INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE

Independence Day: Resurgence

Grade: C

Starring: Liam Hemsworth, Jeff Goldblum, Jessie T. Usher, Bill Pullman, Maika Monroe, William Fichtner, Brent Spiner, Judd Hirsch, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Travis Tope and Sela Ward: Also with Joey King and Vivica A. Fox

Premise: On the twentieth anniversary of the worldwide alien invasion of 1996, a new, terrifying alien ship arrives to wreak havoc on humanity.

Rated PG-13 for action violence, intense scenes of destruction and peril, and some language

Why oh why didn’t they wait to release this on the actual Independence Day, or at least as close as possible? Then there at least would have been some sentiment accompanying this film…

Why a movie called Independence Day was released a week and-a-half before the holiday when it could have been released at the beginning of the holiday weekend (Friday, July , for instance) is anyone’s guess, as is why, exactly, anyone in Hollywood thought it was a good idea to make a fast, funny sequel to a pretty open-and-shut twenty-year-old science fiction film. Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow, 2012) is back and trying to destroy the world just like before, but the movie, to describe it in the appropriate words of on one IMDB user comment, is “big and dumb, and a bit of fun”. This movie is fun—I won’t deny that. But boy, is it dumb, not to mention completely devoid of any of the sense of real dread or drama that accompanied its semi-classic 1996 predecessor. Where the original was one of the first big, epic special-effects blockbusters that had potentially world-ending consequences, this is a neat, tidy, barely-two-hour film wrapped in overwhelmingly-glossy CGI, neat contrivances, nice coincidences, and massive plot holes—one in a seemingly never-ending parade of glossy computerized world-in-peril blockbusters.

The average viewer will probably leave satisfied, I’ll give it that. And I had a decent time watching it and would watch it again. But mostly I’m just disappointed that this sequel had to go and put a damper on one of the first big, awesome films of my childhood.

Plot

**It’s hard to imagine many people not having seen the original Independence Day, but, in any case, viewing it is not a complete necessity. There are many remaining characters, but their dynamic should be easy enough to pick up.**

In a more futuristic 2016, the world, led by American Madam President Lanford (Sela Ward), is celebrating the 20^th anniversary of the War of 1996, in which an extraterrestrial race of city-sized alien ships attacked earth and were defeated only after nearly annihilating the human race. As it turns out, not only did humans defeat the aliens, but we also learned from them and adapted their technology, so that our earth and space defenses are light years beyond what they were before. Two young pilots represent the strides humanity has made—Jake Morrison (Liam Hemsworth) helps maintain a huge laser cannon at the moon’s high-tech space defense center, and Dylan Hiller (Jessie T. Hughes), the stepson of the late hero Captain Steven Hiller (who was played by Will Smith), is Earth’s Mightiest Young Hero, on a first-name basis with President Lanford and leading an elite international team of earth-and-space fighters.

When the aliens return, two old heroes are among the first to know it. Former cable repairman David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) has become a highly-touted scientific mind, and he’s in Africa looking over remains of an old spacecraft from the ‘90s when the craft unexpectedly starts powering up. Meanwhile, the oft-quoted President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman), who has been left haggard and tormented by his experiences with the aliens, starts having vivid dreams including a beacon seemingly summoning the aliens to earth. In short order, the aliens show up in a huge ship that dwarfs the city-sized saucers that attacked last time, quickly lay waste to earth’s most high-tech, space-based defenses, and plant themselves noisily on earth. Even nuclear-protective bunkers prove little defense against the laser-blasting extraterrestrials. Jake and Dylan manage to board the alien ship but find their weapons are of little use. Only Dr. Okun (Brent Spiner), the head scientist at the Area 51 laboratory who was left comatose for nearly two decades following a very close encounter with the aliens and has suddenly awoken, seems to have any inkling how it might be possible for humanity to stop this invasion.

What Doesn’t Work?

To be frank, there’s a lot that doesn’t work. Resurgence is pretty entertaining in the moment, but if you stop to think logically for a second, the problems and clichés with the movie will come swarming to your mind like the little alien fighter ships that constantly barbecue our human aircraft in these movies. First and most obviously, this Independence Day musters none of the dread and menace that made the first film a smash hit us-against-them underdog story, not to mention an edgy, intimidating viewing for a then-eight-year-old like me. Perhaps it’s not this movie’s fault that the original was among the first humanity-in-peril/earth-in-jeopardy blockbusters of the type that have become very commonplace nowadays, but the fact that Resurgence is unlikely to make anyone shudder—or so much as blink—with its visuals of alien ships hovering over entire cities just underlines how far we’ve come (or how far we've fallen--whichever). The special effects are fine, but unimpressive.

And that’s not to mention that the human…um “drama” in this movie is basically a rehash of what was in the first, or at least of what’s also regularly seen in summer blockbusters today. Will-they/won’t-they couples that obviously will? Check. Dweeby government type who learns to let loose and help fight the aliens? Check. Hopelessly close-minded government types? Of course. Obviously-doomed characters (including a couple of the returning cast members from the previous film)? Uh-huh. Characters who only speak in one-liners or heroic trailer-ready sound bytes? Obviously. And how about would-be climactic action sequences in which it looks like the good guys won but they obviously didn’t because the movie’s only an hour in and it’s obviously going to be two hours, so something clearly didn’t work? Yeah, that, too. Particularly bemoanable material for me included an embarrassingly-wasteful side plot including Judd Hirsch’s returning character and a couple of random kids who added nothing to the story, and a couple of different moments where our main characters managed to break through a previously-impenetrable alien shield just because they kept shooting. Would it have been possible for a no-name to keep shooting and break through the same alien shield? I bet not.

What Works?

Independence Day: Resurgence is a pretty fun viewing—certainly more entertaining than Warcraft, the last film I saw and reviewed. Director Roland Emmerich and his four co-writers manage not to make things too easy, and to add some interesting material that could set up an intriguing sequel. A couple deaths manage to hit home. And the movie presses the nostalgia button nicely with by bringing back both of the Area 51 mad scientist actors (Brent Spiner and John Storey), hinting that Vivica A. Fox’s character got a major job upgrade from stripper to nurse between films, and even including a brief but poignant appearance by the late Robert Loggia, who played one of the higher-ranking military commanders in the first film. It’s also nice to just see Jeff Goldblum in a big film again.

Most of the cast are playing parts that have been done a million times, are painfully clichéd, or are really poorly-written (even spilling tears adds little to the portrayals of practically all the movie’s 20-something pretty faces). However, two actors managed to bring some gravity to their performances, and I’m happy to say they’re both returners. Perhaps it’s because Bill Pullman is best known for this part and because he hasn’t been seen onscreen much lately, but Pullman’s Thomas Whitmore might be the most dimensional and interesting character in the film. Though most of his dialogue is clichéd or in the line of rousing speeches like he gave in the original, his presence is a nice mix of nostalgia and some actual character layers. And though it’s preposterous that Brent Spiner’s Dr. Okun survived his encounter with the aliens in the first film, his mad scientist energy and enthusiasm is a nice tonic from the stale action-hero doings of the “kids” and the murmurmings of the government types.

Content

Really young kids might be intimidated by the huge spaceships, big explosions, a few closeups of the gooey aliens, or by a few of the “big” deaths, but there’s nothing particularly off-putting or edgy about Independence Day: Resurgence. There’s a lot of action, a lot of things blow up, people worry about the future of humanity, and humanity wins. Hooray.

Bottom Line

Independence Day: Resurgence isn’t terrible—there’s just nothing special about it. I don’t know if the first movie is generally considered a “classic”, but it was a groundbreaking special-effects spectacle that made alien invasions seem awesome and epic and scary. The sequel, 20 years later, dripping in glossy CGI and featuring a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears 20-something action heroes, doesn’t feel any different from countless Transformers or Marvel movies or other big blockbusters in which the End of the World is at stake. Plus the action is by-the-numbers and the characters aren’t particularly memorable. The absence of an actor with the magnetism of Will Smith doesn’t help (sorry, but Liam Hemsworth is not the same). There’s definitely a few exciting action scenes, some good special effects, and some of the older returning actors (Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Brent Spiner) have nice moments, but most of the movie is clichéd and corny and easy-to-predict. There are a million plot holes. And they’re setting the table for…a sequel.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Directed by Roland Emmerich

Screenplay by Nicolas Wright, James A. Woods, Dean Devlin, Roland Emmerich, and James Vanderbilt

Based on Characters created by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin

Rated PG-13

Length: 120 minutes

WARCRAFT

Warcraft

Grade: C

Starring: Travis Fimmel, Paula Patton, Ben Schnetzer, Ben Foster, and Dominic Cooper,
And As Orcs: Toby Kebbell as Durotan, Daniel Wu as Gul’dan, Anna Galvin as Draka, and Robert Kazinsky as Orgrim

Premise: When a dark sorcerer creates a portal allowing hordes of monstrous, bloodthirsty orcs to attack a kingdom of humans, it’s up to the humans’ wizard Guardian and a band of heroes and outcasts to find a way to stop them.

