Men in Black: International (2019) review

In 1990, the first installments of a new comic series, The Men in Black, was published by Aircel Comics. Created by writer Lowell Cunningham, the series focused on the titular Men in Black, a secret organization tasked with monitoring extraterrestrial activity on Earth. Soon after the completion of the series’ six-issue run, Aircel would end up getting acquired by Malibu Comics who, in turn, would be acquired by Marvel. And in 1997, the series was adapted to the big screen courtesy of director Barry Sonnenfeld and Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment. Upon its release, the film, which starred Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as Men in Black agents J and K, respectively, was a big critical and financial hit, grossing over $589 million worldwide and earning the legendary Rick Baker his then-fifth Oscar for Best Makeup. The film would then spawn two sequels in 2002 and 2012, and while neither sequel was as well-received as the original, they were still both solid hits at the box-office. And yet, while it seemed like Men in Black 3 would be the final installment of the franchise, it has now come back in the form of a spin-off that isn’t the attempted crossover with the 21 Jump Street franchise that ultimately went nowhere. Instead, it’s a more traditional spin-off that focuses on new characters but is still set in the same universe. This time, directorial duties go to F. Gary Gray (Straight Outta Compton, The Fate of the Furious) while Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson headline the cast in their second big collaboration together after Thompson made a big splash in the MCU as Valkyrie alongside Hemsworth’s Thor in Thor: Ragnarök. And just like in that film, they prove to be quite the dynamic duo despite this film’s admittedly major shortcomings.

When she was a child, Molly Wright (Tessa Thompson) and her family had an encounter with an alien that instantly attracted the attention of the secret organization known as the Men in Black. But while her parents were both neuralyzed as per MIB regulations, Molly managed to avoid that fate, thus leading her on a mission to prove the organization’s existence. Twenty-three years later, Molly finally manages to locate the Men in Black’s New York headquarters, where she convinces Agent O (Emma Thompson), head of the US branch, that she’s a perfect candidate for the organization given how she was successful in finding them. Thus, Molly is officially dubbed ‘Agent M’ and is sent to MIB’s London headquarters on probationary status. There, she meets the head of the UK branch, High T (Liam Neeson), who pairs her up with his old partner Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) on a mission to protect a member of an alien royal family. However, when the mission goes haywire and the royal family member is killed, MIB suspects that this is the work of a parasitic alien race known as the Hive whose previous attempt at invading the planet was thwarted by High T and H three years prior. Thus, H and M soon find themselves on a globe-trotting adventure to try and prevent another Hive invasion. In the process, however, they quickly realize that all this may be the result of a traitor within MIB’s ranks.

Since this review took a little while to get done, we’re at a point now where it’s become well-known that this film experienced quite a few nasty production issues. Most specifically, F. Gary Gray and producer Walter Parkes frequently clashed over the overall direction of the film to the point where the former repeatedly tried to back out of the production. Thus, it’s been reported that the version of the film that was released in theaters was Parkes’ intended cut rather than Gray’s, which would’ve been a bit more topical with its themes (i.e. some commentary on immigration). And to be perfectly blunt, it’s easy to see why Gray’s version of the film would’ve turned out a lot better because what we ultimately get is a generic retread of the previous Men in Black films. While it is based around new characters (with the only references to the previous films consisting of a few select cameos and some visual nods), the film maintains the same general plot structure of the last three films right down to having its finale revolve around a historic landmark (e.g. the Apollo 11 launch in Men in Black 3). The film doesn’t even live up to the International in its title as the strict adherence to the franchise’s formula prevents it from exploring more of the world of Men in Black despite this being the first installment of the series that isn’t primarily set in New York. At the very least, the film maintains the franchise’s quirky atmosphere when it comes to the antics of its various alien creatures even though this is the first entry of the series to not involve the makeup work of Rick Baker due to his retirement in 2017.  

