moviescoundrel

I was pleasantly surprised by the scope of this film. While the plot doesn't do anything daring, it is a bit smarter. The plot has underlying themes, some heart, and of course shallow, indecent, and offensive situations. While MacFarlane does not do anything out of his realm here, he does adult humor well, and he has many "smart" gags, lines, and scenes here.

The court scenes are decent, but my favorite scenes here are the scenes with Tom Brady, the scene at the sperm clinic, and the scenes at Comic- con. They were entertaining and filled with hilarity.

Once again, while not groundbreaking, it was a pleasant, adult, humorous, escape this summer. And one I may be enjoying again soon.

One of the best things about the movie that I appreciated was the little things. The little bits of humor that if you stop and think about it too long you will miss the next bit. The whole joke that rings true about the gum jingle that gets stuck in your head and only comes to you in a weird times.

And then the movie is smart. The whole process behind the intellect, the memories, long-term and short-term, the imaginary friend, all of this is presented in such an appealing unbelievable way it almost makes your own memories and thoughts make more sense to you. This actually made more sense to me explaining how memories worked than the typical physiological processes that happen in your body with physiology. Well done Pixar.

While the movie was good, like I said earlier it was not amazing. The strength of this movie was behind the scenes in Riley's head. The imaginative things that happened behind the scenes with the emotions and the memories and all of the other crew responsible for maintaining Riley's thought processes were the most entertaining part of this film. The emotions were just okay. Amy Poehler's voice was fine but nothing amazing. And while all of the other voice performances were not horrible, I really thought nothing stood out. I think if there were some different voice actors, or the dialogue was better or fresher it would have made a difference here for sure.

The rationale for the velociraptors and the Rex is a bit sketchy. The velociraptors seem to have a loyalty to Owen, then they turn, then they turn back, and so forth. I felt like I was watching "How To Tran Your Dragon 2", except on a slightly less intelligent level. Also the Rex seems to have a hunting method of sniffing scent, at one point it can not smell Owen, but later it ends up sniffing and finding him and the girl many times. There isn't a lot of consistency with what goes on there.

For me, one of the best segments of the film was when the pterodactyls escaped and went on a flying, snatching, and biting spree. Through the air, through the woods, and then through the crowds of people, it was quite fun to watch.

Well the film is not brilliant, or particularly innovative, it is a decent time. Also if you have seen the first one, or saw it years ago in the theater like I did, it is quite nostalgic and I guess retro to experience a similar adventure, along with the same music that was played 22 years ago. I am not a big fan of seeing most movies in 3- D, but the 2-D showing was sold out so I ended up seeing the 3-D version. While it was not my first choice it was a good movie to see in 3-D as many of the scenes were breathtaking in that medium. As one of the first blockbusters of the summer, this film will make money, entertain audiences for the most part, and while it will be around for a couple months, it won't really be talked about in a year or two. If you like action movies, or dinosaurs, or Chris Pratt, it's definitely worth checking out.

Just as "Heat" was both a good cop-buddy movie and hilarious comedy, Feige also double dips this film as an adequate entertaining spy movie AND a hilarity filled comedy. Feige has no problem making his characters seem mortal, via termination . Many spies, good or bad, meet their demise and a second pan of their body is not always obliged. Sometimes a character comes in that was introduced earlier, is quickly killed off and the camera moves to the surviving folk to see what kind of reaction or what type of humor can be salvaged from the faux- unfortunate situation. The film style here is a genre all it's own, and it is refreshing to take in. There were a couple of things that were not amazing in the film, and Feige was not going for plausability, but the issue with the rodents and the spy agency seemed far fetched and unfunny as well as a couple of similar issues. It was also nice when McCarthy was given free range to be raunchy and mean, which she does not get until about a half hour in. I'm not sure what these two have planned next, but I'm sure it will slightly redefine the genre as well as fill it with R-rated laughs.

