Austin Powers Trilogy Retrospective

Thanks to the continuing devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, practically every major blockbuster that was set to come out this year (apart from Tenet and Mulan) has been pushed back to 2021. This includes what was quite arguably the first big release to get pushed back once COVID rolled around, No Time to Die, the 25^th installment of the James Bond franchise and, by all accounts, Daniel Craig’s final foray as 007. Originally set for an April 2020 release, it was pushed back to this month… but was then pushed back again and is now set to come out a full year after its pre-COVID intended release. But to make up for the absence of what is arguably the most prominent spy franchise in all of pop culture, today I decided that it’d be fun to look at a franchise that was greatly inspired by James Bond. Yes, folks, today we’re talking about the grooviest of franchises, baby, the Austin Powers films. There have been several works that have parodied the James Bond franchise over the years such as the Johnny English trilogy and even some of the unofficial Bond films like 1967’s Casino Royale (obviously not to be confused with Daniel Craig’s first outing as James Bond from 2006). And yet, there are arguably none that are more prominent than the adventures of the spy whose mojo is wholly unmatched, Austin Powers. The series, created by SNL alum Mike Myers, largely parodies the Bond films of the 60’s while also paying homage to the various bits of ’60s and 70’s British pop culture that Myers was raised on thanks to his dad. Myers, of course, headlines the franchise as the titular Austin Powers but also portrays several of the villains that he contends with, including his arch-nemesis, Dr. Evil. Three Austin Powers films were released from 1997 to 2002, and while the critical reception towards them was generally varied, they were all huge hits financially. And while nothing’s been set in stone yet, Myers and series director Jay Roach have frequently hinted at the possibility of a fourth film. Until then, get ready to live dangerously as we look at the James Bond franchise’s most famous spoof, the Austin Powers trilogy. Yeah baby!!!

AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY (1997)

The film that started it all for this franchise, 1997’s Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, is exactly that, a franchise starter. It does its job of setting up many of the franchise’s most definitive aspects that were then promptly expanded upon in the sequels. Overall, though, this film is mostly just… average. As a Bond fan, I do appreciate all the comedic riffs on the franchise, such as its take on the cliché of the villain putting the main protagonist in an “easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death”. But as far as the humor is concerned, this film can admittedly be hit-or-miss when it comes to its jokes. Part of this can be attributed to the main character himself, Austin Powers. He does have some standout moments here and there, but at the end of the day, I think many would agree that he’s not the main reason why these films were such a hit. Instead, that honor goes to Mike Myers’ other lead character from this franchise, Dr. Evil, a character who’s just as delightfully sinister as he is hilariously dorky. Any of the scenes in which he interacts with his associates, whether it’s his allies such as Number 2 (Robert Wagner) and Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling) or his emotionally distant son Scott (Seth Green) are easily the best parts of the film and they do make up for any of its lesser moments. Still, like I said before, this first Austin Powers film is only ‘okay’. I’ll admit that, from a personal perspective, this is probably because I’m not really part of the generation that ‘grew up’ with this series nor am I that familiar with classic British pop culture aside from the Connery-era Bond films. Case in point, my recent viewing of this film was the first time that I ever watched it in full. As such, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it’s a decently entertaining spoof of the James Bond franchise but there’s not much else to it aside from that.

Rating: 3.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (1999)

The best way to describe the second Austin Powers film, The Spy Who Shagged Me, is that it appropriately mirrors the evolution that the James Bond franchise went through after Dr. No. You see, as much as Dr. No is responsible for kick-starting 007’s cinematic adventures, newcomers to the franchise may be surprised to learn that it doesn’t feature some of the most common elements of a Bond film (e.g. a proper opening titles song, getting gadgets from Q, etc.). Instead, it was its immediate follow-ups, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, that were largely responsible for incorporating many of the things that made the franchise a cultural phenomenon. And sure enough, the same can be said about The Spy Who Shagged Me as it introduces some of the most standout parts of the trilogy that weren’t in the first film, highlighted, of course, by the introduction of Verne Troyer as Dr. Evil’s clone, Mini-Me. With all that in mind, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a superior follow-up to the original film in several ways. Whereas the original’s heavily improv-based comedy resulted in a film that often felt quite aimless, this one opts for a more traditional plot complete with a time-travel concept that, in an utterly hilarious manner, is something that not even the film tries to take too seriously. And because of this, the humor is a lot more consistent this time around to the point where many of Austin Powers’ bits are just as hilarious as the ones with Dr. Evil and company, which is a huge step-up from the previous film. Sure, it may not be as focused on being a Bond spoof as its predecessor was, but it certainly one-ups it when it comes to having a stronger sense of humor. As such, it’s easy to see why this one is often considered to be the definitive Austin Powers film, especially since it is the highest-grossing entry of the trilogy having grossed over $312 million worldwide. While International Man of Mystery was a solidly entertaining Bond spoof, its gags were largely hit-or-miss. By comparison, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a bona fide comedic riot throughout and is the very definition of a better-made and all-around superior sequel.

