CHOPPY WATERS: a review of "Finding Dory"

"FINDING DORY"
A Pixar Animation Studios Film
Story by Andrew Stanton
Screenplay Written by Andrew Stanton & Victoria Strouse
Directed by Andrew Stanton Co-Directed by Angus MacLane
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG

I am thinking that I just now have to resign myself that Pixar as I knew and loved it is gone.

Dear readers, if you have been regulars followers of this blogsite, then you have been able to chart the evolution of my reviews of films released under the Pixar banner over the previous six years. Through that charting, you will be able to regard the decline in my favorable feelings towards these films as well as my overall distaste at the obvious pandering to commercialism these exceptionally talented filmmakers and animators have taken at the expense of the artistic quality. These creative individuals created the gold standard for American animated feature films for so long that it just still disheartens me that they have seemingly tossed it all aside for the easy money via subpar sequels and prequels making an outstanding feature like "Inside Out" (2015) the rarity when a film like that was once the norm for them.

The prospect of "Finding Dory" certainly did not hold any sense of appeal for me. Partially because it is arriving 13 years after the wonderful, groundbreaking original "Finding Nemo" (2003), but mostly because this film is ushering n a new wave of more Pixar sequels that we'll be seeing over the next few years including the likes of the unrequested "Cars 3" and, let's face it, the wholly unnecessary "Toy Story 4." For me, "Finding Dory" sits somewhere in the middle. It doesn't approach the ingenuity and depth of "Toy Story 2" (1999) but it is also not an unimaginative time waster like "Monsters University" (2013). While it certainly won't upend or match the heights met with "Finding Nemo," this new film is mildly diverting, finding its compelling groove in fits and starts and anchored terrifically by a wonderfully rich and empathetic performance by Ellen DeGeneres as our forgetful heroine.

Opening one year after the events of the first film, the perpetually amnesiac Pacific regal blue tank Dory (again voiced by Ellen DeGeneres) is subjected to a series of flashbacks, fragmented memories and dreams concerning her life long before her meeting with worry-wort Clownfish Marlin (voiced by Albert Brooks) and his son Nemo (now voiced by Hayden Rolence). Her memories now fully triggered inspire her to search for her long lost parents Charlie (voiced by Eugene Levy) and Jenny (voiced by Diane Keaton), whom she has not seen since her childhood.

Dory's odyssey, during which she is often aided and/or pursued by Marlin and Nemo, takes her in and out of the ocean and often inside of the Marine Life Institute where she is tentatively befriended by Hank (voiced by Ed O'Neil), a cantankerous, seven tentacled octopus who is fearful of ocean life and only wishes to be taken from the Institute to a permanent aquarium in Cleveland.

With old friends like Crush the sea turtle (voiced by Andrew Stanton) and new companions like Bailey the beluga whale (voiced by Ty Burrell), Fluke and Rudder, two territorial sea lions (voiced by Idris Elba and Dominic West, respectively) as well as a reunion with her childhood friend, Destiny (voiced by Kaitlin Olson), a near-sighted whale shark, Dory's search for her parents results in a true coming of age adventure where she realizes that what may seem to be her greatest detriment may actually serve as her ultimate virtue.

As with the original film, Andrew Stanton's "Finding Dory" is a dazzling, magnificent feast for the eyes and Pixar's trademark visual presentation is second to none and even improves upon the wondrous sights and details of the first film. For all of the varieties of fish and aquatic life sea animals upon display throughout the film, what really made my eyes pop this time around was all of the details the filmmakers and animators placed within the details of water itself. The water as seen within the ocean, fish tanks, glass cups, to even mop buckets all possessed clear and distinct qualities that differentiated one setting from another and again, I was marveled by the texture and the obvious razor sharp attention to detail that only enhanced this cinematic wonderland.

But even so, with Pixar, this level of attention and artistry is to be expected by this point and anything less than that would essentially be unforgivable by audiences and critics. Even so, I truly wish this same detail was given to the overall storytelling, and therefore, purpose to the entire enterprise. Essentially, "Finding Dory" is not much more than a footnote to an infinitely better film. In fact, I will ask of you to take the same "test" as I have given to people concerning the "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc." series. Ten years from now, which installment do you honestly think that you would still be watching? For me, in this case, it will always be "Finding Nemo" as that film carried a simple, clean and emotionally harrowing yet honest storyline about parental anxieties that just happened to star a collective of sea creatures. It was a world that I hadn't seen before and furthermore, it was a complete, full experience that demanded subsequent repeat viewings that only continued to enrich the experience.

"Finding Dory" on the other hand doesn't offer very much that felt to be of a new variety. That is not to suggest that it was a work of laziness or something more mercenary. I think that Stanton's heart was in the right place. But that being said, the film felt to be somewhat padded in many sections within the Marine Life Institute and especially, the climax. Additionally, jokes that were hysterical the first time around are repeated ad nauseum this time around and I do have to say that a certain credibility was more than lost.

Now, please know that I do understand that I am reviewing an animated feature starring talking fish but I do have to say that within "Finding Nemo," the characters did indeed all tend to behave as...well...fish. It was, for lack of a better word, believable...or at least, I was able to buy the fantasy being presented to me and just lose myself within the story. With "Finding Dory," I was often distracted by how many times our characters found themselves outside of water...and not just once, but several times throughout the film. And returning to that climax, which is, believe it or not, a highway chase with a seven tentacled creature at the wheel, I found myself not buying the fantasy and just finding the proceedings to be more than a little silly ad not remotely compelling or exciting.

What was exciting, compelling and heart tugging for me was Dory herself. As further conceived by Stanton and beautifully voiced by DeGeneres, "Finding  Dory" gave our heroine a greater depth and pathos that fully informed the character, making s see her in an entirely new light while also deepening our love and concern for her well being. The film's opening moments are among the very best and most heartbreaking as we witness Dory as a child immediately forgetting safety instructions her parents have given to her, thus increasing their fear for her overall security and even greater, increasing Dory's sense of helplessness, feeling as a disappointment or failure to her loving parents, to even a lack of self confidence. Once separated from her parents, and for much of the remainder of the film, there existed a certain existential terror at the heart of the otherwise cheerful Dory that made you wish to wrap your own arms around her just to protect her.

