Deadpool

"Captain Deadpool! No, just Deadpool."

I've rarely seen a movie so happy to be itself.  Deadpool is so comfortable in its own skin, so damn sure that it's hitting the mark, and is as self-mocking as it is sincere. This movie constantly reminds the viewer why it exists and knows it's place in the supersaturated superhero film genre. This might work better for more devoted superhero fanboys than the average viewer, but accoring to the box office results, pandering to a niche didn't end up being a problem.  Deadpool, written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, takes a much-beloved antihero known for his ability to be uncannily self-aware while also being much more profane than the typical Marvel character.  20th Century Fox took a stab at including the character in the awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but he was reduced to a mouth-sewn zombie in the final act.  It was pretty much a disaster from a fan perspective.  Ryan Reynolds is reportedly a huge fan of the character, so to be cast once again in the role and given the chance to "get it right" was apparently a huge thrill for him.  I'll be damned if it doesn't show.

"Have you seen this man?"

After a truly inspired opening credits scene, the film begins with Deadpool (Reynolds) already in full costume and out for revenge against the man who turned him into a mutant freak.  Deadpool's power is that he cannot die, though whether or not he can feel pain is not specified (for the better).  Unfortunately, his skin has been severely deformed.  As his friend Weasel (T.J. Miller) so eloquently puts it, he looks like an avocado had sex with an older, more disgusting avocado.  While on a rampage searching for Francis a.k.a. Ajax (Ed Skrein), a few of the X-Men show up to stop him:  Colossus (a CGI character, voiced by Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), who might just have the most awesome X-Men name ever.  Colossus wants Deadpool to join the X-Men and become a hero, but Deadpool is having none of it.  Through a series of flashbacks, we are introduced to Deadpool as Wade Wilson, a former mercenary who falls in love with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin, who disappointingly gets no referential lines about playing yet another "hooker with a heart of gold").  However, just before the two can get married, Wade is diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Approached by Ajax and Angel Dust (Gina Carano), Wade accepts their offer to cure his cancer so long as they can experiment with his body and activate his dormant mutant genes.  It doesn't go well.

"Happy Lent."

In 2014, I was pretty sure I wouldn’t see another superhero film as irreverent, self-aware, or funny as Guardians of the Galaxy.  I think Deadpool may have topped it.  While the GOTG is probably a better movie overall, Deadpool takes fourth wall breaking (and in some cases, sixteen wall-breaking) to the next level.   I wondered about how this would fit into the X-Men film universe, if there would be mention of Deadpool’s horrendous appearance in Origins: Wolverine, and how this would compare to Disney’s Marvel movies.  And the writers of Deadpool know this.  And they laugh at me.  I’m not at all insulted; it’s done so well, and the humor is so fast and fearless that all you care about is the good time you’re having.

"You will die alone, if you could die.  Ideally, for others' sake."

While Deadpool may not exactly rewrite the rules of cinema, it does add some much-needed life to a genre that is becoming more crowded practically every week.  The film works because of Ryan Reynolds' pitch-perfect performance and the script's unwillingness to hold back with weirdness, grotesqueness, violence, and anachronistic humor.  Deadpool himself is so gleefully crass and wonderfully repulsive; and he can’t help but be adorable through it all.  Comic book movies are a big hit with the PG-13 crowd right now, so it's great to see one that unflinchingly earns its R rating. Humor is subjective, and much of the humor in Deadpool depends on its audience knowing how terrible   The mood is fun, but there's also some genuine heart during the flashback scenes with Wade and Vanessa, and the chemistry between Reynolds and Baccarin is great during bits like their holiday sex montage.  It's no all laughs either; the torture scenes in Ajax's facility are brutal and even a little hard to watch.  The supporting cast is excellent as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if half of T.J. Miller's lines were improvised on the day.

"If there's one thing that doesn't last long here, it's a sense of humor."

The film is technically impressive as well, with some truly stunning visuals and great action set pieces.  Deadpool's animated eyes blend especially well with his mask and practical suit (which couldn't look any better). Shaky-cam and tight close-ups are pretty much a non-issue, and the film’s hyper-kinetic editing style matches Deadpool’s hyperactive mind. While the third act suffers some over-the-top CGI and the music lacks a strong theme for the character, Deadpool's song choices are outstanding. X Gon' Give it to Ya, Shoop, a Deadpool rap, and even Careless Whisper are all put to great use.  The score by Junkie XL is composed partly by very 80s-sounding synthesizers, which is more than fine by me.