Ultimately, though, the best part about this film is its main leads. After all, one of the definitive aspects of the original trilogy was the strong dynamic of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones (plus Josh Brolin in the case of the third film). And considering their excellent chemistry in Thor: Ragnarök, it’s easy to see why Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson were paired together once again to become the Men in Black franchise’s newest lead duo. It also helps that these two do end up providing a different kind of pairing when compared to J and K from the previous films. Thompson, for example, may be following Smith’s arc from the first film as the rookie MIB agent, but whereas Agent J was the genuine newbie who was gradually introduced to the concept of aliens living on Earth, Agent M is already well-versed in it when she joins the organization. As for Hemsworth, Agent H’s characterization isn’t that far off from how Thor was initially portrayed in his MCU debut; in other words, a charismatic playboy who doesn’t always think before he acts. And while the big reveal surrounding it is a bit too simplistic, there’s a decent little mystery as to why H hasn’t quite been the same ever since he and High T saved the world despite him continually being regarded as one of the organization’s best agents. M and H are then backed by a solid ally in Pawny (voiced by Kumail Nanjiani), the last survivor of a tiny alien race who ends up pledging allegiance to his new Queen, M, and is quite simply the primary source behind most of the film’s best humorous moments. Everyone else in the film, including Neeson as High T and Rebecca Ferguson as an alien arms dealer who has a notable history with H, is fine in their respective roles but they’re ultimately just ‘there’, for the most part.

I still have vague memories of the first time that I watched the original Men in Black. Obviously, I was too young to see it in theaters in 1997, but I did watch it when I was about eight or nine when it aired on TV one night whilst my family and I were over at a party hosted by a family friend. And while my mom warned me that the film may be a bit too scary given the various alien creatures that appeared in it, this didn’t end up bothering me in the slightest and I became utterly enthralled by it. This then led to me watching the second film (which may not be as good as the first but isn’t quite as bad as a lot of folks say it is) and going to see the third film in theaters, which gave us the great addition of Josh Brolin as a younger K and a genuinely sweet twist in the finale that highlighted the strength of J and K’s relationship. Men in Black 3 was even one of the very first films I ever reviewed on this site, so with that in mind, you could say that I’m a big fan of this franchise and was really looking forward to its newest installment. Sadly, though, Men in Black: International ends up being the weakest of the bunch, though to be fair, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ‘bad’. It’s just that, as I pointed out earlier in this review, this film was heavily affected by its scandalous production issues to the point where the version of it that we ultimately got is a generic copy of the previous films instead of a more culturally relevant sequel as was initially the plan. Thus, despite the best efforts of the dynamic duo of Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson (and a scene-stealing Kumail Nanjiani), Men in Black: International is the very definition of a ‘by-the-numbers’ sequel.    

Rating: 3/5

STAR WARS MONTH: Post #3: Prequel Trilogy (1999-2005)

(Disclaimer: The following post will likely be highly controversial for many people given the general reception of the ‘Star Wars’ prequels. With that in mind, I ask that you please refrain from posting any disrespectful or trolling comments. Just remember that this is all just opinion-based. Thank you!)

Following the release of the final film in the original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy, ‘Return of the Jedi’, in 1983, George Lucas had planned to do a sequel trilogy. However in 1987, after most of his money was lost in a divorce settlement between him and his ex-wife Marcia Griffin, who had been an editor on ‘A New Hope’ and ‘Return of the Jedi’, Lucas decided to cancel this planned sequel trilogy. However, years later, as ‘Star Wars’ continued to maintain its popularity thanks to various things like a comic line by ‘Dark Horse’, a trilogy of novels by author Timothy Zahn, and numerous fan-made films inspired by the series, Lucas decided to start development of a new trilogy after all. But this time, he decided to go backwards in regards to the story and do a prequel trilogy, which would tell the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. The first film in the new trilogy, ‘The Phantom Menace’, was released in 1999 and the hype leading up to the film’s release was insane. Fans were super excited to see a new ‘Star Wars’ film for the first time in 16 years. But of course, as we all know, all of that anticipation ultimately ended up majorly backfiring on audiences. Sure, this new trilogy of films didn’t get ‘terrible’ reviews from critics but audiences, or more specifically ‘Star Wars’ fans, were far more negative towards them to the point where nowadays they’re pretty much the most hated series of films on the internet.