With "Finding Dory," her short term memory loss is not utilized as a punchline. In fact, Dory made me think of anyone, especially a child who is armed with a learning disability, ADD or ADHD or someone who  even exists somewhere on the autism spectrum, and I wonder about the difficulties in their navigation of the world. In this case, Dory is indeed that child and what we gather from her adventures is indeed how she does indeed navigate the world, at first making apologies for her difficulties and soon, embracing them as abilities. Dory is an wonderfully uncompromising character in this regard as the film never attempts to alter her personality and in fact, criticizes those who do chastise her for her forgetfulness. Dory is a character who ultimately learns to live with her issues through her perseverance, which gives her strength even when all feels to be forever lost. And to t hat end, Dory may have emerged as one of Pixar's most endearing characters and  would hope that young viewers would latch onto her in an even greater fashion than ever before because she richly deserves any attention and love she may happen to receive.

All in all, "Finding Dory" was fair. Nothing wonderful, nothing terrible. Yet, what makes me feel so sad about this revelation is everything that I have shared wit you in the past. Pixar can do better than this because they have done better than this...over and over and over again.  And besides, after a 13 year wait, don't you think that Dory deserved the very best that Pixar had to offer?

I certainly do...and we deserved it as well.

MATCHMAKER, MATCHMAKER, MEH...: a review of "Maggie's Plan"

"MAGGIE'S PLAN"
Based upon a story by Karen Rinaldi
Written For The Screen and Directed by Rebecca Miller
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
RATED R

Oh dear readers, if you really had any idea as to how closely that I almost wrote the word "meh" for this latest review and left it at that.

Very recently, I began to actually wonder about the status of the romantic comedy. Now, this is not because I had been necessarily missing the genre but with the plethora of sequels, reboots, re-imaginings, comic books movies and toy film franchises having overtaken our theater screens, it is a bit of a surprise to see how other tried and true genres have fallen by the wayside. I have been extremely critical of the romantic comedy genre over the duration of Savage Cinema as it became a genre where people and environments approximating our real world behaved and operated in ways not even one single person would ever behave and all in completely contrived situations and entirely devoid of any notions resembling the romantic.

Granted, filmmakers along the likes of Judd Apatow, Lisa Cholodenko and especially Nicole Holofcener, with films like "Knocked Up" (2007), "The Kids Are All Right" (2010) and the truly special "Enough Said" (2013) respectively, are all examples of how the emotional, sexual and romantic honesty has returned to the genre, therefore delivering much needed new life into romantic comedies, depicting life how it is lived and most importantly felt. That said, the frequency of romantic comedies, even those weaker ones, usually those Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, and/or Kate Hudson driven escapades, with all manner of ridiculous wacky plot lines have faded considerably but still, it is a strange sight to not see those kinds of movies being released often.

And now, we arrive with Writer/Director Rebecca Miller's "Maggie's Plan," a new, independent romantic comedy that certainly attracted me from the trailers I saw through its cast and a certain quality that suggested that the film would be of a witty, literate quality. But there was one troubling element and a major one at that...Ms. Greta Gerwig.

For whatever reasons, I have not been able to drink the kool aid regarding Greta Gerwig, an actress that I have never found to be charming or beguiling. Frankly, I have found her to be maddeningly insufferable, plastic and filled with the very self-congratulatory quirkiness that smack horribly of the worst hipster qualities that I abhor.

Don't get me wrong, this is nothing personal as I do not know her and I do not wish for my feelings to be taken as such. This is solely due to how she has presented herself on screen, most notably within the so-so "Greenberg," (2010), the odious "Frances Ha" (2013) and the even worse "Mistress America" (2015), all three films she has made with Noah Baumbach,

Just the sight of Gerwig now makes me want to disregard the film as a whole...almost, because, this time, with "Maggie's Plan" not being directed by Baumbach, I wondered if perhaps I should give Gerwig just one more chance. Maybe under another director's vision, she would be able to present a different side of her creative personality, one that would hopefully carry the very appeal that has eluded me for all of this time. Unfortunately, "Maggie's Plan" did nothing to alleviate my distaste. Not through any of that aforementioned self-congratulatory quirkiness. No. Just a template that is wholly bland, dry and lifeless.

"Maggie's Plan" stars Greta Gerwig as the titular Maggie,a young, independent yet romantically unlucky New Yorker who decides to become a single Mother and inseminate herself with the sperm of Guy (Travis Fimmel), a former college acquaintance and now, a pickle entrepreneur soon to strike a deal with Whole Foods.

Ever the neurotic and control obsessed, Maggie's life plan takes a surprising turn when she meets John (Ethan Hawke), an author and self-described "ficto-critical anthropologist" stuck in a turbulent marriage to Georgette (Julianne Moore), a time consumed Columbia University professor. Maggie and John strike up a friendship. She begins to read his manuscript. He falls in love with Maggie and the two begin an affair which concludes with the dissolution of John and Georgette's marriage and a new marital union between John and Maggie further culminated with the birth of their daughter.

A few years later, Maggie finds her life with John stuck in a rut and wondering if she has indeed fallen out of love with him. Thus, she hatches a plot to reunite John...and Georgette!!

With the setting, the story and the actors, it would seem that Rebecca Miller's "Maggie's Plan" is setting itself up to function as a sort of classic Woody Allen feature with a collective of  highly educated yet emotionally stunted, overactive or immature New Yorkers, all bantering with quick quips and smart one-liners all on their way to finding some semblance of true love. Sadly, Miller just does not possess Allen's peerless gift with characters, dialogue, and even psychology to make her material fly.

To that end, "Maggie 's Plan" also possesses the classic Allen theme of free will vs. fate or the conceit having a figure attempting to exhibit some level of control over an uncontrollable and unforgiving universe. This is precisely Maggie's plan, or series of plans as she houses a vision of the person she wishes to be fueled by her passionate desires but over and again, finds her best laid plans thwarted by the a variety of circumstances, she surprisingly never saw coming but the audience can see a mile away.

Certainly, this element of the film lends itself to functioning as slapstick, which at its best, could provide wild laughter combined with urgent emotions to fuel its beating heart. But, Miller has serious problems with pacing throughout "Maggie's Plan," as scenes just shuffle and drag along, never really heading anywhere, definitely not building upwards with any sense of momentum and all with a tinge of that ironic distance which does not serve a film of this nature any good whatsoever. There is always a flight of fantasy with the romantic comedy genre that is designed to attempt to give our hearts a lift. Yet, "Maggie's Plan" often feels like the hipster version of a romantic comedy, too concerned with its own image of cool and unwilling to just let go of its own trappings.