Rated PG-13 for strong violence, gory/disturbing images, and some emotional content

I went into Warcraft knowing it wasn’t going to be great. I’ve never played any version of the popular World of Warcraft game from Blizzard Entertainment, and I didn’t figure a movie starring ugly CGI troll-ish orcs as some of its main characters would exactly be Shakespeare. I didn’t even think its fantasy elements would make it a Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or Chronicles of Narnia. I just hoped it would be a reasonably entertaining live-action/CGI mash-up, like a cheaper, less allegorical Avatar.

Shortly after the movie started, I began to panic, as its early scenes hinted Warcraft was dead on arrival—horribly-written, filled with one-note characters whose names I could barely understand, going to and from places whose names I couldn’t pronounce, and not the merest hint of traction anywhere except in battle scenes. At that point, I thought “oh, crap, this is going to be a lousy movie that could only possibly appeal to people who’ve played the game and must be grinning at all the famous place/character references I’m not getting”. I felt sure I was in for two hours of torture. Well, slowly, I began to realize the movie was developing a pulse—one still very feeble compared to the likes of LOTR, but one nonetheless--so that I actually felt the weight of the stakes in the later going and wanted to see what happened. And then…huh? Unexplained plot twists, way-too-easy contrivances, a rushed ending, and…oh, they’re setting up a sequel…why, of course! Ultimately, I would say, while Warcraft only met the lower half of my expectations/hopes, it was decent enough. I doubt I’ll see the sequel(s), but it was still a more engaging time at the theater than, say, Anchorman 2 or Pixels—the worst movies I’ve seen in theaters in recent years.

Plot

In an ancient, primitive alien world dominated by the tusked, muscle-bound, troll-like orcs, an intimidating overlord named Gul’dan (voice/movements of Daniel Wu) has gained followers by his powerful use of a dark magic called the Fel, which largely involves draining the life energy from beings and using it for his own purposes. Having gathered huge amounts of followers (and prisoners whose life energy he can use with the Fel), Gul’dan decides to send a “war band” (a large scouting party) of orcs through a massive, Fel-powered gate portal and see what they find. If they find a world with resources and, more importantly, kingdoms to conquer and people to rule, they will send the entire “horde” (orc population) through to complete the conquest. Draining the life energy from hundreds of prisoners, Gul’dan sends his war band through the portal.

They arrive in the lush kingdom of Azeroth, which is ruled and kept safe by King Lane (Dominic Cooper) and his brother-in-law Lothar (Travis Fimmel). As villages and towns are plundered and corpses keep piling up, Lothar—along with a young sorcerer-in-training named Kadgar (Ben Schnetzer)—is sent to seek guidance from the wizard-like Guardian (Ben Foster). Kadgar and the Guardian deduce that the very dangerous Fel is at the center of whatever is happening, and that its power will only grow unless they can find the source. They get more information after a scouting party led by Lothar catches an orc prisoner, Garona (Paula Patton), who has a green tinge to her skin and has the prominent lower teeth of the orcs but is otherwise more human than the others. She informs them that Gul’dan is just gathering prisoners whose life energy he can use with the Fel to open the gate portal once more, to unleash the horde. Lothar, King Lane, Kadgar, and the Guardian all promptly begin to argue over the best way to go about attacking the enemy forces. Things get more complicated when they are approached by an orc named Durotan (Toby Kebbell) who claims to be against Gul’dan and who, along with his followers, wants to fight with the humans against the evil overlord.

What Works?

I’ll give Warcraft credit—even though the features of the completely-CGI orcs aren’t very pretty, they’re impressively rendered, and you can even understand most of their dialogue. Moreover, the drama amongst the orcs, what with the scheming Gul’dan, a good guy/bad guy turncoat named Orgrim, and Durotan’s struggle with whether to rebel against Gul’dan, is often more compelling than the human drama (yes, I realize this is both a good and a bad thing, but there you go). Yes, sadly, most of the human characters are paper-thin and are played with barely an ounce of actual feeling. That said, Paula Patton and Ben Schnetzer make impressive contributions, infusing their characters with as much meaning as any characters could in this half-baked CGI brouhaha. Schnetzer’s Kadgar actually does more within the movie’s two hour span than the rest of the cast put together. Unsurprisingly, Warcraft is at its best and most compelling on the battlefield—even if this is the kind of action movie where the bad guys kills scores of nameless, faceless CGI characters but can barely touch the recognizable good guys, who dispense of much larger foes with little trouble. Warcraft does have a couple one-on-one orc battles that prove exciting. And, I have to give the movie credit, in a nod to the famously-unpredictable George R.R. Martin—who penned the popular fantasy series Game of Thrones—in a surprising turn of events, one good guy snuffs it in a moment of high action, in the kind of moment in which the good guy nearly always triumphs in cheap action movies like this one.

What Doesn’t Work?

Oh, boy. Put it this way—Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Game of Thrones, all these popular, pedigreed fantasy franchises—Warcraft is none of these. The orcs have names and accents that are hard to understand, the names of places in the movie are either hard to pronounce/understand or completely forgettable, and a couple of the more important human characters have no defining traits at all. The writing is poor, so I won’t entirely blame the actors for the latter...but King Lane has to be the most boring monarch ever portrayed in fiction—Cooper’s portrayal has no personality whatsoever. As his brother-in-law, accomplished warrior Lothar—the closest thing the movie has to a traditional hero—Vikings’ Travis Fimmel mostly grins stupidly and murmurs weak one-liners like he’s embarrassed to be saying them (which he probably is). And yes, the script here has the audacity to try and write Patton’s actually dimensional character into a “passionate romance” with the lazily-penned Lothar—probably THE most pathetic, forced, chemistry-free movie romance I’ve ever beheld. And I was dreadfully sad to see Ben Foster—he of the very compelling performances in 3:10 to Yuma and The Messenger—slumming through the role of the Guardian, playing the powerful but weary bearded wizard like a grunge band member with a bad hangover.

Mostly, the movie is cliché, at times hard to follow (and hard to care about), and has little discernible narrative flow. It also doesn’t help that nearly everything in the movie—from the humans/elves/dwarves dynamic to the humans-versus-CGI creatures angle to the evil warlock dynamic to the dashing hero/brave, outcast woman romance—has been done before, and done much better, multiple times. It’s not hard to think of those movies and yearn for their depth and creativity.

Content

The most off-putting thing about Warcraft is that it’s cheesy and seems like it’s only for fans of the game. Otherwise, there are a few gory details in the way of killings and maimings of both humans and orcs, not to mention Gul’dan’s way of sucking the energy out of power leaves their bodies shrunken and twisted. This isn’t an especially hard, heavy PG-13, it’s just a matter of watching and caring.

Bottom Line

I vowed I was going to see Warcraft (despite no exposure to the game) and I did. I didn’t expect it to be very good, but I hoped for the best—maybe an Avatar-esque humans-meet-CGI characters throwdown, and…well, I probably won’t ever watch it again and I definitely wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who is not a fan of the game, but it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Incredibly, it did develop a pulse once it got going, there are a few compelling characters, the graphics are pretty decent, and there were a couple actual, honest-to-God twists that threw me…this from what was overall a pretty poorly-written film. Oh, but it’s another one of those movies that becomes annoying to watch when you realize this whole movie was basically setting up a sequel you doubt you’ll pay money to see.

Warcraft (2016)

Directed by Duncan Jones

Screenplay by Duncan Jones and Charles Leavitt

Story and Characters by Chris Metzen, based on Blizzard Entertainment’s “World of Warcraft”

Rated PG-13

Length: 123 minutes

X-MEN: APOCALYPSE

X-Men: Apocalypse

Grade: B

Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult, Sophie Turner, Rose Byrne, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Evan Peters, with Tye Sheridan as Scott Summers/Cyclops

Also Featuring: Lucas Till as Havok, Josh Helman as William Stryker, Alexandra Shipp as Ororo Munroe/Storm, Olivia Munn as Psylocke, and Ben Hardy as Angel

Premise: An ancient, all-powerful mutant awakens from hibernation and attempts to take over the world. Wise Professor Charles Xavier, hardened fugitive Raven, and some of their choice students rush to stop him and the oft-tortured Magneto from wiping out all humans.

Rated PG-13 for violence and some bloody images, language, and some scary/emotional content

While X-Men: Apocalypse is above average for a summer action movie, it registers as roughly average for a superhero film in this day and age. The X-Men movies have always been a little deeper and had a little more subtext than the traditional origin stories and rights-retaining sequels from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Apocalypse seems especially average after the top-of-the-line superhero offerings that have already come out this year—the terrifically-unorthodox Deadpool and the intensely-exciting Captain America: Civil War. Indeed, I daresay this is the first X-Men movie (besides the infamous Wolverine Origins botch), that ultimately feels like a formulaic, nothing-special superhero movie. Since this installment is not an exciting reboot like 2011’s First Class or a franchise-altering consummation of all that came before like 2014’s Days of Future Past, it offers a straightforward plot that feels too predictable: a powerful evil arises, the X-Men band together, Magneto causes trouble, the world finds itself in all-humans-are-going-to-get-killed-by-mutants jeopardy, the old hands and some new faces have to band together and find their strength, and….they save the world. It has an intriguing opening prologue, a fine cast, and some fine moments of exploration in its world of mutants, but ultimately lacks the emotional depth or sense of real danger or intrigue that have classified the finer superhero offerings of late.

