After almost a decade in exile, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) has returned to beat up a ton of CIA agents and chase clues all around Europe. The film picks up after the events of Bourne Ultimatum (2007) which left our hero, Jason Bourne, presumed dead by the CIA. In the intervening time, Bourne has wandered the world alone, joining illegal boxing rings to block out his traumatic memories from the Treadstone Program. After Nicki Parsons (Julia Stiles) steals classified files from the CIA concerning the Treadstone Program, Bourne is once again pulled into a web of death and deception. 

In the process of trying to find the truth behind Treadstone, Bourne barrels his way through people, cars, buildings, and basically every solid barrier in his path, producing some of the most kinetic and riveting action scenes of the summer. The Bourne franchise has always excelled at creating amazing action sequences that are impossible to look away from. Jason Bourne updated for the modern surveillance era with hackers, facial recognition software and encrypted file leaks, adding some spice to the standard spy thriller formula.

Despite the fresh visual update for modern times, the performances were quite mixed. Matt Damon owns the role of Bourne, and in this fourth installment perfectly captured Bourne’s exhaustion from years on the run and his distrust of authority. One of the worst performances in this movie was CIA Director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones). Tommy Lee Jones is a skilled actor, but in this movie he plays the extremely two dimensional “shady intelligence agency director with dark secrets” archetype and adds nothing to the role, with monotone delivery and an expressionless face.

Much like the mixed acting, my opinions on this movie are mixed as well. On one hand, the action is tactile and fluid and I could hardly look away from the screen. On the other, I left the theater feeling unsatisfied. I thought Jason Bourne would reveal more secrets about Bourne’s past, take the character on a cathartic and emotional journey, and bring the franchise to a satisfying ending. Unfortunately, by the time the credits rolled, I realized that the ending was frustratingly open ended, and I had really only learned one or two new things about Jason Bourne. I was frustrated because I felt like the character had hardly progressed throughout the movie, and I knew almost as little about him after the movie as I knew before. All that being said, Jason Bourne is not a bad movie. It’s actually a pretty great action movie. However, it’s really more of a franchise reboot or almost revamp rather than a conclusion, probably opening the door for more Bourne films in the future.
​
Grade: B-

​If this summer movie season has taught me anything, it’s that an interesting concept does not mean a good movie. Take The Purge: Election Year, for example: a new and exciting spin on the horror franchise, but the film itself fell totally flat. So when I heard about Nerve’s promising premise, I was instantly skeptical. After seeing it, however, I can say that I was pleasantly surprised. 

Nerve takes place in modern day New York City. The film shares a title with the online gaming craze it is based around. Nerve is a game in which anonymous online “Watchers” dare “Player” personalities to do things, from eating dog food to hanging off a crane, in order to win cash. We are introduced to Nerve through the eyes of Vee (Emma Roberts, Scream Queens), a studious high school senior who is known for playing it safe. On a whim, Vee signs up to be a Nerve Player, which is where the story really begins. She and another Player named Ian (Dave Franco, Now You See Me 2) have a meet-cute which involves a Virginia Woolf book and a dare to kiss a stranger for five seconds. The rest of the film follows Vee and Ian as they continue to play Nerve, rack up Watchers and money, and put themselves in more and more danger. 

The first five minutes of this film were atrocious. This exposition sequence was comprised of an extended POV shot of a computer screen (very Unfriended-esque, which should give you an idea of how bad it was) paired with intolerable, screechy indie pop. If I were rating Nerve on its first impression, this review would go in an entirely different direction. Luckily, I powered through the first bit and the rest of the film improved. There were no more shots like that (until the very end) and the music shifted to stuff like Halsey, which is a touch better than whatever unidentifiable crap the film started with. 

Once I shook the feeling of irritation thrust upon me by Nerve’s beginning, I actually started to enjoy what was happening on the screen in front of me. The cinematography was totally focused around dozens and dozens of blue lights in Manhattan that do not exist, but it looked nice nonetheless. Watching these teens do stupid shit for money was dangerously entertaining, as the plot of the film suggests. Plus, two actresses from Orange Is the New Black (my two favorite, I might add) made appearances, one of whom got a genuine cheer from almost the entire audience.