As for Greta Gerwig, well, I have to say that she annoyed me the least during this film but I am not won over by any means. In fact, I have to give her a little credit for being perhaps the mos grounded that I have seen her yet. Furthermore, she has one scene early in the film as Maggie describes her upbringing to John during their courtship that is quite lovely in its honesty and tenderness and suggested just what a film "Maggie's Plan" ultimately could have become if it just didn't wallow in its own torpid inertia.

Additionally, and especially in 2016, it was indeed a bit disheartening to have yet another film set in urban New York city that is so insufferably lily white as if no ethnicities beyond Caucasians exist--i.e. the "Friends" dimension, so to speak.

But wait..in a supporting role, there is indeed Maya Rudolph whose character is married to Bill Hader and are parents to two little ones. Now, I do have to say that often during romantic comedies, I tend to find myself wondering and becoming more interested in the leading characters' best friends and sidekicks, often finding them more of an interest and even attractiveness. That quality certainly occurred during "Maggie's Plan," as I grew so tired of viewing these three blandly self-absorbed leading characters stuck in a tired threesome where there was this much more interesting dynamic just to the left of them, an interracial married couple with children in New York City. Following Rudolph, Hader and their kids would have been an infinitely more interesting plan to undertake, in my opinion.

Well, at least "Maggie's Plan" did seem to function in a real world with tangible characters caught in a tangible romantic quandary. I liked Ethan Hawke as his performance felt to be the most emotionally honest--although it, and the film, only served to remind me of the greatness of his collaborations with Richard Linklater on all three of their "Before..." films (1995/2004/2013). Julianne Moore also seemed to be having fun trying on a harsh Danish accent...cute. The film had it's heart in the right place, its intentions were fine and it definitely wasn't stupid.

But the sometimes, and like Maggie discovers over and again, the best laid plans...well, you know.

ANIMAL FARM: a review of "The Lobster"

"THE LOBSTER"
Screenplay Written by Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
**** (four stars)
RATED R

Dear readers, at this time I want for you to take a journey back into your movie memories and think back to any time in your lives when you have exited a film feeling completely transformed or feeling as if your senses have been so profoundly altered that the world looks different than when you first went into the movie theater. The images that you have witnessed have riveted themselves to your brain. You can instantly recall not only the images but the feelings you had when you saw them for the first time. It is the type of movie that ceases to function as solely a movie--even a great one. It s when a movie becomes and experience, where the artistic vision of the filmmaker is so triumphantly complete and uncompromising that you realize that you have entered a bold new world.

At this time, I wish to turn your attention to "The Lobster," Director Yorgos Lanthimos' debut English language feature film as it is the shining example of precisely the type of film...or much better yet, the experience, that I have just described. As of this writing, "The Lobster" is the best film that I have seen in 2016 and I woud be hard pressed to think that I will see another film this year that equals its towering level of artistry and audacity. To delve even further, I also feel that "The Lobster" is one of the very best films that I have seen within these last ten years. 

Yorgos Lanthimos' "The Lobster" is a film of such a rare class and breed, that it firmly sits alongside some other features that superbly rattled my cages and shook me to my core over the recent years, like Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York" (2008). Frankly, and please do forgive the slight vulgarity, but this film kicked my ass--precisely the only words that I was even able to utter to myself once I was finally able to leave the theater and begin my drive back home. In fact, my mind returned me to t hose moments way back in high school when I exited Chicago's Music Box Theater after viewing Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" (1985) for the very first time. Yes, "The Lobster" is that kind of a movie.

Granted, "The Lobster" is not a film designed for the masses and nor should it be. This is a polarizing feature that is designed to be discussed and debated over passionately in either amazement, disgust, confusion or any combined emotions and judgement. And therefore, this level of discourse that is bound to occur once you see the film for yourselves, is exactly what should be expected when confronted with an undeniable work of art or at least, a filmmaker's statement of his/her artistic intent and exploration. Yet remember, one is unable to join the conversation unless one views this unique film and as if you have not been able to gather already, I am passionately urging you to head out and see "The Lobster" as soon as possible.

In the interest of keeping the full experience of "The Lobster" as pure and as untainted as possible, I will keep the plot description to as much as you would gather from the film's trailer. Set in a near future dystopian society, "The Lobster" stars Colin Farrell (in one of his finest and most committed performances to date) as David, a newly unmarried man who leaves his home in The City to check into The Hotel, an establishment where single people are given 45 days to find a lifetime romantic partner yet if they fail to do so within the allotted time, they will be transformed into the animal of their choosing, and in David's case, he decides upon a lobster.

Now, if you are scratching your heads with that description, believe me, I was doing so just as well when I first happened to see the trailers. Being transformed into animals? Was this metaphorical or literal? To know for certain you do need to see the film as I do not wish to spoil but the result of this experience was one that was chillingly disturbing as well as existentially frightening.

What I do feel comfortable sharing with you is that "The Lobster" essentially functions as a pitch black satire/grim science fiction oddity that explores the nature of relationships in the 21st century, much like Spike Jonze's outstanding "Her" (2013)--most specifically, loneliness and the societal constructs about single vs. married people and how those constructs pit one against the other while also creating demands and ideals in both situations so impossible that people would not only be unable to live up to them, any sense of individuality or human empathy are doomed to be crushed by the Kafkaesque Hotel staff and management as well as the band of renegade "Loners" hiding in the woods and finally, the Orwellian nature of The City itself.

In Latinos' dark vision, "The Lobster" presents a world where bisexuality is no longer a viable sexual choice, masturbation is illegal and relationships are formulated solely through some sort of matched physical ailment such as a limp, a lisp, a spontaneously bleeding nose or imperfect vision and through nothing relating to the content of one' character or humanity. For the staff of The Hotel, singledom for males represents a life doomed to die alone after choking upon a meal and for women, the single life represents an existence where she is doomed to be raped unless she is perfectly matched with a man.

Life with The Loners is no less harrowing as no signs of human attraction between each other are allowed whatsoever unless one risks severe punishment. And the two factions are indeed pitted against each other in wholly barbaric fashions also designed to wrestle any sense of humanity out of the equation, therefore making all of us nothing more than animals all engaged in a soul extinguishing pseudo-romantic survival of the fittest and all leading to a shattering climax in which even the adage of "love is blind" is brutally challenged.