Plot

**If you know the gist of the X-Men, you won’t be lost, but there are constant references to both 2011’s First Class and 2014’s Days of Future Past. General knowledge of both would be helpful**

It’s the mid 1980s, and ten years have passed since Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his longtime friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) saved the president and the White House cabinet from vengeful mutant Magneto (Michael Fassbender) at the climax of Days of Future Past, earning the mutant community some nods of approval from the general populace. But some stigma still exists. When their respective powers reveal themselves, troubled teenagers Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, from TV’s Game of Thrones) and Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan) have little choice but to make their way to Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters in upstate New York. Jean is telekinetic. Scott’s eyes shoot powerful, destructive laser beams. Charles Xavier has a place for them both. Meanwhile, his old friend Raven plucks another troubled young mutant—the blue, tattooed, teleporting Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee)—from obscurity, and old frenemy Erik Lensherr/Magneto lives a quiet, anonymous life as a factory worker in Poland.

Meanwhile, another old ally of Xavier’s—CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne)—learns of a secret Egyptian cult that still worships an ancient, powerful being who was said to exist long ago. Said cult has found his remains hidden in a long-forgotten tomb. And when they chant ancient spells over him, En Sabah Hur (Oscar Isaac) awakens. Worshipped as a god until he was betrayed by some of his would-be followers and forced into hibernation in an ancient Egyptian pyramid millennia ago, En Sabah Hur (soon to be called Apocalypse) discovers that mankind has run amok and forgotten they used to literally bow down to his powers. Ready to restore the ancient ways, he begins gathering followers—troubled mutants whose powers he can utilize—including outcasts like Storm (Alexandra Shipp) and Angel (Ben Hardy), little-noticed sidekicks like Pslocke (Olivia Munn), and the ever-troubled, human-hating Magneto, who stumbles back onto the world’s radar after a terrible accident. Charles Xavier, of course, will have nothing to do with humans being obliterated, so he re-allies himself with MacTaggert and Raven—and other old friends Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and Peter ‘Quicksilver’ Maximoff (Evan Peters)—to stop Apocalypse in his tracks.

What Works?

Bryan Singer directed the series’ two best movies, 2000’s X-Men and 2003’s X2: X-Men United, and Matthew Vaughan directed 2011’s successful, ultra-likable reboot First Class. Singer’s directing here, and while Apocalypse is not nearly as good as that trio, it exceeded my expectations, given that I’d heard some less-than-enthusiastic things about it going in. While the movie starts to lose its way with a typically over-long action climax, it remains true to the X-Men style by delivering some exciting, kick-butt action, some affecting and relatable character development, a few fun/funny moments, and a few choice character cameos. Not as well-rounded or gripping as Captain America: Civil War, but still a fine film.

Unlike 2014’s Days of Future Past, X-Men: Apocalypse does not feature Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Anna Paquin, Shawn Ashmore, Ellen Page, Halle Berry, James Marsden or Famke Janssen, all regulars from the original 2000-2006 trilogy. In fact, the latter three have now been recast younger, hinting that their days in the leather spandex of the X-Men are truly over. But Apocalypse doesn’t suffer much for their absences, buoyed as it is by the truly reliable trio of James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence, who starred in the last two entries and could easily make a watchable team for years to come. This series made a star of Fassbender, and, while he’s somewhat shortchanged by the script in this movie’s second half, the always-terrific actor’s commitment and emotional force early on prove that Erik Lensherr/Magneto is not only this series’ most enduring antagonist, but a tragic figure of Shakespearean proportions. Meanwhile, McAvoy has become to Charles Xavier what Daniel Craig has been to James Bond—the actor who truly fleshed him out as an individual and made him a thinking, feeling, real human being. McAvoy doesn’t have the inherent majestic coolness of Patrick Stewart, of course, but he’s a fine center for this franchise as a warm, determined, kindly, emotionally-vulnerable presence.

And then there’s Lawrence, who was already a proven, Oscar-nominated commodity (for 2010’s Winter’s Bone) when she first joined the series in First Class, and has since become one of the most popular movie stars in the world. Just 25, Lawrence is already an old hand at starring roles, with even her prime X-Men roles third banana in her career to her massively-successful Hunger Games series and her Oscar nominated- and winning- work in black comedies and dramas. Her performance here isn’t as openly emotional as either of her two chief male costars’, and she doesn’t spend nearly as much time in the blue Mystique get-up as she did before, but she has a very nice, sentimental/nostalgic moment when she gives the new team young’uns pep talk, reflecting on her first major mission (in First Class). It’s a nice moment, not just because it recalls a better film in the series or because it’s well-written, but because, given the massive success Lawrence has seen since in the five years since that film—even though she’s barely older than the likes of Sophie Turner and Tye Sheridan—it feels like a legitimately lived-in, nostalgic, looking-back moment. Plus, given the large role granted to Turner as the young Jean Grey, it feels like Lawrence could be passing the torch to the series’ newest ingénue.

Speaking of Turner and the younger cast, they do fine work, with Sheridan granted a plumb role as the young Cyclops, Peters back for another go-round as the scene-stealing Quicksilver, and welcome returns from Nicholas Hoult and Lucas Till. It particularly threw me to see Turner and hear her speak in an “American” accent, as I’m quite used to her native tones from her six seasons of work on Game of Thrones.

What Doesn’t Work?

Two me, there were two main things that did not work: the overdrawn action climax (which is precisely what makes this movie feel formulaic and ruins a lot of narrative momentum) and Apocalypse himself. The former is typical of many action movies—and, indeed, it was the easy-to-anticipate over-drawn action climax of Days of Future Past that muddled my feelings on that film, which started especially strong but didn’t need to go such a predictable, formulaic action-movie route. I had a feeling that would happen with Apocalypse, and I wasn’t wrong. It’s especially troubling when the lengthy climax revolves around Apocalypse being impervious to the good guys’ powers until they all decide to just try harder at the same time, and wa-la, it works. This cliché slog to the close ruins, as mentioned, a very effective narrative arc for Magneto, which is a real shame (Magneto’s fate by the end credits is also a disappointment that was likely arranged just to ensure further X-Men sequels).

Apocalypse himself is a disappointment, and not just because—though he’s said to be the X-Men universe’s most powerful antagonist—you know going in he’s likely a one-and-done character for the series. With a vaguely-defined grab-bag of powers, a goofy accent, a yawn-inducing god complex, and unconvincing makeup/costume, it’s a shame that charismatic Oscar Isaac was saddled with this role. Coming off winning roles as the enigmatic mad scientist in Ex Machina and the heroic resistance pilot in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Isaac is unable to make Apocalypse anything more than a one-movie bad guy who needs to be just threatening enough to ensure the movie has a conflict.

Content

The X-Men movies are always a little heavier than the average superhero film. It’s still a PG-13, with only occasional cuss words, and little in the way of sexual content, but the action can get pretty intense at times. There are a fair share of heavy emotional moments in the film, not to mention plenty of humans (and a few lesser mutants) getting off-ed in creative ways (in one sequence, a bunch of heavily-armed soldiers are mauled by a familiar character in a brief cameo).

Bottom Line

X-Men: Apocalypse is pretty good for a summer action movie, but relatively unimpressive for a superhero movie in this day and age (it can’t hold a candle to this year’s earlier hit superhero flicks, Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War). The trio of James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence proves as winning and effective as offer, some newly-cast actors in familiar roles acquit themselves well (including Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner), and there are some cool action scenes and a few funny moments. But Apocalypse proves an underwhelming villain, and Apocalypse ultimately feels like the most formulaic, by-the-numbers X-Men movies so far. No, it’s not as bad as The Last Stand or Wolverine: Origins, but it feels the most like a movie that was just made because the producers know they can squeeze money out of it. But, hey, hopefully this is a blip on this year’s superhero movie radar screen, and August’s Suicide Squad and November’s Doctor Strange will be better.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Directed by Bryan Singer

Screenplay by Simon Kinberg

Rated PG-13

Length: 144 minutes

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

Captain America: Civil War
Grade: A

Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Scarlett Johansson, Chadwick Boseman, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner and Daniel Bruhl; with Tom Holland as Peter Parker and Paul Rudd as Scott Lang
Also Featuring: William Hurt, Emily VanCamp, Martin Freeman, Frank Grillo and Alfre Woodard,
With John Slattery and Hope Davis as Tony Stark's parents, and Marisa Tomei as Mae Parker

Premise: Just as a government initiative meant to limit the Avengers' jurisdiction creates friction within the group, a sinister enemy arises who threatens to use the team members' darkest secrets against each other.