What a cheese-fest. For some reason, when audience reviews were overall favorable, and Giamatti was cast as a scientist, I thought there may be some grit and realism here. Hmm…not so much. Special effects were quite good but this film was held together with a large amount of velveeta and fiction. Even in the first sixty seconds Ray's (The Rock) character was a bit far-fetched as he risked everyone's life on board for the life of someone in trouble. Lawrence (Giamatti) and his partner have a hypothesis about fault lines and earthquake prediction. They quickly and unrealistically prove this, and then just become a very annoying, unconvincing subplot.

The rescue of Ray's daughter is the main driving force here but it just bleeds every bit of realism and plausibility from the film. She and her annoying, worthless companions conveniently get around every danger, and then her dad and mom somehow maneuver multiple vehicles through miles and miles of wreckage and turmoil and somehow find her amidst the wreckage of shattered city. Yikes. Not even close. Carlton Cuse (from Lost) is responsible for the screenplay here, and it just doesn't seem right. Not his style. Should not have been anyone's style. Boo.

The narrative here is decent and primary objective pretty simple. Newton wants to get away from the people chasing her and find this land. This is entertaining and fun to watch, as is her initial interaction with Walker. Once they finally do get to Tomorrowland however, plausibility, if that exists in a movie like this, gets stretched a bit. There are a few holes in the plot, and the motivation of the antagonist and everything to do with earth's doom and it's salvation is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is because this problem is only hinted at throughout the film and we don't get it until the end, or maybe because Nix (Laurie) is only briefly in the film until the very end so his selfish, anti-human nature are not really believed here.

There is just a bit too much going on here at the end that Bird wishes to wrap up. Maybe the film needed a bit longer of a running time to make everything mesh well. The conflicts that exist here are too numerous to even mention. It all is wrapped up and resolved rather quickly and some things are short changed and don't quite fit because of it. All in all, it is a fun film, a different kind of movie, and a trip worth taking.

I did like how the Avengers were together from the beginning, and a lot throughout the film. They don't always get along, and all of the scenes with them assembled are not amazing, but this is more of what you expect with a team. Some of the scenes I enjoyed the most were scenes where they resembled normal folk. Scenes where they are partying or hanging out, or even in an old farmhouse with Hawkeye's (Renner) family; moments that focused on their humanity. Because for the most part, there isn't a lot of humanity shown otherwise. Part of the problem with superhero movies is finding an adequate challenge, and putting the main character in danger. In many popular comic book movies, "Iron Man", "Wolverine", and "Thor", all of these characters are stripped of the powers and they have to figure things out as a somewhat normal individual. In Avengers 2, there is no imminent threat felt, even though it is implied. While it's not a bad movie by any means, the Avengers seem to be overstaying their welcome at the moment. It's up to the Russo brothers (Captain America 2, and currently directing Captain America 3, and then both Avengers sequels) to get things back on track. Russo brothers, assemble.

Well played Mr. Vaughn. Well played. I've always appreciated Matthew Vaughns cinematic style, but the plot is always a tad too unique or doesn't click. Everything seems to click here. The plot is a bit out there, and the good vs. bad animated characters almost play out like a Saturday morning cartoon but it seems to work. Good is mostly good, and bad is evil. The characters are intriguing, the dialect entertaining, and the action is an old fashioned good time. Pun intended when referring to the Kingsman. The movie although predictable in some senses as far as the training for the most part, many things are not predictable. People die. Good people turn bad. And the beat down you always want to see from Eggsy (Egerton) to his mom's boyfriend… doesn't ever happen even though he deserves it. There are many things that happen in the movie to keep you guessing and on the edge of your seat and I wasn't really bored for a minute. I was surprised by the rating and wasn't sure what to expect from the R-rating. I expected a barely adult movie that was almost PG-13. Way off. There are numerous profanities used, and lots of blood. It was actually refreshing for there to be a legitimate adult movie made and not just an R-rated movie edited to fit mass PG-13 audiences. The action scene with Galahad (Firth) and the crazy church people….amazing. I will definitely be watching it again.

