Impertinent Perception #1: When Cinema Gets Self-Aware

In Jurassic World there's a scene where resident moustache Lowery, played by Jake Johnson, is wearing an official Jurassic Park merchandised t shirt. In the films continuity the park which that shirt is glorifying marks the location in which no less than four people were killed due to a technical mishap so naturally, people view his attire as being slightly insensitive. Lowery is momentarily fazed but generally maintains that, while he loves his job at Jurassic World, that original park was like, totes legit bro.

His other shirt is pink and says "I <3 Rexy, Rawr"

It's clear that Lowery is a mouthpiece for fans of the 1993 original who would've approached this new film with a slight degree of skepticism. This got me thinking more about the movie in general. Here you have a park that, although it has a well regarded foundation, is forced to prove its worth in the modern day by introducing the new attraction of the Indominus Rex. The park is unable to garner the same buzz that it once did and visitors, like Nick Robinson's Zach, are bored. The audience in the park Jurassic World is a commentary on the audience of the film Jurassic World. In the age of superheroes, young adult novels and minions, it gets increasingly difficult for a film franchise to get a size-able share of the market unless they do something that shows they have the stones to stay in the game. I can't help but feel as though the fictional discussions that took place in the film in creating the Indominus Rex mirrored the discussion by the filmmakers in writing the script around that very creation.

This isn't the first time it's happened in a film mind you, in fact, it's not even the first time Jurassic Park franchise has done it. In 1993 Jurassic Park was a film about how a revolutionary scientist took an established technology and expanded it to create real life dinosaurs. Suddenly museums, paleontologists and animatronic theme park directors would have to reconsider their career choices in the wake of this new discovery. Swap out revolutionary scientist for revolutionary director, real life dinosaurs to real looking dinosaurs and you have the exact same idea of brand new technology that all but changed the industry it was in. Creating a visual effect that looks as real life as any zoo animal means that the reliance on stop motion animation and puppetry would never be as it was.

Pictured above: The actual death of animatronic dinosaurs in the 'Jurassic' franchise

And there are countless examples of this phenomenon in cinema today. The Mission Impossible films every time, begin with the members of the IMF being stripped of the sufficient means to do their job and forced to improvise, so that they can prove themselves as worthy of their old title. In reality, every Mission Impossible film has suffered an uphill battle to win the audience's approval. For the first one it was, "It won't live up to the TV show", the second it was, "It won't live up to the first movie", the third, "It's gonna be just as bad as the second one", the fourth, "Really? A fourth?" and finally with the most recent one it was, "The director of the fourth one isn't back, this won't hold up". You can guarantee 'The Force Awakens' is going include some form of self-awareness based on it's fall from grace in cinema.

It's even present on the side of television. 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D' starts out with cast reacting to the sudden resurrection of Phil Coulson and having to be isolated from the rest of the larger organisation with a smaller team with no actual discernible purpose. The cast mirrors the audience coming off of Avengers dealing with a character being reintroduced into the narrative on a show that had no great sense of direction. And sure, that show is heavily tied to the film audience, but again in television, there was BBC's Sherlock which began it's third season showing rabid fans of the Baker Street detective formulating any feasible explanation for his faked death, some of which I guarantee you were pulled directly from searching real life internet forums (with safe search on of course) discussing that very idea.

Fanfiction: Not even once. 

So what does all this mean? Well, nothing really, this is an impertinent perception. But I suppose if any meaning was to be gleaned from all this is that, entertainment does not exist in a vacuum. It is formed based on a multitude of factors, ranging from commercial motivation to the artists predilection, but at the core of it, is the audience. Entertainment is there, to entertain. The best way to entertain is to provide something the audience will be entertained by. Sometimes you base it off of changes in the society, creating more roles for women and members of the LGBTQI2A community, but working off of the art's own existence and it's established relationship with it's audience will always be a narrative technique for entertainment with a large enough audience. Tapping into those familiar ideas will always resonate, creating stories that we have an intricate connection to before we even know it.