Rated PG-13 for violence and intense action, language, and disturbing images including a scene of torture and some scary/emotional material

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is growing up. Marvel's movies have always been exciting and have usually had their share of intense moments, intimidating adversaries and big battles, but one thing they've always lacked compared to, say, Christopher Nolan's sublime Dark Knight series, was a feeling of real danger, and actual, legitimate consequences. The superheroes in Marvel's films sometimes took a licking, but there was usually little to show for it besides some bruising and maybe a bloody lip, things that would heal quickly. There was sometimes some drama between members of the team, but usually all it took was an appearance from the bad guys for our good guys to forget their differences and start kicking butt together. Marvel's climactic battles leveled buildings and towns and even literally uprooted and obliterated entire cities, but the movies usually tripped over themselves to paint the illusion for popcorn-munching audiences that all the innocent civilians got out of the way, that no one really got hurt. Even when characters with names died--like Agent Phil Coulson in 2012's Avengers or Quicksilver in 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron--they were relatively minor characters who died quick deaths and everyone got over it pretty quickly.

But in Captain America: Civil War--a de facto Avengers movie that features nearly the entire cast of Age of Ultron--things aren't so squeaky clean. Directing brothers Joe and Anthony Russo, who also directed 2014's superb Captain America: The Winter Soldier, bring an admirable increased maturity to this newest outing, and they legitimize the often playful-seeming Marvel Universe by building this movie off the Avengers' sins of the past. Early on, the Avengers team members present have to sit and watch a montage of clips of their past city-leveling conflicts (from the two Avengers films and Winter Soldier) and are forced to face the reality that, despite their best intentions, people died. Some of them even are personally confronted and attacked throughout the course of the movie by people who lost loved ones amidst their world-saving/wanton destruction. You can almost picture some viewers saying "wait, I thought they got everyone out of the way and saved all the innocent civilians". Yeah, they made it look that way, but the movies weren't about the innocent civilians who may or may not have gotten hurt while our heroes were playing world-savers; those movies probably wouldn't make billions of dollars and have a Stan Lee cameo.

All right, so, I don't mean to make Captain America: Civil War sound like Macbeth. There are plenty of fun and exciting parts, a well-placed Stan Lee cameo, and plenty of amusing quips and cool character quirks. But it's part of a much more mature, well-rounded, impressive package--one that makes Civil War one of the very best Marvel movies to date.

Plot
**It's difficult to picture anyone walking into Captain America: Civil War having seen none of the previous films and having no idea who the main characters are or what to expect. That said, if that's somehow you, you are advised, at the very least, to watch 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier and 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron, as the main focus of this movie directly ties to the events in those movies. Remember, this is a movie with at least 7 clear prequels (3 Iron Man films, 2 other Captain America films, 2 Avengers films). Just FYI--if you come in not knowing anything, you'll have an insane amount of catching up to do.**

When a mission to stop super-terrorist/vengeful villain Crossbones (Frank Grillo) goes awry, those members of that super-team, The Avengers, who were present are once again subjected to international media scrutiny for the damage and injuries to innocent civilians their world-saving tends to cause. Some have begun to question if the collateral damage of these "avenging" efforts by so-called "enhanced individuals" is even worth it. In no time, U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is dropping a new piece of international legislation on the table in front of the Avengers. The Sokovia Accords (named for the small Eastern European city/country that was obliterated during the climax of Age of Ultron), approved by the governments of 117 nations, are intended to put a leash on the Avengers, to give an international council the authority to call the heroes to action in the event of a crisis, or prosecute them when they jump into one without authorization. This idea of accountability is a balm to the guilt-ridden Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), duty-minded military veteran James Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), straight-laced artificial being Vision (Paul Bettany), and conflicted former double agent Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). However, it's seen as an affront to noble, people-saving do-gooder Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), who believes he should always be able to rush to the help of those in danger in times of trouble. It's an extra jab because Rogers has been increasingly crossing international governments' and authorities' lines in his efforts to wrangle in The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), who's actually the unstable, brain-washed incarnation of his childhood best friend, James 'Bucky' Barnes.

When the Winter Soldier initiates another huge international incident that leaves dignitaries from several countries dead, it becomes even more of an issue, as nearly all the world's governments have the Soldier pegged as Public Enemy No. 1. Frantic to save his friend from shoot-first-ask-questions-later government and military types, Captain America, with the help of loyal ally Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie) hurries to get to "Buck" first and talk some sense into him and prove to the world he's just a victim of his circumstances. This hyper-focus of Rogers' leads to alienation of his longtime close friend Black Widow, re-aggravates tension with Tony Stark, infuriates Sec. of State Ross, endangers the Avengers' youngest member, Wanda Maximoff/The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and puts a new adversary on the Captain's tale, a lethal self-made fighting machine called The Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman). As lines are crossed and rules are broken, tensions mount, to the point that Captain America and Iron Man are soon each recruiting friends and allies to fight against each other if necessary, Sec. of State Ross puts a target on the head of each of the Avengers, and a dark hearted trained killer (Daniel Bruhl) with an axe to grind seeks to impose his will on the fractious "super team".

What Works?
Wait--didn't we just see a two-and-a-half-hour rollercoaster film about iconic superheroes on opposing sides threatening to have a battle for the ages while looking toward a likely future alliance against a common enemy? Yes, we did. It was March's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a product of Marvel's competitor DC, and this Marvel product instantly trumps that picture. It's true that audiences were more ready to accept Civil War, as this movie had roughly 10 prequels (if you count the two Thor movies and the 2008 Incredible Hulk film that introduced Thaddeus Ross), and has had at least a couple of these characters on the big screen every year since 2010, while Batman v Superman only had one prequel (2013's Man of Steel), but, still, it's Batman versus freaking Superman, and you're DC, considered by some time to be Marvel's more mature, serious-minded big brother! Surely you could've made a legitimately decent, exciting picture...oh, nevermind. Bottom line--Civil War is the sleek, well-rounded, engaginge, exciting, dramatic film Batman v Superman probably wished it could be. It feels familiar and yet, with some new characters, new conflicts, and a new, grittier tone, in some ways feels fresh and exciting. And when was the last time a Marvel movie left audience members going "man, that was awesome" as well as "dude, I need to process that--what a crazy ride!" (which is what a friend of mine said when the credits came up and I asked him "wasn't it good?"). Like I said, there's still plenty of quips, some laugh-out-loud funny humor and irony, and still a crowd-pleasing Stan Lee cameo, but it comes wrapped in a package that's more appealing and challenging. Last year's Age of Ultron was good, but not on the level of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which was an instant classic. This one is.

It goes without saying that the cast is great--most of the key players are taking on these roles for at least the third or fourth time. As the All-American Steve Rogers, Chris Evans once again proves a likable, endearing leading man many audience members will relate to, but the performance that really dominates Civil War is given by Robert Downey Jr. Including the 2008 Iron Man movie that revitalized his career, Downey Jr. has now played this role six times, and, as he appears in Civil War, he's never been better. In the past I've called him one of the most watchable actors alive for the sheer entertainment value of watching him quip and yammer away in Tony Stark style, and he does some of that here, but this movie actually delves into some of the darker places in Tony Stark's heart. He's more troubled than we've ever seen him, and, more than once throughout the course of the film as his rage and anguish comes out, scarier than we've ever seen him. With Downey Jr. and Evans leading the way, the rest of the actors do good-enough work that their characters will be remembered as much as the smashing and bashing they do. And, amidst all these familiar faces, welcome newcomer performances are given by the likes of Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, and Daniel Bruhl, with Bruhl proving very effective as his cold, fierce cunning reminds you he is best known for being a major player in a Tarantino film (Inglorious Basterds).

What Doesn't Work?
There's not much about Civil War that doesn't work. Yes, its 146-minute run-time is considerable, but the movie is so engaging it doesn't really feel long, even as a lot is packed into that running time. An early action sequence features slightly irritating shaky-cam, and in one scene the silly factor got a little too much for me as a certain red-suited superhero hopped around quipping non-stop. Plus, I can't help but note that, while Captain America is an enhanced super soldier, it's hard for me to digest that it still does little more than scratch or bruise him when he gets repeatedly hit with haymakers from a guy in a solid metal suit.

Otherwise, my complaints are very minimal.

Content
Captain America: Civil War, is, like the other Avengers and Captain America movies, rated PG-13, but some material is noticeably heavier this time around. Flashbacks to the Winter Soldier's past reveal a group of enhanced baddies running amock, not to mention the Soldier personally offing a few likable characters. The Soldier himself twitches and screams in agony when bad guys forcibly access the dark, assassin's part of his brain with code words and established torture routines. We also see a man's body jerk and twitch as he's drowned in a sink. A few bodies are shown after they've recently been dealt bullets to the head. And, while a lot of the action is cool and fun, there are a few moments when our heroes really get into it with each other that pass the cool stage and border on really intense and sinister. Little kids might be a little more unnerved this time.

