of the film. The dark house of endless rooms and museum-displays of fossils, the one dino tracking them down. It's the classic Jurassic Park stuff and only seemed lacking because it wasn't given time to breathe. It needed to revel more. Linger and seep in. It did that in brief staccato moments, but jumped around too much for the feeling to stay.

"Rafe?" "Yes, Toby?" "Are we the bad guys?" "I think." "Well, crap."

And it's probably just me but I wanted a lot more out of the villain. I like Rafe Spall. But he did his thing and then disappeared until it was time for his death scene. And speaking of deaths, literally all but one death goes as follows: person discovers dino danger; person tries very hard to survive; person survives by skin of teeth; person relaxes -- bam! -- person is dino lunch. Not that that's a terrible way to do a death scene, but a little variety would've been nice. Also, I felt weird watching bad guys get munched on. It was like the movie wanted us to enjoy it; to cheer or feel satisfaction over it.

In the previous movies, even a villain death was played for horror, not elation, right? We felt they deserved it, but it was still grisly and disturbing. It's also worth noting that no good guy is killed by a dino in this film. Not a single one. Not even a neutral, innocent bystander. It's not like even a hint of stakes were ever in place for anyone except the dinos -- that was just adding fuel to the fire.

Forgive me if I want to care about human characters in a movie where the human characters are the leads.

Fallen Kingdom builds on a decently solid skeleton, and that keeps it from falling into a distracted oblivion. That, and the innate likability of Pratt, Howard, and newbie Sermon. A quality level equal to Jurassic World was out of reach I think, simply because the "horror at the theme park" premise is tough to top -- but though it's not unworthy of the name, it clearly could've been better than this.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

In May I got the surprise of the year when I went to see Deadpool 2, and absolutely loved it! Read my review here. My favorite superhero movie since Spider-Man: Homecoming. It was very R-rated, but used its rating with more discretion than the first one, making it more loyal in tone to the comics. The jokes hit and Deadpool "dies" a lot in some awesome action scenes which was something the last one sorely missed. I'll probably see Solo soonish too. Maybe today.

Let the summer officially begin! What's been your favorite of the year so far? And what are you looking forward to next? Let me know in the comments. With five Fridays in June there's LOTS to look at this month! Let's get to it:


Upgrade
Jun 1st; R
This looks like a fun hardcore action flick. One neat premise -- where an AI implant allows a crippled man to go on a revenge spree -- that's just about as catered to the R-rated action genre as a premise can be. I expect some of the plot will be familiar, but that's okay by me as long as it's done well. The action looks great -- by the cinematography mostly. I really like it when the camera is far enough away so we can actually see what's going on, and doesn't cut every half-second. Plus -- those spin moves. This one's out today, and already has enough good reviews that I'm definitely interested to see it for myself.




American Animals
Jun 1st; R
Also out today, and also getting some good reviews. This one caught my attention with it's cast of Barry Keoghan and Evan Peters, but finding out more about it, my interest has only been dropping since. It definitely looks like a well made movie; I just expect that the plot would irritate and stress me out. I don't know anything about the real-life event, but I seriously doubt this movie could end well. It's the sort of thing I'd watch when it's streaming for free.




Adrift
Jun 1st; PG-13
Hopefully that's the last time I ever have to see a trailer for this movie. (Update: It wasn't.) As far as true stories go, I'd a million times rather watch the above than this, even though I expect this one has a happy ending. Shailene Woodley and Sam Claflin are meant to be a big draw (Tris and Finnick, together at last! Wait...) but for me it has the opposite effect. I'm so full of ugh over this movie, but I had to include it, to say no thank you. So -- no thank you!




Breath
Jun 1st; NR
Simon Baker directs, based on a novel. It's set in the 70's in Australia, and it appears to be a coming of age type movie with surfing. So that's all different and interesting. I'm not much a surfing movie fan, but I do like a good coming of ager. Will keep an eye open.