Rating: 4.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER (2002)

Boasting the largest budget of any film in the trilogy with $63 million, Austin Powers in Goldmember is very much the ‘blockbuster’ of the trilogy as it’s a film that fully embraces its franchise’s popularity any chance that it gets. But while it was a smash hit financially like The Spy Who Shagged Me and wasn’t outright panned or anything, it seems like most Austin Powers fans tend to ignore this one and there’s one easily discernable reason why. As far as these films are concerned, Goldmember is a blatant case of ‘been there, done that’ as it rehashes practically all the biggest gags from the previous two films. It’s also worth noting that, at this point, the series is more focused on satirizing pop culture in general rather than being a Bond spoof. And so, because of all this, the film is ultimately more on par with the generally hit-or-miss International Man of Mystery than it is with the consistently funny Spy Who Shagged Me even though it is following many of the same beats that worked so well for the latter. Now, in the film’s defense, this doesn’t mean that its humor is non-existent or anything because there are some solid gags such as the sight of an in-universe Austin Powers film directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise in the titular role or the scene in which Austin keeps misreading subtitles. Plus, the film also brings in Michael Caine, who’s great as always in the role of Austin’s equally suave father Nigel. Overall, though, Goldmember ends up being a considerable step down in quality in the wake of The Spy Who Shagged Me. And since International Man of Mystery was, at the very least, not the latest installment of an ongoing series, that means that Goldmember basically ends up being the worst installment of the trilogy by default because of how shamelessly routine it is. Again, this doesn’t mean that I think that it’s downright terrible, but at the same time, if that potential fourth Austin Powers film ends up getting made, Myers and company are going to need to shake things up considerably so that it doesn’t end up feeling like an outdated revival of a popular franchise from the 90’s.

Rating: 2.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective of the Austin Powers trilogy. As I noted earlier, while I’m technically part of the generation that grew up with these films, this was the first time that I ever watched them. So, with that in mind, for those who have obviously watched these films a lot more often than I have, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of this franchise. Until then, thanks for following along and to paraphrase the man himself, remember to stay groovy, baby!

Tenet (2020) review

 

Well, folks, I recently did something that I haven’t done for more than half a year; I went into a theater setting to see the latest film release. To be clear, I’m not referring to the traditional movie theater since I’ll admit that I’m not yet ready to go back to that just yet given the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is still far from over. Instead, I’m referring to the timeless tradition that is the drive-in theater. Prior to this year, one could’ve viewed the art of going to the drive-in as something that was becoming outdated due to the decreasing amount of drive-in theaters in the United States (case in point, the Rustic Tri-View Drive-In, which is conveniently located not too far from my home in Rhode Island, is the only drive-in left in the state). However, due to the need for social distancing, drive-ins have become a lot more popular recently since they provide what is quite arguably the safest method of viewing films with a crowd outside of the ‘watch party’ options that streaming services have started to implement. And while much of this year’s new releases have either been delayed to next year or moved to streaming services, some films have been daring enough to get released theatrically despite the odds, with the biggest of the bunch being Tenet, the latest outing from director Christopher Nolan. At this point, Nolan is someone who needs no introduction as he has very much established himself as one of the top filmmakers in the industry with a wide array of hugely successful films. Not only is he responsible for the successful revitalization of the Batman film franchise thanks to his Dark Knight trilogy, but he’s also been big on delivering original screenplays in an age of sequels, remakes, and reboots with hits such as Memento, Inception, and Dunkirk. This is once again apparent in his new film, Tenet, which is another premier display of his directorial talents… even if his knack for complex narratives does prove to be a bit of a problem this time around.