So with all of that said, some of you might be expecting me to join in on the bandwagon against these films, denouncing them as the terrible trilogy of films that they are that were responsible for ‘ruining’ the franchise. But believe it or not, that’s not what I’m going to do here today; far from it. Even though I recognize that I’m obviously in the extreme minority on this, I’m not afraid to admit the following; I do like the prequels. Now let me be very clear, I don’t think that they’re ‘as good’ as the original trilogy. But at the same time, in all seriousness, they’re not ‘as bad’ as the internet has put them out to be. I’ve seriously seen some people actually refer to these films, mainly the first two, as ‘the worst films of all time’, which is the very definition of an overblown statement. Sure, they have their problems, no doubt about that. But despite all of this, at the end of the day they’re still ‘Star Wars’ films. They still have that same feel and atmosphere to them… minus the great writing of the original trilogy, but still. So today, on Rhode Island Movie Corner for ‘Star Wars Month’, I’ll be looking at this prequel trilogy that most people despise with a burning passion. More specifically, I’ll be discussing the main reasons why this prequel trilogy didn’t work as well as its predecessors… and not always the reasons that the internet primarily likes to target. So without further ado, here are my thoughts on the ‘Star Wars’ prequels. 

STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)

We all know what went down with this film. It was, and probably still remains as, the most anticipated film of all time. The hype for the film was ridiculous to the point where some people actually bought full-price movie tickets just to watch the trailer for the film and then leave right after that. That just shows how much people were excited for this film. There probably will never be another film more anticipated than this one… well, except for ‘Force Awakens’ but let’s just hope that we won’t have another ‘Phantom Menace’ on our hands as far as audience reaction is concerned. Yet at the end of the day, despite the fact that at the end of its initial run it grossed over $900 million at the box office and would join the billion dollar club when it was re-released in 3-D in 2012, it ended up disappointing a lot of fans and you can still see that today, more than one and a half decades since it first hit theaters. But is it really ‘as bad’ as the internet constantly puts it out to be? As much as I know that some people are really, really going to disagree with me, I can safely say that… no, no it isn’t. Heck, it even isn’t the weakest of the ‘Star Wars’ films, which we’ll get to later.

But before I get into the main reasons why ‘The Phantom Menace’ didn’t work as well as it did, I’m going to debunk two of the main aspects of the film that some people really like to highlight as being the ‘main’ problems with the film when in reality that’s far from the truth. The first of these is Jake Lloyd as young Anakin Skywalker. You really do have to feel bad for this kid given all that he’s gone through since the film’s release. He had the opportunity to be in one of the biggest franchises of all time in the crucial role of Anakin Skywalker. And yet because the film ended up disappointing a lot of fans, suddenly he became a scapegoat for the film and he’s had to live with that ever since. I mean, okay yes I do agree that maybe Anakin should’ve been older instead of being a nine-year-old… but I don’t think Lloyd’s performance is ‘that bad’. I mean, I give him some slack because he was just a kid and let’s face it, George Lucas isn’t really the best ‘actor’ director out there. The other big scapegoat, and boy am I really going to piss off some people here, is Jar Jar Binks. Internet, you REALLY got to get over Jar Jar. For the record, no I’m not defending him as a character. He was clearly a misfire of an attempt by George Lucas to be the film’s source of comic relief. But for god’s sakes, folks, he is not the main problem of ‘Phantom Menace’ for crying out loud. That’s like saying ‘Emo Peter’ is the main problem of ‘Spider-Man 3’. Neither of those arguments are true.

So what is the actual main problem with ‘Phantom Menace’? It’s quite simple, really… the writing just wasn’t up to par with the previous three films. It’s basically a case of style over substance. Sure the visuals are nice and all, but that comes at the expense of the story and the characters. A story based around ‘trade negotiations’ and ‘treaties’ is a little too ‘political’ for a ‘Star Wars’ movie. And then when you get to the characters, there are so many ‘main’ characters in this film that we don’t really have a ‘main character’ in the vein of Luke to follow. It’s not Qui-Gon because, spoilers in the extremely unlikely case you haven’t seen this 16-year old film, he’s killed by Darth Maul in the final duel. It’s not Obi-Wan because he spends a lot of time just sitting around doing nothing up until, again, the final duel. And it’s not really Anakin either because he doesn’t show up until 45 minutes in. Many people, like YouTube personality ‘Belated Media’ (I’ll provide links to his excellent ‘What if Episodes I and II were Better?’ videos below; They really do set up a great outline for what could’ve been really awesome ‘Star Wars’ films), make the argument that Obi-Wan should’ve been the main character through it all and that Darth Maul, the villain who was well set-up and then was wasted by being killed off at the end (for now we’ll ignore his appearances in other forms of ‘Star Wars’ media, including ‘The Clone Wars’), should’ve been the primary antagonist for Obi-Wan given the fact that he killed Qui-Gon… and I agree.