All Summers End
Jun 1st; NR
I heard about this movie in 2014 whenever Tye Sheridan had a few guest appearances on Last Man Standing as Kaitlyn Dever's boyfriend. I wonder why it took so long to be released, but that explains why they look so young. This is the sort of movie I'll be watching, disregarding reviews, without expecting much. Any other day I might not have given it a second look, but it's got Tye Sheridan, and I've low-key been waiting for four years, so....




Ocean's 8
Jun 8th; PG-13
Oh boy. Another Ghostbusters, or something actually good this time? I expect more the former. I'd be much more interested even if they weren't trying to bank of the Ocean's movies. Whether you call it a remake a reboot or a sequel, it can't help but feel like it's clutching onto the boys for support instead of trying to stand on its own high-heeled legs. Maybe it can stand on its own; maybe it can't. It's just a matter of principle, and one of the warning signs of a bad film.




Hereditary
Jun 8th; R
YIKES. This looks like a great horror movie. Which is why I'll probably never watch it.




Hotel Artemis
Jun 8th; R
If I ever watch this, it will be for Jeff Goldblum and sunglasses cinematography. I dunno, I mean, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. It's got a nice cast, a scifi kind of premise. A siege plot. A nice look. It's just not appealing to me in any significant way. If it ever does, I'll be there.




Incredibles 2
Jun 15th; PG
I know everyone's excited about this, I just find it hard not to be cynical about sequels, even when it's Pixar. Not that Pixar has exactly been up to par recently. There are two main things about this sequel that gives me hope: One, Brad Bird is back. That is extremely comforting. And two, Jack-Jack's portal superpowers. I love that. So we'll see I guess!




The Yellow Birds
Jun 15th; R
Hmm. Alden Ehrenreich and Tye Sheridan war movie. Oh and Toni Collette. She has quite a few movies coming out this month. I don't think the movie looks particularly good, and I'm not generally big on modern war films, but I may give it a shot sometime for the cast.




Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Jun 22nd; PG-13
I seriously doubt that I'll enjoy this one as much as I did the first Jurassic World, but I also expect that I'll be seeing it in theaters. Unless it really bombs. Chris Pratt has lost some of his appeal to me, but I'm sure he can still carry a movie with star-power. And I'm sure the dinos will look great on the big screen. And hey, this one has Rafe Spall in it. He's probably a bad guy, but that's okay. He's great.




Under the Silver Lake
Jun 22nd; R
Haha wow, this movie looks like it was made for Andrew Garfield; perfect for him in a way no one could have guessed kind of thing. Intriguing and bizarre. My only real question is: how did that girl go swimming and still have all her makeup be so perfect and completely not smudged??




The Catcher was a Spy
Jun 22nd; R
Paul Rudd leading a great cast; WWII spy movie. But, true story, so I guess I should find out what happens before I watch it. Looks kinda fun and kinda serious. I'd be willing to give it a go, even just for Rudd. I was like "Catcher of what?" and then I watched the trailer.




Sicario: Day of the Soldado
Jun 29th; R
The first one was a good movie, and when this one was announced I figured it'd be terrible, especially when I heard Emily Blunt wasn't in it. But really, it's going in such a different direction, I think I've changed my mind. It looks fun; very different from the first, but still with Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin's characters. Brolin in on a roll this summer, my goodness. So I doubt it'll have the immaculate and intentional filmmaking of the first, but I also doubt it'll be a waste of time.




Leave no Trace
Jun 29th; PG
Looks like a sweet movie. Also a good movie for hermits. From the writer/Director of Winter's Bone, whoever that is. And that was a good movie, so sure; advertise that. But one of the blips here compares this girl to Jennifer Lawrence is a completely blatant way, and that seems unfair. Salt-of-the-earth people aren't really that scarce, and I'm sure one could think of a way to praise this girl's performance and demeanor without resorting to such laziness.




Woman Walks Ahead
Jun 29th; R
Sam Rockwell? Sign me up, boys! Although the movie looks to be so full of politics that it doesn't have any room for anything else, I'll give it a chance for Sam. Jessica Chastain is great too. I'm sure she makes an excellent lead. And modern-made westerns are a fun thing. Or at least they can be. We'll see what happens.