Lanthimos also creates a palpable existential urgency as he provides for us the concept of meeting your maker and knowing precisely the date when your last day will occur. What would you do in those circumstances? Fight, flight or accept?

And with all of those themes, "The Lobster" is being promoted as a...comedy.

As I have been going about my business and crowing about this film to friends about my fair city, I have been asked if the film was indeed "funny." Well...that is if you consider something like Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) a comedy. There are mighty Kubrick-ian undertones within Lathinos' aesthetic and presentation. The meticulously constructed and framed visual perspectives, the repetitive classical music that grows more sinister when heard on the soundtrack, the cold, almost detached atmospherics, the uncompromising to nearly impenetrable vision.

And yet, it is somehow playful. I did laugh in places. But, this film is not "funny" like your mainstream comedy by any means. "The Lobster" is nightmare comedy, filled with starkly grim, gallows humor that functions as existential quicksand. The clipped, deadpan vocal delivery of the dialogue which makes everyone sound robotic is not some sort of indie film construct of that self-congratulatory quirkiness that I often rally against. It is entirely purposeful as the characters that exist within this universe all live within a specific space and time where the honesty and fragility of their emotion as and personalities do not comply with society's new rules and to elicit otherwise would be life altering. I guess, think of it like this: "The Lobster" is sort of like Wes Anderson's Grand Budapest Hotel merged with Kubrick's Overlook Hotel from "The Shining" (1980) where one's final destination, should they not find a life partner, is a room straight out of Kevin Smith's "Tusk" (2014)--and save for one short sequence, all without any graphic on-screen violence.

Even with everything that occurs within a film this macabre, Lanthimos also finds comparable room to display some magic, especially every single time that we are witness to an animal. The sight makes you double take for a moment or two and once leaving the theater, animals certainly do carry a certain extra level of presence, where you wonder if there is another layer to their already full personalities that allow us to make these connections with each other.

Yorgos Lanthimos's "The Lobster" is a one-of-a-kind cinematic experience that I am urging you to step outside of your comfort zones to witness upon the big screen. All of the sequels and reboots aren't going anywhere but it is films like these that are really at risk of falling into obscurity. No, it is not meant to be a box office smash but I also believe that it should not be relegated in the corners of the quirky cult film either. To me, Lanthimos has created a work of unquestionable greatness that demands your attention and regard. You may love it as I did or you may loathe it powerfully, and that is purely fine as this is exactly the type of film that wants for you to not view it passively and then forget, but to engage with it, tussle with it, allow it to seep into your minds and emotions to force a reaction and therefore, a response.

"The Lobster" is fearless cinema and again, it is far and away the finest, boldest, bravest, most powerful film that I have seen yet in 2016.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JUNE 2016

Summer is now upon us and with that, the Summer Movie Season will only heat up. With that, I do have to admit to you that as I look at the listings for new releases, I am discovering  how underwhelmed I happen to be as so many, too many are of the sequel/remake/reboot variety. Including two, that do have my curiosity as well as my heavy skepticism...

1. After scoring with what just may be the finest film they have realized in last year's "Inside Out," the wizards of Pixar are now beginning their next phase, an unfortunate stream of sequels opening with the inaugural "Finding Dory," the sequel to one of their finest efforts, "Finding Nemo" (2003). I have to admit to you that for quite some time, I really had not planned upon seeing this film at all. But after reading interviews with Co-Writer/Director Andrew Stanton, I am willing to give this film a chance with the hopes that it will lean more heavily towards the likes of "Toy Story 2" (1999) and not "Cars 2" (2011). 

2. Even more perplexing to me is the arrival of Director Roland Emmerich's "Independence Day: Resurgence," a full 20 years after the original film--but in this age of reboots and sequels, I suppose that it was only inevitable. That said, early trailers have impressed me and maybe this will be as fun of a ride after all. Here's hoping!

3. For something original, I am just itching to get to my Sundance theater this coming weekend and see Director Yorgos Lanthimos' "The Lobster" starring Colin Farrell and Rachael Weisz. Already the recipient of rave reviews, I am seriously looking forward to experiencing something different, something wholly unique and special.

Beyond those three features, we'll just have to see. But, as always, wish me luck and I'll see you when the house lights go down!

WITH GREAT SNARK COMES...AW, YOU KNOW THE REST: a review of "Deadpool"

"DEADPOOL"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld
Screenplay Written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick
Directed by Tim Miller
** (two stars)
RATED R

OK dear readers, I've made it to the party and I've finally seen it. I have now finally seen the comic book film that earlier this year became not only the 5th highest grossing film of the year so far, it has also become the highest grossing film of the "X-Men" film franchise to date as well as the highest grossing R rated film of all time. Yes, the film I am obviously writing about is the subject of this latest review, Director Tim Miller's "Deadpool," his adaptation of the subversive Marvel Comics series. And now, that I have seen it, I am equally of the minds of why so many of you loved the film and also as to why I avoided it for so long and have remained ultimately soft over the end results.

Granted the character of Deadpool is one I really have only known by name as I think he is a figure that emerged long after I ceased reading comic books as my interests gravitated elsewhere. I was more than aware of the fervor over the possibility of a movie version for this character yet once the trailers hit, I was decidedly skeptical to underwhelmed. Yes, I could see that this film was being launched as the Marvel movie to upend and skewer all other Marvel films as well as being unapololgetically R rated to boot.

But even so, didn't the so-called subversive Marvel movie already happen with Writer/Director James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy" (2014)? That film was one I found to not be nearly as clever or as subversive as it thought it was, so with "Deadpool," I feared that it would be more of the same. Additionally, the fact that it was going to be an R rated feature complete with all manner of profanities and graphic violence was not something that I felt to be terribly groundbreaking--maybe when I was 12 years old, but not now. And therefore, I was also fearing that we would end up with something on the level of Director Matthew Vaughn's odious "Kick-Ass" (2010), the likes of which I never wanted to sit through again. While "Deadpool" was thankfully not as repugnant an experience as "Kick-Ass," it was not a grand success for me either, and that for all of its considerable energy and effort, the film was undone by its own ambitions which never really seemed to find a way out of the initial conceptual stages to become something truly inspired.

"Deadpool" stars Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson, a former special forces operative (as well as master of an endless stream of self-indulgent sarcasm) who now works as a mercenary in New York. Upon meeting Vanessa Carlysle (Morena Baccarin), an escort (and one equally adapt with an endless stream of self-indulgent sarcasm) at a local bar, the twosome begin a year long relationship that reaches its own crossroads: a marriage proposal merged with the news that Wade is afflicted with terminal cancer.