"McAvoy or Stewart? These timelines are confusing..."

Where the film lacks is in its villains.  Ajax and Angel Dust are supposed to be uncaring and emotionless, and that's exactly what they are.  The problem is that not much of the story is devoted to getting to know them or how they got into their situations, and they don't leave much of an impression outside their action scenes. Well-performed? Yes, but the characterization’s just not there. This seems to be a problem in many modern superhero movies; bland, generic, and unmemorable villains.  I'd argue that the best Marvel villain put to screen is still X-Men's own Magneto, who despite being played by two actors by this point, was still first put to screen sixteen years ago.  With the wealth of comic characters to chose from, I know they can do better than this..  

"That was so awesome!"

Deadpool is not the typical comic book movie, and from what I hear, the comic is just the same.  Deadpool himself is a really fun character; unpredictable, disgusting, and is essentially a one-liner machine.  I’m so glad the comic was adapted as a hard-R, satirical comedy that benefits from Ryan Reynold’s commitment immensely.  It’s made all the more funny by Reynold’s past failures as this very same character and as the Green Lantern from 2011, with subtle (and not-so-subtle) ribbing at both.  As a fan of the genre, I absolutely loved it, and even if this film stands alone in this genre of full of shared universes and confusing continuities, it will definitely stand tall.

9/10

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Originally posted on March 20, 2015

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."

Spy movie parodies and send-ups have been done to death ever since the Bond films came into existence, with Austin Powers and TV shows like Get Smart and Archer achieving more than a little success due to their hard-edged and hilarious jabs at (and love for) the classic spy franchise.  While Kingsman: The Secret Service is not exactly a parody of 007, it's definitely a tribute to the genre and it's very silly (in a dark sort of way).  Director Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class) delivers a twisted, over-the-top spy movie with lots of heart, charm, and action scenes that are just amazing. Looking for shaky-cam and rapid-fire cutting?  You won't find it here, and I thank God for that.

Taron Egerton plays Gary "Eggsy" Unwin, a smart but aimless young man living in a broken home in London.  He becomes involved with a secret intelligence agency that his father worked at before he died in action 17 years ago.  Eggsy is put through rigorous training along with other young, hopeful candidates all in competition to fill a spot in the agency.  He's mentored by an ass-kicking senior agent named Harry Hart (Colin Firth), and supervised by the leader of the organization, Chester King (Michael Caine).  All the while, more sinister things are being plotted by the wealthy and powerful philanthropist Valentine (a lisping Samuel Jackson) and his assistant Gazelle (Sofia Boutella), who walks around on bladed, prosthetic legs.

The film stands on its own as a very entertaining and thrilling action/comedy. However, the love and affection for Bond is what pushes it from "good" to "pretty damn good" territory.  The over-the-top nature of the action scenes and situations are fun and inventive, and the movie never shies away from ugliness, grotesquery, or cartoonish death scenes (the church scene... my God... the church scene). All of this is held up by a fantastic cast, both in the ways you expect and ways you might not have. 

Carrying the film for the majority is relative newcomer Egerton, and he adds a great deal of charisma to the role.  Colin Firth is absolutely perfect as Hart, acting as a father-figure for Eggsy and adding that old-school Bond charm the film rides on.  I wasn't sure how to feel about Jackson's lisping villain at first, but looking back, it's kind of interesting.  He's a character acting with child-like ambitions in a child-like world, so one has to question whether or not lisping like a two-year old is something he was just born with or something he does on purpose to keep himself innocent. 

Character depth might be limited to the lead characters, but the supporting actors are always fun to watch (especially blade-footed Gazelle). Kingsman's plot is intricate in ways that don't really make sense except in the film's own world, and that's about at Bondian as you get.  I won't spoil it here, but all I'll say is that I'm a sucker for sci-fi allegories that use society's obsession with technology to predict its undoing.  The script air-tight and littered with spy-movie references, dry wit, and clever plot twists that keep everything light and fast-paced without feeling rushed or sloppy (minus some spots in the first act).

