Ghostbusters (2016)

One should be careful what they do as a prank, you never know when it will come back to bite you. Erin Gilbert knows this all too well. When she was in college, her and a friend, Abby Yates, wrote a book on paranormal activity. Thinking the book would never see the light of day, Erin forgot about it until years later as she is working towards tenure at a prestigious university. It seems that Abby never actually got rid of all the copies of the book, and Erin's bosses at the university randomly came across it. Erin meets up with Abby to force her to get rid of the book, and through the circumstances of their reunion ultimately loses her job at the university...but ends up proving the existence of paranormal activity. Erin and Abby begin to work together in order to focus their efforts on exposing the truth on the paranormal in New York City, eventually bringing on two other women to help: Jillian Holtzmann and Patty Tolan.

Like virtually everyone who heard the original Ghostbusters was getting a reboot, I was highly skeptical about seeing it. The trailers never seemed all that funny, and like a lot of people I thought the updated theme song was horrible (I happen to actually like Fall Out Boy, but good grief that was bad). After seeing it, I can safely say my first impressions were mostly spot on. It's pretty sad when one of the funniest lines is a character smacking the heck out of another shouting "THE POWER OF PATTY COMPELS YOU!". For about 2/3 of the movie I sat there constantly thinking "who actually thinks this is funny?" Not only that, but the chemistry between the cast was bad. For a brief moment I thought I was watching a bad SNL skit instead of a feature movie. Actually...scratch that. It was more like an old episode of Scooby Doo. I half expected one of the ghosts to be caught and claim they would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling Ghostbusters. Either that or see Shaggy run across the screen yelling "Zoinks! Oh, we're in for it now Scoob!"

Now, to be fair, it wasn't entirely horrible. I did enjoy the action, with the final showdown between the Ghostbusters and the ghosts of New York being a pretty cool sequence. Towards the end the comedy began to be a bit more natural and legitimately funny. Leslie Jones as Patty had a lot of the funniest lines throughout the movie. It wasn't enough to save the movie, but it's not the worst movie I've ever seen either.

In the end, I would honestly say if you're looking for 2 hours to kill with nothing else to watch on Netflix or Redbox, then...eh, you could do much worse than this. Otherwise, these aren't the Ghostbusters you want to call if there's something strange in your neighborhood.

Disney's The Jungle Book

Living in the jungle is the only life Mowgli has ever known. Rescued by Bagheera, a black panther, Mowgli grew up under the wolves' protection. For years, Mowgli lived in peace among the animals of the jungle, though he never quite fit in - he had his own way of accomplishing certain things, and the other animals didn't quite appreciate his ways. Still, Mowgli manages to stay out of too much trouble - until a tiger by the name of Shere Khan returns to the jungle from being in exile. Shere Khan immediately tries to get rid of Mowgli for reasons unknown to Mowgli. To help the boy survive, Bagheera attempts to help Mowgli return to the man village where his real family belongs and he will be safe from the wrath of Shere Khan.

To start off, I have never read the book by Rudyard Kipling, of which this movie, the 1994 version and the 1967 animated Disney movie are all loosely based on. I've only seen the three movie adaptations. I don't remember much of the 1994 version, but I absolutely love the animated movie. It's not my favorite Disney animated movie, but it's up there. Watching Jon Favreau's latest adaptation brought back so many great memories of singing along to the songs and watching the animated version as a kid. Jon creates a beautifully dark, mysterious world of the jungle where danger lurks around every corner. The animated Disney film has some moments where there is somewhat of a feeling of danger and suspense, but Jon Favreau manages to actually make the audience feel the darkness and the seriousness of the situation(s) unfolding onscreen. What's even more amazing is how the entire world of the jungle is CGI, including the animals. I've seen enough movies to where I can usually tell what's CGI and what isn't, and yet I had a really tough time figuring it out. As far as the visual elements go, I'd go so far to say this was on the level of movies such as Life of Pi and Avatar. Scarlett Johansson is absolutely freaking creepy yet wonderful as Kaa the snake, and Idris Elba is a very convincing villain as the evil tiger Shere Khan. Newcomer Neel Sethi as Mowgli is a joy to watch. I think it's safe to say he's got a great career ahead of him if he keeps it up. A small warning - there might be a few parts involving Shere Khan and possibly the sequence with Kaa where really young kids might have a hard time watching if they get scared easily. There aren't any truly scary parts (this isn't something like Pirates of the Caribbean after all), but there are some pretty intense and dark moments.