Not wishing to allow Vanessa to marry him only to watch him die, Wade is soon approached by a sinister recruiter from a secretive medical program who offers Wade the opportunity to partake in an experimental operation that will cure him of his cancer. Reluctantly leaving Vanessa behind, Wade agrees to the operation but is soon found in the clutches of Francis (he really hates being called that) Freeman a.k.a. Ajax (Ed Skrein) and his henchwoman Angel Dust (Gina Carano) inside of a laboratory and forced to intake the serum of Weapon X, a formula designed to awaken latent mutant genes after being triggered by a series of unspeakable tortures. Once those latent genes are brought to fruition, the victims are to be sold as superslaves to the highest bidders.

Once Ajax traps Wade inside of an airtight tube, cutting off his oxygen, Wade's mutant genes are released, curing his cancer, unleashing a new powers of super strength, agility and healing, thus making him essentially indestructible. On the downside, Wade's body and face are now completely disfigured with a mass of burn-like scars of which Ajax professes to have the sole cure. Escaping the chamber and surviving their first battle after seemingly being left for dead by Ajax, Wade, now christening himself as Deadpool, goes on the hunt for revenge against Ajax wile also hoping to reclaim the love of Vanessa despite his appearance and also continue to rebuff the offers to join the Uncanny X-Men by an ever persistent Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapicic), a Russian born mutant with powers to transform his body into organic steel.

Now,, if all of this sounds to you like the current standard of superhero origin films, then you would be 100% correct. Although, with Tim Miller's "Deadpool," we are given this story with its tongue planted firmly in its cheek just moments before it spits in our eyes with a barrage of four letter words, CGI blood and gore and that aforementioned endless stream of sarcasm and self-congratulatory snark that Ryan Reynolds dolls out with undeniable glee. "Deadpool" is kind of like Marvel's id gone amok.

Yes, this film is easily the movie "Guardians Of The Galaxy" wished that it could have been as far as blowing a hole clean through the superhero film genre and the Marvel films in particular. "Deadpool," through its constant self-reflexive humor, breaking of the fourth wall--even within its own opening and ending credits--and a collection of in jokes that skewer the X-Men films and even Ryan Reynolds himself  But even so, when all is said and done, "Deadpool" exists as a one-note movie because it really just is a one joke movie: a superhero/anti-hero that curses profusely and decapitates his foes with a rampant disregard for...well...anything. Snark for snarks sake may be fine for some (and from the massive box office, it clearly worked on a mass scale) but for me, it was just not enough.

For the steady and rapid fire stream of jokes, I can say that I only laughed heartedly a handful of times during the entire film. Maybe it was because a lot of jokes that were peppered throughout the film's ubiquitous trailers had already landed but mostly because the screenwriters just haven't cracked that inexplicable code that makes dirty words exist beyond being solely dirty words. As far as its level of humor is concerned, it did kind of wear on me that "Deadpool" wallows in the homo-erotic tension/fears of 12-year-old-boy locker room humor and never climbs out of that specific arena which really should be left behind in middle school (and truth be told, is often considerably meaner and funnier)...or at least, the films of the 1980's.

I've said it many times before upon this site, but there is a real artistry and swing to making vulgarity artful and with "Deadpool," once again, the filmmakers had the word but not the music or the rhythm to make it all sing. And once the violent splatter entered the scene, I found the film to be numbingly excessive just to just be numbingly excessive. There was no true release. Nothing to sail the words and the bloodletting over the top into being something truly unique where the nastiness works beautifully and you want more and more of it.

I'd say that "Deadpool" was only really confirming my initial reservation about it for the first third or so and I was resistant to it specifically because there is a real art to R rated humor, comic brutality with graphic violence that so few filmmakers have mastered. Of course, the firsts of its kind for me was indeed Writer/Director John Landis' "An American Werewolf In London" (1981) where its tone was a pitch perfect melding of significant horror and special effects with satirical humor. In more recent years, the likes of Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow and to a more consistent and brilliant degree, Quentin Tarantino are the new masters as they never take their eyes of of what is the storytelling prize, where their deeply drawn characters, situations and motivations are at the forefront and decidedly not the language and violence, a combination "Deadpool" never really reaches or understands.

For all of its supposed genre-busting, "Deadpool" too often upholds the conventions it claims to be satirizing. As a story, it is greatly generic, yet another simplistic revenge story and again something that Tarantino has re-invented and revitalized over and over again, making pretty much everything else pale in comparison. "Deadpool" also finds itself caught within the standard and tired extended climax, whic his indeed the cho of every other big budget climax that we have seen and still, there is no emotional or satirical payoff as the characters and story are so thin.

Returning to Kevin Smith for a moment, it just dawned upon me that he would have been absolutely perfect to imagine a character and concept like this for the silver screen--if not to actually direct it, but certainly to write it. Smith, a self-professed comic book geek, understand the nature of the comic book genre passionately and as he exhibited with his own cinematic universe in "Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back" (2001), Smith worked with a level of satire that was so brilliantly labyrinthine that he poked fun at himself, his own creations, his film, his industry of choice, his audience and his critics to the point where there was absolutely noting anyone could say about or against the film that it didn't already say about itself.

Granted, Kevin Smith's outrageously vulgar in joke was not a film for everyone and...it never should have been. It was a vision that was so delightfully idiosyncratic and original that mass appeal was really never in its sights in the first place. "Deadpool," by contrast has those Marvel dollars (or better yet, Disney as they own Marvel) to think about rather than existing as an oddball cult film starring a titular figure who really should not care a whit about whether the audience likes him or not.

In this case, the demands of the industry won over something that could have been truly subversive and dangerously entertaining as the Marvel boat cannot be rocked too terribly (if at all). Furthermore, as far as likability is concerned, no amount of foul mouthed self-deprecating humor and blood drenched battles and killings in the world can change the fact that we are meant to be rooting for Deadpool from the very beginning rather than feel anything remotely challenging, disturbing or complicated.

Even so, "Deadpool" is far from a failure as it is a first rate production and Ryan Reynolds undeniably owns the role with his off-kilter, sing-songy delivery suggesting a hint of madness the film otherwise does not tap into. It is clear that Raynolds is hungry for this part and performs it to the degree where it assures that this character will be his signature character for as long as "Deadpool" movies are made.

