Movie Review: “Ant-Man”

Ant-manFor the second straight year, Marvel’s late-summer entry is a film, based on a little-known comic book property, that’s a whole lot of fun. “Ant-Man” isn’t quite the joy that “Guardians of the Galaxy” was, but it’s still an inventive, very enjoyable action film. Casting Paul Rudd as a superhero, Michael Douglas as his mentor and Corey Stoll as the villain- were all masterstrokes, whichever director was responsible.

(The usual disclaimer- I’ve never read any comic books and therefore know nothing about the book histories of these characters besides what my friends and my kids tell me- and my kids have never heard of Ant-Man.)

“Ant-Man,” of course, is exactly what it sounds like: A superhero who turns into an ant. Or rather, an ant-sized creature with the ability to control actual ants- when Rudd puts on the Ant-Man suit, he shrinks to the size of an ant, and can go back to human size at will.  This creates a lot of opportunities for creative setpieces, whether it’s a fight on top of a child’s Thomas the Tank Engine train set or Rudd’s attempts to jump through a keyhole.

Rudd stars in the film as Scott Lang, an ex-con thief looking to reconnect with his young daughter. During a heist, he stumbles into the Ant-Man suit, which was created by Hank Pym (Douglas), another in the Marvel universe’s seemingly endless series of rich, brilliant scientists. He’s got a daughter of his own (Evangeline Lilly), who currently works for his evil rival (Stoll.)

Rather than the most recent “Avengers” film, which had to service seemingly dozens of characters and make connections with Marvel pictures of the past and future, Ant-Man is much leaner- it’s a relatively straightforward story that leads up to a pretty thrilling third-act heist. Not that there’s no connection to the Avengers universe- both facilities and people from the earlier films do show up.

Edgar Wright was famously supposed to direct “Ant-Man,” before he dropped out and replaced by the less-highly-regarded Peyton Reed. Reed, who made “Bring it On” but has had a more checkered career since, including a seven-year layoff since his last film, the Jim Carrey comedy “Yes Man.” I don’t know the film Wright would have made or how different it would have been, but Reed didn’t do a bad job.

If you like the Marvel universe, you’ll probably enjoy “Ant-Man.” But in a way that “Avengers: Age of Ultron” didn’t, this one stands on its own as a quality action film.

Movie Review: “Minions”

MinionsHow do you make an entertaining childrens’ movie about a group of characters who speak in gibberish language and, indeed, are barely characters at all? That’s the challenge of “Minions,” the origin story of the Twinkie-resembling henchman characters from the two previous “Despicable Me” movies, which plays at times like a Muppets sketch in which every character is Beaker.

Yet somehow, it (sort of) works.

The film gives the Minions a somewhat entertaining backstory. They’re presented as an ancient, nomadic people in the tradition of the biblical Israelites, who date back to the time of the dinosaurs, although they also crossed paths with the likes of the ancient Egyptians and Napoleon. The bulk of the action is set in the late ‘60s, with the little guys in London attempting to foil a plot by supervillainous Scarlett Overkill (voiced by Sandra Bullock) to steal the English crown.

On top of late-‘60s references that at this point are most likely to land with the grandparents of tykes watching this than their moms and dads, the plot is various glosses on “King Ralph” (a minion becomes King!), “Ghostbusters” (one of them does a Marshmallow Man impression) and the James Bond legend (handled much better than “Cars 2”’s attempt at the same thing. Then there are Beatles references, and even (?) a moon landing truther joke.

It’s also remarkably similar to last year’s “Madagascar” spinoff, “Penguins of Madagascar,” in that it’s a spinoff movie about largely mute supporting characters from a previously popular franchise, which makes up for the lack of speaking by sending the characters all over the world.

Sure “Minions,” like its predecessor, is a cut below the standards set by the stuff Pixar and Disney Animation Studios are putting out. But it’s tolerable.