Bottom Line
Captain America: Civil War is undoubtedly one of the finest films to come from the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far, an edgier, more intense, very well-rounded film, full to the brim with exciting action, character-building drama, and realistic consequences for our heroes' derring-do. Boasting nearly all of the Avengers, it's an easy continuation of the saga so far that also expands it, and treats us to some dream fight matchups between the likes of Captain America and Iron Man, Captain America and Spiderman, The Winter Soldier and the Black Panther, Ant-Man and Iron Man, and Vision versus The Scarlet Witch. It's so good that it makes you sad to realize, even though there is still another Thor movie and two Avengers: Infinity War flicks on the way, that we're probably getting close to the end of this part of the Marvel Universe. And dude--those Stan Lee cameos will never get old.

Captain America; Civil War (2016)
Directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
Based on the comic book by Mark Millar, and characters created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby
Rated PG-13
Length: 147 minutes

THE JUNGLE BOOK

The Jungle Book

Grade: B+

Starring Neel Sethi as Mowgli, and Featuring the Voices of: Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong’o, Christopher Walken and Scarlett Johansson

Premise: Raised in the jungle by wolves, young human Mowgli tries to adjust as his increasing maturity makes many of the animals around him view him as a threat.

Rated PG (contains some intense action and sad/scary moments)

The Disney machine marches on, pumping out another souped-up live action film that is basically a carbon copy of one of its classic animated features from the ‘60s. Last year it was Cinderella. The year before that—Sleeping Beauty (the 2014 spin-off Maleficent). A couple years before that it was Snow White (the 2012 version was called Mirror Mirror). Before that it was Alice in Wonderland. Now, it’s The Jungle Book. There will be haters. There will be cynics saying it’s a complete cash-grab. There will be the lukewarm (“it was okay, but the original’s better in my book”). And then there will be the hundreds of millions of dollars in tickets sold. The Disney machine marches on, basically printing its own money as it goes.

Hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Also, if you can slam-dunk a film everyone from parents with kids to grown adults hanging out with their friends will go see that has brilliant visuals, an A-list voice cast, a slight improvement in weighty story and plenty of well-played pushes of the nostalgia button, why not do it? And besides, it is nice to see movies filled with grownups and made for everyone that are brightly-colored, entirely-sincere, and effectively wholesome. This version of The Jungle Book—largely an on-the-nose remake of the 1967 version that landed “The Bare Necessities” in the Disney music canon—isn’t quite as well-rounded and emotionally-affecting a production as last year’s Cinderella, but it’s still an entertaining, impressive, and likeable motion picture.

Plot

Pre-teen Mowgli (Indian-American newcomer Neel Sethi) has only known the jungle. While he was, of course, born in some “man village”, he was stranded as a baby in the jungle. At that time he obtained an unlikely guardian in the panther Bagheera (voice of Ben Kinglsey), who took him to a pack of protective wolves to be raised as one of their own. However, when a devastating drought strikes the region, it brings all the jungle’s inhabitants together at the last remaining watering hole. Some are surprised to see a “man cub” among their numbers. Some are curious. Some are slightly offended. And one tiger—Shere Khan (voice of Idris Elba)—is furious. Having been previously hunted and scarred by humans, Shere Khan vows to maintain the jungle’s peacetime drought laws, but breathes threats against the wolves, implying they better hand over Mowgli when the rains finally come, or else. When the rains do come, Mowgli, not wanting anyone to get hurt on his account, runs away from the pack and, in a terrible storm, gets lost and ends up in a deep, unfamiliar region of the jungle.

It’s there that he’s saved from danger and boredom by Baloo (voice of Bill Murray), a giant sloth bear who’s easy going but has a mischievous twinkle in his eye. It’s Baloo who encourages Mowgli to embrace the innovative ideas that come with his natural human heritage. It’s Baloo who shows Mowgli the “man village” from a distance but doesn’t try to guilt or force him to go. It’s Baloo who rescues Mowgli from a pack of wild monkeys. And Baloo may very well turn out to be Mowgli’s biggest ally against Shere Khan.

What Works?

It’s funny that The Jungle Book’s director, Jon Favreau, will always first come to my mind thanks to his guest stint on the sitcom Friends, because, as a movie director, he has already helmed a pair of bonafide classics—the 2008 superhero origin story Iron Man and Will Ferrell’s breakthrough 2003 comedy Elf. Now, as was the case with Cinderella last year (directed by Academy Award-nominee Kenneth Branagh), Disney has brought on a classy director to give a classic Disney tale a little oomph. Favreau’s film is quite similar to the 1967 cartoon version, but it avoids the same beginning and the same ending, and leaves out a few of the cheesier characters (the militarized elephants, the Beatles-inspired vulture pack). Not to mention it’s framed with classical book graphics meant to remind us that Disney didn’t make up the “Jungle Book” concept, it’s based on the 1894 novel by Rudyard Kipling. Most of what’s onscreen is obviously animated, but Favreau manages to hit most of the right notes in making the scary moments scary, the touching ones touching, the fun ones fun, and the exciting ones exciting. As far as nostalgia goes, it will impossible for anyone who’s seen the animated version to not look forward to certain scenes and characters, or to appreciate how certain aspects have been updated thanks to the increases in imagination and animation. And for Disney supergeeks (like me), there’s ample playing of the two most enduring songs from the ’67 version, with one almost guaranteed to be stuck in your head as you leave (it was in mine).

In the only major live-action role, 12-year-old Neel Sethi struggles here and there with being more than a stubborn, bratty kid, but he has a megawatt smile and, ultimately, proves an effective and likeable screen presence. He also seems completely comfortable interacting with and emoting off characters who aren’t really there. The venerated voice cast does solid work. Scarlett Johansson and Lupita Nyong’o have both lent their voices to high-profile projects before (the former to Her, the latter to Star Wars: The Force Awakens), and Idris Elba reps his second major voice-only role in as many months after his role as the grumpy police captain in Zootopia (that character seems positively cuddly compared to his gnarly take on Shere Khan). Ben Kingsley has exactly the right sound and manner for Bagheera, and Christopher Walken’s appearance—compared with some terrifically-creepy animation—is brilliant, but Bill Murray walks off with the show. Baloo—played here as warm and understanding but also snarky and tricky—is perfectly suited to Murray’s style and sound, and the actor does some of his most effective work in years. Murray’s droll energy gives Jungle Book the extra entertainment quality it needs to be more than just a competent rendition.

What Doesn’t Work?

The fact that this Jungle Book is almost an exact recreation of the 1967 Jungle Book is both a blessing and a curse. Obviously, they’ve updated a few things, and its mood and look and style are more akin to today’s movies, but this movie, as mentioned, doesn’t quite match the overall quality of last year’s stellar Cinderella, which effectively added more dimension to its familiar characters and story elements while still remaining simple and likeable. Jungle Book starts to drag a little bit in the middle, right before Murray’s Baloo shows up and livens things up. Like I said, they’ve nixed a few of the goofier parts of the original here, and they end on a nicely-appropriate note rather than tripping over themselves to match the exact same ending as the earlier movie. I don’t have many complaints; this is a solid movie, just a little too obviously familiar.

Content

As a PG, Jungle Book has a lot of intense scenes including Baloo and Bagheera taking on swarms of attacking monkeys, Mowgli getting squeezed by a giant python that has designs on eating him, and, of course, Shere Khan having a few different scary smackdowns with beloved characters. There’s little in the way of gory details, of course, but when the claws and fangs come out, things will be intense for younger kids.

Bottom Line

Is the new souped-up Jungle Book a cash grab as well as pretty much an exact recreation of a beloved Disney classic (from 1967) done up again with better animation? Yep. Does that make it bad? No. I actually quite enjoyed it. For me, it’s left out a few of the goofier elements of the old movie, really well-cast all the major parts, is led by a tough and likeable kid in newcomer Neel Sethi (as Mowgli), and ends on an appropriately-satisfying note that is different from the cartoon version. And the animation’s incredible. Plus, this movie all but sticks the two best songs from the original movie down your throat. Hey, you could do worse, right? With me, everyone: “Look for the/bare necessities/the simple bare necessities/forget about your worries and your strife…”

The Jungle Book (2016)

Directed by Jon Favreau

Screenplay by Justin Marks

Based on the book by Rudyard Kipling and the film The Jungle Book (1967) directed by Wolfgang Reitherman

Rated PG

Length: 105 minutes

BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Grade: C-

Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons, Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter, Laurence Fishburne, and Diane Lane, with Scoot McNairy as Wallace Keefe

Premise: Disgruntled billionaire Bruce Wayne becomes a crime-fighting vigilante while nursing a grudge against Superman, who has become a polarizing figure in the wake of the destruction of Metropolis.

Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, scenes of peril and destruction, some gory/disturbing images, and brief language

It’s hard to know how Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice would have come across if its plot wasn’t one of the worst-kept secrets in Hollywood history. This is a movie that probably would have seemed perfunctory enough as it is, let alone after its marketing team released four different trailers that spoiled nearly every worthwhile moment in the film and made the dots easy to connect even for what it didn’t spoil. But the trailers, combined, can only amount to maybe twenty minutes, and this is a two-and-a-half-hour film. Surely there’s a way, even with a lot of material spoiled, to still wangle a good, even great, movie out of that?