Whether I can be attracted to signing up for another go round myself is a whole 'nother story.

INSUFFICIENT FUNDS: a review of "Money Monster"

"MONEY MONSTER"
Story by Alan Di Fiore & Jim Kouf
Screenplay Written by Jamie Linden and Alan Di Fiore & Jim Kouf
Directed by Jodie Foster
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
RATED R

During my college years, I often frequented a small campus four screen multiplex theater called University Square 4, now long defunct and replaced by an upscale high rise apartment building for student housing plus large grocery store, underground parking, offices and even the home base of the campus radio station WSUM. Yet, in my time on campus, I visited that movie theater as often as I was able to nearly anything and everything that arrived on those first run screens.

It was the theater where I first saw highly controversial features like Oliver Stone's "Born On The Fourth Of July" (1989), Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" (1991), Ridley Scott's "Thelma And Louise" (1991), Philip Kaufman's NC-17 rated "Henry & June" (1990), I even crossed a picket line to see Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1989) and it was also the home of the campus midnight movies, where I engaged myself in repeated viewings of Alan Parker's "Pink Floyd The Wall" (1982).

Even so, this theater was not an arthouse by any means as other now long defunct theaters around campus and the downtown area of Madison handled those sorts of features more frequently. University Square 4 was the home of the mass marketed commercial studio feature--most of them released through Universal Studios--featuring all manner of comedies, dramas and thrillers and believe me, I saw them all, regardless of quality or pedigree. The time period of the late 1980's/early 1990's was run rampant with mid-range quality, mildly diverting films that all seemed to run no longer than 100 minutes. Fairly entertaining as you watched but fully forgotten once the house lights brightened between daily showings, those types of movies had the run of the theater screens and for an enthusiast like myself and on a tight student budget, University Square 4 made it very easy to keep up with all of the latest releases without breaking the bank, even though the overall quality was lacking.

Nowadays, even as movies have grown to be more homogeneous, they have also grown to be more sophisticated in their presentation, which makes a movie like Jodie Foster's "Money Monster" an odd kind of throwback almost. It is indeed a mildly diverting film, an intermittently involving thriller that runs a hair less than 100 minutes and true to so many of those types of films from the past, its level of artistic quality is surprisingly low. Certainly, I have seen many films much worse than this one but it was unquestionably so disappointing that a film that carried this level of pedigree and talent in front of and behind the cameras could come up with a full length feature so cliched, formulaic and conceptually shallow considering its especially timely subject matter. Trust me, I wouldn't steer you wrong. "Money Monster" is not worth the amount of money that you would spend for a night out at the movies.

"Money Monster" stars George Clooney as cable television financial expert/huckster Lee Gates, a figure that makes even "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer look subtle by comparison.  24 hours before the fateful broadcast as depicted in the film, the IBIS Global Capital's stock inexplicably crashed due to a "glitch" in the algorithm, costing its investors a loss of $800 million. As Grant prepares for a puff piece interview with IBIS CEO Walt Camby (Dominic West from HBO's "The Wire") to explain the reasons of the crash, Camby has unexpectedly departed to Geneva on business...supposedly.

As Grant's staff attempts to locate Camby and has alternately placed IBIS Chief Communications Officer Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe) as his proxy for the interview, unbeknownst to the entire crew, deliveryman Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) has infiltrated the studio armed with a gun and a vest of explosives which he forces Grant to wear on live television. Kyle, who has lost his entire life savings in the IBIS crash after investing due to Grant's endorsement of the company upon his television program, now demands answers and revenge.

With only a tiny studio crew plus the program's director Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts) remaining in the control room, this day's episode of "Money Monster" turns into a televised hostage crisis situation where one increasingly unhinged member of the working class threatens to take the upper class down in flames with him.

For all practical purposes, the plot of "Money Monster" easily has potential for being a tightly wound pot-boiler that taps angrily into the intense tenor of the times and our socio/political and economic climate. In fact, I think we actually need a film like that right now, in order to keep the conversation about economic disparity and inequality at the forefront, as well as piggy-backing off of the critical and box office success of Adam McKay's Academy Award winning "The Big Short" (2015).   Yes, "Money Monster" is essentially a "popcorn movie," but that does not mean that this brand of popcorn cannot be substantive, as it could have utilized a palpable sense of outrage to fuel the thriller narrative to crackling effect.

Unfortunately, Jodie Foster's film fails in that regard. I would say the economic outrage is apparent during the film but only in fits and starts and overall, instead of urgency, "Money Monster" is often flat and even boring. Such a shame as the film clearly has much inherent material to work with including a sly yet teeth baring satire about our societal addiction to fame and living life through all manner of screens, consistently blurring the lines and perceptions of reality and fantasy. And yet, "Money Monster" is toothless, painless and by film's conclusion, considerably pointless.

My criticisms are not designed to suggest that the level of ambition a project of this sort woud require is out of Jodie Fosters' creative reach. Quite the contrary, Foster possesses more than her fair share of projects within her filmography that find the common ground between entertainment and the provocative, most notably Jonathan Kaplan's "The Accused" (1988).  In fact, it feels more than clear that Foster perhaps wished for this film to exist within the same cinematic universe as the likes of Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975) and Spike Lee's "Inside Man" (2006), two highly celebrated crime themed films starring New York City and the latter in which she co-starred. In fact, even if she didn't want to aim as highly as those films, she could have aimed for a first rate urban thriller along the likes of F. Gary Gray's "The Negotiator" (1998). 

Certainly the presence of both Julia Roberts and George Clooney suggest something much more prevalent than mere star wattage as between the two of them, some of their finest films include the Steven Soderbergh's "Erin Brockovich" (2000), David O. Russell's "Three Kings" (1999), Stephen Gaghan's "Syriana" (2000), and Tony Gilroy's "Michael Clayton" (2007). 

In all of those earlier films, we had been given distinctly idiosyncratic characters to become involved with via smart, sharply written screenplays in service of the expert performances and direction. In every case, these were complex, unapologetically adult films that never dumbed down their material at the expense of mass appeal.