Action scenes are fast and brutal, often using full bodied frames and continuous shots.  Slow motion is used to great effect to increase the impact of a punch or a bullet rather than slow the fights down like in too many other action movies.  The CGI effects are par for the course, nothing too exceptional and nothing hideous (though those chrome hot-air balloons toward the end come pretty close).  The score by Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson is also nothing memorable, but it's perfectly serviceable (just like most of their work).

Kingsman, most importantly, is just a great time.  Great characters, fantastic action, spy movie references, and a finale that can only be described as explosively hilarious make it as fun as it is.  I've heard that this is the first in a series of films that could spawn a whole new franchise, and while I'm excited for more, I'm also skeptical.  A film series like this may run into the Spider-man problem: trying to outdo itself becomes impossible and so sequels become increasingly overstuffed.  Although if Vaughn were to return as director, the potential is undoubtedly huge. 

8/10

Captain America: Civil War (in 4DX)

Superheroes.  So many Superheroes.  So much fighting, so much spectacle, so much narrative mess. But also so much character, so much heart, and so much fun.  That pretty much sums up the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is thirteen movies and four television series deep.  It's an incredible accomplishment from a business standpoint; built-in marketing, constant "event" films, and oodles of fanboy-loving continuity.  There have been a few minor duds, but overall, this is a remarkably solid series.  Captain America: Civil War is a lot like the first Avengers movie from 2012; it unites legions of superheroes for a gigantic brawl, most of which we already know if we've been keeping up with all the films.  But even more so than The Avengers movies, there's unexpected character depth and fights without easy resolutions.  Not to mention it's fun as all hell.

It's been one year since Ultron nearly destroyed the world by dropping an entire city in Sokovia from the sky.  Though the Avengers stopped him, and gained new allies in the process, people fear their power and the government wants more control over how they go about performing their super-heroics.  Naturally, this doesn't sit well with Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), seeing as he's witnessed government corruption firsthand.  However, the guilt-ridden Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downy, Jr.) feels like a little regulation might be necessary.  Then tragedy strikes; a terrorist attack occurs at a conference in Vienna, and the king of Wakanda is killed.  Soon it's discovered that the bomb was planted by Bucky Barnes/The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), Steve's lifelong friend and only link he has to his previous life.  Steve believes Bucky is innocent, so the two go on the run and amass other superheroes to help fight for their cause, including Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and Scott Lang/Antman (Paul Rudd).  In his attempts to stop Steve and capture the Winter Soldier, Tony assembles his own team of powered-up heroes, including Natasha Rominoff/Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson), James Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), the son of the assassinated king T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Vision (Paul Bettany), and some kid named Peter Parker (Tom Holland), who calls himself Spider-boy or something.

The Russo Brothers (Anthony and Joe) helm yet another great Captain America movie after their tremendous success with The Winter Soldier in 2014.   While I don't know how much the film's narrative has in common with the graphic novel of the same name, writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely do an outstanding job balancing the superhero factions and making sure each character has appropriate screen time.  Downey, Jr. and Evan carry the film with excellent performances, particularly Downy in some of his most vulnerable and heartbreaking moments we've seen from him yet.  Both characters are dealing with the loss of loved ones (under vastly different circumstances) in their own character-appropriate ways, and so much is happening beneath the surface of every action they make. That's no small feat given the insane amount of other things happening.  Special mention goes to Johansen though, who's proving more and more to be the heart of the series.  A Black Widow movie totally wouldn't make any money though.  Nope.

One might assume that Civil War's biggest problem is that it's overstuffed, and it's got a lot going on for sure.  But unlike other superhero movies with tons of elements fighting for screen time (I'm looking at you, Spider-Man 3), the gears are always turning, the stories are always interlocking and moving forward, and the character interactions are nothing but entertaining.  As far as new characters go, Black Panther couldn't have been any better.  T'Challa has a great character arc, is performed wonderfully by Boseman, and might have my favorite-looking costume of the bunch.  However, with this newest incarnation of Spider-man, I'm a bit torn.  On the one hand, action scenes with Spidey are really well done, and scenes between Tony and Peter are hilarious.  But it feels like a forced inclusion nonetheless in an already jam-packed narrative, and it doesn't really fit.  Also, I'm not nuts about a major part of the new cinematic Spider-man's story being so influenced by Tony, effectively making Peter feel like "Iron Man's sidekick."  It also doesn't help that this our third cinematic Spider-man in recent memory.  I will say that the airport fight scene does its best to wipe away all the narrative complaints I could possibly conjure.