Movie Review: “While We’re Young” 

While_We're_Young_(film)_POSTERNoah Baumbach’s “While We’re Young” is a truly odd movie- a character study combined with cinema’s most vicious, mean-spirited denunciation of the millennial generation yet, both yoked to an earnest defense of authenticity in documentary filmmaking. Oh, and significant supporting roles for members of both Peter, Paul and Mary and the Beastie Boys.

The film has its moments but overall, it’s somewhat of a mess, especially when it goes into loony-tunes land in the third act.

“While We’re Young” seems heavily influenced by Woody Allen, right down to the credits font, and specifically “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as just like Woody, the hero is an unhappy documentary filmmaker working on a commercially questionable passion project based on endless interviews with a dull, aging, leftist intellectual. Also present? A sort of nihilistic spirit, and an absence of virtually any characters who aren’t risible assholes.

That’s Josh (Ben Stiller), a Gen-X aged filmmaker, married to Naomi Watts, and they represent the only childless couple among their friends. They’re soon befriended by Millennial couple Jamie and Darby (Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried), as Josh first sees Jamie as a potential protege. But instead, he emerges as a 21st century analog to Alan Alda’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors” villain. Also on hand are longtime Beastie Boy Adam Horovitz as Stiller’s new-dad friend, Peter Yarrow as his doc subject, and Charles Grodin as Watts’ father.

The film starts off as the makings of an interesting character study. The mechanics of adult friendships- especially along the kids/no kids divide- is a fascinating, under-explored subject, as is generational feuding among different ages of adults.

But “While We’re Young” falls victim to a few major pitfalls, the greatest of which is that it has a weirdly mean-spirited axe to grind with Millennials. The screenplay has a get-off-my-lawn vibe to it, about kids these days and their smartphones and texting. This is especially weird for a film starring Stiller, who both directed and starred in “Reality Bites,” what was meant to be a totemic film about Gen X. And guess what- everything that was said about Millennials now was said about Gen Xers in 1994. Everyone always hates the generation after them, and if smartphones and texting had been invented 20 years earlier, you know the young people of back then would have behaved much the same.

This whole attitude is bad enough early on, but by the third act it quickly curdles into moral revulsion, by implying (with little to back it up) that todays 20-somethings are unethical liars. It’s also sort of incongruous that Driver and Seyfried (who are 31 and 29, respectively) are cast as avatars of Millennialism.

The film’s other major agenda, in favor of authenticity in documentaries, is more admirable, although it ultimately amounts to let another fish-in-the-barrel shot at reality TV. But it’s totally afield from everything else the movie is about.

Baumbach has had a checkered career. He directed some great stuff early (especially “Kicking and Screaming” and the underrated “Mr. Jealousy,”) and then “The Squid and the Whale,” a movie that resonated deeply with people with divorced parents and less so for those without them. Then there was the odious “Margot at the Wedding,” although “Greenberg” (also starring Stiller) was an improvement and “Frances Ha” was his best film in years. “While We’re Young” has its moments, but it’s mean-spiritedness sinks it.

Mini-Review: “Jurassic World”

Jurassic World Oh, it’s not that bad. Nothing special either, though. The effects were cool, and the action sequences impressive. But it also represents the worst use of Chris Pratt ever- it didn’t even allow him to be funny or charming. And I still don’t think I’ve ever been impressed with Bryce Dallas Howard in anything.

I can’t say anything about the gender depictions/problematic-ness of the whole thing that hasn’t already been said already. Would I have noticed had I not read dozens of think pieces before seeing the movie? Probably. Yet the first word that comes to mind- not “sexist,” but rather “boring.”

I’d consider this film, while not entirely terrible, is neither worthy of having broken box office records, nor of its director taking over a “Star Wars” installment.

 Movie Review: “Batkid Begins” 

Batkid BeginsIt’s refreshing to see a film that’s completely lacking in cynicism. And that’s “Batkid Begins,” an unbelievably heart-warming look back at the Batkid social media phenomenon of 2013.