Well, the world will never know, because Director Zack Snyder’s film, a sequel/spinoff of 2013’s Man of Steel and obvious franchise origin story for upcoming Justice League movies, is a mess—an over-long, over-stuffed, dull, boring, clichéd mess. Batman v Superman might be the least-effective and worthwhile big-screen superhero venture I’ve seen since Spiderman 3 in 2007. It really shouldn’t be that way. Even though plenty giggled at the very concept of “Batman versus Superman” (because, duh, Superman is indestructible, thus, it can’t really be THAT much of a contest), you’re still talking about a movie that features no fewer than two pop-culture-icon characters, eight Academy-Award nominated actors, the chance to plug DC’s version of the Avengers, and to set the mood for this summer’s upcoming Suicide Squad, which looks pretty rad.  How could that be bad? Well, first you make a movie that is not very good, and then you show pretty much all the actual good parts in the trailers, leaving audiences struggling through the film to realize there’s nothing worth watching in it that they haven’t already seen. That’s not a good start.

Plot

While this movie introduces several major characters, it is still a sequel to 2013’s Superman movie ‘Man of Steel’. While not mandatory, viewing of or familiarity with the plot of ‘Man of Steel’ is recommended because several major characters are returning and this movie more or less picks up right where that one left off.

Sure, Superman (Henry Cavill) saved the world from total destruction at the hands of Kryptonian sociopath General Zod (Michael Shannon), but their grudge match leveled much of the city of Metropolis and left thousands dead. So, despite his good looks, super strength, small-town-Kansas roots, and heroic acts, many consider “the alien” a threat and a menace to society. One particular individual smarting from the destruction Superman caused is billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who lives in Gotham City on the opposite shore of a lake from Metropolis. Wayne, who was orphaned at a young age and lives a largely reclusive life with no one but his butler, Alfred (Jeremy Irons), for company, heard and watched friends die when Superman’s intergalactic smackdown with Zod destroyed one of his company’s offices in downtown Metropolis. Already scarred from the horrific childhood incident in which his parents were gunned down in front of his eyes, Wayne soon becomes a masked vigilante as a way of dealing with his grief and rage over Metropolis, beating up criminals in the dead of night and branding them with a bat symbol.

Plenty of others are on the warpath against Superman. One surviving Wayne Enterprises employee (Scoot McNairy) launches an angry media campaign against the “false god” who caused the destruction. A no-nonsense senator (Holly Hunter) conducts highly-publicized hearings in the Capitol that scrutinize every aspect of the destruction and disruption Superman has caused. And a smarmy, rich scientist named Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), head of genetic research company LexCorp, uncovers something in the wreckage of the Kryptonian machine Zod was using to destroy the southern hemisphere—kryptonite. While Daily Planet editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and star reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) remain on Superman’s side, the walls begin to close in, with Luthor making big claims, the hearings getting rougher, and the “Gotham Bat” hinting that he wants nothing more than an opportunity to pulverize Superman with his bare hands.  

What Works?

There have to be some things that work, right? Well…some. I blame this very underwhelming film’s muddled final output on director Snyder and the writers, who tried to cram in and juggle way too much. I don’t blame the actors. For all the fuss about his casting, Affleck might come off the best of any of the actors, scowling and brooding and, occasionally, turning on the Bruce Wayne charm. Honestly, I didn’t sit there missing Christian Bale—maybe because Affleck has been such a visible, famous personality for so long, I’m just used to him being in movies—though even the top-billed star doesn’t get to do that much. With his screen time cut into by the Superman half of the plot, Affleck gets very little time to develop Bruce Wayne as a person beyond a few creepy dream sequences he has. Cavill makes an effective enough Superman, though the fact remains that, rather like Chris Hemsworth’s Thor, Superman just isn’t that interesting of a character.

Rather unsurprisingly, it’s Eisenberg who gets to have the most fun and, thus, is the most fun in this dreary film. Playing Luthor as something between his antisocial Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network and an old-fashioned mad scientist, Eisenberg gets almost all the script’s best lines and gets to greedily chew scenery that desperately needs to be chewed on.  “Psychotic? That’s a word for ideas too big for little minds,” he says smartly at one point (yes, it was in the trailer). “I don’t know where she is! I told them not to tell me!” He cackles gleefully at another, while cornered, in a Joker-esque bit of mischief. When Eisenberg turns it up in the third act, the film finally—finally!—starts to get off the ground and feel like the big-screen comic-book entertainment it’s supposed to be, though it must be admitted even his character is short-changed, with a barely-explained secret experiment and a final scene that is dragged on way longer than necessary.

Besides the actors doing what they can with rushed, overly-busy material, the movie has a few moments where it starts to become something more. The opening sequence—the climax of Man of Steel seen from the ground-level viewpoint of Bruce Wayne—is powerful, climaxing in a gut-punch moment where a Wayne Enterprises employee, knowing his death is imminent, starts to pray fearfully. Batfleck has one great bang-‘em-up fight scene against a swarm of minions in a warehouse; most of it was shown in the movie’s most recent trailer, but it’s the only action scene in the movie that achieves the kind of oooh/aaah bravado great action can deliver. And there is definitely some popcorn-munching campy fun to be had in the climactic action scene where Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman (oh yeah, she’s in the movie, too—think I forgot to mention) fight a hideous creature Luthor created.

What Doesn’t Work?

Oh boy. How much time do you have?

Well, I’ll go back over some of the criticisms I’ve already unveiled.

Over-long—well, if the movie had been really well put-together, it might have deserved its 150-minute length. But it’s not, so it feels REALLY long. This includes a Peter Jackson-esque parade of would-be ending sequences that tacks an unnecessary, additional 15 minutes onto the film.

Over-stuffed—Superman stuff. Clark Kent stuff. Superman/Clark Kent flashbacks/dream sequences stuff.  Batman stuff. Batman origin stuff. Batman as an adult stuff. Batman flashbacks/dream sequences. Batman flashbacks/dream sequences within flashbacks/dream sequences. Lois Lane stuff. Lex Luthor stuff. Justice League stuff. Plug for the next movie stuff. Brief Wonder Woman appearance. Senate hearings. Flashbacks to the Batman origin flashbacks. Another brief Wonder Woman appearance.  There’s a lot in this movie. Someone would argue there needed to be, but there’s a better way to do it than bounce around like a ping-pong ball and, in the process, short-change many of your characters. It doesn’t help that in its back-and-forth-ness, all parts are not created equal, as the Batfleck stuff is typically more interesting than the Superman stuff. Oh, and there are at least three lengthy dream/fantasy sequences, which the audience can tell right away are dream/fantasy sequences, that mean nothing to the plot that go on forever. In one of them, I sat there in disbelief, almost unable to comprehend that the director went “yeah, keep going. This obviously-not-real, not-forward-progress-to-the-plot stuff is fascinating”.

Dull—how many times have seen Batman’s parents get killed now, between the big screen and the small screen? Don’t we already know he’s haunted by his family legacy? How many times do we need to see him moodily visit his parents’ grave? Why are we wasting time going repeatedly back to this pointless subplot about a bullet Lex Luthor may or may not have made? Did the source of the bullet even end up meaning anything? In how many movies do high-ranking government/military people sit around a table and tensely talk about “options”, only to settle for shooting nukes at bad guys who are probably impervious to them? Aren’t the bad guys always impervious to them? And isn’t one scene of Perry Black telling Lois Lane and/or Clark Kent that he doesn’t approve of what they’re doing and they need to stick to the job enough? Do we need more than one?

Cliché—we know the deal with Batman (orphaned, he’s sad about his parents, he’s moody, he has a butler, he feels empowered in the batsuit, etc…). We know the deal with Superman (he’s also Clark Kent, he’s impervious, people question him, he’s a good guy regardless of what people say, oh but his kryptonite is…kryptonite. It affects him. I mean, like, makes him not impervious affects him.). We know the deal with Luthor (he’s bad news, he’s sleazy, he wants to make things go boom). We know the…Well, okay, the movie probably wouldn’t have seemed nearly as cliché if we hadn’t already been exposed to nearly all the best parts. But we know enough about the general gist of these people without getting heaps of it all again. Give us something we’re not expecting (curse the marketing people who made that a not-possibility with their lovely, lengthy trailers!)!

Bottom line, it felt off from the start. Again, Affleck is fine, but it takes little time to make you miss Christopher Nolan’s pristine, detailed Batman Begins in terms of Batman origin stories. Speaking of which—Irons is passable in this movie’s interpretation of Alfred (he’s more akin to a partner in crime here than a butler/father figure), but it’s hard to watch him play the character after Michael Caine did such a marvelous job with his three-dimensional, emotional portrayal in the Dark Knight films. It really is.

Hey! Here’s an idea! In a movie called Batman versus Superman, why don’t you actually give us some BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN!! Honestly, I don’t think these two actually did more than exchange inflammatory tweets and mean glances until the one-hour-forty-five-minute mark. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE!!!  Look, even if you know that we know that they’re not gonna end up mortal enemies, at least make it more fun!

