michaelmcdonald-20730 Reviews

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Clumsy Choices Spoil a Perfect Superhero Movie

[7/10 · 26 April 2019]

I'm going to break this film into 3 parts. Part 1 - 10/10 Part 2 - 7/10 Part 3 - 4/10

Part 1: It starts off perfect - the scenes with Hawkeye, Nebula and Tony, and the twist with Thanos destroying the stones are all top notch.

The perfection continues as we jump ahead 5 years. The emotional weight of the snap is still felt in our characters, and you really get a sense of the dread and despair.

Then Tony discovers time travel in about 11 seconds.

Part 2: We get to the meat of the film, and some odd choices are made. The first are the drastic changes in two characters: Thor and Hulk. They are now pure comic relief. I am not a particularly big fan of either of them, and I thought Thor's transformation into The Big Lebowski was very funny at times; but boy do I feel bad if you're fans of these characters.

The time travel scenes themselves are a mixed bag. Tony, Captain America and Ant Man stealing the Mind and Space stones is fantastic. Tony and Cap going back further in time, not so much. I know Tony has daddy issues - we dealt with this back in Iron Man 2 - and I know Cap likes the lady he knew for a few days back in the 40s. This is the bathroom break scene.

Hulk retrieves the Time Stone by making up an absurd promise he can't possibly know he'll keep. The entire Thor and Rocket scene could've been cut without losing anything except Cap getting the hammer later in the film I guess.

The Soul Stone scene with Black Widow's death didn't work for me. It's one thing if the person getting the stone has to sacrifice that which he loves. It's another if the thing you love makes the choice for you. It didn't work for me. Which is unfortunate because I like Black Widow and was disappointed to see her die.

Nebula (who might be my favorite character in this film) sets up the return of Thanos. Really liked how this was handled, even if it is a bit far fetched and doesn't make a ton of sense how Thanos got to the future.

Part 3: Here's where the film gets sloppy and makes poor choices. Hulk snaps his fingers, Thanos arrives, and we get the cool action scene of our original 3 heroes vs Thanos. Cap becomes worthy and gets the hammer (and...can also summon lightening?), but still gets his ass kicked. All good stuff.

And then...

Sigh.

The "epic" ending to this film is the equivalent of an 11 year old dumping 3 bins of Marvel action figures onto the floor and playing with them for what seems like 9 hours. I didn't mind what some people lament as "fan service" up until this point, because we were focused on a few characters we really care about, that have been with us for about a decade.

So many characters do so many things that I stopped caring, when the previous fight between Captain America, Iron Man and Thor vs Thanos was so much better. Go back to that! But you know, instead they have to cram every single character into this scene - including Pepper Pots in an Iron Man suit. Captain "Cheat Codes" Marvel comes in and does her thing. Spiderman activates "instant kill." Dr. Strange stops a flood or something.

My mind starts wandering and I think "what is the point of the Space Stone if every wizard can open portals between worlds?" And "where were half these people in the last movie?" And "is Pepper in the Iron Man suit just so the scene with all the women looks more full, especially since they killed off the main one I care about?" And "why isn't anyone saying 'Hulk, wtf do you mean we have to return these stones?!?!?!'"

Tony's death is unfortunately so predictable and crammed into this mess that it doesn't register as strongly as it should. Intimate fight scenes, like in the end of Civil War or Black Panther, are always much better than massive battle scenes. At the least, you need to separate the two.

What should've happened is Tony and Cap decide to take the Gauntlet as far away as possible from the battle. Thor and Hulk try to hold off Thanos. Hulk succeeds in holding off Thanos long enough for them to escape, redeeming himself from his last fight with Thanos. But Thanos manages to catch up with Tony and Cap. They fight him, but Thanos is clearly too powerful. Realizing they can't beat Thanos, Cap puts on the Gauntlet and sacrifices himself (yes - Cap should've died, not Tony). This way, even if there is a still massive CGI fest for the kids, at least there's this more intimate battle between our main characters. That's why Infinity Wars worked so well IMO. You had the big battle in Wakanda, and the more intimate fight with Thanos.

The very end is pure schmaltz. I'm not sure what went on with Cap - if that's a contradiction to how time travel works, or for some reason he was beamed back outside the portal? Either way, didn't like it.