After an undercover operation at an opera house in Kyiv goes wrong, a lone, unnamed CIA agent (John David Washington) ends up being the sole survivor of his team and is captured by Russian mercenaries. When the agent (who’s also referred to as ‘the Protagonist’) tries to take a cyanide pill to avoid revealing classified information, he learns that this was all a test and that he’s now under the employment of a secret organization known as Tenet. Through the instructions of his new boss Fay (Martin Donovan), the Protagonist learns that he’s about to partake in a mission meant to ensure the survival of humanity by preventing the start of World War III. To do so, he must confront Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh), a key member of the Russian oligarchy who’s on the hunt for a series of mysterious artifacts tied to the various countries that possess nuclear weapons. Aided by his new handler Neil (Robert Pattinson) and art appraiser Katherine Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), Sator’s estranged wife, the Protagonist finds himself in a race against time to prevent Sator from collecting all these artifacts in his efforts to destroy the world. In the process, however, the Protagonist discovers that there’s a lot more to this operation than he was initially led to believe. After experiencing a unique anomaly during that previously mentioned undercover operation where he witnessed a bullet being ‘un-fired’ by an unknown operative, the Protagonist learns about the process of ‘inversion’ where people and objects can travel backwards through time. And if that wasn’t enough, the Protagonist learns that Sator is just as well-versed with the process and fully intends to use it to accomplish his sinister plot.

Tenet is very much a Christopher Nolan film in every conceivable aspect of its production, especially when it comes to its technical merits. Nolan is, after all, well-known for his preference towards practical special effects rather than CGI, which is once again on full display here in many of the film’s signature moments, such as an actual Boeing 747 crashing into a hangar. And just like his previous two films, Interstellar and Dunkirk, Tenet boasts excellent cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema. While the consequences of our current worldwide predicament meant that I was sadly unable to see this in 70mm IMAX (which I’m sure would’ve looked amazing), that doesn’t stop the film from being another visually stunning outing from Nolan. However, if there’s one thing that does hold this film back, it’s its screenplay which, in true Nolan fashion, is a deeply layered and fully complex narrative with all sorts of twists and turns. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the problem is that this film’s plot is too complicated to the point where it’s practically incomprehensible because, to be perfectly frank, that’s not even close to being the case here. At the very least, it does get its main plot-points across in a succinct enough manner. In fact, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it does an excellent job with how certain plot-threads that it builds up result in top-notch payoffs, which ties in quite nicely with the whole time-bending concept. Really, the biggest problem with the script is that, for the most part, it feels like a non-stop barrage of exposition, and that’s even when taking the film’s hefty two-and-a-half-hour runtime into account. In other words, while it doesn’t really drag at any point, its rapid pacing can often leave you feeling quite overwhelmed at the worst possible times.

Another thing that people tend to bring up when it comes to Nolan films is that he’s usually more of a story-driven filmmaker than a character-driven one, which often results in the argument that his films tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to character development. And while that is quite arguably the case with this film as well, it still boasts a phenomenal ensemble. John David Washington headlines the film nicely as ‘the Protagonist’ who, admittedly, is mainly just an audience surrogate without any substantial backstory but the role still lets Washington convey the kind of strong charisma that he clearly must’ve inherited from his father, Denzel. He also has great camaraderie with Robert Pattinson as the Protagonist’s handler Neil, who does get a bit more to work with character-wise once the film starts to reveal more information about Neil’s true connection to the Protagonist. Moving on to the film’s female lead, Elizabeth Debicki as the main antagonist’s estranged wife Katherine, there’s been some debate on whether ‘Kat’ is just a ‘damsel in distress’. This is something that ties into yet another recurring argument surrounding Nolan films where, apart from a few select exceptions such as Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises and Murphy Cooper in Interstellar, their female characters don’t really get much to work with in the grand scheme of things. But with Kat, though, I’d say that this is one of those exceptions. There’s only really one stretch of the film where she has to be rescued by the Protagonist, and overall, she gets to play a considerably large role in the plot given her tumultuous relationship with her husband and how she’s mainly driven by her desire to protect their son. Finally, speaking of her husband Andrei, Kenneth Branagh is another big standout of the cast as a villain who’s appropriately sinister without being too over-the-top.