So with that said, are there good things in this film? Yes, there are. Despite not really having the best material to work with, Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor both do fairly solid jobs as Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, respectively; McGregor in particular really stands out as one of the best elements of the whole prequel trilogy. As noted earlier, the visuals are still pretty solid. Though with that said, re-watching this film on Blu-Ray makes it clear that a lot of the visuals are really starting to show their age. The whole pod-racing sequence is pretty entertaining (it did lead to a great video game spin-off), and the final fight between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul is easily one of the best lightsaber duels in the entire franchise even if it may not necessarily have the same emotional depth as the duels in the original trilogy. Ultimately, I’ll say this; I’m not saying that ‘The Phantom Menace’ is the absolute best entry in the ‘Star Wars’ franchise; it isn’t. But believe when I say that this is not ‘the worst film ever’ as some people on the internet like to refer to it as. Does it have problems? Yes it does, but this just goes to show what happens when you overhype a film too much… it’s not going to please everyone and unfortunately this may happen again with ‘Force Awakens’. I’ll admit that I may be a little biased towards this film as it was the first ‘Star Wars’ film that I ever watched in theaters. I went to go see it in 2012 when it was re-released in 3-D and before you say anything, I never saw the original trilogy when it was re-released in theaters in 1997 (I was 2 at the time) and never saw any of the prequels during their original theatrical releases, so this was my first real opportunity to see a ‘Star Wars’ film in theaters.

Rating: 3.5/5

STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002)

Ultimately, despite its problems, ‘The Phantom Menace’ actually isn’t the weakest of the ‘Star Wars’ films to date. That ‘honor’ instead belongs to its sequel, ‘Attack of the Clones’. Because while ‘Attack of the Clones’ does make some improvements in the wake of its predecessor’s shortcomings, it brings in a whole new set of problems that are actually much more prevalent than the ones in the ‘Phantom Menace’. So first, let’s get the ‘post-Menace’ improvements out of the way. The story is much more focused than it was in the original and is not all about trade negotiations and treaties, though of course the political aspect of the story is still there; thankfully not as much in this one. Also in this film, instead of having too many main characters to the point where there actually wasn’t any distinguishable ‘main’ character, this film limits its primary protagonists to the trio of Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme. And again, the visuals are fine for the time. Though with that said, it should be noted that this was the start of a trend for the prequels as nearly every major sequence in the film was primarily shot in front of a blue-screen; in other words, most of the environments were computer generated. Sure, they look nice and polished but it’s a lot more obvious and, to put it bluntly, fake-looking. Though to ‘Clones’’ credit, it isn’t as egregious in its use of CGI environments compared to its sequel, as there still were ‘some’ real locations used, like Spain and Italy for scenes on Naboo and the Tunisian desert for scenes on Tatooine.

So what’s the big issue with the film? Well, it mainly stems from the film focusing a bit too much on the growing romance between Anakin and Padme. Now I get what Lucas was trying to do; he was trying to mirror the romance between Han and Leia in the original trilogy. That’s fine, but in execution it’s nowhere near as good as it was with Han and Leia. The romantic dialogue is, well… the line ‘I don’t like sand’ should give you an idea of what it’s like. And ultimately leads Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman don’t really have as great a chemistry as Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford did in the original films. Portman was unfortunately wasted here and basically the whole trilogy in general and as for Christensen, well, I’m not going to be as harsh on him as the rest of the internet is because, let’s face it, most of the big names of the cast, like Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Lee, don’t really get off any better because, as noted earlier, Lucas really isn’t that great of an actor-director. With that said, though… yeah they could’ve gone with a better choice for Anakin. I mean, we could’ve gotten Leonardo DiCaprio in the role and even with Lucas’ direction I believe that DiCaprio would’ve turned out much better.