And yet, as I watched "Money Monster," I felt as if all of the major participants just were not trying hard enough. Nothing felt terrible, by any means. The performances are good, I guess and Foster's direction is serviceable enough but I found myself too often being sidelined by the weak screenplay, which contained a collective of underwritten characters that never extended beyond cardboard. While the motivations contained within the film's primary conflict are strong enough, it was in the execution that I felt that "Money Monster" never extended itself beyond being workmanlike. I needed passion and anger and all that I saw and felt was a by the numbers thriller that rarely provided any thrills. Truth be told, Brett Ratner's populist comedy "Tower Heist" (2011) contained a more honest and obvious level of rage against the machine than any one moment contained in Foster's film.

Dear readers, there really is not much more that I can say about "Money Monster" because it was the type of film that just did not inspire much thought about it while I watched and definitely not afterwards. Even now as I write, my memories of it are quickly evaporating. I just find it difficult to accept how creative individuals like Clooney, Roberts and Foster could have allowed themselves to just go with the flow of material that is so markedly lesser than many of the films they have each previously made.

You know, if they wanted to have some fun and hang out together, that's just fine. But maybe next time, just go out to dinner and not spend millions upon millions of dollars under the pretense of making an "important" film that seemingly none of them cared very much about in the first place.

And like so many of those movies that I saw long ago at University Square 4, Jodie Foster's "Money Monster" is rapidly finding its way into the realm of forgotten films of my past. Don't let it be one of yours.

SUPERIOR SHOWDOWN: a review of "Captain America: Civil War"

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby
Screenplay Written by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
Directed by Anthony & Joe Russo
***1/2 (three and a half stars) 
RATED PG 13

Now this is how you get the job done!

In the continuing rivalry between the building and on-going cinematic universes of Marvel and DC, Marvel remains the clear victor. Yes, Marvel has had a several years worth of a head start but even from the very beginning with Director Jon Favreau's inaugural "Iron Man" (2008), the Marvel Cinematic Universe was initiated and has remained committed to producing a collective of films of overall high quality, substance and high flying entertainment that leaves audiences more than ready for the next installment in this collection of interlocking, serialized episodes.

Yes, I have grumbled often about the sheer prevalence of these superhero movies and the assembly line nature of their output at the expense of other films that could be made. But, aside from a couple of underwhelming features, the Marvel films have insisted upon maintaining a certain high standard that I do appreciate greatly as they not only keep me coming back for more, but it does seem as if the filmmakers have been studying their own work, the criticisms as well as the praise in order to learn from any past missteps.

"Captain America: Civil War," the third (somewhat) solo entry of our red, white and blue clad and mighty shield wielding hero is easily one of the best Marvel entries to date, strongly extending from all that has arrived before while paving a provocative path for its future. Returning to the Director's Chairs are the Russo Brothers, who helmed the excellent "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) and unlike Writer/Director Joss Whedon's strong but straining "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" (2015), these filmmakers feel to be more than up to the challenge of executing what is known to be Phase 3 of the Marvel films, they seem to be positively invigorated by it. What we have received is a superhero film that certainly delivers considerable bang for our buck but more than any pyrotechnics, the Russo Brothers have ensured that "Captain America: Civil War" never falls off of the rails into mindless CGI bombast at the expense of characters, story and interior motivations, and surprisingly, it feels as if the filmmakers have explored their own destructive tendencies to a most refreshing and stirring degree.

Continuing from the previous installments, "Captain America: Civil War" finds Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), still consumed with locating his childhood friend turned brainwashed terrorist Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). As the film opens, Rogers and the Avengers who include Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Sam Wilson/The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) and Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), are on a mission in Lagos, Nigeria as they attempt to stop the theft of a biological weapon from a laboratory. Unfortunately, the mission concludes in chaos as innocent civilians are killed during the melee.

Back home in Avengers headquarters, the team now joined by Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Lt. James "Rhodey" Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle) and Vision (Paul Bettany), meet with U.S. Secretary Of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) who brings the group to task for all of the destruction, violence and loss of innocent lives in the events from "Avengers" (2012), "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and "Avengers: Age Of Ultron."

The Avengers are presented with an ultimatum: Sign the newly drawn Sokovia Accords, a U.N. document that will establish a U.N. committee that will oversee the actions of the team or retire. Stark, consumed with guilt and remorse (plus considerable PTSD) agrees to the team being regulated while Rogers refuses, a course of action that divides the team, especially when a terrorist attack in Vienna that kills King T'Chaka of Wakanda (John Kani), the Father of T'Challa/The Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), implicates the fugitive Bucky Barnes.

As The Avengers take separate sides and turn against each other, they are also unaware of a secretive puppet master behind the scenes in Sokovian colonel turned terrorist Helmut Zemo (Daniel Bruhl).

With the now thirteenth entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe upon us, Anthony and Joe Russo's "Captain America: Civil War" is one of the finest episodes to date and terrifically shows no signs of any creative strain or sluggishness whatsoever. The Russos merge comic book flight and fantasy with the grounded, gritty, propulsive realism and and two-fisted action of a 1970's espionage thriller or even elements from a "Jason Bourne" adventure to seamless effect through their tight direction which is fueled by a strong, perceptive and often witty screenplay, fine performances from the entire cast and never allowing the special effects to overwhelm the proceedings, ensuring they only enhance superbly (most notably, the terrific moment of seeing Robert Downey Jr. as young as he was in the 1980s).

Certainly, comparisons are inevitable between this film and Director Zack Snyder's "Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice," which arrived not even two months ago to serious critical and, to an extent, fan derision. And for my money, rightfully so. Where that film was a visually stunning feature with intermittently effective characters and moments (Ben Affleck's Batman easily being the strongest component), these elements were unfortunately surrounded by a muddled morass of unclear to stupid character motivations and a level of ear shattering bombast and unending violence that was bludgeoning and frankly, boring.

With "Captain America: Civil War," the Russos essentially get everything absolutely correct where Snyder went terribly wrong over and again. Essentially both films are almost the exact same movie as they each sport a "brother against brother" narrative fueled by themes of dangers of unregulated power, the consequences of violence and also, they explore how the burdens and sins of the parents fall squarely upon the shoulders of the now psychologically damaged adult children. But where Snyder had his film exist at the most basic, shallow level, where ultra-violence was the answer to every conceivable issue, the Russo brothers have injected healthy doses of nuance, coherence, subtleties and honest pathos to the continuing adventures of Captain America and his ever growing band of teammates and adversaries.