If they put the Stones back in the other universes, aren't there still no stones in theirs, meaning their universe is threatened by all the dark forces or whatever? I think I would've just screwed over those other universes, but that's me.

Wouldn't mind seeing a spinoff movie where Loki has the Space Stone.

Dunkirk (2017)

Sigh...disappointed yet again.

[6/10 · 20 July 2017]

Remember that scene where the boat sank? Or the other boat sank? Or the the one? Or the other one? Thank God, a director who uses practical effects! Too bad I didn't know any of the characters on the boats, nor was Nolan's ADHD plagued camera able to focus on a scene long enough for me to concentrate or care before another quick cutaway.

Also Kenneth Branagh staring at the sky with a horrified look upon his face. Powerful stuff the first time. Not so powerful the second time. Okay, why is he doing it a third time? A fourth time? Now this is getting comical.

I demand subtitles on all future Nolan movies. I could probably understand 20% of the dialogue, if that.

I'm pretty sure they're using Hans Zimmerman's score on the next season of 24. Maybe that'll save the show, or at least fool you again into thinking you're watching something epic and suspenseful.

I miss the guy who directed Memento, the Prestige, Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. Nolan's last movies may appeal to you die-hard fans, but his best work is in the past.

Before you dismiss me, ask yourself honestly if, when this movie is released on DVD, you're going to prefer watching this to the aforementioned Nolan films.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Exodus meets Schindler's List meets Planet of the Apes

[7/10 · 13 July 2017]

A visually stunning film with great characters built on an unoriginal and somewhat boring story. Basically, exactly like its two predecessors. If you loved the last two, you'll love this one. Minor spoilers.

Caesar leads his band of a hundred or so apes to a land where they can be free from oppression. Along the way, they are kidnapped by humans, put into cages and forced to perform grueling physical labor under constant threat of death by a man who vows to exterminate all apes from the world.

Basically, its Exodus meets Schindler's List meets Planet of the Apes..

At one point, some apes are trying to escape and are gunned down by the humans on a snowy railroad track leading into the compound. If that does scream "this is analogous to Auschwitz" loud enough to the audience, I don't know what could. There are ton of other Biblical and Holocaust images in the film, but I won't spoil.

Now there's nothing wrong with basing a film on those themes, it's just that this film is about talking apes who are replacing a dying humanity. I'm much more interested in seeing that film than focusing on this small tribe of apes seeking a better way of life.

I suppose that's why I have never particularly loved this series. It feels so small, when it should be larger. The action scenes are loud and explosive, but the implications always seem remote and small.

This film, like the last one, contains a small community of humans who armor themselves to the teeth, and practically all the action takes place in that location. Woody Harrelson is particularly good as the villain, offering a layer of depth lesser films would've ignored (you could argue he has more character development than Ralph Fiennes's Amon Goth, who is an obvious inspiration, particularly noticeable in a scene in which Harrelson appears on a balcony shirtless as the soldiers beat the apes).

But questions always arise like: what's going on in the rest of the world? Is this all that's left of humanity? Are these the only apes? Is the Statute of Liberty that Charlton Heston sees years later standing right now?

This film offers some small notion of an outside world, but again, it contains itself to an isolated location. This has its obvious benefit - it focuses our attention on the apes we love and care about, and this film continues to excel at it. But for a film with "War" in its title, I excepted a war. "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" might be a more accurate title.

Film criticisms generally take one of two forms: you either criticize the film because of its flaws, or you criticize it because you wish it were made differently. My problems with War of the Planet of the Apes falls squarely into the latter criticism. Apart from wishing this film was different, I really can't complain. I just won't be interested in watching it again.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

A movie for teens that's fun for adults if you don't think about it too much (Minor spoilers)

[7/10 · 6 July 2017]

Marvel's first movie exclusively for teens still has its fun moments for adults, though it can sour upon further reflection.

Let's start with the good stuff. Tom Holland is probably the best Spider-Man yet. His best friend provides great comic relief and the two have terrific chemistry. Marisa Tomei adds a breathe of fresh air to the role of Aunt May. Michael Keaton provides Marvel with its first memorable villain in a while. The action scenes flow smoothly, and the humor mostly works (again, this is a teen movie).

Those are the things that stand out after immediately leaving the theater, and for that reason it gets high marks in my book.

But the adult in me started thinking about what I just watched, and there's some stuff that bugs me. The following contains minor spoilers.