But the other big issue of the film, again, comes from the romance in that, as I noted earlier, they spend WAY too much time on it, so much so that the middle section of the film is mostly just Anakin and Padme being all romantic on Naboo. But because of the mediocre dialogue and the fact that this romance is generally bland, that means that the film drags… quite a bit. I mean sure, there are some fairly entertaining action sequences from time to time, namely the scenes between Obi-Wan (once again, Ewan McGregor is one of the few ‘shining spots’ of this cast) and bounty hunter Jango Fett, father of original trilogy bounty hunter Boba Fett (or I guess in this case, his ‘clone son’). But for the most part, most of the best action sequences in the film occur near the end, including the first action sequence involving Yoda. Dare I say it? Even ‘Phantom Menace’ didn’t drag as much as this film. So as is, I hate to say it but ‘Attack of the Clones’ is easily what can technically called the ‘worst’ of the six live-action ‘Star Wars’ films to date. Now let me be clear; I don’t ‘hate’ it. Despite all that I’ve said here, this is still a ‘Star Wars’ movie and it still has that ‘Star Wars’ feel that still shines through even in the weakest entries in the series. But even with that said, there’s a lot of things that bring ‘Attack of the Clones’ down, even more so than ‘Phantom Menace’.

Rating: 3/5

STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

After two less-than-stellar entries in the ‘Star Wars’ franchise with ‘The Phantom Menace’ and ‘Attack of the Clones’, the prequel trilogy at least ended on a high note with ‘Episode III: Revenge of the Sith’. ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is easily the best entry in the prequel trilogy. While it does still have some of the issues that have plagued the entire trilogy, namely some less-than-stellar writing in certain scenes, it does a much better job in feeling more like a ‘Star Wars’ film. This is the best of the prequel trilogy when it comes to visuals, which have aged much better than in the previous two films. Though with that said, as I noted earlier, I’m pretty sure that there wasn’t any actual practical set locations used during filming save for background location shots. Part of me is amazed at how a film like this is able to do that and how the actors are somehow able to make it look believable even though, during filming, they didn’t really have anything to work off of. The whole Obi-Wan-General Grievous sequence was basically just Ewan McGregor working against a green-screen wall. Though even with the whole predominantly green-screen visuals in mind, the action sequences are pretty darn solid, including the duel between Yoda and Darth Sidious and the climactic final duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan, even though the latter goes on maybe just a bit too long.

‘Revenge of the Sith’ was the first entry in the series to rated PG-13. While it’s safe to say that the main reason for this was due to the scene at the end where Anakin gets heavily burned by lava, the film does maintain a generally darker tone than the other films in the franchise. Overall, I liked that the film did take this route as it did make sense given the darker nature of the story with Anakin’s downfall, turn to the dark side, and ultimately his transformation into Darth Vader. With that said though, at times the film is perhaps just a bit ‘too dark’. I mean, keep in mind that this is still a franchise aimed at a generally younger audience and yet there’s a scene where Anakin kills young Jedi. Sure it happens off-screen so we don’t actually see it happening but did we really need to see that in a ‘Star Wars’ film? No, no we didn’t. So in the end, while I can’t really say that ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is ‘as good’ as any of the original three ‘Star Wars’ films, it is definitely the best of the prequel trilogy. It still carries over some of the issues from the last two films, namely in regards to writing, but those aren’t as big of a problem here as they were in the previous two films. The ‘Star Wars’ prequel trilogy may not have turned out as well as many ‘Star Wars’ fans had hoped but if anything, it at least ended on a better note than when it first started.

Rating: 4/5

'What If Episode I was Good?' by Belated Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y

'What if Episode II was Good?' by Belated Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbug3AhYmw

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) review

After establishing his own animation empire with ‘Family Guy’, which continues to run after surviving not one but two cancellations, ‘American Dad!’, and ‘The Cleveland Show’, Seth MacFarlane transitioned into film with his directorial debut, ‘Ted’, and the film was a pretty big hit when it released in June 2012. Not only did it receive generally solid reviews from critics, but it also ended up becoming the highest grossing original comedy of all time with nearly $550 million worldwide at the box office. A few months later, MacFarlane was selected to host the 85^th Academy Awards and while he, as usual, attracted a lot of controversy due to his trademark style of humor, I was one of those who thought that he did a really good job and felt that his turn as host was a breath of fresh air for the annual awards ceremony. But now he’s back with his next directorial effort, ‘A Million Ways to Die in the West’, and this time instead of just portraying a motion capture character as he did in ‘Ted’, he makes his live-action debut in the lead role. So how does this film hold up? Well, ultimately I can’t say that it was as good as ‘Ted’ for a few glaring reasons but overall it still provided a decent amount of laughs though how it will fare with audiences could ultimately depend on whether or not you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s work.