For those who may or may not be worried about the dark aspect, thankfully the film as a whole isn't all 'doom and gloom'. There are a few times involving Bill Murray as Baloo the bear which brings about a whimsical sense of adventure. Not to mention, there are a couple short instances which hark back to the animated movie by recreating a couple of the original songs. It was great to hear songs like The Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You on the big screen again. I loved it so much I ended up being in a Disney kind of mood and listened to my Disney station on Pandora on the way home. Heck, I haven't stopped listening to it since then.

Personally, my only problem was one humorous scene involving Mowgli getting some honey down from a large cliff for Baloo that kind of felt like it dragged on for too long. Don't get me wrong, the whole scene was funny, and a welcome change from the gloomy aspect of the whole story, but it also kind of took away from me being invested in the rest of the movie as a whole. That was the only part that kind of dragged for me. Otherwise, Disney's The Jungle Book is a beautiful, wonderful story which I firmly believe is a must see.

Zootopia

If there's one thing to say about Judy Hopps, if anyone ever tells her she is unable to do something, then she'll do everything in her power to prove that person wrong. Since she was young, all she's ever wanted was to make a difference - and the way she knows best is to join the police force in the big city of Zootopia. Everyone tries to talk her out of it, even her own parents, trying to get her to see how dangerous it is for a little country bunny in the big city. Their desperate pleas fall on deaf ears, and so Judy works her little cotton tail off through the police academy and earns her place as part of the police force. Her excitement diminishes when she realizes none of her coworkers believe she belongs on the force, and her job is reduced to little more than being a meter maid. She knows she has a lot more to offer both the city of Zootopia and the police force, and so when the police catch wind of a case of missing mammals, Judy jumps on the chance to solve the case on her own to prove her worth.

Zootopia is one of the best animated movies I've seen in recent years. I've heard a lot of people say that last year's Inside Out was the best Pixar animated movie, and I enjoyed it a lot, but personally I enjoyed Zootopia so much more. I wasn't really able to connect as well to Inside Out as I was to Zootopia. I'm not really sure why. Zootopia has a fantastic (albeit slightly cliche) message intertwined into the story of not judging a book by its cover, and to strive to do your best at everything you do, even if the task at hand isn't something you particularly enjoy/want to be doing.

Like most, if not all, Pixar's stories, Zootopia keeps you entertained with a riveting story; one filled with excitement, laugh-until-you-cry humor, and even some slightly scary parts. I don't want to go in to too much detail so I don't spoil anything, but fair warning: there are a few chase sequences which may or may not freak out the much younger kids who sit down to watch it. Nothing truly bad happens, but the scenes could be considered pretty intense for younger audiences. As far as the more sentimental scenes go, they didn't feel forced like so many other movies. I didn't roll my eyes once at any sappy, sentimental lines. For me that was a huge plus.

I usually don't like saying this about movies, I've always been under the impression that while there could be some good messages and/or themes throughout a movie, the primary job - to semi quote Gladiator - is to entertain. If it doesn't do that, then it hasn't done its job. That being said, I think Zootopia can fall under the category of not only entertaining, but an important movie to sit down and watch. I can only say that about a handful of other movies over the years. Yes, the message is slightly cliche, and it's been done dozens of times, but to me this was different in its delivery. I can't explain it, but I'd say that Zootopia is one of those movies that *should* be seen.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

It's been 18 months after the devastation caused by General Zod and his two cronies who tried to destroy Earth by terra-forming it to Krypton's atmosphere as a way to resurrect their world and give their people a second chance. The destruction of Metropolis is met with mixed emotions by the general public, who both love Superman for saving their city, yet also hate him for being the cause for so much destruction and loss of life. One person who takes the actions of Superman personally is none other than billionaire Bruce Wayne, a.k.a. the Batman. One of Bruce's buildings was turned to rubble during the battle with Zod, and so Bruce goes on a one man war against the Man of Steel to try and find a weakness, and bring him to justice for his actions. To win, Bruce turns to the one place that he knows might have the key - Lex Luthor. The biggest showdown in history  - as Lex calls it "god vs man, day vs night..." sets the stage for what could become another Zod massacre...or the beginning of a new alliance.