A winter Kevin Hart comedy. Last year, it was the buddy cop PG-13 comedy, "Ride Along", this year it's "The Wedding Ringer." While Kevin's screen presence is a bit more commanding here, it is not enough to save the movie from its own mediocrity. Uneven writing and an uneven partner in Josh Gad make the movie so-so for the most part. There are moments that are humorous, there are moments that are sentimental, there are moments that I was glad it was rated "R". But there were also moments that were forced and unfunny, moments that were so unrealistic there was no sentiment possible, and moments that the director forced disgusting things into the film just because it had the "R" rating. While I'm not sure it is worth a second viewing, "Ringer" has a funny idea, some funny characters, and is an entertaining enough waste of time for awhile. Worth checking out if you've ever been intrigued by the idea of a groom paying for best man services, if you're a fan of Kevin Hart, or if you always wanted to hear Olaf from "Frozen" say the F-word.

I was quite skeptic that I would thoroughly enjoy this movie. It's just a bear...and it's a British movie...most children/family movies in this genre are decent, just not amazing. This one though somehow overachieves. It's nothing grand, and maybe that is why it succeeds. The story seems true to the literary classic complete with origin story of Paddington, red geographer's hat, and duffle coat. It's the regular daily life things like using the bathroom, brushing the teeth, using tape, etc. that prove to be rather impossible for ole clumsy Paddington, thus creating amusement and humor for the viewer. The supporting cast of the family and protagonists is also decent. I appreciated Mr. Brown's (Bonneville) performance, along with every other family member. They are first reluctant to accept Paddington, but after warming up to him a bit, it's hard to resist a furry bear, no matter what wrong he does apparently. The flow of the movie is unique in that there are catastrophic, humorous events at times, and then just moments of candor within the Brown household that you want to take in. I suppose the villainous scene at the end felt a bit far-fetched, but then again, the infiltration of the Geographer's Guild with Mr. Brown, Paddington, and a security guard was hilarious. The kids loved it, and this one is definitely worth a second look.

The review: I had lowered my expectations for the film after many negative reviews released. Luckily, I was very pleasantly surprised. The movie is not going to win any awards, but with strong performances from the cast and typical cinematography and what you would expect along the lines from Mann, the result is an entertaining thriller. I wasn't really sure what to expect here. Mann's films are different. Typically a bad guy isn't always the clear cut bad guy. It is more complicated than that and it's no different here. We don't see the face of the main antagonist until the end and even then, it's not so diabolical or dangerous. Although the subject of this film (cyber crime and technology) can be very confusing and over the head of the audience, Mann does a very good job of dumbing stuff down. It was even a bit disappointing listening to the intelligence officials discuss the technical aspects of the happenings because they didn't seem all that intelligent and nothing sounded as confusing as it can in a Mann film. Like many of others of his films, the movie covers many locations and things happenings in different locales and there is a lot happening behind the scenes. For example, Hathaway (Hemsworth) quickly develops an intense relationship with Lien (Tang) and we really don't get to see it happen or develop. Maybe a scene or two and then Lien's brother is discussing it with Hathaway about how serious and happy they are. This one example of how much ground Mann likes to cover, we just don't get to see it all. In this film, I liked to see most of what was revealed. I did think at times things happened a bit too simplistically or maybe the likelihood of some of what happened was not legitimate, but it was fun to watch and filmed well. Hathaway, although fresh out of prison and no fighting background that we no of, he is quite capable of taking down three men in a Korean restaurant in the film. This is because he likes to physically take care of himself. I did enjoy watching him dispose of them however. There were some decent gunfights and action scenes in the movie as well, although I didn't care for the ended story lines of the some of the characters. All in all, if you let your reality get suspended a bit, there's no reason to not enjoy this ride.