Now, let’s talk about Emma Roberts. As an actress, she is mediocre and is always placed in mediocre roles -- usually as the high school aged Good Girl Gone Bad But Gone Good Again By The End Of The Film. This is about all she can do, and she does a decent job. But she is TWENTY-FIVE! A young-looking face might be a blessing, but please, Emma, try playing a character that is even close to your own age. You look great, but you cannot pass for seventeen anymore. Going into the film, I thought I would be “tricked” into thinking that Dave Franco (thirty-one!) was also in high school, but fortunately his age was left ambiguous. Plus, I don’t think anyone is that good looking when they’re still in high school, so that would’ve been a tough sell. 

Getting past the first five minutes was certainly a challenge, but I’m glad I persevered. The other eighty-five minutes of Nerve were fast-paced, neon-lit fun. It was a teen movie through and through, heavy on the romance and makeout scenes and betrayal and cat fights and rebellion and parents who ~~just don’t get it~~. Since I am (just barely) not a teen, I am definitely not Nerve’s target demographic, but I found myself totally engaged and sort of enjoying myself. The film is the epitome of escapist entertainment, and that’s okay. It is by no means a cinematic masterpiece or meaningful in any way, but it was a pleasant way to spend an hour and a half. 

Grade: B- 

Perhaps I may not be the best person to write a review of Star Trek Beyond. The reason for this is that I am a big Trekkie- I grew up watching the TV shows. And as AJ Martin alluded to in his recent article, there is a big divide in the Trek fandom between fans of the new movie series and those of the television series. And as an old-guard Trekkie, my opinion of the new Star Trek movies is that they’re fun sci-fi action blockbusters that are merely pale reflections of their progenitors. Beyond continues this trend; it’s leagues ahead of the other big sci-fi movie of 2016, but still falls short of what it could be.
​
Following the events of the previous film, the crew of the starship Enterprise was sent on a five-year mission to explore deep space. They are now halfway through that mission, and Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) decides that the crew needs some shore leave. The Enterprise docks at the Federation’s newest star base, Yorktown, but they are soon contacted by an alien escape pod which emerges from a nearby uncharted nebula. The occupant requests assistance, claiming that her crew is stranded on a nearby planet. Venturing into unknown territory, Kirk and company soon locate the planet, but when they do the Enterprise is ambushed by unknown forces and crash lands on the planet. Alone on an alien world with the crew held captive, Kirk and company must rescue them and find a way back to Yorktown before the mysterious forces destroy it. 

Overall Star Trek Beyond is quite comparable to the previous two reboot films: they’re fun, flashy action movies. Beyond is certainly the most action-packed so far, which both helps and hinders it. On the one hand, the battle and fight scenes are undeniably well-done and cool to watch, courtesy of new director Justin Lin (known for his work on the Fast and Furious franchise). On the other hand, it’s a bit odd to see Captain Kirk riding around on a 80s motorcycle and new character Jaylah (played by Sofia Boutella) fight like she’s out of a Chinese wuxia film. There’s one or two scenes which are just too over-the-top, but fortunately the movie for the most part the film doesn’t become too ridiculous. 

The acting is also good, as both returning cast members Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, and John Cho and new additions Sofia Boutella and Idris Elba give solid performances. Although I believe a good part of this is due to the fact that since this is now the third movie featuring this incarnation of the Enterprise crew, the actors have developed good chemistry from working with each other and we as an audience have grown accustomed to them as a group. Elba’s acting range is somewhat restricted by the fact that he is covered in extensive alien prosthetics, although it’s nowhere near as bad as what happened to Oscar Isaac in X-Men: Apocalypse. Plus, the fact that both Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin have passed away since the last film was released make their appearances (in Nimoy’s case only photographs) quite poignant. 

However, where Beyond continues the tradition of the new Trek films is a lack of substance. Although the film features a story which attempts to comment on the stress between the civilian and military duties of Starfleet officers, it’s merely a shallow excuse plot which gives a reason for the (admittedly really good) action scenes to happen. The film lacks any of the philosophical questioning, social commentary, and rich storytelling which characterize the very best of Star Trek, like the episodes The City on the Edge of Forever, The Best of Both Worlds, and In the Pale Moonlight. 