For all its bad reviews lately, I'm going to have to disagree with the worst ones saying it's one of the worst movies to come out in recent years, and also the worst comic book movie ever. That being said, I'm going to have to also disagree with crazed DC fanboys who have nothing but the highest praise for Dawn of Justice. It's not a bad movie, especially for one directed by Zach Snyder, but neither is it a masterpiece. Like other (well, ok, more like most) directors these days - with probably the worst offender being Michael Bay - Zach tends to favor style over substance. However beautiful his films tend to look, they mostly tend to suck when it comes to good storytelling. Man of Steel is probably the one I would call the best in terms of a good story and his signature visual style coming together coherently. With Dawn of Justice, the storytelling and the visual elements aren't quite as seamlessly meshed together well, but it's still a very fun ride. The things that fell flat to me are:

1. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor - He almost seemed like the Joker or maybe even the Riddler as a character during the first part of the film; later on he becomes the Lex I remember from the comics and animated series, but he certainly didn't start out that way. His motivations for his hatred for Superman were a bit unclear in the beginning as well. I think he'll end up being great as Lex in the upcoming movies in the DCCU, but it was a bit of a rocky start.

2. Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent - For someone who I enjoyed as the Man of Steel in his first outing, I expected a bit of character development/growing up to happen in the 18 months of passed time between Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice, Instead, it seemed like Superman was the untrained, unsure of himself guy we saw in Man of Steel. Given the circumstances of the story, I expected there to still be some doubts about his actions, but I expected Superman to be a bit more sure of himself with who he was as an individual. It seemed like there was almost literally no change between his character in Man of Steel and who he was in Dawn of Justice. it wasn't until the end where I saw a spark of who I remembered as Superman.

3. The final fight between Superman and Batman - This, along with the Doomsday fight, was one of the weakest points of the film. Snyder built us up for a massive showdown between two of arguably the best characters in superhero comic book history, and yet the fight was so short that the emotional payoff was pretty bad. I didn't really care about why they were fighting, or what caused them to all of a sudden become allies. It felt more like a short squabble than a fight between two very different ideologies, one born of vengeance and anger and the other of trying to do the right thing even in the face of adversity.

4. Doomsday - I hope we haven't seen the last of him, because his introduction was disappointing to say the least. I know he was being used as a lead-in to the Justice League's big baddie, but I was hoping for more of a prominent role for Doomsday. Like the "fight" between Batman and Superman, this fight felt too short to have any sort of major impact.

There's plenty of things I didn't like, but there's also things I greatly enjoyed:

1. I loved Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of her acting - one of the most recent things I've seen her in was the Fast and Furious franchise, and while she was ok in it, that's not exactly a good tool in which to judge her overall acting skills. I'll admit, I was pretty skeptical, but she knocked it out of the part with her portrayal of the Amazonian princess. I'm looking forward to seeing her as a part of the Justice League.

2. Jeremy Irons as Alfred had great chemistry with Ben Affleck's Batman/Bruce Wayne. I could almost feel the cameraderie of two people who have been through more in a few years than what most go through in a lifetime.

3. Before I saw Dawn of Justice, I wasn't quite sure how they were going to introduce the other superheroes who were going to make up the rest of the Justice League. I wasn't fully expecting Marvel's formula of origin movie before the team-up, but I wasn't sure of a good way to make those introductions. I'll admit that the way it was described before the movie came out sounded a bit like the movie was going to be bloated The cameos in the film ended up being good ways to introduce them. The cameos gave us a good idea of what each of their powers are, and who they were.

4. Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman - Not counting the animated series and animated movies, I haven't seen anyone who captured the essence of both Bruce Wayne and Batman as characters. I've always found either Batman's good or Bruce Wayne is. Personally, up until now Christian Bale came the closest, but there were still some things missing. I don't really fault any of the actors, I think it comes down to how the characters are written. Ben on the other hand, I thought he did very well as both Bruce and Batman. I do agree with DC fans saying he is the best onscreen live-action Batman and Bruce Wayne to date. It'll be cool to see him in his standalone film. I did find it weird that the story had Batman already be around for 20 years, I would have thought it would have been better to him being around 5-10 years if he's going to be a part of the Justice League for a long time. On a side note, it would be cool if they did a Batman Beyond live-action film in the future.

All in all, Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice was a good comic book movie that hardcore fans will (and obviously already do) enjoy, and I think even the casual movie goers will enjoy it. I'm not sure why critics have so harshly panned it. It's no Citizen Kane, but's no Transformers snooze fest either.

London Has Fallen

After the death of the British Prime Minister, United States President Benjamin Asher - along with his staff and Secret Service agents headed by Mike Banning - heads to Great Britain to join dozens of world leaders at the Prime Minister's funeral. What they and the other world leaders don't realize is the trap being set for them by an old enemy looking for revenge for the death of his family - Aamir Barkawi. Mike Banning sees the danger and works to save President Asher before he can be assassinated along with the other world leaders.

London Has Fallen...so many jokes, so little time.