The film centers on Albert Stark (Seth MacFarlane), a cowardly sheep farmer in Arizona who constantly complains about how awful the Wild West in 1882 is, and that’s mostly because there are multiple ways (‘a million’ to be specific) to die there; disease, outlaws, animals, the doctor, etc. His lack of courage ends up resulting in him losing his girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried) to the town’s moustache shop owner Foy (Neil Patrick Harris) after he withdraws from a duel. Albert then decides to leave for San Francisco, but ends up staying when a mysterious woman named Anna (Charlize Theron) moves into town. As she and Albert start to become friends, he starts to gain a bit more confidence as he attempts to win back the heart of Louise. But soon he finds himself having to stand his ground not against Foy, but against Anna’s husband, the notorious outlaw Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), when he arrives in town seeking revenge on Stark after he started to develop a relationship with Anna. In order to deal with this, Anna helps Albert by teaching him how to shoot better so that Albert can stand a chance against the most vicious gunslinger in the territory.

This film’s humor is exactly what you would expect from MacFarlane given his line of work; fairly crass and juvenile. If you’re someone who likes that kind of humor, you’ll probably enjoy this movie and overall there are a solid amount of funny moments in this film. I’ve heard some people say that the best stuff is in the trailer and for the most part they’re fairly right but there were still a few good funny moments peppered in here and there that weren’t featured in the trailers. However, the big problem here is that there are a few instances where there’s no humor at all. And you know some comedies do have moments where the humor doesn’t fly well but that’s not the case here because there are a few instances where nothing funny is happening for a good 10 to 15 minutes. A lot of critics have said that this film is ‘overlong’, and I have to say that I do agree with that. This film may only be about 10 minutes longer than ‘Ted’, but that film’s humor was much more consistent and ultimately had enough material to justify its runtime. This film, sadly, doesn’t have enough material to be nearly two hours long. In fact, the whole plot involving Liam Neeson’s character… is actually more or less just the subplot for the third act. Seriously, most of the movie’s buildup revolves around a duel between Albert and Foy, not with Albert and Clinch as the trailers are indicating.

But still, this film does benefit from a pretty solid cast even if they don’t always have enough good material to work with. In his first major live-action leading role, MacFarlane does a pretty good job and his chemistry with Theron, who’s really good here as well, is also really good. It always helps in a movie like this when the chemistry between the two leads is really good though remember what I said about those instances that had a severe lack of humor? That’s because those scenes are mainly focused on developing the relationship between the two and though it really is a nice little romance that these two develop, this film sort of focuses on that relationship a bit too much. All of the other major members of the cast, including Seyfried, Harris, Giovanni Ribisi, who plays Albert’s best friend Edward, and Sarah Silverman, who plays Edward’s fiancé Ruth, have their own moments to shine here as well. Unfortunately though, Liam Neeson doesn’t get much to do here; his character is pretty one-note, which is a shame after his hilarious turn as Bad Cop/Good Cop in ‘The LEGO Movie’. As for the multiple cameos in this movie (another thing you can expect from a MacFarlane production), there a few really noteworthy cameos here that produce some quality laughs though one cameo unfortunately had to be involved in probably the weakest post-credits scene ever. It’s a fairly brief scene and the cameo itself was pretty cool but quite frankly it just isn’t worth it after waiting through the entire credits.

I don’t think ‘A Million Ways to Die in the West’ is that bad; I feel that it’s better than a lot of comedies that are coming out these days and at the end of the day there are a good decent amount of laughs to be had here. However, as far as MacFarlane’s directorial efforts go, ‘Ted’ was the funnier film. This film just doesn’t have enough material to justify a near two-hour runtime. There are at least two or three instances where no humor is occurring for at least 10-15 minutes and while those scenes are setting up a nice little romance between MacFarlane and Theron’s characters, that romance is focused on just a bit too much. Still, the cast is pretty game for the material, there are a few really fun cameos here, and overall if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s work you’ll probably like this. If you’re not a fan, well, obviously you’re probably not going to like this film. But really, if you haven’t seen ‘Neighbors’ yet, I’d recommend that film over this one because at the end of the day that is still the best comedy of this year so far. Again, I don’t think this film was that bad, but it’s a rather disappointing follow-up to ‘Ted’ and it could have been a lot funnier.