Thanks for reading and be sure to check out my podcast 'Take 4' going up this and every Sunday. If you have any questions you want answered on the show send them to take4pod@gmail.com. The next episode to be recorded will be on the Fantastic Four film franchise, and a new episode on movies based on television will be going up this Sunday 02/08/15

Read More

'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' Review (2015)

The Mission Impossible franchise has always had something to prove. The first film was an action movie based on a television series from 30 years prior, striving to find it's own footing amidst an established mythology. The second was a followup to what was a surprising hit, and had to sustain that momentum. The third had to win back the legitimacy...that was lost by the second, and the fourth had to usher in a whole new cast of teammates for Ethan Hunt to ignore while he goes on a superjog. This couldn't be more appropriate as every Mission Impossible film starts with Ethan Hunt being disavowed and forced to prove his innocence or his worth. Of course this won't ever change. The series will be damned to prove itself again and again to viewers who constantly say "Yeah the last one was good, but there's no way this one will be worthwhile". Mission Impossible has never been the belle of the ball and that's what's always forced it to try to look its best.

Fighting against impossible odds can either make or break a film. Naturally, this is what's pushed Rogue Nation to be one of my favourite films of the year so far. Right off the bat, Rogue Nation impresses with one of it's more incredible set pieces. Much like spy-sister James Bond, the scene takes place as sort of a mini mission, showing the spy team at the end of an escapade. The impressive part is the particular stunt at the centre of the piece. With minutes to spare before the plane takes off, Ethan tries his damnedest to catch it. Of course while everyday human beings do this by driving a little bit over the speed limit, Ethan decides to run along side the plane, up a hill, jump onto the wing and then cling onto the side door as it reclines into the air. The scene absolutely sets the tone for the rest of the film, embracing the close calls and sheer dumb luck that's made the franchise work so far. The shot that's positioned from the side of the plane is particularly effective as you get the sense of how quickly the ground gets farther and farther away from Ethan's feet. Not to mention the scene is 100% real.

"I believe I can fl- HOLY XENU THAT'S HIGH"

Of course it's a testament to how good this film is that the next few paragraphs aren't just a summary of how the movie fell off from there. The story is, Ethan Hunt has become obsessed with the idea of an evil organisation consisting of ex-operatives who are either presumed or pronounced dead. Now before you get too excited I should preface this by saying, this is not the film where Tom Cruise fights zombie spies. This evil organisation is known as the Syndicate, and it functions, as Simon Pegg's Benjy so eloquently puts it, as an anti IMF. As if that wasn't bad enough, CIA director Alec Baldwin uses the IMF's reckless methodology as impetus for the groups most recent dis-assembly. Now the group is against a seemingly unbeatable opponent, while being cut off from their best resources, just like the last time.

'Rogue Nation' actually acts somewhat as a parody of Mission Impossible. Everything that the series is known for is exaggerated to such a degree, that with a lesser script it would be tantamount to ridicule. Then again, the series has never been grounded in reality, but this movie takes that concept and runs with it. Typically, this would be the point where I tell you the movie will require you to suspend your disbelief, but that's probably where 'Rogue Nation' shines. The way the action scenes are constructed and shot has a sense of realism about it. This is in no doubt helped by the fact that Tom Cruise does his own stunt work, but that wouldn't really mean much if there wasn't anything worth watching. There are vehicular stunts that look like at least 4 cars were destroyed before the scene was finished shooting. This type of grit is something that most films try to achieve but fail at. When Vin Deisel revs his supercar from one skyscraper into the next, it's a fun visual, but it doesn't compare to the sense of danger and tension that the stunts in this film accomplish with great fervour.

Yeah that's great. Remember when Tom Cruise ACTUALLY climbed up that building?

Aside from the action, Rogue Nation actually makes for a pretty great comedy. Action and comedy usually combine one of two ways. They'll either have cheesy one-liners and are funny because of how seriously they take their ridiculous situations, like Fast and Furious, or, they'll make fun of those situations, like 21 Jump Street. Rogue Nation falls somewhere squarely in the middle. On the one hand you'll have an intense action scene with a few jokes written in, whether they be from dialogue or just a clever visual gag. Then you'll have legitimate banter that plays like it was from a well trained improvisation duo. Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg pair up for the first half of that equation. Pegg masterfully provides comic relief that doesn't detach from the drama of the scene, which tends to be the case with such moments in lesser films. You get the sense that he's making these jokes as a way to cope, preventing a nervous breakdown, rather than out of apathy for the destruction and mayhem.