If you've seen Olympus Has Fallen (you can read my review here), then you pretty much know what you're getting into with this hard-hitting, fast-paced sequel. It's basically the same story, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) has to save the President from being assassinated on live television by terrorists. The only real difference is the movie takes place in London instead of Washington D.C. It's still a great movie, if you're like me and into action flicks where you can check your brain at the door and not worry about it being a smart, Oscar-worthy level movie. Olympus Has Fallen was better overall, and I really don't think there should have been a sequel, but London Has Fallen was still a whole lot of fun. I just hope there's not a third one called Russia Has Fallen or something similar.

There is one thing that bothered me as I was watching London Has Fallen: It's a movie that's rated R - and a pretty violent one at that - yet I saw several kids who couldn't have been much older than 5 or 6 in the theater. Now, I'm not one to tell parents how to raise their kids, but even I have to question what parents are thinking when bringing their young kids to a movie like that. It was the same way when I saw Deadpool awhile back. There were several really young kids in the theater. I'm not saying you absolutely have to wait for when they're 17 like the rating recommends (actually, now that I think about it, I think I'd go so far as to suggest that for Deadpool specifically), but 5 or 6 seems really young for a movie like this. I just want to urge parents to use caution before letting your kids watch something like this. For the rest of us, I would recommend seeing London Has Fallen. It really is a fun action movie.

Disability in Film, Television, and other areas of Modern Culture

So fair warning, for the first time in a long time (if ever) I'm about to get a bit..well, I'm not sure whether this can be considered political or not, or what to call this 'rant', but whatever...

I was watching the Grammy's a few weeks ago, and caught Stevie Wonder's performance with Pentatonix before they announced the winner for Song of the Year. Good performance, but what caught my attention was what Stevie said afterwards before he read the announcement. He made a joke about being blind and being the only one able to read the announcement (it was in Braille), and then made this statement: "We need to make every single thing accessible to every single person with a disability..."

Amen, Mr. Stevie Wonder, A-freaking-men.

The audience was clapping and cheering, but I honestly have to wonder who in that audience - whether physically at the Grammy's or watching on TV - actually heard that message and took it to heart. That's admittedly a harsh way to talk after that, but after seeing so often people talking about racial and gender equality - which DO NOT misunderstand me, they are also important issues to talk about - I've noticed the topic of disability isn't brought up often, if at all.

As a young adult guy with a disability myself (spina bifida), unless you step into my shoes (or in my specific case, my wheels haha...ok, that was bad) I really don't think I can accurately describe to you how, in everyday life, it pisses me off sometimes when I want to go somewhere with friends and/or family, and come to find out the place we planned to go isn't accessible. Sometimes it's just a matter of getting through the door because there are steps out front, so that in and of itself isn't *that* big of an issue. It's still an issue, of course, but I can at least work around it. That being said, there are other times and activities where it's virtually impossible to even enter the place, let alone do the activity planned with whoever I'm with. That's unfair to both the person with the disability, and their friends/family who want to spend time together.

With things like living at home/being independent, my definition of 'accessible' and apartment/rental houses definition of 'accessible’ are apparently entirely different. I won't name any names, but I recently was looking for an apartment, and found out the hard way that some apartments' definition of 'accessible' is if I can get through the front door or not. Once I'm in, I'm on my own. Can I get through the bathroom door? The bedroom door? No? Well too bad, so sad. To them it's accessible. I had to specifically ask for an ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant room before I found a good apartment.

I could go on and on, but I'll take it easy and leave it with this: If there's to be change several things need to happen.

1. Buildings and other environments should automatically be accessible for *all* disabilities. Yeah, I know, there's the Disabilities Act, which supposedly makes sure any buildings are automatically accessible to all. As mentioned above, though, there are ways to get around it. Those loopholes need to be closed. For buildings already built as of right now, I'm not saying do a sweeping deconstruction and rebuild everything. I'm not sure what the answer should be as of this particular point in time, but something needs to be done.

2. I've found in doing activities such as going to sports events and concerts, that certain venues will only allow me to have one person to sit with me. If I have others in my party, they have to have separate seats. I've gotten around this at certain venues, but still - to have that as a rule where I can't be with my entire party is freaking bull crap! Sometimes that feels like some sort of weird punishment for having a disability, which I had no control over, nor did I ask for this.