I’m about to say something that I honestly believed I would never say. For the first time ever, I left a Christopher Nolan film feeling… rather indifferent about it. However, this doesn’t mean that I think that Tenet is ‘bad’ because, well, it isn’t. From a technical perspective, this film is practically flawless. Whether it’s the excellent cinematography or top-notch action sequences that were entirely done on a practical level, Tenet is another prime showcase of Nolan’s talents as a director. Ultimately, though, the biggest thing that hurts this film is its script as Nolan’s habit of overly complicated narratives ends up being a major hindrance this time around. It’s not that this film is so convoluted that you can’t understand it. The problem is that it tries to cram in so much information without ever stopping to take a break, which is something that its substantially long runtime offered it plenty of opportunities for. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t think that this sort of thing was ever a big issue with any of Nolan’s other notoriously ‘complex’ films such as Memento or Inception. Ultimately, though, while it really could’ve benefitted from some steadier pacing, Tenet is still the very definition of a film that’s an absolute must-see on the big screen… you know, if you can. Yes, it’s time to address the elephant in the room that is the continuing devastation that’s been brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic. While Christopher Nolan may arguably be the staunchest defender of the cinematic experience, Tenet has been royally screwed over by COVID-19 just as much as all the other films that were slated to come out this year. Sure, it may have managed to end up being the first blockbuster release to come out after the nationwide shutdown of theaters back in March, but it was still forced to push back its release date three separate times. And even then, Warner Bros. had to release it internationally first since, let’s face it, folks, other countries are handling this pandemic a hell of a lot better than we are here in the U.S. Thus, as much as I hate to admit it, I probably won’t be able to see this film again until after it hits the home video market. Despite this, though, I assure you that I’m very eager to see it again to see if my initial thoughts towards it end up changing in any way.

Rating: 3.5/5

Disney/Pixar's Cars: Double Feature Review (2006/2011)

This weekend sees the release of Pixar Animation’s first release of 2017, Cars 3. It is, of course, the third installment of the studio’s highly successful franchise… at least, from a commercial perspective. In terms of merchandising sales, this series has earned over $10 billion worldwide, easily making it one of Disney’s most commercially successful brands. But in terms of critical reception, the Cars films are generally regarded as some of Pixar’s weakest outings. The second film, especially, is quite infamous for being their first negatively-received film, breaking a ‘win-streak’ that had been going on ever since their first feature film, Toy Story, back in 1995. Thus, there’s quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding this new film. Will it be subjected to the same mixed reception as its predecessors, or could it potentially turn things around for the franchise? We’ll soon find out, but until then, today I’ll be doing a double feature pairing of reviews for the first two Cars films. Now, technically speaking, I did review these films before back in 2013, when I did a ‘Pixar Retrospective’ in time for Pixar’s then-newest release, Monsters University. However, those ‘reviews’ didn’t have much to them content-wise, meaning that the following reviews are going to be more constructive by comparison. Also, I’ll admit that I haven’t watched either of these films in quite some time, so it’ll be interesting to see if my opinions on them change in any way. Finally, I just want to mention that I won’t be doing reviews for the two Planes spin-off films that were released in 2013 and 2014. No, it’s not because both were subjected to generally mixed reviews and, from what I’ve read, were initially meant to be direct-to-video releases. It’s just that I wanted to focus solely on the Cars films for today’s post. Plus, the Planes films were not made by Pixar. While they were produced by Pixar’s John Lasseter (director of the first two Cars films) and are considered spin-offs of the Cars franchise, they were instead made by DisneyToon Studios, Disney’s home video division. We’re only talking about Pixar today, folks! Ka-Chow!

CARS (2006)

We start things off, of course, with 2006’s Cars, the film that spawned one of Disney and Pixar’s most successful franchises in terms of its merchandising. However, while it did do fine with critics, it wasn’t considered one of the studio’s best efforts. Thus, it could be argued that this film (and its sequel) basically went on to spawn the internet mindset which argues that if a Pixar film isn’t an outright critically-acclaimed effort (or, as I like to call it, a ‘15/10 masterpiece’), it ain’t worth a damn. Here’s where I disagree with that notion. Yes, I’ll admit that the plot of Cars is a simpler one compared to other Pixar films; in fact, many have pointed out the similarities that it shares with Doc Hollywood, a 1991 film starring Michael J. Fox which has a similar plot. And I’m also well-aware of how quite a few people have questioned the concept and logistics behind a universe in which cars are portrayed as sentient beings without human drivers. But, even with all this in mind, that doesn’t mean that the film doesn’t have any heart because it does. It’s a story about an egotistical celebrity, a racer named Lightning McQueen, who learns to have a greater appreciation for the old-fashioned charm of a simpler lifestyle when he gets stuck in a forgotten town on Route 66 while on the way to a big race. This overall arc that Lightning goes through is well-handled, and the film also does a great job of making the residents of the Route 66 town that he comes to, Radiator Springs, a lovable bunch. Case in point, I dare you not to get even a little bit emotional during the ‘Our Town’ sequence, where we see how Radiator Springs was severely impacted by the development of a nearby interstate that caused a severe blow to their town’s tourism.