Avengers: Infinity War

Major Spoilers!

Welcome to the latest greatest Marvel movie, where all your favorite superheroes come together against the super-villain, Thanos, a very reasonable crazy person who wants to destroy half the universe! They fight super hard for two hours and thirty minutes, and then Thanos destroys half the universe. It's great fun.

I Loki hate this movie. lol.

There's a filmmaking 101 rule. If, say, a bomb is introduced to the plot, and there isn't eventually an on-screen explosion, your movie is bad. You must detonate that bomb. That's why Iron Man flew the nuke into space and exploded the Chitari spaceship. That's why Ronan's plans of destruction via the Power stone are shown by The Collector as he explains the danger -- because you must show it. It doesn't have to happen for real, but it has to happen. This rule, which is religiously followed in action films, is the reason I wasn't surprised by the end of Infinity War. The end rolled around sans a preview of the destruction, so I braced for impact.

But that's not why I didn't like the movie. The reason why I didn't enjoy myself watching this film as much as I should have, is that I felt the need to brace for impact in the first place. I like plenty of these characters. In fact, I dislike none of them. But the MCU doesn't typically make it worthwhile to be invested in the plights or well-being of its characters, and this film is the worst offender of the lot. Thor, Gamora and Strange are pushed to develop more than most of the sea of characters this film possesses, but whether they receive a little attention, or a lot, this movie can't agree with previous films on what their established character is, or the directions they should take.

You'd think so little screen-time would keep away glaring inconsistencies, but no. Poor Quill was obliterated. 

It's an antihero movie from Thanos' perspective more than anything else. He wants to save the entire universe by destroying half the universe, (If you kill half the people, the rest will have more room and resources. Think about it!) and while his reasoning makes sense for a crazy person, he doesn't act crazy. He's just a big purple dude with a dream, and besides his partial-genocide plan, he keeps his evil deeds to a minimum. Are we supposed to sympathize? Because he achieves his goal at great personal loss does that make him deep? No. He's one-note, and it never makes sense why his goal is so important to him.

Conversely, every single hero's goal is clear: save the world, save the universe, save the people they care for. Viewers will latch on to that automatically; it's a fundamental part of a hero's being. Yet we are forced to watch them fail and give way to Thanos' character over and over. And with no ultimate triumph to make it worthwhile, it all becomes meaningless. This story has no reward. It kicks you in the head on intervals, tosses in a few neat fights, then pulls the rug out and waits for the praise to come rolling in. And fans, concussed, stagger away mumbling about how they "need to process this." You don't need to process it: it felt like one big sucker punch because that's what it was.

Half the "good" moments were just blatant rehashes of previous good moments. Thor's plotline was probably best because he has success before the final failure.

The film started out feeling very similar to flipping channels -- if every channel was playing a generic Marvel film. But the plot does tie it all together in a cohesive way, and as it puttered along I found myself more and more interested in the outlandish space locations and enjoying the odd awesome moment that lands among the unfunny, downright boring attempts at comedy and the even less interesting character development through dialogue. And every time a character died I would wait patiently for the next hint of joy.

Is it too much to ask that superhero movies be fun? It's not that they don't know how to have fun. I recall one particularly spectacular moment between Bucky and Rocket, and Spider-Man elevates everything by double just by having his face on screen. It seemed that the point of the movie wasn't to be entertaining (or heaven forbid -- interesting!) but to be a culmination of the past ten years. To bring it all together under one roof, and in one fell swoop... point to the next movie: because if the audience isn't talking about the next film in the series as they walk out of the theater, you're doing it wrong.

It's called The Avengers for a reason! They gotta have something to... to.... *Part Two opens* ...AVENGE!!!!