But conjure I will, and what brings the movie down a peg is a major third act contrivance involving the film's true villain.  Even though I was extremely invested in the story throughout the climax, I couldn't ignore how lazy the villain's motivations were from a screenwriting standpoint.  I'm all for eschewing world-ending nonsense (like the kind in Age of Ultron) in exchange for a personal stakes, but I just couldn't buy it.  I forgive a lot of silly crap when it comes to these movies, as do we all.  But unless you're Edgar Wright (making the funniest movies of the face of the planet), you can't throw out your plot's intricacies at the last minute and expect me to be ok with it.

That doesn't stop the climax from being truly heart-pounding though, as Steve and Tony face off for reasons that are much more compelling than expected.  I'll address the elephant in the room that is Batman V Superman, but I don't need to tell you which is the better film.  Civil War isn't dripping in Dawn of Justice's style (like most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, there's homogenized TV-esque feel to them), but it's on a whole other planet when it comes to its writing.

On the technical side of things, I was both blown away by some visual effects and stunned at how bad others are.  In a flashback, Tony Stark really looks like an aged-down Robert Downy, Jr., but some shots of him later in the Iron Man suit are so poorly-composited that he looks like a bobble-head action figure.  There are, however, copious amounts of practical effects and well-choreographed fights that, even if hacked up a bit in the editing room, still give the film weight.  The music by Henry Jackman fulfills its in-the-moment purpose and does absolutely nothing else; no calling back themes of previous heroes, no memorable themes for new ones, nothing, nothing, nothing.  Just bland and monotonous action beats.  Appropriate?  Yes.  Memorable?  Not a chance.

So like many of the films in the Avengers series, CA:CW is bolstered by an excellent cast, really well-written characters, and brightly colored fun mixed with relatable human drama.  While I'm sad to see that Joss Whedon won't be directing the next Avengers film, I'm sure the Russo Brothers will continue to deliver strong entries like this one.  This movie is a balancing act, and it keeps afloat despite its bloated runtime and overwhelming character count.  While things get messy in the finale, the emotions between the two leads reach such an engaging boiling point that it almost doesn't matter. I'm looking forward to more Marvel movies, and I'll get them.  I'll get so, so many of them.

8/10

BONUS 4DX REVIEW!

This was the first movie I've seen in 4DX, a new format that utilizes motion seats, shots of wind and water, flashing lights, and fog to create a crazy fun movie experience.  You know those theme park attractions where you watch a short video with all that stuff?  Imagine a whole movie like that. Moving through streets in chase scenes is really visceral, your chair gliding and bumping along the way, as are flying scenes in which the chair tilts up and down at the appropriate moments.  Fight scenes are intensified by the back of the chair reacting to characters getting thrown onto their back. When bullets fly onscreen, air shots blast by your ear and give you a jump.  It's some really cool stuff, and Civil War seemed absolutely tailor-made for the format.  I do wish the movie wasn't in 3D though, as it started to irritate my eyes when there were quick-cuts onscreen and my chair was shaking around.  I also could have done without the water, especially since I had to keep wiping off my 3D glasses when it splashed on my face.  Thankfully, there's an option to turn the water off, which I promptly did.  And while the experience can be a bit exhausting, dialogue scenes are motion-free, allowing you to rest up before the next big battle.  It's a great time, and even though it's a bit pricy, it's worth at least giving it a try.

What will 4DX be like?

Later this afternoon, I'll be seeing Captain America: Civil War in 4DX in the Times Square Regal theater.  With a ticket price of about $28, I can't know what to expect in terms of the immersion the format promises.  The movie will be in 3D, the seat rumbles, I might feel literal wind in my face, and there might be... uh... bubbles... but I don't know much else about it.  4DX sounds like it could be the incredibly immersive film-viewing experience I've waited for all my life, or it could be a bunch of gimmicky distractions.  Either way, Civil War is getting great buzz and I can't wait to see it.  I was a bit disappointed in Age of Ultron last year, so hopefully this is the true Avengers sequel we've all been waiting for.

