Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

"Yeah..well your sweat smells like cinnamon." -Beca

oufffff....ufffff....yeeeshh.  That adequately sums up what I thought of the sequel to the lovable Pitch Perfect. No one really need see it. Ever. There are some nice things about Pitch Perfect 2. The more Katy Sagal in anything the better. I hate the Packers, HATE; but I did enjoy watching Clay Matthews belt out a few lines.

Beyond that, Pitch Perfect 2 is without question the worst film I saw in 2015.

It fails on characters, comedy, heart, plot, sound, and so much more. Even its offensive lines were actually more crass and distasteful than funny.

On a scale of AC#E to CGBE I give Pitch Perfect 2, 1.34 stars out of 5 stars.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

"I can neither confirm or deny details of any operations without the Secretary's approval." -William Brandt

In the most formulaic of movies, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is a pale shadow of the show's rich history and the franchise's former glory.  There is nothing technically wrong with Rogue Nation, it's just that nothing was artistically right. From an economic perspective, I fully expect that at least 1 more MI mission will be released. I just won't look forward to it in the way I had.

But, I don't want to dwell on the shortcomings of a Blockbuster: Fish;Barrel. I took the opportunity while watching Mission Impossible: Bland to test the story writing, editing, and director. MI is famous for adding tension to a plot by putting the audience and the characters on a clock. Time limits are classic form of literary and cinematic pressure. [example: " from this point on you will only have 5 minutes to diffuse the volcano."  "5 minutes!? That's impossible." ] I am big fan of adding temporal pressure to create drama.  Yet, many directors, movies, producers often break their time continuums, stretching 5 minutes of story time into 30 minutes of running time. Only the last 8 minutes of an NFL game, in my book, is allowed such liberties with countdowns. To its credit, Rogue Nation is a roaring success in this context.  Ethan Hunt is charged with swimming and holding his breath for 3 minutes. In total, he is underwater for 3 minutes conscious and 25 seconds unconscious. Total film time was 3 minutes 25 seconds. I know. I counted.

On a scale of minute rice to 7 hr smoked brisket, I give Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation 2.6 out of 5 stars.

Ving Rames, You should be in everything! I am glade they brought you back for this installment.   

Spectre (2015)

"Did you just move in?" -Moneypenny (looking around the spartan apartment full of boxes.)

"No." -James Bond

Yet another Jame Bond. It is not the best James Bond. It may not be even in my Top Ten James Bonds. It is certainly better than the Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry Bond-YUKC!!!

Spectre takes it self seriously. This James Bond is out to make its case as coherent cinema and not schlock. Its most memorable characteristic was the stunning amount of silence within the film. Spectre has almost Kurosawa levels of dramatic pauses, significant glances, and meaningful silences. At 148 minutes it is also the longest running Bond. These two factors make Spectre a cinematically compelling if occasionally boring James Bond. I personally liked these aspects, but I tend towards slow somber films. If you do not...prepare to be disappointed by Spectre. Spectre contains a large of number of references to the previous Daniel Craig iterations of 007. If you haven't seen these, Spectre is possibly impenetrable as to character motivation and plot. Let's be honest, the plot of Spectre is actually rather meager and not particularly compelling. Additionally, while it can be helpful to have a A and B plot line for dramatic intertwined story telling, if neither story can stand alone, all one does is make the entire narrative muddled and confusing. There are positives to Spectre. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. The opening sequence in Mexico City is an amazing bit of single shot magic. Bond once again drives a car, a plane, and a boat. Dave Bautista is muscly and scary. And the opening title/credit sequence is as sexy oil hallucinogenic as ever. I will look forward to more Bonds in the future.