As stated above, I didn't really know what to expect with this film. As a family film that seems to be a bit geared for families or theater goers it is definitely a different kind of film. The miscellaneous all-star cast fill various fairy tale roles, some felt legitimate, some quirky, some perfect, some not. The characters have multiple agendas and goals, whether it is Little Red Riding Hood who needs to get to her grandmas house, Cinderella who has her eyes on attending a multiple-night royal ball, or the two princes (Prince Charming and the prince who yearns for Rapunzel), many of the characters are going "into the woods" in the beginning of the film. The film starts out witty and interesting. As the film progresses things are less realistic (as typically prevalent in a stage to screen musical) and more plot holes develop. About ¾ through, things are wrapped up rather neatly, too neatly the viewer feels, and things take a turn for the dark and interesting. I didn't particularly care for the way things transpire at this time as they just were not that interesting and a little too dark. There were also some things that made no sense, such as the characters discussing forgiving the giant and not killing them and then simply killing them anyway. I did like the ending overall as a mixed bag of things happen in an unclean way, yet still happiness transpires for the most part, similarly to how things happen in life much of the time.

I liked the first "Taken" a lot. I liked the second one less. For some reason, this one looked intriguing and fresh enough to where I thought it would be a most welcome finish. It basically felt like a poor man's "Fugitive" only Mills is quite a bit more resourceful and dangerous than Harrison Ford's Richard Kimble could ever imagine. The film works for the most part. Although I did think it started a bit slow and I thought the film only had a 90 minute run time and it was taking way too long to get into the action. At a run time of almost two hours, the drama is not so bad and the set up works fine. It is difficult to predict exactly how things will turn out other than you know Mills isn't going down without a fight and you know he will take many down with him in the process. The formula works for the most part here although there were a few scenes in which Mill's nobility is a bit questionable. At one point he takes a police officer at gunpoint in a car and forces him to drive across the median into traffic endangering many other's lives in a high speed chase all at the expense of finding his wife's killer sooner rather than later. It just felt off. There are some twists and turns that are interesting and kept it fresh enough to not be too mediocre. It is a decent farewell (I "think" it's the last one) to the "Taken" series. I suppose his grandchild could get "taken" next….

I was expecting a bit better of a remake here. While I don't think it is quite in line with how bad critics are saying it is, it's not amazing. The songs are similar to the original's, albeit a bit "fresher" here with a hip hop tone. The story is similar to the original, except for Stacks (Foxx) is not just a business man, he is a political candidate and the CEO of a popular cellular company, similar to Verizon. There is some product placement, and some focus on extrinsic motivations and "things", but I didn't feel it was the main focus of the film or detracted from the story too much. I thought the reincarnations of the music were pleasant for the most part, although there were moments where characters burst into song that didn't feel quite right and Cameron Diaz singing was…less than amazing. The sets and scale of the musical pieces were also not as well orchestrated or as grand as the original. One would think that while redoing "Annie", you would have to come big, as well as different, and the big and grand is just not here. The soundtrack is very good, but the movie just feels hollow and not well thought out. The kids seemed to like it a lot, and while not legendary, definitely worth checking out if you are a fan of the original or a different kind of family movie for the holidays.

I really wanted to like this movie. Even though I could hardly keep my eyes open 20 minutes into it. In the first 10 minutes of the movie, Bennet (Wahlberg) starts gambling in a secret casino. He is quite aggressive and just lets it all ride. It is clear that he owes money to people, does not gamble responsibly, and then borrows money from more. There is a clear pattern that is visible, and I wondered how this would be resolved or what other kind of questionable decisions would he have to make before he saw the error of his ways. Unfortunately, I didn't really care. There was not really any tension, build-up, or empathy present in many scenes. Yes the stakes are high for Bennet, but I didn't really care, and he didn't really seem like he did either. Then it cuts to Bennet as a strange literary teacher. Instead of teaching about literature, he chants soliloquies to build up certain class mates. His morale and ethics as a teacher and a person are in question, but once again, it's kind of weird and I found myself not caring at all. The whole professor part of the film felt unauthentic. Frank (Goodman) was the only decent part of the movie, but he wasn't in it for but five minutes, so it's not a reason to watch the movie. While I did not demand a refund, it certainly didn't cross my mind.