These characters are portrayed excellently by a great ensemble cast that includes the likes of Owen Wilson as Lightning, Larry the Cable Guy as Lightning’s dim-witted but loyal best friend Mater the Tow Truck (I know Larry the Cable Guy isn’t the most popular comedian out there, but Mater IS a legitimately lovable supporting character), and the legendary Paul Newman in his final film role* as Radiator Springs’ resident judge/mechanic Doc Hudson, who is revealed to have been a famous racer himself back in the day known as the ‘Hudson Hornet’ before a devastating crash forced him out of the game. This, by the way, also happens to be a retroactively subtle set-up for the events of the new film, which will see Lightning go through the same hardships as his mentor. And, of course, the animation is just as great as you’d expect from a Pixar production. I do love all the ways in which the film reimagines our world through the eyes of cars (e.g. cows are portrayed as tractors (the ‘tractor-tipping’ scene… need I say more?)). So, in short, I’ll admit that my love for this film may partially stem from the fact that it was one of those films that I saw at a young age and then proceeded to re-watch numerous times when I got it on DVD. However, upon this most recent re-watch, I find that I still stand by my overall opinion on this film; that it truly is a worthwhile entry in Pixar’s prestigious filmography and an underrated one at that. No, I’m not saying that it’s one of their absolute best; some parts of it are, admittedly, kind of slow. But at the end of the day, it’s more than enough proof that not every film that Pixar makes needs to be a game-changing masterpiece.

Rating: 4.5/5

(*It’s recently been confirmed that Doc Hudson will appear in Cars 3 via unused audio of Paul Newman taken from this film)

CARS 2 (2011)

And here we are… Cars 2, the film that effectively killed Pixar’s ‘winning streak’ as their first effort that garnered generally negative reviews from critics. Sure, it did solid enough at the box-office and it did continue to impact the franchise’s impressive track record when it comes to merchandise sales. But as for Pixar fans, some felt that this was a betrayal (a criminal offense, even) from the legendary animation company to put out an ‘inferior’ film like this after all that they’ve done. Seriously, I wish that I was kidding about this, but my friend and fellow blogger Kyle Ostrum (kylesanimatedworld.blogspot.com and kylelovesanimationnmore.wordpress.com) has informed me that he once saw comments like that in online forums. Now that I have finally seen this film for the first time ever since I saw it at the Wellfleet Drive-in in Cape Cod back in 2011, what do I think about it now? Well… it’s honestly not THAT bad. Granted, though, it’s far from perfect. Ultimately, the biggest issue with Cars 2 is that the overall narrative is a messy one. The main plot consists of Lightning McQueen participating in a worldwide Grand Prix after he’s challenged by a hot-shot Italian formula racer named Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro). This then leads to him, Mater, and the Radiator Springs crew going on a world tour to spots like Japan, Italy, and London. Now that alone would be a cool idea for a Cars sequel, as it allows us to see this world of cars expanded upon in fascinating ways. But then there’s the other plot of the film, which involves Mater unintentionally getting caught up in the world of espionage when two agents, veteran Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and rookie field agent Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), confuse him for one of their contacts. This is also a rather cool route for a Cars film to explore. I mean, sure, maybe it’s a bit ‘out there’ given this franchise’s simpler roots, but it does lead to some fun action sequences.