I'm sick and tired of it. I just want to enjoy a movie; to live in the moment of a fantasy world for a few hours, without the threat of anything being held back or saved for later. Marvel is on top of the world right now. They can do whatever they want, and fans will be in the theater, excited, and willing to give it a chance. And what do they do with this power? They give us crumbs. They leave a trail of them, promising more and more, and we follow, like the dutiful fans we are, clinging to the crumbs -- a great character, a favorite actor, a fleeting moment of joy -- and wonder why we don't feel satisfied.

There's not a lot objectively wrong with this movie. It's put together impressively well for being the monstrous task that it was. It mostly makes sense, mostly stays focused, and definitely does what it sets out to do. It often looks good, Thanos and his henchmen's CGI being a notable exception. It has a handful of memorable moments and many more that seem included dispassionately, out of obligation. Some humor is okay, some cringy. Some characters get quality attention, some... aren't even in the movie at all. Hello, Hawkeye? There are scores of nitpicks I could make, but it doesn't matter; the hard truth is, there's nothing this movie could've done that would've made me love it.

I'm not an overly emotional person by nature, but Marvel has taught me to be downright stone-hearted concerning their films.

Fact is, I don't watch superhero movies to see the heroes fail at the end. On the list of things I don't want to see in a superhero film, ultimate failure is top of the box office all year long. (Failure before the end, however, is equally necessary. It's backwards here.) And I know: I know they're going to fix everything, because Spidey has another movie coming, and Marvel will never kill off a cash cow before it's dry. Therefore, it's possible that in combination with Part 2, I will enjoy the story more. Yep, they have me on the hook for another year. Doesn't change the fact, though. The only enjoyment I got out of the end was being so detached that I was actually amused by the manipulative stupidity on display before me.

There's simply nothing here for me. I am a Marvel fan, but they sure do make it difficult. Forcing investment in a story that is out to manipulate me isn't an option, and I've been shortchanged too many times for it to come naturally. If you don't identify with that statement, you'll probably love this film. Since it banks on killing off characters it's important that you be invested. And good on you if you were invested and did like it -- I'm not here to be Gamora and suck the joy out of everything (I'll even admit her death scene and dynamic with Thanos was alright) I'm just here to complain that I found no joy to begin with.

Except maybe Spider-Man. Spider-Man is still great. Maybe I'm turning into a Sony-Marvel fan...

For a movie with no respect, no energy, and minimal creative effort, where the good guys put aside their differences, joining against a common enemy, only to fail miserably and wallow in a stale puddle of passionless tears, all in a blatant effort to build hype for the next film, Infinity War is about as good as you could possibly expect.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Happy Spring, happy April, happy April Fool's Day, and most importantly, happy Easter and Resurrection Sunday!

In March I saw my one must-see, that also happened to be my most-anticipated film of 2018 -- Ready Player One! It didn't hit the highest heights that my imagination hoped it had the potential for, but it was every bit as fun as the book, boasting the same greatness and the same flaws alike. And the cast is perfection. I'll write a review soon, but for now I'm listening to a playlist of the music and relishing the experience.

Still have interest in Thoroughbreds and Isle of Dogs. I need to get better at actually going out and seeing these non-blockbuster releases in theaters. Lean on Pete also hasn't hit a theater near me yet, but looks like it's expanding this month. I'm on Easter break this week, so maybe I should do a serious movie splurge.

What did you see in March? And what looks good in April?


A Quiet Place
Apr 6th; PG-13
My second-most anticipated movie of the year after Ready Player One. After I see this I'll have to come up with some new most-anticipated for the rest of the year's eight months. John Krasinski directs, and stars with his real-life wife Emily Blunt, and I'm sold on that alone. Plot-wise I don't want to know much, but horror/thriller vibes are blatantly obvious, which I'm definitely cool with. Something about this movie reminds me of 10 Cloverfield Lane, and I'm not even worried that influence will make my expectations too high because the movie has been getting rave reviews so far.




You Were Never Really Here
Apr 6th; R
Joaquin Phoenix looks intense. This movie looks intense. It's probably good but it's also probably not exactly my kind of movie.