The other side of that coin is with Jeremy Renner's William Brandt. His scenes with Alec Baldwin were a particular highlight for me. Essentially, with Ethan Hunt on the run, Brandt has to be evasive with any inquiry as to his whereabouts. As dry as that might sound, Renner's timing, as well as his delivery, is impeccable. I liked the way these scenes were able to keep the ball rolling, rather than feeling like the plot heavy breaks from action that they were. Perhaps that's what makes 'Rogue Nation' work so well, presenting things that are accepted as run of the mill as new and interesting takes. Renner should be especially commended on his performance though. Not just because he was able to go toe to toe with Alec Baldwin and Ving Rhames, but also because his work on the film was apparently hindered by a lack of information. Which on second thought, fits his character's position in the film so perhaps Christopher McQuarrie is just a mad genius.

"Now in this scene stand on one leg and scratch your belly button. The camera will be on your face, why do you ask?"

Performance wise new additions to the cast include Rebecca Furgeson and Sean Harris. Ferguson plays the British equivalent to Ethan Hunt. I liked her performance because it elevated her as a cut above the typical femme fatale that is a tired trope of the spy genre. She was able to convince of more than just her characters ability but also brought a sense of humanity to her role as a spy. On the flip side of that, Harris plays an amalgamation of bond villains past. He wears black turtlenecks, outstanding suits and speaks in a quiet calculated tone. It's effective, in that his performance makes you more uncomfortable than the theatre seat you're already in, but there's nothing particularly new being brought to the table. Then again there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The best scenes involving Harris are when he and Ethan are spouting over the top lines about how they're going to be the end of each other. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that he wears so many turtlenecks, since he looks like human turtle hybrid.

The son of Mitch McConnell.

Mission Impossible Rogue Nation has a few problems, mainly the fact that the plot to end the world is kind of stupid, but then again I've never thought the series with a group called the "Impossible Missions Force" was the pinnacle of smart and subtle cinema. It's impressive for a film to run at 2 hours and 11 minutes and still feel as brisk as it does. Granted, there is a moment where the runtime is felt but then the movie waves it's hands and puts something shiny in your face so you stop looking at your watch. Not for nothing but, some of the shots are just beautiful. Yes scenes like the opening plane mission are breathtaking, but there are moments when McQuarrie picturesquely presents the shots of even the smallest moments. The camera lingers for just a moment longer than you expect just because, well, it's damn pretty to look at. The music in this film was also infinitely impressive and has some of the best use of a score with a film in recent memory. The score isn't one that you're going to sit and listen to on its own like a John Williams classic, but it accentuates the scenes and gives them and added sense of atmosphere. I really enjoyed this film and recommend it highly. I would say see it in the theatre simply due to the fact that it isn't in 3D, an approach that is more than welcome especially for scenes that are already inherently dark.

A.N.R = 9.7/10

Be sure to listen to my new movie podcast Take 4, uploaded every Sunday. In honour of Mission Impossible this weeks recording will be about movies based on tv shows, and you can listen to that one right here:



You can send in any comments or questions about anything that you wish to be answered on the show at take4pod@gmail.com

Read More

'Ant-Man' Review (2015) [Optimized for Ants]

As much of an avid follower of all things superhuman, even I had to admit, 'Ant-Man' was an uphill battle excitement-wise. Starting production 9 years ago, 'Ant-Man' initially garnered the excitement of fans of 'Shaun of the Dead' director, Edgar Wright who was attached to the project. However much like the character the film is based on, 'Ant-Man' was passed over in favour of Men of Iron and Captains of America. Creative differences caused Mr. Wright to leave the project, with Peyton Reed shuffling into the fill the directors chair. Trailers for the film seemed to lack a grasp on a general tone, the lead role was seemingly miscast, and to be honest the core concept seemed extremely difficult to pull off. The last time a superhero movie had issues getting the audience to go with it's premise the results were abysmal.

Van Wilder is space was not nearly as cool as it sounds.