One major issue I had with Snyder's film plus his "Man Of Steel" (2013) was the feeling that despite the ambition and risk taking, it seemed that Snyder never really understood exactly who his main characters actually were in the first place by having them behave in ways that were contrary to their own comic book mythologies. With "Captain America: Civil War," the Russo brothers have also taken some liberties with some extremely familiar characters and their respective mythologies, but at the core, our heroes remain just as we have always known them, behave in ways that remain true to who they have always been, therefore making any conceptual risks work within the parameters of the story being told.

When confronted with the Sokovia Accords the the philosophical divide that occurs within our heroes, it was fascinating to me to see the perpetually rebellious Tony Stark agree to be reined in while the patriotic, all American Steve Rogers vehemently rejects the idea of government control in favor of having the unlimited freedom to make his own choices regarding his means of protecting the country (might this be a sly suggestion that our Cap is a Libertarian?).

But before the movie (and for that matter, the audience) can be simply divided into either "Team Iron Man" or Team Captain America," I deeply appreciated how the Russo brothers demonstrated that there are in fact, no easy answers as the shades of grey are extremely hick and even when sides are chosen, compromises always occur and the goal line is always moved.

For Tony Stark, the one of the Cheshire Cat grin, quick with a quip and armed with seemingly nine lives, the events of the past have come to take a...ahem...stark emotional toll. From surviving a voyage through a wormhole and cheating death only to emerge shaken with PTSD, to nearly losing the love of his life despite his greatest efforts to the contrary in Director Shane Black's "Iron Man 3" (2013), to seeing the virtual manifestation of his own hubris run amok with the unleashed Ultron, Tony Stark has seen the limitations and consequences of his own genius and arrogance, despite his best intentions. Now, he nearly finds himself in a period of defeat. By agreeing to sign the treatise, it is as if Stark feels that the best way to save the world would be to protect it from himself. And even still, despite his best efforts, he realizes that he is unable to bend the world to his will now that he is at odds with Steve Rogers, a relationship fraught with rivalry but one that has now revealed a deep friendship and reliance that threatens to find itself undone permanently.

For Steve Rogers, his reluctance and ultimate refusal to align himself with the treatise feels to make even more sense given his past in the 1940's where he was utilized as a symbol of government propaganda for the supposed "greater good" of the war effort in Director Joe Johnston's "Captain America: The First Avenger" (2011). Combine his ambivalence with his friendship with Bucky Barnes, a relationship that provides a strong dramatic undercurrent to the character of Captain America, as Barnes truly represents the last piece of the life and time Rogers knew before being thawed out in the 21st century. Again, he is the ultimate "man out of time," a figure eternally displaced in a world he has adapted to but may not ever understand--meaning the only thing he is able to understand is his own moral compass, which will also forever be out of step with the times, including Tony Stark, despite their friendship.

Since their emotional states and motivations affect their alliances with each other, they also spiral to the motivations and alliances of their friends and teammates thus causing the split, which explodes in the film's dazzling centerpiece, an all out superhero brawl in an airport hanger--an excursion that could have been a conceptual disaster but beautifully brought me back to my inner 12-year-old as the Russo brothers made those Marvel comics pages burst to vibrant life. It is indeed hero again hero as current and former Avengers plus some surprising new arrivals mix it up to a deliriously enthralling effect. And even then, all of the fighting is story driven as the themes of alliances, violence and vengeance within all of the characters play off of each other. Captain America wants vengeance against those who captured and tortured his life long friend. Iron Man wants vengeance against all of his worst impulses and inner demons. Black Panther wants vengeance against Bucky Barnes for supposedly being responsible for the murder of his Father. Even Helmut Zemo's full arch stems from a place of vengeance and retribution.

With that, "Captain America: Civil War" becomes a two and a half hour exploration of the futility of vengeance, how violence begets violence, and how revenge does not lead to redemption. Nearly all of the characters within the film are wrestling with their own respective levels of guilt, remorse, responsibility and the dire consequences of their own actions, which only further mount in complexity and weight. Whereas by contrast, "Batman V. Superman:  Dawn Of Justice" strongly felt to exude the concept that violence is the only answer and it should be utilized by any and all means necessary, consequences be damned.
  
The Russo brothers are also wise enough to understand that every superhero film does not need to conclude in yet another yawn inducing apocalypse, as Zack Snyder seems to have not met an overlong, extended finale that he didn't like. In its own way, "Captain America: Civil War" grows quieter and more sobering by film's end. While the climax of the film is ferociously knuckle bruising, it is also a sequence of painful intimacy and revelation.

But hey...there is one--well, look...the most crucial difference between what the Russo brothers have delivered compared to Snyder's effort is that "Captain America: Civil War" is actually...FUN!!!!! For all of the serious themes, these are superheros and the Marvel films have always ensured that audiences will be given a terrific piece of entertainment, therefore we are entertained without sacrificing any substance or being crushed under its own conceptual weight. The Russo brothers keep all of the elements moving briskly and purposefully. I was immensely impressed that they were able to keep all of these costumed characters interesting and in control, unlike other comic book movies (like the "X-Men" series for me), where filmmakers have struggled and often felt to be shuffling characters from scene to scene not really knowing what to do with them.

By now, you are all aware that Spider-Man (now played enthusiastically by Tom Holland) has been re-booted for the third time in 14 years and believe me, I was more than worried that his addition to the proceedings would be one more hero too many. Surprisingly, it was a superb injection as we are now given possibly the youngest version of the wall crawler yet (and that also goes for Aunt May who is now played by the unbelievably foxy Marisa Tomei) and his boundless energy, agility and innocence, especially when contrasted with a figure like Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, made for terrific comedic banter, supplying the film with palpable lightness as well as signifying great promise for his own upcoming solo feature. Just as Joss Whedon accomplished with his two "Avengers" films, the Russo brothers have also ensured that ever character has their role and moments to play, no one is expendable or extraneous, and everyone combines to give the film the biggest, best punch we could ask for.

And at the core, it is the story of Steve Rogers whose life as Captain America is not treated as world weary burden or tortured pose, but as nothing less than his calling to do the right thing as he views it. If one is to join him on his quest, he is indeed grateful for the support but he is more than willing to walk the world alone if need be, thus providing that classic Marvel comic melancholy that always sits at the heart of their characters. "Captain America: Civil War" succeeds greatly as it firmly accomplishes what really feels to be a near impossibility in our superhero movie saturated times...it more than satisfies while simultaneously leaves you wanting even more!

So, what else am I even left to say at this time but to conclude this review with a rallying cry of "MAKE MINE MARVEL!!"