The third film in this series proves to be almost in line with the first as far as originality or creativity, at least better than the second. Not all of the characters are present here, only some can travel to England, among them, the most welcome, the Caveman "La" (Stiller) who is a caveman who was molded after Larry's (Stiller) likeness. The exchanges between Jerry and La and pretty much most of the scenes with La are hilarious. There is of course some cheese present and things that happen that feel forced and the humor is sucked right out of them. There are also some original ideas that occur with Larry, Lancelot, and FDR in a painting and a cool idea with Pompeii. That's it for originality, and that is when the film is at its best. I do wish Levy and the writers would have fine-tuned the screen play and come up with more fresh ideas and characters like this as it makes the movie good, and a bit more time in the oven, it could have been great. While not an amazing film, it is better than the second, and worth checking out if you are a fan of the "Museum" movies.

My expectations for this film where that it would be as good of a closer to the Hobbit as "LOTR: Return of the KIng" was to the LOTR trilogy and an adequate transition to the LOTR trilogy. I hoped it would not drag as much, and there would be enough action and important character screen time. While it has been awhile since I've seen "LOTR: Return of the King" in its entirety, upon first reflection this installment succeeds. I could not believe how FAST this movie flew by, which is always a great thing when a movie has a 2.5 hr run time. After starting the film off with a confrontation between the dragon and Laketown residents, Jackson sets up the looming "battle" by putting the armies in place. While there are things that are a bit far fetched here in Middle Earth, it works for the most part, because fans of the book and the movies eventually are going to get what they want. HUGE battle scenes, MASS amounts of destruction, and LARGE numbers of dead orcs. It's just a matter of getting there. It doesn't make sense that 12 dwarfs hold up in the castle abandoned by the dragon and feel confident enough that reinforcements will eventually arrive, or that the elves or Laketown residents don't overpower them sooner and force their hand, as it seems quite obvious the dwarfs have no countermeasures available other than a few feet of busted stone between them and whoever else wants to enter. This felt off. Another thing that felt off was Thoren's (Armitage) intrinsic greedy struggle with possession of gold. No matter the situation, person, or conflict, Thoren seems determined to stay within his stronghold and not negotiate any amount of settlement or riches. I feel this conflict and struggle could have been portrayed a bit better, as it was just never that realistic to me, although it is sometimes difficult to show internal struggle. When Thoren does become the charismatic leader he usually is, the movie is all the better for it, even though if it's only to fight brainless orcs. Another detail that was interesting and a bit far fetched was the details of the battle. The battle was between five armies apparently. We don't see all five for awhile, and when the fifth shows up we don't get a very good glimpse of the actual battle, just some things happening quickly and from afar. Also, the dwarfs and elves were in this battle and we didn't get to see much of them in action. We see them lined up and in armor and marching, but as far as actually fighting, there's not much footage of them. We see the people of Laketown fighting, but apparently filming small dwarfs or cunning elves is a bit too complicated here. I was curious to see how the elvin people actually fight after seeing their leader and Legolas (Bloom) in action, but alas, no such luck. The orc armies this time around don't seem as detailed as they were in the LOTR films. They are covered in armor and in most scenes we see dwarfs, humans, etc. having no issue taking these monsters down. Not as graphic or gross as we see later in LOTR films It's like each person, dwarf, etc. has been trained in extreme mortal kombat and they know exactly where to strike for a quick kill and each swing gives them more strength for the next. Maybe minor quibbles, as I said, this film goes quickly. The battle is entertaining. Once Thoren and Legolas finally get into action, I could not get enough, and the choreography and special effects were top notch. When the battle finally ends I thought for sure the film had another hour to go, but there was only a 12 minute wrap up of things. As opposed to "LOTR: Return of the King" which had at least a half hour going away party. Definitely doesn't feel as painful here. While there were some minor quibbles, the characters you appreciated from the first two Hobbit films are here again and the action is a plenty, this is definitely one I'm going to have to catch again in IMAX.