"With great power comes great responsibility" is the famous line from the first Spider-Man, which neatly summarizes the core theme of the film, and Peter Parker's internal conflict with being Spider-Man.

This film also has a one-liner like that, spoken to Peter by Tony Stark: "If you're nothing without this suit, you don't deserve to wear it." And it's actually quite illustrative of what's wrong with this film.

The fist Spider-Man movie in 2002 emphasized taking responsibility for your actions. The amount of responsibility this Spider-Man takes for his actions is, well, none. A list of the damage this "friendly neighborhood" Spider-Man directly/indirectly inflicts includes: - Swinging through a neighborhood destroying roofs, fences, tree houses, etc. - Blowing up a bodega - Setting a bomb off in the Washington Monument nearly killing all his friends - Blowing up a boat, nearly drowning everyone on board - Nearly crashing a plane into a city

Now it's not like Spider-Man is trying to stop some ticking time bomb or rescue a loved one from imminent death, and all these destructive acts are the consequence. No, he's simply chasing down thieves, led by The Vulture.

However, his recklessness eventually forces Tony Stark to take back the advanced suit, delivering the impactful line. And yet, Peter Parker dons his homemade Spider-Man costume a couple scenes later when he learns the Vulture has another heist planned, which results in the aforementioned plane scene.

But Tony isn't mad about that one, cause Spider-Man got the bad guy this time. Ends justify the means I guess. I don't want to extrapolate without ruining the whole movie, but suffice to say, it's inexplicable that Tony is okay with Peter's actions, especially considering the events of the Civil War movie.

Thus thematically, there really is no arch. Peter doesn't learn about taking responsibility for his actions - he simply accomplishes a task without wearing the high tech suit Tony gave him. Peter's only real lesson in the movie is that he'd rather be a regular kid than an Avenger.

And then there's the nitpicking.

Let's start with Flash Gordon, the classic "cool jock" who's a major asshole and bullies Peter throughout high school.

Well now he's not a jock at all. He's a "nerd" (in fact, literally every high school character in this film falls into the modern day millennial "nerd" category) who is still a major asshole and bullies Peter. He calls him "Penis Parker" and, well, that's about it. His character's sole purpose seems to be to remind the audience "hey, bullies can be smart academically- minded kids too!" Um, okay. Someone let me know if you know a kid on the Science Debate Team who leads chants of "Penis" as he DJs a house party to mock a classmate. I'm genuinely curious.

Then there's the girl Peter likes, who mostly ignores him but is on the same trivia team as Peter (Flash is also on this team, as is every other student you meet). Peter ditches her all the time, but for some reason he musters the courage to ask her out, and inexplicably she says yes.

There's another girl named Michelle who's the resident loner (again, on the trivia team) who refuses to tour the Washington Monument in order to remind the audience that slaves built it. However, this completely contradicts with the "Make America Great Again!" sticker on her backpack.

That's a joke.

So to summarize: it's a movie for kids, don't think about it too much and you'll enjoy it too.

Baby Driver (2017)

Fast, Exciting, Fun.

[8/10 · 30 June 2017]

This is a movie about car chases, and Edgar Wright's script and direction expertly keeps this movie's pedal to the metal. It is relentless and never lets up, due in large part to the clever idea of playing a soundtrack of fun and exciting songs continuously throughout the movie with only the briefest of interruptions.

The story is simple and unoriginal as can be: a young guy owes one last debt to a criminal boss, only to be sucked back into the world of crime while seeking a way out. But while lesser movies would bore us with a dozen redundant cliché backstories, melodramatic romances and enough self-serious dialogue to make the Fast and the Furious series seem like Shakespeare, Wright avoids it all and focuses the attention on the thrills. Think "Whiplash" meets "True Romance" meets "21" and you've got a general idea of the movie.

Wright's direction is as originally compelling as ever, and he's probably one of the only directors who can make pressing an elevator button seem cool. There is one particular scene in which the main character ("Baby") is asked to survey the location of the next heist that has such a small yet smart twist that serves as a perfect microcosm for the elevation Wright brings to this genre.

The acting is superb, with Jon Hamm's charismatically dangerous performance being the biggest standout, and Kevin Spacey's acting somehow manages not to chew up his scenes like one would expect. The film is not without its flaws – there isn't a strong antagonist, the plot isn't smooth and some characters are in need of better payoffs – but there's enough here for repeat viewings, or at the very least, a fun time at the movies.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Entertaining, but unoriginal and a bit dull at times.

