​One means of doing the science gone wrong genre is throwing someone who doesn’t know a lot about science into the middle of an experiment, leaving them lost and confused in a world they don’t understand. Back to the Future is one of the best examples of this type, combining its witty humor and great characters to make one of the greatest movies of the 1980’s. The film follows Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox), a teenager in the 1980’s whose best friend, Doctor Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd), has invented a time machine. Built inside a DMC DeLorean, the time machine is Doc’s crowning achievement, having poured all of his family’s fortune and years of his live into its design. One circumstance leads to another, however, and Marty accidentally ends up in the year 1955, with no way to return home. Thus, he must convince a thirty-years younger Doc Brown to help him, all while making sure his parents fall in love, so he doesn’t end up phasing out of existence.     
​
Like many movies that involve time travel, Back to the Future may seem a bit hard to follow at a first glance. However, the movie is written extremely well, making sure that at no point is the audience left scratching their heads in confusion. The screenplay is very tight, making sure that few plot-holes and inconsistencies slip through. The script also manages to sneak in little references and slight changes based on the date Marty has traveled to, which may not be noticed by viewers upon a first watch. These details make the movie feel more believable and give the film more depth. It makes you feel like you are there with Marty, traveling through time and trying to return home.

The movie also makes the situations Marty are thrown in more palatable by making its characters relatable and fun to follow/root for. Marty is an extremely relatable character, feeling like the quintessential teenager without adhering to any specific stereotype. He’s not a nerd and not a jock; he’s not a stoner and he’s not a straight-laced goody-two-shoes type. He manages to simply be a teenager, a person who can easily be related to given his charisma and situation. Doc is a crazy and fun scientist type character, more of a stereotype than Marty but still a fun character. The rest of the characters are also quite stereotypical, with Marty’s mom being the secretly rebellious and infatuated teen, his dad being a science fiction loving nerd and Biff being the generic bully, but they work well off Marty’s less stereotypical nature. His dynamic with each of the other characters is what makes the movie so great, with his relatability leading the charge for what is one of the best movies of its decade.

Grade: A+

One of the most terrifying movies of late, Ex Machina follows the trope of “technology gone awry” to perfection, showing the true horror that could come when artificial intelligence becomes too self-aware. The movie begins with Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a young programmer who is selected by his company to be part of a groundbreaking experiment in artificial intelligence. Caleb’s boss Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac) has cracked the science behind perfect AI, having created a robotic woman named Ava (Alicia Vikander), who is so realistic that she would seem human without her robotic servos showing. As Caleb begins testing Ava with Nathan, he slowly begins to realize how unhinged Nathan is, beginning to sympathize with Ava and helping her plot an escape.
​
The movie, like many other great films about artificial intelligence, manages to be terrifying, using the claustrophobia of Caleb’s setting to make him, and the audience, more unnerved. While Caleb is at first excited by the prospects of getting to test the world’s most perfect AI, he slowly begins to go stir crazy in a house that is completely isolated from the rest of the world. His claustrophobia translates to the audience through the movie's excellent lighting and camera work, where every frame of the movie helps make you feel as trapped as Caleb feels. His feeling of isolation, along with his slow realization about his boss’s insanity, also leads him into his sympathy for Ava, who has been trapped in the house for the entirety of her existence. 

The terror builds even more rapidly through the amazing performances in the film, especially that of Oscar Isaac. As Caleb begins to find out just how crazy Nathan is, Isaac’s performance quickly becomes more sinister and chilling. This adds to the claustrophobic nature of the film, making the audience feel more sympathetic for the situation that both Caleb and Ava are in. However, like in most AI films, things are not always as they seem with Ava. I won’t give anything away here, but Vikander’s performance perfectly keeps the audience guessing as to what her actual intentions are. This makes us feel even more afraid for Caleb, as we are unsure of whether or not his only ally in this situation is actually on his side. All of these factors contribute to the audience remaining on edge the entire film, creating a tone that is hard to find in many other movies.