Of course, I know that most of the people who go to see Star Trek Beyond won’t care about that. Most people just want to see a cool sci-fi action movie. And that’s fine, because it’s a really good sci-fi action movie. But in its transition to the silver screen Star Trek lost what made it, well, Star Trek. I can only hope the as yet untitled new series premiering next year will recapture the lost magic of the classic science fiction franchise. 

Grade: B

​Café Society was on my to-watch list since it premiered at Cannes. I have had a love/hate relationship with Woody Allen for most of my life, and a love/love relationship with Jesse Eisenberg since 2010. With Eisenberg in a more central role than his role in previous Allen feature To Rome With Love, this film quickly became something I was dying to see. 

The film takes place in 1930s America, jumping coast to coast from New York City to Los Angeles, in perhaps one of the most interesting time periods in U.S. history. Eisenberg stars as Bobby Dorfman, a timid but adorable Jewish New Yorker who leaves his dysfunctional family and goes to Los Angeles to work for his uncle Phil (Steve Carrell, The Big Short) who is a big-shot Hollywood agent. Immediately after his arrival, Bobby falls in love with Phil’s secretary, Vonnie (Kristen Stewart, The Twilight Saga), a young and beautiful girl, seemingly still untarnished by the excess and scandal of Hollywood. Things never quite work out between Bobby and Vonnie, leading to his disillusionment and return to New York to help his brother run a nightclub. He becomes successful, marries the gorgeous socialite Veronica (Blake Lively, The Shallows), and things are going in his favor... until Vonnie shows up in New York. Café Society explores the nature of romance and attempts to answer the question: can you truly love two people at once? Answer: inconclusive. 

As one would expect, Café Society is replete with Allen’s off-kilter, dark humor and his commentary on being part of a Jewish New York family. His writing has always made me laugh, and Eisenberg did Allen a great service by truly bringing the dialogue to life. Jesse Eisenberg is perhaps the best actor to cast as a bashful Jewish boy because, well, that’s what he is. His performance was endearing and the strongest one out of the entire cast. I was thoroughly disappointed in Kristen Stewart’s performance. Though I have never been a huge fan of her work, I expected that working with such a prolific filmmaker would cause her to rise to the occasion. That is not at all what happened. In fact, she seemed like a fish out of water throughout the entire film, never fully fitting into the 1930s setting. Her performance had some good moments, but was lackluster overall and incredibly awkward. Blake Lively also gave a subpar performance, but she fit well into the glamourous life of 1930s Manhattan. Her ability to work within the setting made her performance feel much more comfortable. 

Aside from Allen’s eccentric but now expected writing and direction, the film’s atmosphere was its greatest strength. The costume design was impeccable and beautiful, making each member of the cast look as if they were plucked right from the 1930s. Both the Hollywood and Manhattan sets embodied the grandiose style of the time and place. In typical Allen fashion, music was used generously as both score and diegetically on-screen. The lighting in every outdoor setting gave the film a dreamy and glowing look, as if the world was in a permanent state of sunset. Everything about this film was aesthetically pleasing and contributed to its overall effectiveness. 

I really enjoyed Café Society. It was lovely to both watch and listen to. My greatest qualm with the film was its incredibly inconsistent performances. The discomfort generated by Kristen Stewart’s role took me out of the film completely at times, and I find it hard to believe that Woody Allen couldn’t find an actress just as beautiful as Blake Lively who can act a little better. Fans of Woody Allen will certainly enjoy Café Society, and it is a must-see for anyone interested in Old Hollywood. 