On to the more interesting topic: franchise continuity. The idea of the "franchise" is a reasonably new concept in the history of cinema. In a simple case, one makes a film with a start and a finish. It is self contained. There are classic exceptions to this, notably 6 part sagas and planned trilogies. But, the idea of maintaining continuity outside the confines of a planned film structure is new and from my perspective a product of business thinking, not art. There are positives and negatives to the development of the franchise. On the positives, the franchise offers a broader and more expansive pallet for those willing to add to a related community. It also brings with it a captured audience and sometimes a great deal of myth from which to be creative from. On the negatives, franchises adversely affect the exploration of uniquely inspired and incepted ideas. Franchises also have their own distinct agendas that are not related to single films. This reigns in the potential for coloring outside the lines. Where in the old days, all projects were betting on the unknown, now betting on the unknown is a real gamble. Artists, addicts, and zealots like to gamble. Banks, and financiers do not.

On a scale of 006 to Agent 99, I give Spetcre 3.125 out of 5 stars.

Oh Spectre is kinda of waste of the incredible talents of Christoph Waltz, although I do love that he ended the film with a a scar over one eye and a white cat. (Nice touch!)

Ant-Man (2015) *Special Guest Review by NoneMoreBlack

Ant – Man is a solid movie but the tone of it is was really stuck with me.   Ant-Man exists in a relatively new cinematic space as a movie add on, the movie version of an up charge option.  Put another way I felt the movie was built on the premise that people loved the Avengers so much that they will pay to see something anything made in that universe even if it doesn’t affect the larger Marvel Story arc.
This created a feeling in the movie that whatever happened there would be, wait could be no larger implications.  No matter what Ant-Man did you knew from the beginning that nothing in the broader fictional world could change, the Avengers plot was sacrosanct to the point where after encountering one of the lesser Avengers, The Falcon, their whole interaction is played for laughs in that Falcon takes the whole incident and buries it at the end to hide his failure exclaiming that no one needs to know he was defeated by Ant –Man.  This scene sadly encapsulates the movie, the fight between Ant-Man and Falcon was breezily fun, had some cool effects and made sense visually, which is a great complement given the current state of fight choreography, but in the end it meant nothing.   Not even fictional nothing, I feel slightly cheated in that I still feel like every movie should at least attempt to stand on it’s own.  I mean I wanted whatever movie I am watching to have some gravitas, to make an attempt towards relevancy.
I feel right now we are so far ensconced in the Marvel movie franchise that each piece, especially the lesser character solo movies are really just a two hour ad for the series as a whole.  They may be entertaining ads, but ads nonetheless.  Did I enjoy Ant-Man?  Yes I did it was ….. fun.  My troubles faded and I smiled as a simple story of good versus evil (albeit tragic evil brought down by it’s own hubris) played out.    Am I troubled by what this mean for those who aspire to meaning even in silly popcorn movies? Yes.  Should I be, I am not sure.
Here is my final thoughts on this, from the point of view of a guy who views the action movie as an almost sacrosanct part of culture.  Right now I feel we are on the cusp of something interesting in cinema, the cost of producing a visually arresting movie in the block buster style has risen so dramatically that studios are creating more and more derivative works with built in fan bases already suckling on the teat of known fictional worlds / characters to insulate them from potential failure.  However as costs for slick computer aided imagery drop this is not going to be the case forever.  Soon anyone with a computer could create something on par without the onus of selling that product to millions of people to earn back their investment.  Part of why I enjoyed Ant-Man is I envision someone else watching this movie and saying to themselves. “This movie is awesome, but I could do it better, and mine would mean something.” To them I say good luck, and I will see you in the theater.

Inside Out (2015)

"Crying helps me slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems." -Sadness
"I like Tragic Vampire Romance Island." -Sadness
"I would die for Riley." -Imaginary Boyfriend

Oh Pixar. You are truly geniuses. You embody everything of what "Disney" once was. My inner Sadness will take control when your creative twilight begins. But, for now, WOOOOOOO!!! Joy!