The review: Difficult to believe but certainly possible apparently. Scott apparently has taken certain liberties and translations that were clearly not evident in the Bible. In the Biblical story, Moses goes to The Pharoah multiple times to give him an opportunity to release the slaves. The Pharoah says "no thank you" and then Moses attempts to convince The Pharoah by showing him some miracle of God. In this version, there is not as much convincing. Moses (Bale) goes to the Pharoah (Edgerton) puts a sword to his throat and says release the slaves. This does not happen, but instead of multiple chances and great lines exchanged by these actors, we get nothing. The events just happen. Moses gets his wisdom not from a bush but from a boy that is only visible to him. He doesn't seem to ever be too convinced of his faith but he does listen to the boy for the most part. The events happen, and they don't happen as they did in the Bible so much. The water turns to blood, but it is caused by thousands of hungry crocodile that eat everyone in the water and every living thing in the water and this makes blood. Then there are flies, and disease, and many of the other plagues. Just not a lot of conversation and relevant dialogue in between. It's like there was a budget for special effects but they ran out of time to film the scenes between the main actors, and the result is a mish mashed series of events that don't feel important, poignant, or accurate. I feel there was so much potential left on the floor here, and it just doesn't make sense. There are some artistic liberties and expressions that are possible to take in some areas of the Bible that maybe are not LITERALLY EVIDENT...and those events and things would be interesting to see fleshed out according to Scott's vision. Most of the events here though, not so much.The effects were pretty to watch. The crocodiles, locusts, etc. were entertaining to watch and done well, I just didn't care as much due to the way the story was executed. Bad form.

After initial critics reviews came in scathing I lowered expectations for this film and just wanted to enjoy it and laugh a bit. The good news, it seemed much funnier than "Dumber and Dumber Too". The bad news, it was nowhere near on the same level as the first outing. The writing was not fresh, the cast felt like they were just going through the motions, trying to ride the coattails off the first movie, just reading the horrible dialogue and doing nothing new. I love Bateman typically, and he is still funny here. But the "horrible" writing, and the over involvement of other cast members has these guys doing too much and there's not enough room and lines for Bateman. The original also had three bosses, some dark humor, some wit, and some crazy graphic descriptions of their bosses. Here, there is literally none of that. With the cast, there is potential. Potential to flesh out a fresher story and some better dialogue. I think it's possible for a third, I just hope they sharpen things up a bit more.

The review: I was a bit surprised at the plot and direction of the movie. I thought the direction would be more similar to a "Madagascar" movie not as crazy or far out there as the plot that is actually present. The movie starts strong with an intro to the penguins in their habitat and their discover of private. It's original, funny, and I thought maybe where the movie would stay. Instead, we get lethal, crazy, octopi and a crazy conundrum of asinine ideas. There is still humor here. The North Wind organization brings some interesting props, ideas, and slight humor to the equation, but when you throw absolutely everything out the window as far as believability or realism, I suppose you quit caring about what is actually happening and if the lines aren't stellar, it just doesn't matter.

What to say here? I was reluctant to review this one because I was hoping that after a week of thinking about this movie it would maybe get better or maybe I would want to see it again. No such luck. The same director of the last "Hunger Games" film "Catching Fire" is back again, only this time...the character development is not as present, the action is not as intense...and it's just...lacking. It does seem to do an okay job of depicting what happened in the book, it's just that the first half of the book is not that interesting as far as a movie goes. I don't think it's that different than the book, it is just difficult to do it justice on the screen as a lot of the first half deals with internal conflict and darkness within Katniss, an area that can be difficult to adapt, although I do think it could have been dealt with better than this. I'm not sure Gary Ross (director of the first Hunger Games film) would have done a better job necessarily, but we'll never know. It seems that the studio always wanted to stretch the final book over two films so it was going to be inevitable as far as the adaptation goes. It just would have been better if we would have been privy to the second half of the book at the same time, here's hoping the follow up this summer is a slam dunk.