But ultimately, that’s the big problem here… when paired together, these two plotlines don’t properly co-exist. Despite what I said earlier about the World Tour/Grand Prix being the focus of the plot, it’s ultimately the other way around. It’s the spy plot that comes first, basically making Mater the main character of the film. And remember what I said earlier about how not everyone is a fan of Larry the Cable Guy? Well, if you aren’t... then you’re probably not going to like this film for this exact reason. As for me though, as I noted before, I am a fan of Mater the character, so I personally didn’t mind him getting more screen-time in this film. However, this also means that Lightning, AKA the MAIN CHARACTER OF THE SERIES, is relegated to a supporting role along with the other members of the Radiator Springs gang. And yet, based on the film’s teaser trailer, it seemed like Lightning was going to be involved in the spy stuff as well… that’s ultimately not the case here. With that said, though, I do genuinely like the arc that Mater goes through in this film as he tries to prove to everyone that he’s not just some goofball. Plus, the animation is excellent, as one can always expect from Pixar, and the racing scenes are entertaining as are the action sequences involving the spy characters. Thus, in conclusion, Cars 2 seriously isn’t as bad as the internet has consistently put it out to be. I mean, to be fair, if I had to rank this amongst the other films in Pixar’s filmography, it would admittedly be near the bottom of the list… in fact, maybe even the exact bottom. Still, in my book, that’s not too much of a bad thing because I don’t hold Pixar to the same high standards that the internet holds it to. And from what I’ve heard, a lot of this film’s shortcomings were just the result of Pixar being somewhat rushed into getting this film completed. Hopefully, that isn’t the case with Cars 3, which is set to re-embrace the series’ roots.

Rating: 3.5/5

And those are my [potentially controversial] thoughts on the Cars films. Thanks for following along and stay tuned, as a review of Cars 3 will be posted sometime in the next week. Until then…

KA-CHOW!

Now You See Me 2 (2016) review

May 2013 saw the release of director Louis Leterrier’s Now You See Me, a magic-themed caper centering on a group of magicians known as the Four Horsemen who performed a series of elaborate heists during their performances, gave the money they stole to their audience, and always stayed one step ahead of the FBI. While the film received generally mixed reviews, with some criticizing the film’s twist-filled screenplay, it was actually a surprise hit at the box office, grossing over $350 million worldwide. I say ‘surprise hit’ because, to reference the review that I wrote for the film, I have the feeling that magic acts a la David Copperfield (who’s actually one of the sequel’s producers) and Penn and Teller haven’t really been as popular in recent years as they once were. However, that didn’t end up affecting Now You See Me in the slightest and of course, that’s now led to a sequel: Now You See Me 2. The majority of the first film’s cast return for this new film, with the only major exception being a change in female leads, but this time around there’s a change in director. Instead of Louis Leterrier, Jon Chu (director of another franchise sequel, 2013’s G.I. Joe Retaliation, as well as last year’s rather infamous critical/commercial bomb Jem and the Holograms) steps in to direct the Four Horsemen’s next adventure. And believe it or not, Now You See Me 2 actually manages to be a superior sequel to what was already a pretty solid magic-based thriller. Like its predecessor, this film is full of twists and turns as well as plenty of really cool magic-related visuals. Ultimately though there are some things that this film does, namely in terms of pacing and plotting, that actually help make it a stronger film as a whole.

It has been a year since the Four Horsemen; street magician J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), mentalist Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson), sleight of hand illusionist/card throwing expert Jack Wilder (Dave Franco), and escapist Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher, who did not return to reprise her role in the sequel) pulled off a series of elaborate heists all across the country, all of which were revealed to have been orchestrated by FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) in order to strike back at those who were directly and indirectly responsible for the death of his father, magician Lionel Shrike. When the team, now including new recruit Lula May (Lizzy Caplan), is reunited to pull off another heist, this time against a tech magnate, they are suddenly exposed when a mysterious figure publicly reveals their secrets, including the fact that Jack faked his death in the previous film and that Dylan is their ‘leader’. As they try and escape from the FBI, the team suddenly find themselves halfway across the world in Macau, China and are forced to work for tech prodigy Walter Mabry (Daniel Radcliffe), who was the one who publicly outed them. Walter blackmails them into stealing for him a special computer chip that he had developed with his former work partner, the aforementioned tech magnate, before he had been ‘screwed over’. With no other options for them to get back on their feet, the Horsemen agree to steal the chip for Walter and find themselves having to pull off their biggest heist yet in order to set things right.

