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.