The review: I was able to catch enough critical buzz before seeing this one to know not to expect too much. Maybe just appreciate that all of these talented folk that were able to catch the magic the first time around with a looney plot based on two adults with low levels of intelligence collaborated again. Daniels and Carrey are decent actors and entertaining to watch in much and the Farrelly brothers are entertaining, so just sit back, expect little and enjoy the ride, right? While I did sleep very little during this film, I now know that I would not have missed much if I would have slept through half of it. Many of the jokes and humor is lost on the actors and the actors, while trying awfully hard to be faithful to their characters can't really ever overcome the horrible writing. And I suppose it's the writing because of course the plot was going to be thin and irrelevant. If the dialogue is witty, the background of a plot can become just that. Not so much here. As far as laugh out loud funny, I don't think there was anything here. There was some potential coming at time I thought, especially when Rob Riggle joined the boys, but all potential was literally carried away by a train minutes later. Disappointing. While there may be a bit of appreciation for nostalgia, it is not enough to overcome the misfires and mistakes here, and I suppose in hindsight all of this could be accomplished in a five minute short. Maybe Carrey should focus on an "Ace Ventua" sequel instead? Hope not. Although Daniels may be welcome part of a "Speed" sequel with Keanu, although a resurrection may be necessary. Regardless, either attempt may be better than this. Good luck.

The review: The final product here is another creative, entertaining animated family adventure from this studio. There is humor, action, character empathy and development, some great animation, and some great heart. The initial surface estimation is pretty much what you get, but that's not a necessarily a bad thing. Hero's brother has been looking out for him ever since their parents died long ago. Hero is going to turn his life around and his brother dies in a tragic explosion. When Hero learns who is behind the explosion he and others are tasked with stopping the culprit and bringing them to justice. So not a LOT of twists and turns here, but the ride is fun. The characters are amusing. Although Hero and the team are just a bunch of college students, they come together as a family and are there for Hero when he has nothing else. What I did not LOVE about it was the notion that these smart kids were able to put on some gadgets and sail through the air stopping crime. When Hero's brother dies so quickly and realistically, many other parts of this movie are far-fetched. After getting past that and just trying to enjoy the movie, it is difficult to do anything but that. Baymax is also a very fluffy, enjoyable main character and brings a lot of robotic heart to the movie.

Grand scale, large score, big visual effects, typical Nolan movie? Um...not so much. This one is really difficult to summarize briefly, and may take multiple viewings to do so. I didn't quite know what to expect based on the previews and I tried not to find too much out about it ahead of time, which ended up to be the right move as many things about this film were surprising. A character drama on HUGE scale and a HUGE screen. IMAX is the place to catch this film in its glory as over an hour of the film was actually filmed with 70 mm IMAX cameras. And those scenes are breathtaking. At a run time of 169 minutes, you get your money's worth of screen time here, and at times it feels like it. This is not "Inception" or a "Batman" movie. "Inception" flew by at 2.5 hours and was suspenseful a majority of the time. This film does not possess that same feel or intensity. There are moments of intensity, and moments of peril and intrigue, but it's also ½ laced with heart, character, time, and soul. As a father who starts down a rather strange path to leave a formidable, cursed earth on an almost certain to fail journey across the galaxy to help save it, Cooper (McConaughey) deals with multiple types of adversity such as: impossible space catastrophes, physical confrontation with people, emotional confrontation with people, internal struggles with helping humanity and sacrificing his possible life and future with and for his daughter. The internal struggles resonated here with me almost more than the physical, visible dangers. Even after a strange ending that went nowhere near I was anticipating, I found myself thinking about the Cooper's sacrifice and choices hours later. I was at first ruling out multiple viewings just based on run time alone, but after reflecting on it a bit, I may have to revisit this in the future.

While I wouldn't say this one falls flat on its face, it could have been much better. Alexander (Oxenbould) does not have a lot of charisma, and as one of the main character's, his performance doesn't exactly command attention. He does have bad luck, and the situations are mildy amusing, but nothing that funny or entertaining here. The film felt more like a direct to Disney family movie that never made the theaters, except Carell and Garner are present. There were some genuine situations as far as social media, bullying, etc. that are relevant takeaways for youth here which are fine. The language and themes are pretty tame, unless you don't have your six year old prepared to hear "penis" five times in one scene from Jennifer Garner. Other than that, it was pretty family friendly, and kids seven and up should be fine. Not a complete let down, but nothing special, and not worth multiple viewings.