The Endless
Apr 6th; NR
The color grading make it look like it's on the cheaper side of low-budget indie movies, but the scifi/Lovecraft thing it has going is undeniably appealing. The scifi side of it doesn't look cheap either. I'll be very interested to watch if I ever see it floating around on a streaming site somewhere.




Rampage
Apr 13th; PG-13
Ugh, this looks so dumb. Not that it appears to be trying to be anything else, but it's just not appealing to me. I'd rather watch Skull Island again, or Jumanji. If this movie winds up being dumb but genuinely good and fun like those movies, I will be very surprised. But still, I'll probably watch it at some point, if only to roll my eyes at it.




Borg vs McEnroe
Apr 13th; R
Not that it sounds boring to watch Shia LaBeouf get beat in an epic game of tennis by a Swedish fellow, but to be perfectly honest, the main appeal of this movie for me is that the Swedish side of things is done in Swedish -- so it's half a foreign language film. I don't think I've ever seen Stellan Skarsgård act in his native language. (This trailer isn't green-band approved -- language warning.)




Marrowbone
Apr 13th; NR
It's a creepy horror movie set in what looks like the 50's, and it has Charlie Heaton in it, so I guess I have to watch it. The nice thing is, it's releasing on Amazon -- so probably not the greatest quality film, but that okay by me. Maybe it won't be too scary.




Avengers: Infinity War
Apr 27th; PG-13
Oh yeah, I forgot about this one! lol.
Here's the thing about this movie: I don't care.
I'm going to go see it, but I'm not particularly excited about watching all my favorite superheroes come together and not get enough screentime in a 2-hour, 40-min movie, just so that some drama can be milked and one or two people can get killed off in what I assume will be the most forced, senseless, and irritating ways possible. So sue me. When the ads boast about how Marvel has been building to this for 10 years it irks me, because of how dismissive it is of previous Marvel films -- films that were sometimes this close to being great apart from their shared universe but perhaps weren't simply because they only needed to serve to sell the next film. Even this film is just going to point to next year's Avengers 4. That kind of mindset makes me want to quit with Marvel altogether, but I guess I'm in too deep now. Spider-Man and Bucky are my excuse.




The House of Tomorrow
Apr 27th; NR
Aw, this looks cute. Like a retry of The Space Between Us for Asa Butterfield, but not ridiculous and painfully awkward. I guess he likes playing naive outsiders getting introduced to the world. This one also has Nick Offerman, Ellen Burstyn and the Second Edition Wolff -- Alex Wolff. Are he and Nat twins, because I seriously cannot tell them apart? *research* No. They act so similarly too though -- it's like Nat went back in time and switched the mole on his chin to his lip so he could make more teenage movies. Anyways, this movie. Looks neat. Will check out.

Passengers

Some spoilers.

Thirty years into a hundred and twenty-year voyage into deep space, a cryogenic pod malfunction wakes up Chris Pratt to the biggest bummer of his entire life: he's gonna have to spend the rest of his life alone. Starving for company, he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence to join him.

Romance blossoms! Oh but wait -- that was actually a super mean thing to do...

For such a straightforward movie, my thoughts on it are annoyingly complicated. I wish I could just say, "It's pretty, its characters are pretty, there's science fiction, there's romance, it's not great, but it's decent." That would be true enough, but not the full truth. The full truth is that this movie bugged me creatively and caused me to think about what I would have wanted to be different, which opened up a whole lot of possibilities -- potential alternate timelines if you will -- against which to judge the version we got stuck with.

It is pretty though. Oh boy. I can't even say that and leave it alone, because I think the movie's dedication to being beautiful actually hindered its storytelling. It's pristine, and when things go wrong, it's still pristine, just in red and black, instead of blue and white, and with a bit of glossy sweat. If it had committed, and stuck its hands in the mud, it might have pulled out something valuable.

See???

I wanted to see Pratt's character be darker -- like as dark as you can go while still clinging to a sliver of sympathy. As dark as only scifi can support so eloquently. But he's Chris Pratt, so no; he has to be a good guy who makes an extremely dark mistake. What if he didn't see waking Jen up as a mistake until near the end? That would have been dark, and honestly more believable, but Pratt is so much more enjoyable as a good guy. Also, he does some fine acting in this movie. Very fine. Like, Jen does her exploding-anger-mental-breakdown-serious-acting and I was still more impressed with Pratt and his subtlety.