[7/10 · 1 June 2017]

I'm not involved in the D.C. vs Marvel debate, but it's pretty apparent this film is a mishmash of the first Captain America and Thor movies. The plot is the same as Captain America (stop the evil rouge German general from using the spooky weapon he's making in his secret lab), while the romance and humor are very similar to Thor (a man/woman from a mythical planet/island awkwardly interact with human society along side their romantic partners).

The plot doesn't move quite smoothly, and it's often difficult to determine how characters got from point A to point B. The secondary characters are forgettable, as is the villain (the perennial problem with comic book movies it seems). Chris Pine and Gal Gadot have great chemistry, and the humor mostly works, being lighthearted without becoming unnecessarily goofy. The action scenes are too few, and lacking the intensity to create enough suspense, but it's still fun to see Wonder Woman kickass, especially with that lasso.

I won't spoil the movie, but the ending is a letdown down, and quite inexplicable upon further reflection. That being said, the stunning Gal Gadot carries this movie, and her performance so encapsulates the intelligence, heroism and beauty of Wonder Woman, that it's enough to make the movie worth it.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Boring, predictable, forgettable.

[5/10 · 18 May 2017]

Boring, predictable, forgettable

"Alien: Covenant" is part slasher film, part continuation of the origin story of the alien species known as xenomorphs.

Perhaps there exists a fan base that eagerly anticipates discovering the origins of the gruesome creature that terrorized Signory Weaver back in 1979, but I think most people won't care and it will fade from their memories moments after leaving the theater.

The "slasher" part of the film plays as a B-horror movie with a massive budget. The characters, while well acted, are paper thin. They make baffling stupid decisions that result in most everyone dying. But who cares - it's evident their only purpose is to be props for the aliens to slaughter in the most gruesome ways imaginable for our entertainment.

Unfortunately, the most terrifying death is spoiled in the trailers. The rest are the same thing we've seen in every other "Alien" movie - chest bursting, acid, facehuggers, etc.

There are also a few ludicrous eye-rolling moments, some philosophical musings you might find on the side of a cereal box, and a "twist" ending that is a laughably obvious.

Wait until it is released on DVD, buy a six pack, and enjoy it for what it is, a big budget meaningless gore-fest.

Get Me Roger Stone (2017)

Roger Stone Taking Credit for Everything

[7/10 · 12 May 2017]

About midway through the documentary, Tucker Carlson asks "Is it more brilliant and impressive to influence world events, or to stand on the periphery of world events and yet get recorded as having influenced world events."

While he was referring specifically to Roger Stone's self-proclaimed crucial role in getting George W. Bush elected in 2000, Carlson's question could apply to almost every major moment in Stone's life.

Unfortunately, the documentary does not question whether Stone is actually a major figure in American politics, but rather, takes Stone at his word that he is. Thus the documentary isn't so much a look at Stone's life as much as it is a look at Stone taking credit for everything - especially the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the Presidency.

Donald Trump is the supporting actor of this documentary, second fiddle to Roger Stone, who is seemingly the mastermind of his entire candidacy. The problem, however, lies in the film's inability to provide much supporting evidence that Stone is really as important as he claims to be.

For example, there are montages which show Stone saying something on a radio show followed by Trump saying the same thing on the campaign trail. But, we are never given much context for these clips. Is Trump repeating Stone or is Stone repeating Trump? Is Stone the only one making these campaign talking points that Trump is repeating, or are others as well? Without context, these lingering ambiguities make it more difficult to conclude that Stone was a major player in the Trump candidacy.

Additionally, Stone is given such an out sized role in the Trump candidacy that other crucial members of the Trump campaign - specifically, Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway - are barely mentioned. And while there is no doubt Trump did associate with Stone, the extent to which Stone helped elect Trump beyond securing the vote of the Alex Jones/InfoWars audience remains questionable.

The documentary is well-made and offers much in the way of flash and bedazzle, primarily due to its flamboyant and outrageous star, but it offers little of actual substance. In a sense, the documentary itself has been co opted by Stone for his own benefit to make sure, as Tucker Carlson said, that he is at least recorded as having influenced world events. Whether he has or not, remains a mystery unexplored by the documentary.