Rating: 3/5

The LEGO Movie (2014) review

(As you can tell, this review was a little late but, sadly, there is a big reason for why it took me a while to write this. My dad was injured in an accident a couple days ago and, at the time I am writing this, he has just passed away as a result of his injury. As such, I dedicate this review in memory of him because I know that he knew how big of a LEGO fan I am. Love you Dad!)

Sometimes, there is a movie that, in one way or another, will directly appeal to your childhood. For me, ‘The LEGO Movie’ is one of those movies. When I was growing up, LEGOs were probably my favorite things in the entire world and while I’m not as big of a LEGO fan now as I was when I was a kid, I still have a general passing interest in the brand. As such, this was the first major movie of 2014 that I was anticipating because I was really excited to see an actual ‘LEGO Movie’ on the big screen (this being the first official theatrical LEGO movie). However, at first glance, one might view this as a cynical marketing gimmick done by Hollywood with the main purpose of selling LEGO products which would make sense considering that these are construction toys we’re talking about here. But then you take into account the two men directing this film, Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Their previous two films, 2009’s ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs’ and 2012’s ‘21 Jump Street’, were some of the best films of their respective years and in the end, ‘The LEGO Movie’ will most likely end up being one of the best films of 2014 for a few good reasons. It’s certainly the first great film of 2014, that’s for sure.

Emmet Brickowski (Chris Pratt) is just your average guy (or ‘minifigure’ if you want to be precise) who lives a very ordinary life as a construction worker in his hometown of Brickville. However, things begin to change when he comes across an object known as the ‘Piece of Resistance’, which is the only thing that can stop a powerful weapon known as ‘the Kragle’ (in reality, a tube of ‘Krazy Glue’). Emmet soon finds himself at the center of a prophecy where he is believed to be ‘The Special’, the only one who is capable of stopping the evil Lord Business (Will Ferrell), who plans to use the Kragle to take over the world by freezing it in place and bringing an end to the idea of ‘creativity’. Emmet joins forces with the ‘Master Builders’, people who are capable of building anything without the need of ‘instructions’, unlike people like Emmet. With the help of allies like freedom fighter Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), wise old wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), and even the ‘Caped Crusader’ himself, Batman (Will Arnett), Emmet sets off on his journey to save the LEGO universe as he tries to prove to everyone (including himself) that he truly is ‘The Special’.

At first, this story may seem like your traditional ‘unexpected hero’ story and that would seem like that’s the case here… or is it? I say that because, without giving anything away, this film pulls one heck of a plot twist near the end that I guarantee a lot of you will not see coming (on that note, I applaud Warner Bros and everyone involved on the project for not giving this key part of the movie away in the marketing). Not only that, but this twist is a really good one as well as it does a fine job of representing the legacy and popularity of the LEGO brand through the eyes of its fan base. The story itself speaks to both the LEGO builders who always follow the instructions (I’m not afraid to admit that I’m one of them) as well as those who like to go ‘outside the box’ and by doing so, this movie will appeal directly to both groups of fans. As directors, Lord and Miller certainly fall into the latter group as proven by some of the creative decisions that they have made in their films, which is once again evident because of this film’s unexpected turn of events.

Also, the animation in this film is fantastic. From what I hear, this film was a mix of computer animation and stop-motion animation. With that in mind, I now want to know what parts of this movie were actually done in stop-motion. I mean, sure, the majority of the film clearly must be computer animated but part of the reason why it’s so good is because, in execution, it really feels like stop-motion animation. It’s quite amazing to see how everything in this movie, even special effects like fire and water, is made to look like they were really made out of LEGOs. Of course, like with a lot of great animated films, this one also boasts an excellent voice cast. Everyone is well cast in their respective roles and this film has a great cast of characters, including the no-nonsense Bad Cop who has a split personality where he’s also sometimes a Good Cop (Liam Neeson in a rare comedic turn) as well as a great comedic interpretation of Batman as done by Will Arnett. Also, be sure to be on the lookout for some pretty cool cameos along the way.