Like the first film, this film’s plot is full of twists and turns and admittedly you might end up figuring some of them out from a mile away before they happen. Either that or you’re probably going to notice some plot-holes if you really start to look deeper into the plot. But even with that in mind, like the first film Now You See Me 2 benefits greatly from its unique premise of combining a heist plot with the art of magic. And while I’m very much well aware that quite a few of the ‘tricks’ pulled off in the film were done with CGI, it still results in some really cool visual moments, from the Horsemen tossing a playing card containing the computer chip around so that guards won’t notice it to Daniel manipulating rain during an appearance in London (and for the record, the film does explain how he was able to do this). Ultimately though there are two main reasons why this film actually manages to surpass its predecessor. For one thing, Chu gives the film a much more energetic atmosphere as well as stronger pacing, which definitely helps keep things lively at all times. And second, this film actually focuses more on the Horsemen this time around. Because in the first film, the focus was split between the Horsemen and the FBI, prior to the reveal that Rhodes was the ‘fifth’ Horsemen, and admittedly it felt like the latter group were focused on more, which turned out to be quite a bit of a detriment in regards to the Horsemen. Now that Rhodes is revealed to be working with the Horsemen, this film very much gives them more screen time while the FBI is more or less a non-factor this time around. And ultimately that is a good thing as it allows for the group to have stronger character development and for the film to spend much more time on them pulling off heists.

As noted earlier, of the original Four Horsemen, only Isla Fisher is absent this time around due to her recent pregnancy. And admittedly the way that the filmmakers handle her character’s absence is the usual ‘relationship issues with the main character’ card that always tends to get pulled in a situation like this (e.g. Mila Kunis in Ted 2). Thankfully, Lizzy Caplan proves to be an excellent replacement for Fisher. Caplan works well with her main co-stars and her character’s extremely chipper personality ends up being one of the many contributors to the film’s livelier feel. Of course, like last time, the main quartet that make up the Horsemen (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Franco, and now Caplan) are excellent. They work off of each other well and they all benefit from being given more focus plot-wise. Heck, Woody Harrelson even gets to be in a dual role this time around as the film introduces Merritt’s twin brother Chase, who is shown to not really be on the best of terms with his brother. Now a part of the team for good, Mark Ruffalo actually gets a lot of good material to work with here as the film further fleshes out Dylan’s character. While he may not get to do anything magic-related like he did in the Harry Potter films, Daniel Radcliffe proves to be a pretty darn enjoyable villain who can be both hilarious and even a little odd at times. Finally, the film also sees the return of Morgan Freeman, who’s character Thaddeus Bradley, a magic debunker who frequently crossed paths with the Horsemen in the first film, once again proves to be a wild card in the film’s plot, and Michael Caine, who like in the first film is admittedly barely in this film as the Horsemen’s former benefactor Arthur Tressler.

You’ve probably noticed in my past few reviews that I’ve covered quite a few sequels recently that I feel actually managed to outdo their predecessors and that is very much the case with Now You See Me 2. I really liked the first Now You See Me because while it did have some flaws, I quite enjoyed it for its magic-based premise, which led to some pretty darn cool visual moments. As someone who grew up with the Harry Potter films (which is a fitting reference by the way considering that Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, stars in the sequel), I’ve always liked the concept of magic and quite enjoyed the idea of a heist film about magicians, which probably explains why I ended up liking the film as much as I did. And as for the sequel, it actually manages to outdo its predecessor. Not only does this film benefit from a much more energetic feel, both in terms of pacing and its overall tone, but the fact that the film spends more time on the Horsemen and doesn’t try to split focus up between them and the FBI actually helps give the main characters, and the film as a whole, more dimension. Sure at the end of the day the film may still be a bit predictable at times and you’ll probably notice some major plot-holes if you really start to analyze the plot. But thanks to Chu’s confident direction and a stronger sense of kinetic energy, Now You See Me 2 ends up being not only another highly entertaining magic-themed caper but also a superior sequel in almost every way. So in other words, if you didn’t like the first Now You See Me, there’s a good chance you might actually like this one more.

Rating: 4.5/5

  

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) review

I’m a big fan of the James Bond franchise and in 2006, the 21^st entry of that prestigious film series, ‘Casino Royale’ was released in theaters. But this one was much different than the Bond films that came before it and there was a fairly good reason for this as the producers decided to reboot the series after the previous film, 2002’s ‘Die Another Day’, was criticized for being way too campy. So as a result, they decided to go the route of the recent ‘Bourne’ films and go for a much grittier take on the character and it’s worked out pretty well for the most part. But if you’re one of those people who misses all of those old-school spy movies then I think you’re really going to enjoy ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’, which is based off of the comic book series of the same name (minus the Kingsman part) by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. This also happens to be the second major film from director Matthew Vaughn to be based on a Millar comic, the other being ‘Kick-Ass’. In the end, ‘Kingsman’ is just as zany and ridiculous as those aforementioned old-school Bond films… and also so damn fun thanks to Vaughn’s excellent direction, a stylish look, and a top notch ensemble cast.