So with all that said, I had subsided expectations for 'Ant-Man'. I didn't go so far as saying the movie would be bad, I just didn't expect to be blown away. Thankfully, the movie fared pretty well, and was one of the better experiences in the theatre this year. Set some time after the events of Age of Ultron, 'Ant-Man' continues the saga of the marvel cinematic universe. While it's set in the present day, the movie actually opens in a flashback featuring young Michael Douglas, courtesy of digital enhancement. I used to believe that every film was like Boyhood, and the same actor had been filmed for decades in different films from they were born. Watching 'Ant-Man' brought back that feeling of wonder as I was convinced that the production for 'Ant-Man' began much earlier than I had expected and Michael Douglas shot his scenes back in his Wall Street days. The effect is not only impressive but it helps to establish the scene and making this films story, which spans generations, all the more organic.

Speaking of the story, 'Ant-man' isn't the most complicated Superhero film in the world. Hank Pym, played by time traveler Michael Douglas, was the Tony Stark of his day, developing a suit with astonishing abilities and refusing to let said technology get into the hands of those who would misuse it. After those wrong hands almost get on his technology, he does the super scientist equivalent of taking his ball and going home since his colleagues refuse to play fair. Fast forward 30 years and Pym is now a recluse and mostly a sleeping partner to his own company Pym Industries, now run by his ex-protegee Darren Cross, played by Corey Stoll. Cross discovers the Ant-Man tech once existed and decides to build his own version of the suit. Those wrongs hands seem to be time travelers themselves. Perhaps actor Michael Douglas should keep his time traveling technology locked away like character Hank Pym did with his Ant-Man technology. When Cross is close to the realization of his own shrink tech with the clear intent of military application, Pym, along side scientist daughter Hope Van Dyne, decides it's up to the Ant-Man to stop this evil before it can even begin...WITH HIS TIME MACHI- I mean shrinking suit.

You can't tell me that's not the face of he who traverses the temporal plane.

Essentially that's the idea, use the original suit to get the new suit and destroy any trace of its development before it gets out into the crafty world of war. The problem is, the Ant-Man suit isn't built for long term as the users brain chemistry gets messed up after prolonged use. I'd love to tell you more about that but that's literally the only explanation we're given. Enter Paul Rudd's Scott Lang, an ex-convict with a heart of gold and a masters in electrical engineering who can't hold a job from the all knowing Baskin Robbins. Prior to his arrest he was a frequent thief and con man making him the perfect candidate for Ant-Manning about. Not to mention Lang has a daughter to provide for and an ex-wife to impress and thus the superhero heist man has his motivation.

The performances are actually better than one might anticipate. Typically in a Marvel film, big name actors with a long pedigree of stellar work are brought in not to do much. Like your Anthony Hopkinses, Glenn Closes, William Hurts, and your Ben Kingsleys. They might have prominent roles but they're very much sidelined. The best use of an actor of that calibre thus far has probably been Robert Redford in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, that is until Douglas. Douglas gave probably my favourite performance of the film and I don't think it would've worked without him. His role is multi layered, as a mentor to Scott, a father trying to mend his relationship with his daughter and a bitter genius attempting to salvage his work before it becomes the catalyst for a post apocalyptic nightmare. Douglas is able to hop, skip and jump between whatever the camera needs him to be at any point in time with ease. This is in no doubt due to his time travelling abilities which would have of course enabled him to take part in reshoots upon reshoots.

"These eyes have seen the sun die and then be born again" - Michael Douglas, Licensed Delorean/Tardis Driver

The Ant-Man himself isn't as remarkable but does a fine job. Although he might the only superhero with a criminal record, he's the one with the least edge. Paul Rudd is no doubt perfect for this as his characters are generally nice guys. Evangeline Lily is decent but her character is slightly one note. After her first protest about not being her father's first choice for grand superhuman larceny, the subsequent hundred fall on deaf ears. The other breakout performance is from Michael Pena as Scott's ex con friend Luis. Heavily improvised roles can be hit or a miss but Pena definitely hits. He finds away to make his character feel as reel as possible which makes his improv scenes less like...well improv. That's an impressive feat, it's even more impressive to be the comic relief in a film with such a comedic tone and feel necessary.