My friend Augie made a good point recently about how Phil Lord and Chris Miller have been very successful at taking projects that wouldn’t seem to be good ideas at first and turn them into something that ends up being far better than what we initially expected. I mean, I’m pretty sure that none of us were thinking that ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs’ and ‘21 Jump Street’ would turn out to be as good as they were, but they were. The same can definitely be said for ‘The LEGO Movie’. On the surface it does look like a ‘marketing gimmick’ to sell products and in the end there’s part of it that no doubt feels like a feature-length LEGO commercial (it was unavoidable). But then this film pulls one of the best twists in recent memory and as a result, it turns out to be a very well-made animated film. It has excellent animation, a terrific voice cast, and a story that may seem simple at first glance but in the end it turns out to be one that has a lot of heart. This film does a great job at representing the LEGO brand and its dedicated fans. For LEGO fanatics, this is an absolute must-see but even if you aren’t, this is still one that I highly recommend because it truly is one of the best animated films in recent years.

Rating: 5/5!

2012 End of Year Preview: Part 2: October

Welcome back to this 4-part look into the upcoming movies in the final quarter of 2012. This is Part 2 and today we'll be looking into the films coming out during the month of Halloween, October.

*Director Tim Burton's first film of the year, May's 'Dark Shadows', was neither a critical or commercial hit. But Burton isn't done yet this year, as his second film 'Frankenweenie' hits theaters on October 5^th. Like with many of his previous projects, this film is a remake but this remake just so happens to be based off one of Burton's old projects of the same name, a live-action 1984 short film which he made while working for Disney about a young boy who re-animates his dog Sparky back to life after he died. This new version is stop-motion and stars many actors who were in previous Burton films, including Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, and Martin Landau.

*2008's 'Taken' was one of the first to establish Liam Neeson as a premier action star. He returns to his role of ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills in 'Taken 2'. This new film follows Mills as he travels to Istanbul on vacation with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). Mills soon runs into trouble again when he runs into a group of gangsters looking to enact revenge on Mills for their comrades who he killed in the first film. 'Taken 2' hits theaters on October 5^th.

*Ben Affleck proved that he is a all-star director with the acclaimed Boston thrillers 'Gone Baby Gone' and 'The Town'. For his third directorial effort, Affleck leaves Boston for Iran with 'Argo', which is based off of the true events of a rescue attempt by the U.S. government to save six U.S. diplomats during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. Affleck stars as Tony Mendez, a CIA agent who comes up with a plan to convince Iran that the diplomats are a part of a film crew who are scouting on location for a science fiction movie. The film also stars Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin and will hit theaters on the 12^th.

*For those looking for a comedy, 'Here Comes the Boom', the latest from Happy Madison, comes out the same weekend as Argo. Kevin James stars as a biology teacher who becomes an MMA fighter when budget cuts threaten his school.

*October 19^th sees the release of the latest entry in the highly successful Paranormal Activity franchise, 'Paranormal Activity 4'. While the last two entries in this series were prequels, this is the first true sequel to the original film from 2007. This film follows a young teen and her mother who start to experience strange events in their home when the series' main character Katie, now possessed by a demon, moves in next door with her sister's son Hunter, now called 'Robbie'. Paranormal Activity 3 directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost return to helm this new film.

*That same weekend sees the release of spy thriller 'Alex Cross'. It is the third adaptation of the hit book series of the same name by author James Patterson. The previous two films, 'Kiss the Girls' and 'Along Came a Spider' starred Morgan Freeman in the role of Cross. This film stars Tyler Perry as Cross, who fights a serial killer known as 'The Butcher', played by Matthew Fox.

*The final big-name release in October is the much talked about 'Cloud Atlas', an epic adventure film from the creators of 'The Matrix'. Set during multiple time periods, the ensemble cast includes Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, and Jim Broadbent. It is based on the 2004 novel of the same name by author David Mitchell and will be released on the 26^th.

Nothing really major in terms of limited releases this month, so that's it for October. Check back soon for Part 3 where we take a look into the month of November.