The Jungle Book (2016)

Disney's recent foray into live-actionizing many of their classic animated films has had spotty results; 2010's Alice in Wonderland was a re-tooling that strayed too far from the original film, 2014's Maleficent de-fanged one of cinema's most memorable villains, and 2015's Cinderella was just fine, but not particularly memorable.  So although it doesn't have much to live up to, The Jungle Book is undoubtedly the best of this sub-sub-genre.  It honors the original, but adjusts the plot to be less episodic and more story-driven.  To call this a "live-action" film feels a bit misleading; every single shot features computer animation, with Neel Sethi acting as the sole on-screen star of the entire movie.  This would normally be a criticism, but oddly enough, it works; the decision to fully commit to fantasy helps make the film feel cohesive, and the world that the filmmakers create (while cherry-picking bits from Rudyard Kipling's book) is engaging and well-realized.

Somewhere in the jungles of India, a young boy named Mowgli (Sethi) lives among the animals and tries to fit in with them.  Raised by wolves, Mowgli is dubbed a "man cub," and despite his tendency to do things differently from the other animals (making tools), he never considers leaving the jungle and living among other humans.  When the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) gets word of a human living in the jungle, he seeks to kill Mowgli before he can grow into a dangerous man capable of controlling the "red flower," which is fire.  The wolves decide that it's best for Mowgli to leave the jungle, despite resistance from Mowgli's adopted wolf mother Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o).  Led by the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsly), Mowgli reluctantly begins the journey to the "man village," but the two are attacked by Shere Khan and separated.  On his own, Mowgli runs into other beasts throughout the jungle, including the giant, creepy snake Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), the giant, creepy ape King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the lovable oaf of a bear, Baloo (Bill Murray).

The Jungle Book is certainly better than expected.  Mowgli as a character works a bit better than the Mowgli from the 60s version by sheer virtue of not being annoying or whiny, which he easily could have been.  This is down to Sethi's naturalistic and laid back performance, something that could easily have been lost in all the CGI shuffle.  Although, he does lack a bit when it comes to reacting to scary or dangerous things (because, let's face it, he doesn't have anything to react to on the soundstage).  Giant Ape about to kill him?  Whatever.  Another thing he has up on the old school Mowgli is his active role in the story; there's not a lot of moping around waiting for the next episode of his life.  He has goals and makes his own decisions, and is a stronger character for it.  This affects the ending, and while I won't spoil anything here, I will say that it changes the entire message of the movie.  Whether that's for better or worse I really can't say.

Vocal performances are top notch; Murray, Kingsley, Walken and Elba (oh God, especially Elba) give it their all and breathe a lot of personality and life into their characters.  But what really brings them to life is the stunningly detailed CG animation, and love it or hate it, it opens up all kinds of doors for the filmmakers.  There's not limit to how the characters can interact, no uncanny valley of mixing live-action backgrounds with the computer effects... the look is uniform and created with so much care that it's easy to forget that what you're watching isn't real most of the time.  I don't think I've quite felt that way about a movie since Avatar.  It would have been so easy for the world to feel sterile and glossy, but the constant grime, bugs, and photorealistic surfaces give the world enough edge to be believable.  I doubt we'll see a movie with better visual effects in 2016.

The climax is exciting and more tense than I was expecting.  I think this comes down to the fact that Mowgli is allowed to be dirty, bruised up, bleed a little.  That helps the danger feel real and give it more edge than a standard Disney movie.  Characters die and stay dead.  Shere Khan is a legitimate threat, with a sinister look and, as I previously mentioned, a wonderful performance from Kingsley.  The character designs for the rest of the character are hit and miss in my opinion; Mowgli looks great, as do Bagheera and Baloo.  But King Louie is ridiculously huge, practically King Kong-sized, and he looks too much like Christopher Walken for me to take him seriously.  It doesn't help that he sings a bit of "Wanna be like You" in an awkward manner that feels totally out of synch with the rest of the movie.  What's odder is that the usage of "Bear Necessities" is really good; it's charmingly unpolished and totally natural.  The score is lovely as well, often homaging the original to great effect (something I think the Cinderella should have done).

So while not exactly an instant classic, the new Jungle Book is a nice surprise.  It's well written, improving some of the story problems of the original, while being visually stunning.  I will always endorse practical effects over CGI, but there are times like this where I just have to sit back and enjoy what beautiful things the tool can create.  The movie leaves itself open for a sequel, and honestly, bring it on.  Director John Favreau clearly has a lot of love for the source material (he told me so in a clip before the film started), and I'd love to see where he could take the characters and continue their adventures.  And now that it's been done to death, maybe even adopt other stories in Kipling's book.  You know there are more than just Mowgli's story, right Hollywood?