Grade: B+

In the world of animated films, there are three studios which tower over all others: Disney, Pixar, and Studio Ghibli. However, while this trio are the well-known and critically-acclaimed animation companies (for good reason), there are a number of smaller production houses which also produce high-quality work. Among them are DreamWorks (Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon), Laika (Coraline and the upcoming Kubo and the Two Strings) and Cartoon Saloon (The Secret of Kells and Song of the Sea). And then there’s Blue Sky Studios. They have produced 11 feature films, but with the exception of the original Ice Age and last year’s The Peanuts Movie, none of them are very fondly remembered. Ice Age: Collision Course, the fifth entry in the tired franchise, demonstrates why Blue Sky will remain in the bottom-tier of animation companies for the foreseeable future.
​
Ice Age: Collision Course features yet more adventures of the wooly mammoth Manny (Ray Romano), saber-toothed tiger Diego (Denis Leary) and ground sloth Sid (John Leguizamo), along with a whole bunch of other characters picked up in the last four movies. After surviving many trials and tribulations in a bunch of movies I never bothered to watch, it seems like it could finally be curtains for the ancient animals when Scrat the squirrel accidentally activates a dormant alien spaceship which launches him into space and smashes into a giant asteroid which begins hurtling towards Earth. How would a bunch of animals survive that? Well, by loading a bunch of magnetic crystals into a volcano which shoots them into orbit like a cannon where they’ll act as a giant magnet in order to steer the asteroid off course! Obviously.

Seriously, that is the actual plot of the movie. Trust me, I don’t do enough drugs to think of something that outlandish. But in all seriousness, I know this is a movie for kids, but there comes a point at which enough is enough. The aforementioned high-quality animation studios have proven that you can make fun, funny movies for children which don’t make their parents want to smash their heads against the wall while watching it. Plus, kids are smarter than the creators of this movie think- they appreciate quality entertainment when its presented to them.
​
At this point, you’re probably thinking “But Carter, even if the movie is really dumb, what does it matter as long as it’s funny for the kids?” Well unfortunately, the worst thing about this movie isn’t even the preposterous story, it’s the fact that it’s simply not funny. Like, not even a little bit. The advance screening of the film I saw had a bunch of kids in the audience, and the only jokes they laughed at were the crude butt and snot jokes at the beginning. Every other joke fell completely flat, and even they grew tired of the body humor by the end of it’s (mercifully short) run time.

Ice Age is a franchise that please just needs to die. Although the first movie is a moderately entertaining kid’s comedy, every subsequent sequel has seen a decline in quality. And you don’t have to take my word for it, just look at their Rotten Tomatoes scores- the first has 77%, the second 57%, the third 45%, and the fourth 37%. I am positive Collision Course will be the lowest yet. Blue Sky Studios need to pull its head out of its ass and stop making these cash-grab pieces of shit.

Grade: F

​We live in an age where what was once considered geek culture is now considered part of popular culture. Superheroes, video games, fantasy and science fiction are no longer only enjoyed by the kind of people who got wedgies on the elementary school playground. Nowadays, what used to be considered uncool is now considered part of culture itself, and everybody loves to watch and read what only those who were once considered nerds took part in. But back before elements of geekdom were integrated into the popular culture, there were a few franchises that helped define how this culture was shaped. Star Trek is quite possibly the oldest instance of a piece of media generating what I would consider to be geek culture, a piece of science fiction that has spanned generations and created one of the original fandoms. Over the fifty years since the original series aired, Star Trek has seen many iterations, with the newest film in its most recent run, Star Trek Beyond, set to release this Friday. So, I thought it would be best to take a look at two of the better film adaptations of the beloved series.

​My personal favorite Star Trek film, First Contact is like the perfect episode of The Next Generation, with everything that’s great about the series being enhanced on the big screen. The movie follows the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise-E, who are forced to travel back in time to stop the Borg from destroying the Earth. The Borg, a hive-mind collective who assimilate their enemies, plan to stop the human race from making first contact with the Vulcans and therefore preventing the formation of the United Federation of Planets which opposes them. Thus, the members of the crew must stop the Borg from taking over the Earth and help scientist Zefram Cochrane use the first piece of warp drive technology to meet the Vulcans.
​
First Contact perfectly captures everything that I love about Star Trek: TNG, keeping the tone and energy of a great episode in the series. Though the film lacks much of the philosophy and questions about the human condition that many episodes of the show featured, it replaces this with both great action and excellent performances from the cast. All of the original cast members from the show bring the performances that made the show so great, with Patrick Stewart’s performance as Jean-Luc Picard especially riveting. Picard has a personal vendetta against the Borg, as he once was forced into their collective, and the tension and anger he feels toward them makes him the most interesting of the characters.