This being a film about a man who shrinks down to the size of ants he can then communicate with, the tone was rightfully very light. It's refreshing that among the current crop of supermovies there can exist a film like 'Ant-Man' which is a much smaller film. Like most the films in Marvels first phase of continuity 'Ant-Man' takes place in one location, San Francisco, over the course of 3 or 4 days. Instead of causing large wanton destruction to populated areas, Ant-Man trains in Hank Pym's front lawn and fights his foe on toy train sets. Said train is one of two instances where 'Ant-Man' makes fun of superhero tropes and cliches, the other being Ant-Man surrounded by unnecessary destruction of a miniature model city built to scale. The shrinking scenes are not just creative but they're used to great comedic effect. It's the sort of comedy film was built for but had become extremely played in the years past. 'Ant-Man' has sight gags that would make Rick Moranis cry with laughter.

Rick, if you're reading this, please come back to cinemas.

While 'Ant-Man' has a lot going for it, there's also a few things that don't work. Certain scenes seem to have no ending that works to move the story along and are simply abandoned like Hank Pym abandoning his own daughter. There's a few cringe worthy moments of exposition, but there are also a few scenes when exposition is done extremely well. The sequence of events is terribly predictable, especially if you're versed in the heist film genre. Corey Stoll is entertaining when he's on screen but is ultimately forgettable and simply a foil for the hero to conquer. As I mentioned Evangeline Lily is good but there's not much to be done in her role, but certainly her character will be featured in Marvel films to come. Perhaps 'Ant-Man's biggest sin is that it feels disjointed at times. In addition to the scenes that have no coherent way of sequencing to the next, there are one or two plot developments that seem to come out of nowhere with no good reason for their existence. Not to mention the film sometimes lacks a balance between it's comedy and it's drama but this is nowhere near as offensive as it was in 'Thor: The Dark World' and is actually more of a less concentrated 'Guardians of the Galaxy'.These problems are in no doubt due to the change in the creative staff so close to filming, but surely they could have been avoided through the advisement of time lord Michael 'The Doctor' Douglas.

If you look closely you can see Douglas turning his time turner in the poster.

Aside from that, 'Ant-Man' is a film that mostly works. The times in which it doesn't are pretty much forgotten. The times in which they're not don't ruin the film simply because it doesn't take itself too seriously and begs you not to either. 'Ant-Man' also is the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film that doesn't suffer the plaguing question of "Why don't you just call the Avengers to deal with this?. It's funny, it's visually interesting and it's a film with a lot of heart. I especially enjoyed the parallel relationships in the film. Hank's relationship with Hope is something of a warning to Scott if he's unable to be a prominent part in his own daughter's life. The film is full of characterization and character relationships that make it worth the price of admission and overshadow it's meddling flaws.

Arbitrary Numerical Rating: 8.7/10

Read More

'Ant-Man' Review (2015)

As much of an avid follower of all things superhuman, even I had to admit, 'Ant-Man' was an uphill battle excitement-wise. Starting production 9 years ago, 'Ant-Man' initially garnered the excitement of fans of 'Shaun of the Dead' director, Edgar Wright who was attached to direct the project. However, much like the character the film is based on, 'Ant-Man' was passed over in favour of Men of Iron and Captains of America. Creative differences caused Mr. Wright to leave the project, with Peyton Reed shuffling into fill the director's chair. Trailers for the film seemed to lack a grasp on a general tone; the lead role was seemingly miscast, and to be honest the core concept seemed extremely difficult to pull off. The last time a superhero movie had issues getting the audience to go with it's premise the results were abysmal.

Van Wilder is space was not nearly as cool as it sounds.

So with all that said, I had subsided expectations for 'Ant-Man'. I didn't go so far as saying the movie would be bad, I just didn't expect to be blown away. Thankfully, the movie fared pretty well, and was one of the better experiences in the theatre this year. Set some time after the events of Age of Ultron, 'Ant-Man' continues the saga of the marvel cinematic universe. While it's set in the present day, the movie actually opens in a flashback featuring young Michael Douglas, courtesy of digital enhancement.

Quick aside: I used to believe that every film was like Boyhood, and the same actor had been filmed for decades in different films from they were born. Watching 'Ant-Man' brought back that feeling of wonder as I was convinced that the production for 'Ant-Man' began much earlier than I had expected and Michael Douglas shot his scenes back in his Wall Street days. The effect is not only impressive but it helps to establish the scene. It makes the film's story, which spans generations, all the more organic.