3. For TV/Movies/Broadway, I want to see more characters with disabilities. Not only that, but actors and actresses who actually have disabilities in some of those roles. To be fair, there have been some fine performances, but I think it would add quite a bit of authenticity if a disabled character were actually played by an actor/actress who legitimately had that disability. Unless you've been in that position, there's not really any way you can 100% accurately portray that type of character. You can come very close, but most of the time it doesn't come off very believable, at least to me. This is one of the reasons I love watching NCIS: New Orleans. There's a character named Patton Plame played by Daryl Mitchell. He's in a wheelchair, both on the show, and in real life. NCIS: New Orleans has done a fantastic job with his character and not putting so much focus on his disability, but rather on his personal strengths (for those who don't watch the show, he's the computer wiz). Breaking Bad is another show which had a character with cerebral palsy, played by Rj Mitte. I never watched Breaking Bad, so I can't comment on whether the show did his character justice, but I am glad Rj Mitte was given the opportunity to play that character. I understand that there are just some roles where a disabled actor/actress won’t work, and I respect that, but there should be more opportunities available.

4. I'm also tired of seeing disabled characters in roles where they are pitied, somewhat heroic (in the sense where they’re working to overcome their disabilities), a burden to those around them, etc. I had hopes for a TV show a few years ago called Ironside - which happens to be a reboot to a 1960's show of the same name if I'm not mistaken - who had a main character who was wheelchair-bound due to being shot and paralyzed. My personal problem with that show (besides it being pretty boring with no real action and suspense) was how the show always seemed focused on the chair, and not the character himself. It was almost as if the show was screaming "Hey, look at this guy! He's able to be a detective despite being disabled!" Personally, I thought it was both annoying from a storytelling aspect, and quite frankly insulting as someone with a disability. I want to see producers/studios take a chance and place actors with any disability and hire them in whatever role the script calls for. Heck, for that reason alone I would actually like to see a reboot of Ironside. I believe it could be a game changer if done right. Obviously it's already happened with some projects like NCIS: New Orleans and Breaking Bad, but I'd like it to happen more often so that it basically becomes the norm.

I'm sure I could keep going and list a few more issues both in everyday life and in public entertainment, but hopefully this at least begins the conversation towards including people with disabilities. As mentioned, I don't want to ever take away from the discussion of racial and gender equality, but rather add to it.

Deadpool

A former Special Forces soldier, Wade Wilson continues to put his skills to use by becoming a mercenary - though most of his contracts consist of protecting young college girls from stalkers. His life doesn't seem to be going anywhere, until he meets an attractive woman named Vanessa who immediately steals his heart. Their brief fling turns into a wild and long-term relationship, until one day Wade unexpectedly collapses. The test results show he developed cancer in his lungs, liver, prostate, and brain. After realizing there isn't much hope of survival, Wade and Vanessa try to make his last days as normal as possible. Soon after the news hits, a stranger walks up to him and tells him of a program which can potentially save his life. The only catch - the program will not only heal his cancer, but it will also give him superpowers. With nothing to lose, Wade agrees. As promised, the treatments cure his body of cancer, and give him healing/regenerative powers. The bad part is, Wade finds out the program is meant to create an army of evil super powered people. Wade goes on a super powered rampage to take revenge on the program and the man responsible for torturing him and turning him into the man he became as Deadpool.

If you know anything about the Marvel comic book anti-hero Deadpool, then you know you're in for a wild ride. I have to give Ryan Reynolds credit for sticking to his guns and working hard to create a comic book accurate movie. The snarky, 4th wall breaking, mostly perverted humor is splattered throughout the entire movie - and thankfully this time Deadpool's mouth isn't sewn shut. I'm also thankful that Deadpool is one of the only recent comic book movies I can think of where it actually felt like a superhero movie, instead of an action movie with superheroes. Even though they're not my favorite, two of the only other ones I can think of where I felt that way was the original Sam Raimi Spiderman and Spiderman 2.

If you've ever read any of my previous reviews, then you probably know how normally I would be mostly against overly perverted and dark humor. There were admittedly times where I was the only one in the theater not laughing at some of the jokes, but for a character like Deadpool who is known for that kind of stuff I guess I was fully expecting it so it didn't phase me as much as it probably should have. Violence-wise, it's pretty graphic. This is not your Disney/Marvel Avengers or even the darker DC Comic's Man of Steel or the Dark Knight trilogy. This was similar to things like Punisher: War Zone. It doesn't quite come up to Tarantino level, but it comes pretty dang close. I highly caution parents to not let their kids see Deadpool until they're older.

My only other criticism of Deadpool is the pacing of the film. Someone made a comment walking out of the theater that I actually agree with, saying the pacing was weird throughout the movie. It felt rushed in the beginning, then slowed down and seemed like it found its footing, then lost it and rushed again towards the end. Overall though, I thought it was good, and I'm most likely going to see it at least one more time, but I think it was slightly overhyped.