The rest of the actors are great as well, bringing the quirks of their characters from the small screen to the big. The characters are all as charming and interesting as they have ever been, which might be the perfect way to describe this movie. It is the best reminder of the quality of The Next Generation that I can think of, a movie that perfectly expresses and characterizes everything that made the show great. It’s one of the best ways that I can think of to experience Star Trek’s excellent atmosphere and charm.

Grade: A

While the 2009 remake of the classic crew may not be the favorite film of the show’s fans, losing some of the original series’ feel, Star Trek is still a pretty fun ride with a new interpretation the original Enterprise crew. The movie follows the first expedition of the original Enterprise crew, as Captain Kirk attempts to fend off the attacks of the Romulan commander Nero. Nero, who is from a future where his planet is destroyed by a black-hole, blames Spock for the death of his planet, destroying Vulcan and planning on destroying Earth for revenge.
​
Most of what makes Star Trek’s best iterations so great are the characters, and this film does an overall good job at creating interpretations of the original characters that are both similar and different from the originals. The majority of the films performances are quite good, with Simon Pegg, Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto all doing a great job. Each actor captures the tone of the original characters, but adds different layers of depth that weren’t present in the original. The only performance that lacks much depth is that of Eric Bana, who plays the very one-note villain Nero. While Nero has a very powerful motivation, which one would think might lead to a very tortured and deep villain, he basically fills the film’s need for a bad guy without adding much to the movie.

However, unlike most Trek films and shows, the movie is much flashier and more action filled. This is where fans of the original series may take umbrage with the movie, feeling as though it is much more “summer blockbuster” than classic Star Trek. Because I didn’t grow up with Star Trek, and this film was the first Trek product I saw, I didn’t have a problem with the action. Director J.J. Abrams creates a more active and less diplomatic Star Trek world, feeling more like Star Wars than Star Trek. The action and special effects are very well done, but turning Star Trek into an action movie might still turn many audiences off of the film. I, however, don’t mind the more action-packed Trek adventure.

Grade: B+

​Propelling its way into the summer 2016 blockbuster canon, Ghostbusters reworks the franchise’s original charm and goofiness with an insinuating all-female cast. Why this matriarchal cast was so newsworthy is beyond me- director Paul Feig has made Bridesmaids and Spy in the past, both female-driven comedies, with no noticeable uproar from misogynist internet trolls. So it’s safe to assume that because Feig knowingly chose Ghostbusters to remake, the entertaining 1984 comedy that can best be described as the perfect B-movie, the trolls went ape-shit and backlashed against Feig for “ruining” such a “classic” with, uh, women.

I want to start by saying that I still don’t really understand why Feig chose Ghostbusters to remake. It wasn’t asking for an all-female cast, it’s all-female cast doesn’t make me rethink third-wave feminism, and the original Ghostbusters honestly isn’t that good or bad to deserve a remake. It baffles me more that the backlash of it was from rabid fans (mostly male!) that find the original Ghostbusters, a joking, charming comedy with endearingly bad CGI ghosts and fart noises, to be such a sacred text open to ruination. Show me an all-female Ocean’s Eleven or The Goonies to better demonstrate how the larger representation of females in film can greatly assist the population in viewing females as fellow humans and not objects, and then I’ll excuse the gimmick.

But for now, we just have Feig’s Ghostbusters, an unfortunately trite gimmick at best. The four leading ladies are fantastic, and their charisma together is what really makes Ghostbusters a generally good time, but the gender-swap is really the only thing the movie has going for it. Ghostbusters is otherwise an exact rehash of its original, even containing word-for-word quotes, the same set pieces, and the same character personalities, including good ol’ Stay Puft marshmallow man. My point still remains: what’s Ghostbusters (2016) worth if it doesn’t make it’s old ideas feel new again, even with an all-female cast? It’s existence is such a fraudulently progressive stance, considering that the movie does nothing new to cater to it’s power-packed cast, and that the original content isn’t malleable enough to create something truly innovative.