I just couldn't buy that good-guy-Chris-Pratt would ever fall so low as to actually wake someone else up. He's hyper aware of how terrible a thing it is, and even immediately seems to regret his actions. The movie's inability to commit to its premise was irritating. I'd like to see a version play out where he doesn't hide that he woke her up, so the anger can be immediate, and then he can spend the rest of the movie returning to sanity and understanding his error, while Jen slowly falls in love.

Check out how creepy he looks here.

Or, as my family and I were discussing during the movie, there could be a horror twist where he goes completely crazy, and has woken up several people before Jen. They all get angry with him so he kills them. Jen finds out, and has to fight for her life. That, in all honesty, seems like the least contrived direction this movie could have taken -- the honest progression of a character who is so desperately alone that they ruin another person's life to help themselves. I would hate to see Chris Pratt do horror-villain, but at the same time, his innate niceness and charm would make the twist all the more disturbing.

As it is, the plotting is as straightforward as they come, and incredibly, hopelessly predictable, in spite of the forced direction it takes. If only they had hidden something from us. I saw a video suggesting that the film begin with Lawrence waking up, and filling in Pratt's character slowly. That would have been tremendously better. Or even if we aren't told that he woke her up -- if were allowed to believe maybe it was an incredible coincidence; be suspicious of him; any kind of intrigue or mystery at all!

This movie focused way too much on looking good. (Note Michael Sheen in the background. He's the android bartender. The reveal of him being an android was spoiled by the trailer. My fault for watching it, I suppose.)

There is mystery involving why the original malfunction happened, and that's the most intriguing aspect of the movie. Until the mystery is solved of course, (by deus ex machina Laurence Fishburne) and then it becomes the film's most trite aspect. But since this movie is a character piece, it needs more character intrigue than plot intrigue. It desperately needed character intrigue, and was sadly, sadly lacking. You would think there would be a lot, considering the fantastic situation these characters are put in, but the bulk of the meager character interest is due to performances that are better than their material.

It's unfortunate. A great number of things could have been done to change this movie into something, if not great, at least better. As it is, it isn't terrible. It has two fine leads, and a memorable premise -- the things that attracted me in the first place. It's visually unique, and should get credit for being an original story in this age of remakes. It has plenty of small flaws, but nothing huge or glaring.

Probably works best if you're looking for a romance rather than a scifi.

If you can turn off your mind, suspend your disbelief, and be ready for a disproportionate amount of romance, you might get something out of Passengers. And if that something is being entertained for two hours by Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence roaming through a pretty scifi world... well, it could be better, sure, but it certainly could be worse.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Spoiler-free.

Well James Gunn, you've done it again. It's been three years for us, but for the Guardians it's only been about a month. They're using their status as "Galaxy Savers" to get odd jobs of general protecting/guarding around the universe, and when Rocket (Bradley Cooper) takes advantage of their proximity to valuable objects, they get in trouble with an uber-race of pretentious gold people (led by Elizabeth Debicki). A mysterious man appears to help them out of this situation, and then reveals himself, telling Peter Quill, AKA Star-Lord (AKA the one and only Chris Pratt) that he is his father, Ego (Kurt Russell).

But -- did he look like Kurt Russell to Peter? Or does Kurt Russell not exist in this universe? Or does Kurt Russell not look like Kurt Russell? Asking the deep questions here.

This is of course huge news for Peter, and becomes the center for the movie's plot and heart. That the movie has this center is important to the film's quality as from it is born every exceptional aspect the film provides. Ego himself is the best character here, in that his character arc is the most natural, yet also the most intricate, and is most closely tied to the center of the film. Kurt Russell does his part brilliantly and with the ease of a practiced veteran, sometimes making less confident performances from his cast-mates more noticeable by comparison; sometimes elevating performances along with his own. Chris Pratt gets both sides of this.