When one of his fellow agents dies during a mission, Kingsman secret agent Harry Hart (Colin Firth) personally visits the agent’s widow and their son, Gary ‘Eggsy’ Unwin. He gives them a medal with a phone number on the back and tells them that, if they ever needed any help, all they had to do was just dial the number on the medal and to use a special message. 17 years later, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is now a juvenile delinquent living with his mom and his abusive stepfather and is constantly getting into trouble with the law. After one arrest, he calls the number on the medal and Hart ends up bailing him out of prison. Eggsy ultimately learns all about the Kingsman and is chosen by Hart as a potential candidate for an open position after another agent is killed during a rescue mission. Eggsy is then enrolled into the training program, which puts him and the other candidates through a series of rigorous tests. While this is going on, technology tycoon Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) is developing a series of special SIM cards that, when activated via a special program, sends out a signal that causes all humans to turn violent. Valentine plans to use these cards to wipeout most of the human population in order to keep it from further destroying the Earth, resulting in the Kingsmen having to stop Valentine before his plan can succeed.

I’ll admit that when the first trailer for this film came out, I wasn’t really sure what to think of it. It looked fine enough but at the time nothing about it really stood out to me that much. But then I saw the red-band trailer and that was the one that really clued me in as to what kind of a film this was and that’s why this film is so damn awesome. As I noted in the intro, it can pretty much be described as a love letter to the old-school spy films (e.g. the pre-2006 Bond films) with its over-the-top tone and action sequences of pure insanity. And even with that in mind, the film actually does manage to stay fairly fresh in terms of its writing, spinning some of the old spy film clichés on its head. Sure, the film’s violence can be just a tad bit overly brutal at times but the film maintains a badass and stylish look, similar to Vaughn’s previous film, ‘X-Men: First Class’, which also felt like an old-school Bond film in regards to its tone and atmosphere. The action sequences are excellent and the film is just entertaining from beginning to end, though I must say the film really shines in the finale. Admittedly some of Vaughn’s films have suffered from weak endings; heck, even ‘First Class’s climax, while not bad, wasn’t that memorable either. But this is where the movie really takes off in terms of its over-the-top action, including one of the most memorable explosion sequences of all time.

One of the best parts of this film comes in the form of its stellar ensemble cast, led by Colin Firth in what I’m pretty sure is his first major role in an action film. And I must say that he handles that transition pretty darn well. He more than holds his own in the action sequences while also maintaining a great sense of charm and wit. Arguably even more impressive in this is newcomer Taron Egerton, who also does a great job at conveying a lot of charm and wit. The fact that he manages to hold his own alongside bigger name actors like Michael Caine (who plays the role of the head of the Kingsmen agents, Arthur) and Mark Strong (who plays Merlin, a senior Kingsmen agent) shows that he has a very promising career ahead of him. And then we have Samuel L. Jackson as the main villain Valentine. Admittedly, like how the first trailer didn’t really ‘wow’ me that much, going in I felt that Jackson might actually be the weak link as it looked like he was just acting way too over the top for this role. But of course, knowing what kind of movie this is, it does work and the end result is an incredibly charismatic villain that also has that badass vibe that one can always expect from Mr. Jackson.

‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ is quite frankly one of the coolest action films of the past decade or so. Like with his previous film ‘First Class’, director Matthew Vaughn, who if you ask me at this point can do no wrong given his directorial track record, brings such a stylish look to the film while also giving a nice big old dose of craziness in terms of its story, action sequences, and overall tone and atmosphere. It’s not a spy film in the veins of recent entries of the genre like ‘Bourne’ and the ‘Casino Royale’ era Bond films but in this case that’s a good thing as instead it harkens back to the spy films of old while also managing to keep things fresh for a modern era. Yes, it’s over-the-top and ridiculous compared to the spy films of today but it’s just straight up fun. In short, the end result is easily the first major ‘stand-out’ film of 2015. I know that this weekend a lot of people are going to go see ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ and that it’ll probably be the Number 1 film of the weekend. For the record, I’m not one of those people who complains whenever audiences make a film like that successful because that’s just mean. But in all seriousness folks, believe me when I say that you’re definitely going to be much better off with this movie.

Rating: 4.5/5