Alas, Ghostbusters (2016) does exist now, and it adds to the inclusivity we’ve seen in recent years like in The Force Awakens and Mad Max: Fury Road. There’s some difference in the humor, like how the women defeat the final boss by shooting it in the crotch region, but it mostly acts like a blatant middle finger to the backlashers who really don’t deserve attention anyways. Kate McKinnon is a standout as tech-junkie Jillian Holtzmann, as she twitches in the background of every scene and *licks* her gun before destroying every ghost in sight in a slow-motion, brazen scene in the third act (it’s so badass). Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy seem to reprise their typical selves in their roles, and Leslie Jones is also an added delight, though I was slightly bothered at how her character is shooed in near the middle and is given no scholarly experience compared to her other educated and *ahem* white coworkers. For what it’s worth, Ghostbusters will deliver a good time to all, and for once I hope it does produce a sequel so that it *can* generate something truly fresh and radical. And with that: all my ladies say booyah! (emphasis on the “boo”) ;-)

GRADE: C+

​P.S. don’t stick around for the post-credits scene. It’s grossly bad. It’s basically a shirtless Chris Hemsworth sexy-dancing, which like, what does *that* have to do with a movie whose marketing campaign is it’s liberalness? Way to really pinpoint your audience as *just* heterosexual females, Mr. Feig.

​I feel for every critic out there who is tasked with reviewing 2016’s remake of the 1980’s classic Ghostbusters. The toxicity surrounding the film, sprouting from the massive amounts of hate that came when the first trailer was released, must make it fairly difficult to look at the film objectively. I know I will find it quite hard to detach the film from the polarizing media storm that has erupted in the past few months, but I know that I, too, have formed a few opinions about the film that may not be fully justified. These opinions, however, have little to do with the casting choices (which seem to be the crux of much of the film’s controversy), but with the adage of the modern remake. Remakes are not a new concept, but it seems like studios are more and more eager to milk the success of older, popular films by adding a modern spin that really makes me wish I was watching the original. So, before the new Ghostbusters movie premieres this week, I figured it would be good to look back at the original two films and see what this one has to live up to.

​The original Ghostbusters film is not only one of my favorite comedies of all time, but one that truly captures the tone and feel of 1980’s comedy. The movie follows the Ghostbusters, three scientists (Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis) and an average New Yorker (Ernie Hudson) who start a business capturing ghosts in New York City. As they begin to make a name for themselves, however, they uncover a wave of paranormal activity that could reach apocalyptic levels.

When I think about why I love this movie so much, the first thing that come to mind is the chemistry between the four Ghostbusting characters. Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson work off of each other flawlessly, but also have excellent chemistry with the side characters played by Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis and Annie Pots. Aykroyd and Ramis’s writing perfectly suits each of the actor’s comedic deliveries and style, and it makes every joke in the movie land perfectly. The slower pace of 1980’s comedies is present here as well, allowing the movie to take its time and let the more subtle jokes sink in.

The special effects in the movie are also reflective of the time the movie was released, an age where practical effects were king. While I don’t mind CGI when it is used properly and in moderation, practical effects have a weight that is unparalleled. Having a model or puppet to represent the object which is created in post gives it shape and weight that feel more realistic that creatures that are all computer generated. And, while this aspect may seem fairly minor, it adds to the feel of Ghostbusters which makes the film so unique and classic.
​
Grade: A

​With the huge success of the first film, it’s not surprising that a second movie starring the same characters from the original was created. And while the second movie has some of the elements that made the first one successful, it fails to capture the same wit of the original. A few years after the events of the original film, the Ghostbusters are seeing a low-point in their business, with little-to-no spectral activity occurring in New York City. However, once the team discovers a river of ectoplasm in the city’s sewers, they realize a new threat is about to emerge and potentially destroy the world.

Though the movie fails to live up to the original in many aspects, the charisma that the Ghostbusters have and their ability to work off each other is still present, if not as good. Not all of the jokes land as well as they do in the original, with many of the gags seeming somewhat forced. For example, at the beginning of the film, we see that the Ghostbusters are relegated to performing at children’s birthday parties. There aren’t really any clever jokes that come out of this idea, and it falls pretty flat. However, some of the humor from the original movie remains, thanks to the brilliant performances from all the returning members of the cast.