Speaking of the story, 'Ant-man' isn't the most complicated Superhero film in the world. Hank Pym, played by time traveler Michael Douglas, was the Tony Stark of his day, developing a suit with astonishing abilities and refusing to let said technology get into the hands of those who would misuse it. After those wrong hands almost get on his technology, he does the super scientist equivalent of taking his ball and going home since his colleagues refuse to play fair. Fast forward 30 years and Pym is now a recluse and mostly a sleeping partner to his own company Pym Industries, now run by his ex-protegee Darren Cross, played by Corey Stoll. Cross discovers the Ant-Man tech once existed and decides to build his own version of the suit. Those wrong hands seem to be time travelers themselves. Perhaps actor Michael Douglas should keep his time traveling technology locked away like character Hank Pym did with his Ant-Man technology. When Cross is close to the realization of his own shrink tech with the clear intent of military application, Pym, along side scientist daughter Hope Van Dyne, decides it's up to the Ant-Man to stop this evil before it can even begin...WITH HIS TIME MACHI- I mean shrinking suit.

You can't tell me that's not the face of he who traverses the temporal plane.

Essentially that's the idea, use the original suit to get the new suit and destroy any trace of its development before it gets out into the crafty world of war. The problem is, the Ant-Man suit isn't built for long term as the users brain chemistry gets messed up after prolonged use. I'd love to tell you more about that but that's literally the only explanation we're given. Enter Paul Rudd's Scott Lang, an ex-convict with a heart of gold and a masters in electrical engineering who can't hold a job from the all knowing Baskin Robbins. Prior to his arrest he was a frequent thief and con man making him the perfect candidate for Ant-Manning about. Not to mention Lang has a daughter to provide for and an ex-wife to impress and thus the superhero heist man has his motivation.

The performances are actually better than one might anticipate. Typically in a Marvel film, big name actors with a long pedigree of stellar work are brought in not to do much. Like your Anthony Hopkinses, Glenn Closes, William Hurts, and your Ben Kingsleys. They might have prominent roles but they're very much sidelined. The best use of an actor of that calibre thus far has probably been Robert Redford in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, that is until Douglas. Douglas gave probably my favourite performance of the film and I don't think it would've worked without him. His role is multi layered, as a mentor to Scott, a father trying to mend his relationship with his daughter and a bitter genius attempting to salvage his work before it becomes the catalyst for a post apocalyptic nightmare. Douglas is able to hop, skip and jump between whatever the camera needs him to be at any point in time with ease. This is in no doubt due to his time travelling abilities which would have of course enabled him to take part in reshoots upon reshoots. 

"These eyes have seen the sun die and then be born again" - Michael Douglas, Licensed Delorean/Tardis Driver

The Ant-Man himself isn't as remarkable but does a fine job. Although he might be the only superhero with a criminal record, he's the one with the least edge. Paul Rudd is no doubt perfect for this as his characters are generally nice guys. Evangeline Lily is decent but her character is slightly one note. After her first protest about not being her father's first choice for grand superhuman larceny, the subsequent hundred fall on deaf ears, and it becomes hard to care about her plight. The other breakout performance is from Michael Pena as Scott's ex con friend Luis. Heavily improvised roles can be hit or a miss but Pena definitely hits. He finds away to make his character feel as reel as possible which makes his improv scenes less like...well improv. That's an impressive feat, it's even more impressive to be the comic relief in a film with such a comedic tone and feel necessary. 

This being a film about a man who shrinks down to the size of ants he can then communicate with, the tone was rightfully very light. It's refreshing that among the current crop of supermovies there can exist a film like 'Ant-Man' which is a much smaller film. Like most the films in Marvels first phase of continuity 'Ant-Man' takes place in one location, San Francisco, over the course of 3 or 4 days. Instead of causing large wanton destruction to populated areas, Ant-Man trains in Hank Pym's front lawn and fights his foe on toy train sets. Said train is one of two instances where 'Ant-Man' makes fun of superhero tropes and cliches, the other being Ant-Man surrounded by unnecessary destruction of a miniature model city built to scale. The shrinking scenes are not just creative but they're used to great comedic effect. It's the sort of comedy the effect was built for but had become extremely played in the years past. 'Ant-Man' has sight gags that would make Rick Moranis cry with laughter.