7/10

Zootopia

Let's get one thing straight: I freakin' love Disney.  Specifically, Disney animation (a major part of my childhood and millions of other '90s kids) has such a fascinating history and important place in pop culture, and its impact on the medium is unprecedented.  How many animation breakthroughs weren't in some way pioneered by Disney or under Disney's inspiration?  Despite a rollercoaster of quality over the past decade, the studio has produced a number of real gems as of late (John Lasseter's influence on the studio undoubtedly driving that).  The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Big Hero 6 are all good-to-great movies that have cemented Disney's place in the feature animation industry and have proven that the studio's pretty much gotten its mojo back.  So how does their newest film, Zootopia, hold up?  Previews made it extremely hard to tell, most of the them focusing on a sloth joke that was funny, but told us next to nothing about how the story.  And honestly, thank God for that, because Zootopia is a movie that should be viewed with as little beforehand information as possible.  The writing is stellar, the characters are instantly lovable, and the animation is as good as CGI can get.  Yeah, that's a double-edged compliment, but more on that later.

In a world that only consists of mammals (except humans and domestic animals of course), there are predators and there are prey.  After millions of years of evolution, the two live together in harmony, but prejudices and stereotypes still plague the likes of each.  A bunny named Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) has dreamed of being a police officer ever since she was a kid, despite her parents' warnings that there has never ever been a bunny cop.  But she's not the type to give up, and after training hard and achieving her dream, she moves to Zootopia to start her new life.  In this city, animals live and work together, which gets messy at times.  When tasked with an impossible missing persons case by her chief, Bogo (Idris Elba), she has to team up with the only witness she can find, a con artist fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman).  The two explore the different regions of the city, encountering both funny and scary situations while discovering a larger conspiracy.

Zootopia is absolutely fantastic.  Its characters are strong and well-developed, there's plenty of solid world-building, and the mystery plot is genuinely compelling.  If the script occasionally falls back on a cliche, it often bounces back with something creative or even turns what you thought was something generic right on its head.  What I've seen the majority of critics focus on is the extra layer of depth the film offers in terms of its social commentary, mainly on modern American racism and sexism.  But it doesn't become "Disney's after school special" at any point; it treats the audience with respect and integrates its themes seamlessly into the narrative.  Almost seamlessly, anyway.  In fact, there are probably one too many lines that punch you square in the face with the subtext ("I'm not just some token bunny... It's only ok for bunnies to call each other 'cute..' "), but there are others that are pretty subtle and more thought-provoking.

This bunny and fox duo is all kinds of great.  Judy and Nick have great chemistry, and the side characters are fleshed out as well.  I like that the movie pulls the villain out from under the rug (as did Frozen), and that the motivations were justified and tied into the theme (huzzah!).   The characters have unique challenges they have to overcome that have a real-world parallel, and I like that the film doesn't simplify the problem and act like it has all the definitive answers.  The lesson here isn't that "racism is wrong," a six-year-old could tell you that.  The idea is that racism and stereotypes do exist, and it's how you deal with them that matters when they come your way.  It makes you reflect on social norms and often points at how generally fucked up they are.  But you know, fun for the whole family!

What also makes Zootopia stand out is how hilarious and gag-filled the world is while still being functional.  There are climate zones for the various animals, each more creative than the last.  There's even a detour into "Little Rodentia," a miniature-sized town for rodents.  Tracking down a missing person in this city was a genius move by screenwriters Jared Bush and Phil Johnston, because it gives an excuse for Judy and Nick to explore every part of Zootopia for the benefit of the audience while feeling totally organic.  It's all brought to life using gorgeous, glossy CG animation that astounds and delights with its attention to detail, and the animal fur seems like you could reach out and touch it.  And yet... I really wish it had been done with hand-drawn animation.  I think it would have lended the movie a charm that it almost has, but there's a sterility to CG animation that just comes with the territory.  It worked perfectly for Frozen (I wouldn't trade that ice for anything), but it wasn't really needed here.

Look at what could have been! Concept art by the film's character design supervisor, Cory Loftis.