Oh yeah…Wonder Woman is in this movie! I can’t tell if Gal Gadot is a great actress or not, or if she has the kind of charisma that could have livened up this movie or not. But I did know she was playing Wonder Woman in this movie and she was going to be in it…well, why not have her in it, then? It’s a massive shame her big character reveal was spoiled in the trailers—ditto with Batty and Supes’ amusing reactions to her appearance. But honestly, for as much as we already know the drill with Batman and Superman—well, I can’t speak for other audience members, but I don’t know the drill with Wonder Woman. Why not give us more Wonder Woman? We’ve seen female characters as the mysterious woman-about-town, exchanging thinly-veiled banter with the male leads before (i.e. Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises). Oh I know, you want me to buy a ticket to the upcoming Wonder Woman movie to find all that stuff out. But, you know, if you have an ace up your sleeve in the form of a cool, appealing character your audience might like, why not use it more? We’re all going to see the Wonder Woman movie anyway!

Speaking of Wonder Woman, can I get an amen and a big check sent to whoever does her makeup and hair when she’s in costume? I swear, she got basically stomped on, body-slammed, thrown around, smashed into a car, smashed into a couple buildings, and engulfed in a cloud of dust while fighting that giant thing that looked like the cave troll from the first Lord of the Rings movie, but, at the end of it, her face was completely spotless, and there was not a hair out of place.

Content

Batman v Superman is neither Deadpool nor The Dark Knight in terms of violent content. There’s no slicing of faces or dismemberment or torture. Batman does break some people’s arms, though, as well as use their own knives against them. And when Superman is exposed to kryptonite-made weapons, they hurt him. And when Lex Luthor’s prize creature creation is shown coming out of the womb-like contraption it was grown in, yeah, that’s kind of yucky. The mood is pretty dark here, and there is some dark, shadowy content (I mean, one of its title characters is a dark, shadowy character), but it’s not much more intense than the average superhero movie.

Bottom Line

Even once the ratings and reviews started coming in, I admit, I held out hope. Alas. Even though Ben Affleck outperforms the haters’ expectations and makes for a perfectly-competent Bruce Wayne/Batman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a big, ugly misfire, a movie that’s too long and too busy and still manages to waste time, waste good actors, and not deliver anything above average or exciting that wasn’t already shown in the trailers. Honestly, even the fight scenes aren’t that cool. Spoiler: you already saw most of the best fight scene in the trailer. The reviews aren’t stopping people from seeing the movie, and I invite you to go ahead and see it and judge for yourself, but, for me, it wasn’t interesting enough, wasn’t entertaining enough, came too soon after the Dark Knight movies, and had too many, too long ending scenes. I mean, really, it came just short of having hobbits hug and cry. Here’s hoping DC’s legit-looking Suicide Squad movie makes this one look like a joke.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Directed by Zack Snyder

Screenplay by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer

Batman characters created by Bob Kane, Bill Finger

Superman characters created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

Rated PG-13

Length: 151 minutes

February-mid-March Movie Roundup

February-mid-March Movie Roundup

The Merc, The Dragon Warrior, The Man Who Wants To Be A Woman, The Hostage, and the Aliens

Because of a number of obligations, including Master’s degree homework, karate, and a growing desire to watch UFC fights instead of movies (but mostly homework), I haven’t reviewed any movies since January, not even the hit superhero flick Deadpool, which I saw opening weekend and which nearly everybody loved. I’ve seen a couple other films recently, too, including one on video last night and one in theaters earlier today. These won’t be full-length reviews, but here’s a quick look over the titles that have made an impression on me over the past few months.

DEADPOOL                         Grade: B+

When I first reviewed Marvel’s big summer 2014 hit Guardians of the Galaxy, I described it as a hip, scrappy younger brother of the more grown-up prestige Marvel flicks like Captain America and Spiderman. If that’s true, than February’s Marvel release Deadpool is like the crude, drunken uncle of those movies, the one who shows up at family reunions and who your parents try to keep you away from despite the fact that his rowdy, profane stories crack you up. From a sharply-satirical opening credits sequence that indicates the movie stars A Big Star, A Hot Chick, and A British Villain and was directed by Some Overpaid Dick, to a crude, yammering smart-aleck narration that lasts the entire movie, Deadpool, right out of the gate, is clearly not your average superhero movie.

And that’s good because, with the exception of a few real standouts like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel movies are starting to become a dime a dozen—bright, colorful, feel-good flicks about witty, good-looking people with cool powers who always save the world no matter what. But Deadpool—not only is it the first R-rated Marvel film, but it’s probably also the first one where the initial thing you think of when recalling the movie is not the actors, the special effects, or even the action, but the screenplay; you could easily watch this movie three times in a row and pick up something new every time, there is so much chatter. Indeed, the screenplay (penned by the writers of the 2009 cult classic Zombieland, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick), is so crude, witty, and nonstop talky it feels like it easily could’ve been created by a group consisting of Quentin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin, Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Judd Apatow, and the creators of Cards Against Humanity. This was seriously one of those movies where it’s really funny but you’re scared to laugh because you know, in laughing, you’ll miss the next funny line.

That’s not to discount the action or the actors. The action is brilliantly-choreographed, jaw-dropper-type stuff, and the actors are great. Ryan Reynolds nails his long-awaited star turn as Wade Wilson, a former special forces operative turned low-rent mercenary. Wade runs jobs for an underground mercenary ring organized by Weasel (snarky director T.J. Miller), where Wade meets Vanessa (Brazillian Morena Baccarin), a gorgeous but snappy prostitute. They fall in love (or, at least, they hook up a lot, given a surprisingly-graphic montage offering peeks into their very active sex life), but they appear to be missing out on a happy ending when Wade is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer throughout his body. Wade doesn’t want the lively Vanessa to suffer with him as his body deteriorates, so he leaves her, and, when a mysterious man offers him the opportunity to be healed through secret science, he jumps at the chance. But it turns out to be a trick, the secret science merely meaning being tortured endlessly by cold-eyed Francis, AKA Ajax (Ed Skrein), a fierce mutant who wants to provoke the mutant genes in his victims by any means necessary. Eventually he does provoke Wade’s gene, but it’s more than either of them bargained for, and when Francis kidnaps Vanessa, Wade gets on the warpath, with a red suit and weapons and all, and seeks to save his best girl and become, well, maybe not a “hero”.

Bottom line: Like its titular hero, Deadpool is fierce and feisty, with lots of laughs, endless wit, wild action, and some fine performances. It is, however, a hard R, with graphic nudity and sex, lots of swearing, and some gory details. As previously mentioned, this is not your father’s or even your older brother’s superhero movie. It’s crazy entertaining, though.

Deadpool is rated R for strong, bloody violence and gore, constant profanity (including graphic sexual references), graphic nudity and sexuality, and disturbing images including scenes of torture

KUNG FU PANDA 3                                   Grade: B+

I wasn’t planning on seeing Kung Fu Panda 3—in fact, I rolled my eyes and sighed when I first heard it was actually being made (“oh please, another sequel?”), but my dad, my younger brother Will, and my little sister Addie and I have a Kung Fu Panda tradition, so I went along when I heard they were going to see it. And—surprise!—it was actually pretty great. Like the other films (the original came out in 2008, Part 2 in 2011), it was brightly-colored, quickly-paced, exciting, funny, and populated with lively, likable characters. Oh, and—as was also true of the other films—it improbably had quite the sentimental streak, with a strong emotional chord audiences can appreciate.

In Kung Fu Panda 3, a notorious villain of old, General Kai (malevolently voiced by the always-terrific J.K. Simmons), escapes from the spirit realm and returns to China seeking to capture all power and rule. His abilities include super strength and the ability to suck the chi (energy) out of his opponents and use it for himself. He immediately sets his sights on the Jade Palace, where the country’s finest warriors train under Master Chi-Fu (Dustin Hoffman). As before, Chi-Fu’s prize pupils are the Furious Five—Mantis (Seth Rogen), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Viper (Lucy Liu), Crane (David Kross), and Tigress (Angelina Jolie). And then there’s Poe (Jack Black), the round, bouncy panda, who was improbably chosen years before by the great master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) to be the Dragon Warrior, the masterful leader who would save and protect China. When these warriors hear Kai is on his way, they prepare to fight, but Poe is distracted when his biological father appears. A panda named Li (finely-voiced by the gravelly Bryan Cranston), Poe’s father is anxious to bond with him and even give kung fu a try, but Poe isn’t sure about this, and neither is the adoptive father who raised him from childhood, the snippy goose Mr. Ping (James Hong). Poe is brought back to the panda village from whence he came, but his two fathers are butting heads and he’s questioning everything about who he is and who he’s supposed to be, and it’s right as Kai begins a seemingly-unstoppable assault on all the country’s greatest warriors.

It’s a pretty similar recipe to the first two go-rounds. A scary, impressive villain seems unstoppable until Poe figures out an unlikely way to stop him, which includes persuading his warrior friends to try things they never imagined they’d try. It’s not super original, but, like Poe’s schemes, it ends up working. And the voice work, from all these current and former A-list stars, is a treat.