Rick, if you're reading this, please come back to cinemas.

While 'Ant-Man' has a lot going for it, there's also a few things that don't work. Certain scenes seem to have no ending that works to move the story along and are simply abandoned like Hank Pym abandoning his own daughter. There's a few cringe worthy moments of exposition, but there are also a few scenes when exposition is done extremely well. The sequence of events is terribly predictable, especially if you're versed in the heist film genre. Corey Stoll is entertaining when he's on screen but is ultimately forgettable and simply a foil for the hero to conquer. As I mentioned Evangeline Lily is good but there's not much to be done in her role, but certainly her character will be featured in Marvel films to come. Perhaps 'Ant-Man's biggest sin is that it feels disjointed at times. In addition to the scenes that have no coherent way of sequencing to the next, there are one or two plot developments that seem to come out of nowhere with no good reason for their existence. Not to mention the film sometimes lacks a balance between it's comedy and it's drama but this is nowhere near as offensive as it was in 'Thor: The Dark World' and is actually more of a less concentrated 'Guardians of the Galaxy'.These problems are in no doubt due to the change in the creative staff so close to filming, but surely they could have been avoided through the advisement of time lord Michael 'The Doctor' Douglas.

If you look closely you can see Douglas turning his time turner in the poster.

Aside from that, 'Ant-Man' is a film that mostly works. The times in which it doesn't are pretty much forgotten. They don't ruin the film simply because it doesn't take itself too seriously and begs you not to either. 'Ant-Man' also is the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film that doesn't suffer the plaguing question of "Why don't you just call the Avengers to deal with this?. It's funny, it's visually interesting and it's a film with a lot of heart. I especially enjoyed the parallel relationships in the film. Hank's relationship with Hope is something of a warning to Scott if he's unable to be a prominent part in his own daughter's life. The film is full of characterization and character relationships that make it worth the price of admission and overshadow it's meddling flaws.

Arbritrary Numerical Rating: 8.7/10

Be sure to check out my podcast here with new episodes this and every Sunday, and send in your comments and questions to take4pod@gmail.com

Read More

'Inside Out' Review (2015)

Let's retrace the steps for the day. Woke up out of bed for work Disgust. Had to feed the dog and he got dirt on my pants Anger. But then he licked my face as I was brushing it off Joy. I got into the car and thought about how my engine died Sadness. The car jerked coming out the driveway and almost hit a lampost Fear. Then the car got back on track and went really fast Joy. The sharp turn around the corner was like that time I went go karting Joy. Then I realized how late I was for work Anger. Finally got to work and I was behind on an assignment. Maybe I'll get fired Fear. If I get fired I won't be able to do anything I planned to Fear. Maybe I'm just not good enough for those things Sadness. I hate this stupid job anyway Anger. Does anyone really like working here? Disgust. Not to mention the food. Utter disgust. Then again, it's a living. Joy

That little ditty right there is 'Inside Out' in a nutshell. Except instead of chronicling the day of the slightly depressive 20 something, 'Inside Out' tells the tale of the much more marketable Riley. An 11 year old girl with not a care in the world. Opening with the cardinal cinema sin of narration, 'Inside Out' begs the question, have you ever looked at a person and wondered "What is going on in their head"? This narration is even more invasive than you might've thought, because it doesn't just come from a voice in Riley's head. It comes from a voice in the head of the voice in Riley's head. That voice, belongs to Joy, the happy emotion in Riley's head. And in yours.

Joy is joined (ba dum tss), by fellow emotions Anger, Fear, Disgust and Sadness. Together they coordinate how and when Riley reacts to certain stimuli from the control tower in Riley's brain. Every emotional reaction someone gets is stored in a glowing orb of memory, each glowing the colour of the emotion that prevailed over that memory. As Riley is only 11 years old, and comes from a stable upbringing, her reactions thus far have been mostly happy. This of course is why Joy is our main character.  However when Riley's dad gets a new job in sunny San Fran, Riley is forced to deal with something she had yet to encounter. Change. As Riley goes through this change, something happens within her where she's unable to feel either joy or sadness. From then on, it's a race against the clock until Riley loses herself completely and becomes the poster child for the "meh" revolution.

They'll take over the world! Eventually...