Zootopia was directed by Bryon Howard and Rich Moore, who are responsible for many of the movies in this new Disney animation revival.  Their penchant for slapstick humor is here in spurts, but the majority of the film's strength is in its dialogue and its action.  There's a level of maturity in the writing, voice acting, and referential jokes that I really appreciated.  Michael Giacchino provides the score, which is an ambitious with its mix of tribal music with jazz; it creates the perfect sound for a city populated by animals.  I don't know if it's as AMAZING as The Incredibles or Up, but it's still pretty great.

What's not pretty great is the Shakira song "Try Everything," which would be tolerable if it only played once.  But it plays twice; a bland, shallow pop song that maybe I wouldn't think twice about if this been a Dreamworks movie.  But this is Disney, and given their track record for producing some of the best made-for-the-big-screen songs, this is extremely disappointing.  Shakira also feels like a celebrity plug in a film that desperately didn't need it.  And also... Shakira?

Other than that minor gripe, I absolutely loved Zootopia.  The characters are so likeable (and even a little tragic), the story is layered and well-paced, and world is realized to its fullest extent.  There are plot twists that dance on the edge of contrived, but are damn-near genius compared to most other films geared towards kids and families.  But that's the beauty of Disney animation; it's one of the only forms of entertainment that can truly be enjoyed by anybody of any age.  Zootopia purposefully dates itself in terms of its technology and pop-culture references, but its story, characters, and themes are nothing but timeless.

9/10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

I left the theater after seeing Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice with only one thought in my head: I can't believe I never realized that Batman and Superman's moms are both named Martha!  That's not a good sign.  The film is a joyless, CG-heavy, action film that takes two of America's greatest comic book characters and makes them... dumb.  Very dumb.  Characters in this film are not people, they are cardboard stick figures that move from place to place and spout cliche dialogue.  You thought The Dark Knight Rises had plot holes?  Well, it does... but Batman V Superman puts it to shame.  It might actually be easier to count the things that DO make sense as opposed to the things that don't.  This is the kind of event movie that should be the purest form of awesome.  I love Batman.  I love Superman. But I don't love Batman V Superman.  It felt more like Diet Watchmen.  Does it have its moments?  Sure.  But for every good aspect of this movie, there are more than a few groan-worthy ones.

Perhaps some of my greatness will rub off on you...

Eighteen months after the events of Man of Steel, the public is afraid of Superman (Henry Cavill) and the potential power he holds over the entire world.  Sure, he uses his powers to help people now, but what's to stop him from taking over the world if he wants?  This is a particular worry for Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck), who bore witness to the horrible destruction and death toll of Superman's fight with General Zod (Michael Shannon) firsthand, which nearly left Metropolis a giant crater.  Meanwhile, the wealthy and powerful inheritor to LexCorp, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), seeks a way to kill Superman via the green Kryptonite found inside the remains of Zod's ship, and manipulates the already enraged Batman into doing it for him.  Meanwhile meanwhile, Luthor figures out how to create a beastly alien being out of the now deceased Zod's DNA (known in the comics as "Doomsday").  Meanwhile meanwhile meanwhile, Wonder Woman (Gal Gaddot), under the guise of Diana Prince, has been operating as a secret superhero for decades, and helps to open up Batman's eyes to other meta-humans who use their powers for good.

MARTHA?!

Besides obviously being overstuffed, that doesn't sound all that bad.  There are reasons for a Batman/Superman fight that make sense; we're dealing with consequences from the previous movie, and hey!  Justice League coming soon! Isn't that neat?  But it doesn't feel that way.  Every character is so ultra-serious, and most of their interactions are wooden as hell.  Action scenes are uneven, with the poorest using CG cartoon versions of the characters to dodge obstacles or get thrown around.  The color palette is muted, which wasn't a bad look given the tone, but it's not exactly a pretty film.   Music by the great Hans Zimmer (and by the good Junkie XL) is above average, especially the reprises of the Man of Steel theme.  Wonder Woman also has a kick-ass theme (complete with electric guitar riffs), but if Batman has a theme here, I didn't spot it.  I wouldn't have minded the use of one his classic themes, but different universe blah blah blah whatever.

Na na na na na na na Batman!