Bottom line: There’s a lot of laugh-out-loud humor, catchy sentiment, impressive villainy, and bonding moments that warm the heart. It’s not Pixar-level animated greatness, but it’s not trying to be. It’s clear some thought went into it, though, and, for a third animated sequel, that means a lot.

Kung Fu Panda 3 is rated PG for some intense action and peril, rude humor, and some scary moments

THE DANISH GIRL                                   Grade: B+

If Poe the Kung Fu Panda was questioning who he was and who he was supposed to be, his internal conflict still has nothing on the internal conflict of the titular character of The Danish Girl, a prestige drama released late last fall by Academy-Award winner director Tom Hooper. Based on a 2000 historical fiction novel by David Ebershoff—which was itself loosely based on real events—Girl is about Einar and Gerda Wegener, a married couple of painters living in Copenhagen circa 1926. Einar (the always-fine Eddie Redmayne), is a celebrated painter of remarkable landscapes. Gerda (26-year-old Swedish actress Alicia Vikander) is a portrait painter who has long been overshadowed by her husband and who hasn’t had the success or the breakthrough opportunities he has. Despite this slight conflict in success, they are quite happy, modeling for each other, causing friends to swoon with their love stories, making love constantly and dreaming of starting a family.

However, one day, when Gerda’s model friend (Amber Heard) fails to show up for a portrait session, Gerda persuades Einar to sit for her, wear a pair of stockings and shoes, and hold a dress up to himself to provide her a subject. Gerda paints Einar as a woman, and the gender-ambiguous subject becomes a hit and finally gets her the big break she’s always sought. However, this role play also awoke a long-dead inner voice inside Einar, one that suggests he’s not exactly who he should really be. These feelings are furthered when Gerda happily and unknowingly persuades Einar to dress as this female model for a gala they’re attending, and Einar is flirted with, and then kisses, a man. When a shocked Gerda confronts him later, Einar admits that, though part of him is as surprised as she is, part of him always knew that side was present. He calls it Lili. To Gerda’s surprise and consternation, Lili not only doesn’t go away but, soon, is present more than her husband is. Soon, her husband, Einar, is a complete stranger who she doesn’t see anymore, and Lili is her constant companion. However, as devastated and shaken as this turn of events feels, Gerda can’t make herself hate Lili. She refuses to let doctors tell Einar/Lili she is insane, or schizophrenic, or in need of a good shock therapy or a straitjacket. And when they find a doctor who can actually perform a sex change surgery, she doesn’t stand in the way of Lili becoming who they both soon believe she was always meant to be.

While I’ve read that a lot of real-life details were fudged both in Ebershoff’s book and in Hooper’s film—for instance, I read that Gerda and Einar’s relationship deteriorated quickly once the Lili persona appeared—The Danish Girl is an undeniably-moving and powerful film. While real-life transgender cases (Caitlyn Jenner, the Wachowski siblings) have made this a Movie of the Moment kind of deal, even traditional viewers can glean lessons from the drama. Much like star Redmayne’s last film—the Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything, which won him the Best Actor Oscar—the movie dares you to consider what you would ultimately do for someone who you say you love. Would you stand in the way of them finding themselves? Would you allow them to pursue their own ultimate happiness at the expense of yours? And, conversely, is it right and acceptable to pursue a course of action for yourself you feel is right when it threatens to undermine and even shatter the happiness of another person? Is it selfish? Where is the line between selfishness and giving?

Like Hooper’s last two celebrated films—2010’s The King’s Speech and 2012’s Les Miserables—The Danish Girl contains music, drama, and acting of the highest caliber. Redmayne is arguably even more impressive here than he was in his chameleonic turn as Hawking last year—his portrait of the kind, sensitive Einar turned kind, gentle, and yet more than slightly-selfish Lili is a bold, brave, powerful piece of work. There’s a reason there was conversation about Redmayne possibly winning back-to-back Best Actor Oscars this year. And yet, for the second year in a row (after Felicity Jones last year), Redmayne is equaled if not bested by his primary female costar, with Vikander doing sensational work as the brave and supportive audience surrogate, Gerda. Like Jones did, Vikander makes you feel the pain of someone wanting to be completely selfless and supportive and yet falling back on basic human needs and desires as well. Just like Lili, Gerda deserves to be happy. It’s a wonderful performance, one that well-deserved the Best Supporting Actress Oscar she won for it last month. The two leads are given fine support by Ben Whishaw as Lili’s coy, shy love interest, Sebastian Koch as the doctor who finally offers the right answer, and an outstanding and unrecognizable Matthias Schoenaerts as Einar’s lifelong friend (and potential love interest for Gerda), Hans.

Bottom line: A fine, old-fashioned drama, The Danish Girl could have offered a few more details but, with two remarkable lead performances and a resonant, relevant, powerful emotional story, it’s an undeniably-affecting film.

The Danish Girl is rated R for graphic nudity and sexuality, some language, and disturbing images including a brief scene of violence

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE                                     Grade: A

Just months ago, a taut suspense drama about a young woman kept locked in a confining structure made the rounds at end-of-year awards ceremonies. 10 Cloverfield Lane may be set up similar to Room, but it has a completely different feel. In Cloverfield Lane (a sort-of sequel to the 2008 thriller Cloverfield), Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) isn’t sure what’s out there beyond the confining, claustrophobic fortress she’s found herself in. Before the car accident, everything was normal—albeit, she had just walked out on her boyfriend. After—she wakes up with an IV and a knee brace, but in unfamiliar surroundings: a stocked, locked, and cinder-block-enforced doomsday bunker only otherwise populated by a cautiously-optimistic young man in an arm cast (John Gallagher Jr.) who says he’s glad to be there, and a hulking, scowling, unsettingly-intense Navy retiree (John Goodman), who is full of conspiracy theories and tells Michelle the outside world as she knew it is gone. Gone from what, Michelle can’t discern, because neither man seems to know, exactly. Nuclear war? A Russian invasion? A Korean invasion? Aliens? Some new technology or biological threat? Michelle is sure it’s a trick, a paranoid scheme, or, at worst, a half-truth. The big man who brought her there says they can’t even go outside, or open the doors due to the radiation and the fallout, but, to Michelle, this seems like a ruse to keep her there. But she can’t deny something is going on, because they occasionally hear strange noises, the word HELP is scratched on a window in the cellar, the power occasionally flickers and the walls shake, and her host (Goodman’s Howard) has one set of keys to all the door locks that he keeps on him at all times.

I won’t say more except to say that, thankfully, 10 Cloverfield Lane manages not to let down this intriguing, taut set-up with a bogus, over-the-top scare finale like a cheap horror movie would, or to just pretend it was all made up, like a Shyamalan film might (remember The Village?). From the opening credits onward, Cloverfield is searingly-intense, a pulse-pounding, nerve-jangling thriller where the sound of mere footsteps makes you cringe and panic. This is due largely to Goodman, who is best known for voicing jolly, good-natured animated characters (The Emperor’s New Groove’s Pacha, Monsters Inc.’s Sully) but who is scary-psychotic here, with a few hints of good-guy-ness but a demented twinkle in his eye. Winstead and Gallagher are good, but Goodman, and the suspenseful screenplay, are the winners here. Want proof that this is good stuff? It’s produced by J.J. Abrams (who recently set the world on fire with Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and only after he made LOST and re-made Star Trek) and one of the credited writers is Oscar nominee Damian Chazelle, who penned and directed the terrifying-suspenseful drama Whiplash two years ago.

Bottom line: It’s hard to imagine a more straight-up intense movie this year. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a piece of work, a taut, terrifying film with fine actors, a very intriguing set-up, and a plot that is two-thirds mystery and final third wild action. You won’t be able to feel your legs after this one. Trust me.

10 Cloverfield Lane is rated PG-13 for disturbing/scary moments, language, and some violence

DEADPOOL (2016)

Directed by T.J. Miller

Screenplay by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick

Based on the character created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Ed Skrein, Morena Baccarin, T.J. Miller, Stefan Kapicic, and Gina Carano; with Brianna Hildebrand as Negasonic Teenage Warhead

Rated R

Length: 108 minutes

KUNG FU PANDA 3 (2016)

Directed by Alessandro Carloni and Jennifer Yuh

Screenplay by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger

Featuring the Voices of: Jack Black, Bryan Cranston, J.K. Simmons, James Hong, Angelina Jolie, Randall Duk Kim, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, Kate Hudson and Dustin Hoffman

Rated PG

Length: 95 minutes

THE DANISH GIRL (2015)

Directed by Tom Hooper

Screenplay by Lucinda Coxon

Based on the 2000 fictional novel by David Ebershoff

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ben Whishaw, Amber Heard, Sebastian Koch, and Adrien Schiller

Length: 119 minutes

Rated R

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE (2016)

Directed by Dan Trachtenberg

Screenplay by Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, and Damien Chazelle

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman, and John Gallagher Jr.

Rated PG-13

Length: 103 minutes