Grade: A   

Many of the best movies out there are not about what they seem to be at first glance. By that, I mean that many great films have underlying themes and ideas that aren’t always discernable by just reading the movie’s description or catching a passing glance at a certain scene. One of the genres that this idea seems to be the most prominent in is the sports genre, especially movies that focus on boxing. Boxing movies are never really about the boxing itself, but use boxing as a means to study the main character. The medium of boxing presents an immediate challenge that the protagonist must face, usually an opponent of great strength or the yearning to become the best, giving the film time to build the character and push them to their limits. So, with the release of the newest film related to boxing Hands of Stone coming this week, I thought I’d look at some other movies about boxers to see how the genre has fared.

​One of Martin Scorsese’s best works, Raging Bull is the perfect example of boxing being used as a medium to explore a character, as we watch the life of a 1940’s boxer fall apart on-screen. The movie follows the life of boxer Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro), an ill-tempered New Yorker working his way to the top of the middleweight division in the 1940’s and 1950’s. As the years go by, La Motta’s relationships with those who he is closest to, his brother Joey (Joe Pesci) and wife Vicky (Cathy Moriarty), become more and more strained, with tensions running high from Jake’s ever-growing anger. And though his tough and angry demeanor helped him thrive in the ring, it’s what eventually tore the rest of his life apart.

It’s difficult to quickly summarize everything that Scorsese did right with the movie, as I don’t think a single element of this film is any less than brilliant and worth talking about for pages on end. But, the most captivating elements that make this film so amazing (in my opinion) boil down to two key factors: cinematography and dialogue. Starting with the cinematography, Scorsese’s choice to make the film black and white adds a layer of depth to the film that color may have taken away. The lighting choices that Scorsese is allowed to make because of the film’s lack of color is spectacular, and this movie is one of the best example of storytelling without having to say a word, in certain scenes. The boxing matches are also some of the most realistic, tonally, that I’ve ever seen on film, with the camera angles adding layer upon layer of depth.

Though many of the scenes succeed in telling the story with little or no dialogue at all, the scenes that do have dialogue manage to be some of the most genuine feeling scenes in any movie. Jake’s interactions with both his brother and his wife are genuine and heartbreaking, as we in the audience know what Jake doesn’t seem to realize: that he is tearing his life apart, as he constantly harasses those he is close to. As the years go by, Jake’s relationships become more and more tense, thanks in part to the performances by De Niro, Pesci and Moriarty, but also to the stellar writing by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin. One scene toward the beginning of the film, where Jake tries to get his brother to punch him in the face, is mesmerizing, though it seems to contain a lot of repetitive dialogue. Though the dialogue in this scene does seem to repeat itself, it is the realistic and genuine nature of the dialogue that makes the scene so perfect. The dialogue does truly represent how I think the film is in general: real. There is no aspect of this movie that feels hokey or fake, no moment that feels like it couldn’t have happened exactly as it does on screen. It’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen, and proves more than anything that Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers still alive today.
​
Grade: A+

'Rocky Balboa, the sixth film in the Rocky series, is the true sequel to the original film, maintaining the heart and hopeful tone that the original movie so masterfully created. Thirty years after the events of the original Rocky, Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) finds himself stuck in a life that has somewhat lost its meaning. With his wife Adrian dead, his best friend Paulie (Burt Young) constantly drinking and beligerant and his son Rob (Milo Ventimiglia) wanting nothing to do with the Balboa name, Rocky turns back to the one thing he knows how to do: boxing. Though Rocky is now in his late fifties, he lands an exhibition fight with the heavyweight champion of the world, once again proving that he can go the distance. 
​
Now, upon writing a quick synopsis for this movie, I have been struck with how ridiculous and stupid the premise for this movie sounds. A late-fifties Stallone getting in the ring with the real heavyweight champion? How could this movie possibly feel realistic if that glaring issue is the premise of the film? Well, like many other movies about boxing, this film is not really about the fight between Balboa and heavyweight champion Mason ‘The Line’ Dixon (Antonio Tarver), but about Rocky’s relationship with the people around him and his fears about whether or not his life still has meaning. All he has ever known is boxing and his family, and the loss of both of those things has caused his life to feel meaningless. Like how this movie has little to do with the actual boxing match, Rocky’s decision to box has little to do with wanting to punch people. He yearns to feel what he once felt, to go back to a better time, and the only way he knows how to do that is to get back in the ring.