The biggest issue here is the script.  There's so much crammed into the film that was unnecessary. The story of how BATMAN meets FREAKIN' SUPERMAN should be enough to make a compelling movie on its own.  But instead we have to establish Wonder Woman, spend time with a Doomsday origin, make it work as a Man of Steel sequel, and set up future movies.  Many dream sequences are self-indulgent, and often result in Bruce Wayne doing the cliche "wake up while jerking up and yelling" thing.  That's never happened to anyone ever in real life, and I'm really sick of seeing that.  In addition, very little time is spent establishing where we are and why things are happening.  Establishing space just isn't a priority.  Some of this could be overlooked if the characters had more meat to them, more defining character traits.   No one sounds like a real person; no one makes a joke (expect for Jeremy Irons' Alfred) and no one talks about anything not plot-related.  It becomes extremely tedious and boring.

Make my monster grow.

I'm going to be talking about the ending of the movie a bit here, so skip this paragraph if you don't want to know.  The climax is very underwhelming.  Doomsday looks like a cartoon character and any semblance of martial arts in what should be a great fight between Bats and Sups is drowned out by poor editing.  We haven't spent the last two hours getting to know these two, we've spent it watching them scowl.  The reasons for the fight aren't exciting, they're contrived.  It's like... a Three's Company-level misunderstanding.  And the reason for the fight to stop?  Horribly executed.  It makes these two icons look like total idiots.  And don't even get me started on the ending, which blows its load way too early in the series on something that should be meaningful but couldn't feel more hollow.  The Super Friends show handled this better.

This is why Superman works alone.

Amy Adams is beyond wasted in this film.  She's a wonderful actress whose Lois Lane had the potential to add heart and humor to the story, but none of that is to be found.  Damsel, damsel, damsel.  There are THREE distinct situations where she only exists to be saved.  You might think, "Well she's Lois Lane! The epitome of the damsel in distress!"  Babe, it's not 1938.  Lois has been tough, smart, and plucky ever since Margot Kidder played her in 1978.  But here, she feels superfluous.   Affleck gives it his all as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but wow does this script let him down.  There seem to be so many missing pieces to his darker turn as the caped crusader, despite his having the most relatable motivations in the whole movie.  Also, if you know anything about Batman, you probably know what his one rule is.  This version of Bats doesn't seem too concerned about that rule, which left my mouth gaping on multiple occasions in shock.  Is that writer/director Zack Snyder telling the fans, "This is MY version of the character! If you don't like it, SUCK IT!"   Not surprisingly, that was my exact reaction to Superman in Man of Steel; neither "heroes" feel like the characters.   But my even my positive opinion of Harvey Cavill in the main role has taken a sharp downward turn.  No life behind his eyes the majority of the time and no passion in his voice.  Can we just watch Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? At least there, Christopher Reeve seemed to care about "THE PEOPLE!!!"

Why so se-he-he-rious?

So in all this darkness, there are bright spots.  One thing I was sure to hate was Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, and um... I kinda didn't.  He doesn't feel like Lex Luthor, and may have been conceived as an attempt to recapture the magic of Heath Ledger's Joker, but at least he injected a little life into the dullness of it all.  His scenes with Holly Hunter's character (one pretty clever setup and payoff involving Granny's Peach Tea especially) are very well done, adding much needed tension that builds to something morbidly spectacular.  It's the best scene in the movie and one of the few times I was truly invested.  And taken out of context, there are plenty of gorgeously shot moments.  Batman's backstory has been done to death, and frankly I'm getting tired of watching it, but recreated in the style of The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel here, it was very good.  There are a few action scenes featuring Batman that are really well-executed too; not surprisingly, they feature nice wide shots and continuous, unedited fight choreography.  And I know I harp on CGI, but there are moments when it's used to good effect.  But it's overused when it didn't have to be, and that's the real problem.   And while we're on a semi-positive note, I will say that the costume designs for Bats, Sups, and WW all look fantastic.  Might be my favorite on-screen looking versions of the characters.

In your satin tights! Fighting for your rights!

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is as clunky as its title, but with Man of Steel as its predecessor, it's hard to be shocked or disappointed.  If this had been the follow-up to Christopher Nolan's trilogy, this would be all kinds of catastrophic.  But as it stands, it's just a dull mess.  This isn't Fant4stic bad (I feel safe calling this some kind of movie), and it's packed with interesting ideas.  However, none of them come into fruition or draw from the endless political ideas and emotional stories that were right there for the taking in the comics and TV shows.  Monotone, obviously incomplete, and devoid of all the things I love about Batman and Superman, this Justice League series is going down a dark (and stupid) path that I'm afraid I just can't follow.

3/10