Anyone who was anywhere near the Internet on November 13, 2015, undoubtedly remembers the saga of Batkid. Miles Scott, a young cancer survivor from rural California, got to, with some help from the Make-a-Wish Foundation, act out his lifelong dream of being Batman’s sidekick, “Batkid.” The film takes us through the planning and execution of the wish, which ended up involving numerous organizations, a live audience of thousands and an online audience of millions.

“Batkid Begins” was directed by Dana Nachman and co-written by Nachman along with “Dear Zachary” director Kurt Kuenne, and in addition to an inspirational film, it doubles as a how-to guide for viral social media.

We’re introduced to Miles, his family, and local Make-a-Wish chief Patricia Wilson, and the first half of the movie is setup for how the wish came together. The second half is a blow-by-blow of the day itself, in which Miles-as-Batkid, along with Batman (played by stuntman and Lucasfilm employee Eric Johnston) engaged in a series of adventures throughout San Francisco.

We see Miles do battle with the Riddler and Penguin, rescue San Francisco Giants mascot Lou Seal and (don’t tell Anita Sarkeesian) rescue a damsel in distress, before meeting Mayor Ed Lee and receiving the key to the city.

But it wasn’t just Make-a-Wish that made this happen. Many, many people clearly heard about the story, were moved by it and did their part, from the Giants organization to equipment manufacturers who helped with the costume’s technology to Hans Zimmer, the composer of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies who provided a “soundtrack” to Batkid’s adventure. And we discover that Zimmer, of course, composes by candlelight. And that’s to say nothing for the social support of President Obama as well as every living actor who’s played Batman.

Yes, I suppose a cynic could poke some holes in the story, or consider the stunt a waste of time and resources, or call it a crass commercial for the Batman corporate collossus. And we’re already getting a feature film version of this, with Julia Roberts- in full Brockovich mode, no doubt- playing Patricia Wilson.

But I don’t care. “Batkid Begins” is pretty clearly the third-best Batman movie ever made.

Movie Review: “Tangerine”

Tangerine“Tangerine” is a film that’s pretty groundbreaking, and not only because it was shot entirely on an iPhone.

Pop culture’s transgenderism breakthrough continues with this film, a breakthrough hit at Sundance in January. Rather than having a trans protagonist played by a cisgender actor (like Transparent) or including one trans character as part of a larger ensemble (like Orange is the New Black), Tangerine actually features trans characters played by trans actresses, in starring roles.

But this film is much more than an identity politics milestone. It’s actually hugely entertaining- if nothing else, it contributes ”time to make the donuts bitch” to the lexicon.

Directed by Sean S. Baker, “Tangerine” is the day-in-the-life story of a pair of trans prostitutes, played by first-time actors  Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor. One was recently released from jail in order to discover her boyfriend has cheated on her with a non-trans woman, and the bulk of the movie is the search for the boyfriend and his paramour. Playing the boyfriend is “The Wire”‘s Ziggy Sobotka himself, James Ransone.

But the film is also a slice-of-life comedy/drama, featuring a variety of neighborhood characters.

There’s also a great scene, in which a john is outraged to discover that the female prostitute he’s picked up actually has a vagina, that’s the inverse of something that’s happened in dozens of films, and usually been played for mean-spirited laughs.

No, “Tangerine” won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but I found it hugely entertaining, as well as groundbreaking.

Back to Blog

With my having been pretty busy with professional writing in the past couple of years, I haven’t had a ton of time for this blog, save for the occasional angry, righteous post about the Penn State scandal.

But with the recent shuttering of TechnologyTell, and my subsequent departure from my day job at Napco Media, I’m suddenly in possession of both lots of free time and nowhere to put my work. The bright side? More time for blogging.

This site is where, for the time being, I’ll be putting my movie reviews, and I may even bring back the Fin feature at some point. Of course, Facebook and Twitter these days are where I do a lot of what I used to call blogging, so be sure to follow me or friend me if you haven’t previously.

So watch this space for new movie reviews, starting on Sunday. And thank you for your support.