Basically, what you're watching is a little girl who has just received the first major shock of her life and her inability to process it. What's amazing in 'Inside Out' is just how damn clever it is. It's not clever in the Joss Whedon sense, where the movie is made on the dialogue and character. That's all well and good, but the real rarity is in something like 'Inside Out'. This movie is so creative in it's world building that by the last 10 minutes of the film there were still new ideas being thrown out. Just as Pete Docter's Full length directoral debut, Monster's Inc brought a whole new construct to the world of monster's, 'Inside Out' has crafted an intricate tapestry of ingenuity. This is true of many Pixar films, but not too many in the last few years. In my view a perfect Pixar film is like a great stand up routine. You watch because it's clever, but also because it resonates completely. As soon as someone says "Oh well Francis the Lady Bug is constantly called a girl even though he's male and so he's a little pissed off" the audience will go "Well of course, that just makes sense". 

On top of the impeccable universe that 'Inside Out' presents, the film is anchored by it's perfect cast. Perhaps that's because no one in the cast is acting too far out of the comfort zone. This is fine, seeing as each one of them is playing a one dimensional character which is the point. Lewis Black plays Anger, and provides his signature raging old man. Mindy Kaling is as sassy as her Mindy Project persona. Phyllis Smith sounds as perfectly pathetic as her characters often do. Finally, Amy Poehler channels her Leslie Knope, the impossibly positive leader of a band of followers who are just as stubborn, just in a different form. Although this casting is spot on, I can't help but want the 'Inside Out' movie made with the Parks and Rec cast. Surely Nick Offerman's Ron Swanson could've done a bit as anger. Slap on a fearful Tom Haverford with a disgust heavy April Ludgate and that's a movie right there.

First thing that came up on google. Source: http://bit.ly/1KbcpKR

The characters in Riley's head are one note yes, and her parents pretty much play parents. However, Kaitlyn Dias was particularly impressive as Riley. As her reactions are at the mercy of the voices in her head that control her every move, many times Riley has to switch from sounding scared, to sounding disgusted, to completely balls to the wall angry. Yes, animation does help these transitions come across, but the performance by Dias sells it even more. Richard Kind also appears in this film, marking his 5th Pixar performance. Kind is the type of person who belongs in the world of voice acting. Any live action role he gets is wasted because as soon as he opens his mouth he sounds as if he should have 4 fingers, purple skin, a yellow suit and a top hat. Some people are just natural cartoon characters. 

When you're not taken aback by 'Inside Out' and it's creativity, you'll be desperately trying to convince people how something really did get stuck in your eye. If not, you're soulless and you should see a priest because your soul belongs to the devil. 'Inside Out' is the saddest Pixar film to date, because it doesn't just have one moment of raw emotional turmoil, it has several. All the tear jerky moments in other Pixar films don't hold a candle to this film. Even, Marlin being convinced Nemo has died, or Eve being convinced Wall-e has died, or Woody and friends being convinced they're going to die, or Mr. Incredible afraid his family are gonna die after he was previously convinced they were dead, Carl's wife actually dying. Goddamn Pixar, you're a bunch of nihilists aren't you?

Pixar! Death is inevitable and nothing gold can stay.

That being said, the only thing I can find outright wrong with 'Inside Out' is that it's story is a little predictable, but that's just coming from watching way too many movies. To me the story only had one place to go, most people I've spoken to didn't have that problem at all. But even having thought that, I still enjoyed the ride. When I go on a roller coaster I know that eventually I'm gonna get really high up, and then I'm gonna fall really quickly. I know the basic structure of the ride I'm on but I still have a blast either way. 

Like 'Fury Road' before it 'Inside Out' is another instant classic of 2015. It far and away exceeded my already high expectations and will surely stand the test of time. As I said before it's a movie that feels as fresh as it does familiar. Aside from the world itself and its tear inducing scenes, the film is simply beautiful. Every set piece in Riley's head feels like a whimsical child's notebook with a multi-million dollar budget. 'Inside Out' marks a return to the Pixar of old and is another animation great.

A.N.R = 9.6/10

Be sure to check out my podcast here with new episodes this and every Sunday, and send in your comments and questions to take4pod@gmail.com. Here's our latest episode:

Read More