 Explaining emotions, emotional responses, decision making, empathy, and child brain development is hard, even for adults. I applaud the simplicity and creativity and bravery of Pixar in taking on the challenge of Inside Out. For myself, I, others may attest, bend towards Joy. I look to be joyful, and sometimes to my detriment fight the practical ranges of my other emotions. I, obviously, identified with Joy. Yet, the magic of Pixar is that hands down my favorite character and touchpoint of Inside Out was Sadness. It takes something extra special to make sadness the loveable hero. (All the FEELS!!!!)

Outside of the emotional tissue, Inside Out was a brilliant technical success. The writing was snappy. The directing was clean. The art was just the right level of ambitious (2-dimensional slayed me.), and the vocal works of Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith were perfect.

On a scale of   to  I give Inside Out 4.1 stars for adults and 4.4 stars for kids. 

Sister Act (1992)

"We used to have this hooker called Buck-wheat Bertha.." -Deloris Van Cartier
"A progressive convent? Sounds awful. I liked my convent in Vancouver. Out in the woods. It wasn't all modern like some of these new-fangled convents. We didn't have electricity. Bare feet, cold water. They were nuns." -Sister Mary Lazarus

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. Sister Act is a stupid movie, and it has few redeeming qualities beyond, Whoppi Goldberg as a nun, a young Maggie Smith, and Harvey Keitel. As a child viewer, I thought Sister Act was pretty great. Music + Whoopi + Nuns = Giggles. Unfortunately, Sister Act now seems like a poorly written, dubiously constructed, and woefully edited 80's throwback that happened to come out in the 90s. It still holds a positive memory in my psyche. *Trivia* When I was asked recently to think of movies that take place in different cities; Sister Act was the only one I could think of that takes place in Reno. Can any of you name another (No, googling.)

On to a more interesting topic: movies with nuns and nuns in general. Why are nuns comical? Off the top of my head I can think of Sister Act, The Flying Nun, Charlie's Angels II, The Blues Brothers, and Nuns on the Run as examples of comedic nuns in cinema. I have to wonder, what makes nuns inherently funny? Obviously wimples and habits are funny (hahaha -look at what they're wearing.), but nuns seem to be funny beyond just Catholics and iconography. My personal thought is that nuns and their distinctive outfits add an immediate "stiff" to any situation making any counter point funny. Adding a nun is like adding a Danny Glover to contrast to a Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon) or a Harvey Korman waiting for a Tim Conway. Please add any examples of how you have seen nuns used to comedic effect, and what makes nuns funny in the comments.

On a scale of Nuns in Space to Nuns with a Monkey, I give Sister Act 2 out of 5 stars.   

History of the World: part 1 (1981)

"Count De Money- ugh, I mean Count De Monet" -Count De Monet (Harvey Korman)
"I'm a stand up philosopher." -Comicus

"I got a great corkscrew." -Josephus

"Have you heard of this new sect, the Christians? They are a laugh riot! First of all, they are so poor..." -Comicus
"How poor are they?" -Swiftus
"Thank you! They are so poor... that they only have *one* God!" -Comicus

"JEEEWWWWWSSSSSSS IN SPACCEE!!" -Mel Brooks

In the Mel Brooks pantheon, History of the World: part 1 is likely his weakest film. It is also his most offensive, his most ridiculous, and his most bizarre. It is so offensive that, it's possible that Tre Parker, Matt Stone, and Seth MacFarlane would consider certain parts of it too far. They also appropriated/based many of their best bits on jokes from Mel Brooks.

Were History of the World: part 1 released today; actually I don't think it would be released today, it would most certainly light twitter afire and start a never ending flame-war online. A tour de force in breaks with basically all traditional morals, in an over the top tongue-in-cheek fashion. Rated R meant something different in 1981.

Any Mel Brooks film will have one liners coming every which way. Fast, furious, and funny; That is the name of the game. "Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise". I think it's great, and a truly magnificent artform.

Note: Harvey Korman is the man.  Hysterical, absolutely hysterical.

On a scale of Cacophonous to Sonorous, I give History of the World: part 1, 2.6 out of 5 stars.