The focus on Rocky as a character is really what keeps this movie grounded, and Stallone does an excellent job at portraying the older and wiser version of the original character. Balboa is no longer as bumbling and buffoonish as he once was, as age has certainly allowed him to become a bit more well-spoken and contemplative. He's certainly no genius, but he has a much better way with words than he did in the original film. This is most apparent in a scene where he argues with his son, who constantly shies away from his family name in order to make a life for himself. Rocky argues that his son, in his attempts to run from Rocky’s legacy, has lost who he was and what he wants, forgetting how to pick himself back up from a fall and learn to move on. Not only is the writing here a great parallel to what Rocky is going through in the film, but it also serves to prove that the character has matured and changed since the first film. Stallone, who wrote, directed and starred in the film, proves that he has a full understanding of the character. Thus, this movie proves to be a more perfect sequel to the original film than any of the others. This film proves that the character Rocky Balboa is one that can change and grow in a way that Stallone probably never envisioned when he wrote the original. Is it as good as the first one? No, sequels usually never are. But, it is one of the best continuations of a character you could possibly hope for, and a great chance to see Balboa in the ring one last time.

Grade: A-

​As I mentioned earlier this summer, there are a ton of animated movies coming to theatres this year. All of the biggest players in the animation world have a movie coming out this year, with some studios releasing multiple films, and it got me hoping early on in the year that we would get a new movie from one of my favorite studios. Luckily, I got my wish. This Friday, the newest film by Laika Entertainment, Kubo and the Two Strings, is being released. The studio, who solely make stop-motion animation movies, creates some of the most unique and visually enticing animated films I’ve ever seen. So, let’s take a look at some of their previous works to see just how wonderful and interesting Laika Entertainment can be.

Based on the book by Neil Gaiman, Laika’s first solo feature Coraline is beautiful and enchanting, creating a tone and atmosphere unrivaled by any other animated film. The movie follows a young girl named Coraline (Dakota Fanning), who has just moved in to a small apartment in the middle of nowhere. Her parents, forced to move out there to complete a writing project, consistently ignore and neglect her, and the somewhat wacky inhabitants of the other apartments aren’t much more attentive. Eventually, Coraline finds a secret door in the house, which leads to an alternate world with “other” parents, whose eyes are buttons and attentions are completely focused on Coraline’s every whim. And while at first Coraline loves the alternate home, she slowly begins to realize its more sinister natures and understand that she has to choose between one world or the other.

Coraline is one of the most visually stunning animated films I have ever seen, capturing the whimsical tone with wonderful visuals. The film masterfully uses its stop-motion style to capture the emotions of the main character on-screen, without anyone having to say anything. Unlike many other children’s animated films, which likely fear that young kids will lose interest unless there is always a character talking, Coraline knows when to keep quiet and let the visuals speak for themselves. The visual differences between the real world and Coraline’s ideal world are striking, showing the audience exactly what Coraline thinks her world lacks without her having to explain that to us. 

The excellent visuals and general lack of dialogue creates a tone unlike many other animated films. The movie really isn’t a comedy, as it doesn’t have nearly as many jokes as other children’s films, and acts more like a drama than anything else. The movie is directed by Henry Selick, director of the classic stop-motion feature The Nightmare Before Christmas, and the tone of Coraline is quite similar to the tone of that film. The slightly macabre but mostly inquisitive feel of the movie makes it easily distinguishable from any other animation on the market, leaving its audience feeling more fulfilled than if they had seen an average animated movie. 