What really makes the movie feel lackluster when compared to the original is the general absurdity of its plot. Though the first movie centers on catching ghosts and features a giant man made out of marshmallows, it manages to seem very down-to-earth. Not only do the characters speak and act like real people, but the absurdity of the ghost catching is nicely balanced with reactions that feel realistic. Ghostbusters II feels far more nonsensical when compared to the original, with the evil ghost using the anger and hate of the people of New York to power itself up. I don’t doubt that there is a lot of anger amongst New Yorkers (as there would be in any city), but it is the way that the heroes combat that hate that is so perplexing. I won’t get into extreme detail, but it involves the Statue of Liberty. And an NES controller. It’s so bizarre that it immediately takes you out of the movie, feeling as forced as some of the jokes in the film. And, in the end, the sequel itself feels just that: forced. It’s not the worst sequel I’ve ever seen, but it’s nowhere near the best.
​
Grade: C+

​Made by those behind the multi-billion dollar atrocity that is the Despicable Me minions, The Secret Life of Pets begins by imagining what domestic animals in New York City do when their owners leave for work every day. It’s main storyline is an exact ripoff of Toy Story, replacing the toys with pets: owner loves pet, owner brings in competition, competition and original pet get lost and have to find their way home but also find friendship between them in the interim. The initial trailer with comedian-voiced dogs (Louis C.K, Hannibal Buress, Kevin Hart, Bobby Moynihan, Dana Carvey, etc) blasting System of a Down and barking incessantly at squirrels showed promise and ingenuity despite it’s hugely unoriginal plot.

For the movie’s Saturday at 10am screening, my hungover state of being was not fit for this theater full of children’s laughter and bright images, but through all of my nausea I could tell that The Secret Life of Pets was nothing but spoon-fed entertainment with all promises properly fabricated by movie trailer-makers. The funny trailer turns out to be an opening montage that lays the groundwork for a bland retread of Toy Story’s “how do you know what happens if you’re not there?” gimmick, but barely scrapes the barrel with this idea like Toy Story did with a much more engaging and pleasing reality.

Boisterous young terrier Max (the OG pet, voiced by Louis C.K.) and wooly Newfoundland Duke (Eric Stonestreet) find themselves swallowed by the dangerous New York City streets and sewer systems, and their adventures don’t lack in energy. They fall into a sausage factory and sing a Grease-inspired “We Go Together” rendition vis-à-vis sausages, run into trouble with a group of rejected sewer pets led by a vicious but adorably animated bunny (Kevin Hart), and are constantly being chased by a goofy pair of human animal control workers whose fruitless attempts at capture are silent-film reminiscent. All the while, other household pets (also all voiced by comedians) are on the search for Max and Duke, and this litter of pet personalities provides a variety of entertainment for the children, while references to films like The Fugitive and Some Like it Hot are enough to produce an adult chuckle here and there.

I’ve been trying to avoid sounding as ADD as the movie itself, but The Secret Life of Pets is overstuffed with dancing wiener sequences and butt-sniffing gags that it leaves no room for emotional payoff or character investment. All of it’s quick jokes seem to go against the calculated nature of it’s stand-up comedian cast, and it’s endless jests will have it’s audience leaving the theater with no recollection of substantive material. I hate to make the Pixar comparison here, but if you’re going to the theater to see an animated movie this weekend, I do suggest Finding Dory over this one.

Unlike similarly animal-centric like this year’s Zootopia (which is magnitudes better), The Secret Life of Pets is a void of entertainment that avoids all sharp turns into actual topics like the domestication of pets and the inhumanity of abandoning them to deliver an ending with no heartfelt message to send the kids home with. It’s excessive marketing through television airtime, Snapchat filters, and train car posters gives me PTSD flashbacks to last year’s Minions appearing on, and consequently destroying, everything I loved, but at least these animals are cutely animated with their fluff that just begs to be petted. The most amusing time I had with The Secret Life of Pets was walking home post-screening and strolling alongside real-life dogs on leashes, being led by their owners with loyalty. I imagined what they would be saying and laughed to myself as I pictured the tiny lap dogs having thoughts of violent world domination. If only.

Grade: D