I love Pratt, and I love Star-Lord, and I love the premise of the journey he goes on with this adventure, but none of it played out as well as it should have. He has that suggestive flirting scene because that's the Peter we knew, but it doesn't make sense anymore once we're told that he's going after one girl now -- Gamora (Zoe Saldana) -- now it's out of character for him to flirt with other women like that. His father provides a ton of fodder for character drama, with multiple stages of their relationship for varying emotions to expound on. Only one stage had time spent on it; the rest were breezed over in one swoop. To utilize them would have meant a re-haul of the film's events and pacing, but it would have been to the benefit of Peter's character. As the film is, Peter at best only gets equal benefit as every other character.

It all needs to come down to this guy. Or else, what is the point?

Every returning character is developed equally and in distinct pairs. Gamora and Nebula (Karen Gillan) dig deeper into their relationship of sisterly hate. Drax (Dave Bautista) is paired with newcomer Mantis (Pom Klementieff) for some wonderfully effective scenes of meaningful comedy. Mantis benefits greatly from being new; her unique character is established, and calls for nothing more. And Rocket and Yondu (Michael Rooker) bounce off each other to push along their edgy characters. Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) is never too far from Rocket, but is developed by himself, and also Kraglin (Sean Gunn) who gets bumped up the character ladder. By themselves, these pockets of characters are perfectly sufficiently compelling; when put into the film and viewed as a whole, they feel like more of a distraction. The thread used to tie them all to the film's center is too thin and too long, so though everything is technically connected, they might as well have not been, for the significance they add to the heart of the core.

I understand the idea. Fans love all these characters, as I'm sure James Gunn does, and the desire to focus on all of them was just too great. Sadly, that decision, made with the best of intentions, was the film's downfall (such as it is), because with the focus so widely spread, no one gets the attention they deserve. The original Guardians focused solely on Peter, and through him the others were also developed. That was impossible to do this time with the plot as it was, so perhaps it was as good as it could have possibly been -- it still pales in comparison with the groundbreaking first.

It's a conundrum with no easy fix.

So while the film had a heart in place as a source for grounding the emotional journeys and creating a common theme, the film's focus was too widespread to properly utilize it -- thus the film felt disconnected. The problem traces back to not showing the story through the sole eyes of Peter -- that is the root of any problems this films has. That being said, I enjoyed this movie like nobody's business. After it was over I had to come to terms with its domino-effected shortcoming, but in the moment I was all in, %100, let go, tickled to the core. The visuals (perhaps over-the-top at times) thrilled me; the jokes and gags landed (though they were generally of a slightly lesser quality there were more of them); the twists and plot developments involved me (they were, in fact, unexpectedly well done, and grounded in the film's darker core) and the music compelled me to be open to every bit of character-love I could glean. That was all I asked for and more; I was satisfied.

Who knows if a second viewing will be so carefree and eagerly open, (it's one thing to ignore and push aside issues; it's another to deny their existence) but no matter what I'm glad for the one I had. If nothing else I want to give a hearty "thank you" to James Gunn for the scene where Peter is asking the other Guardians for tape. That is half of the embodiment of why I love The Guardians of the Galaxy in the first place. The other half is the unexpectedly deep heart hidden under that kind of fun and humor -- here, it wasn't embodied in one thing, but wasn't completely absent either, you only have to scrounge around for it.

"I can still hear you sayin', you would never break the chain..."

Too much of a carbon copy of the original where it didn't matter, not enough of a spiritual copy where it did, Vol. 2 is a traditional Marvel sequel; more of the same on steroids. It both creates problems and brings back the sources of our original adoration. Its success is drawn out of that of the original's, and with the doozy of an original this one had going for it, it's no surprise it features such a cosmically high concentration of fun -- if only all that fun substance could have been applied to a more concise and well constructed framework, to better enhance the fun and the thrill the characters and the heart alike. Two-time Galaxy-savers? Absolutely -- but repeating the past can only get you so far.