Grade: A-

Taking a more comedic and satirical route than Coraline, Paranorman is an excellent parody of horror films, adding comedy and fun to the visual appeal that Laika is known for. The movie follows a young boy living in the town of Blithe Hollow, Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee), who has the ability to see and talk to ghosts that no one else in the town believes in. His parents and sister don’t seem to understand him, he has no living friends and is constantly berated by his classmates for his strange mannerisms. Norman quickly realizes, however, that he has his powers for a reason, and has to use them to stop a witch’s curse from destroying the town.

Where Coraline’s tone is far darker and more macabre in moments, Paranorman almost constantly uses its horror atmosphere to parody classic scary movies, throwing jokes at a mile a minute. All of the most famous and ridiculous comedy tropes are addressed and parodied in this movie, starting from minute one where Norman is watching a horror movie with the ghost of his grandma. In that first few minutes, Paranorman manages to be a satire of so many elements of classic horror that it seems almost outstanding. And, from that moment, the movie never relents in its parody. However, the movie is smart enough to not fall into the pit of cliché itself, with a twist toward the end of the movie that makes the film seem more than just parody, but a fresh take on the horror and animation genres.

Like in Coraline, Paranorman uses its great visual style to forward its parody and tone. The movie skillfully makes itself look like a classic horror film, using the stop-motion and visual talent that Coraline proved they had mastered to generate the feeling and tone. The movie is beautiful, and the excellence of the animation and visual style helps feed into the comedy. Norman’s occasional passages into the paranormal world are stunningly beautiful, as is the evil witch character once she reveals herself. Thus, not only is Paranorman one of the best parodies of horror movies in animated form, but it is another example of Laika proving that it is one of the best animated studios in the business.

Grade: A  

​When it comes to modern comedies, it seems like writers and directors have been, more often than not, opting for the “raunchier means better” mentality. And while there are always outliers in the wake of passing trends, it does feel as though the majority of big-budget modern comedies revolve around characters saying and doing obscene things to get an audience to laugh. To an extent, I feel as though this is the adult equivalent of jangling keys in front of a baby’s face, doing something ridiculous and flashy to get giggles out of immature audience members. However, raunchy comedies are not intrinsically bad, so long as they are more than just crude and gross. The crudeness and grossness has to be paired with clever comedy and fun characters in a way that makes the experience feel more like a movie and less like two middle schoolers trying to out-do each other in the lunchroom. Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, who have been writing together since 2007, seem to have found a good formula for this genre, combining raunchiness with good characterization. And, with their newest film Sausage Party about to be released, it seemed like a good idea to take a look at some of their previous films.

The first of the full-length features written by the Goldberg and Rogen team, Superbad is a great example of a raunchy comedy that focuses on its characters as much as its comedy. The movie follows two high-school seniors, Evan and Seth, on their last weeks of school. Seth is convinced that he and Evan need to get girlfriends over the summer, getting in some practice with all things sexual before they go to college. He is also convinced that the only way he can get with his crush Jules, and Evan with his crush Becca, is by going to a party they are at, providing the alcohol and getting them hammered. Thus, the two partake on an adventure with their nerdy companion Fogell to get the alcohol for a party Jules is throwing.
​
This movie, in a way that few others seem to do, does an excellent job at capturing the feeling of both being in, and preparing to leave, high school. Superbad captures the combined exhilaration and anxiety of leaving high school through its two main characters. Seth, played by Jonah Hill, can’t wait to get out of high school and try his hand at college life. Evan, played by Michael Cera, is more tentative about both Seth’s plans for the party and the coming future. These characters are written with such accuracy and realism, feeling just like high schoolers struggling with moving on, that it makes me wonder how close these portrayals are to the lives of the writers themselves (as the characters seem to be named after them).

Along with being a pretty accurate portrayal of the world the film inhabits, Superbad also manages to have excellently funny performances all around. Cera and Hill have an amazing chemistry as Evan and Seth, with Cera’s awkwardness and Hill’s brash speech. Seth Rogen and Bill Hader play police officers who end up with Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s Fogell, and the three of them have an excellent dynamic as well. Martha MacIssac and Emma Stone also have great performances as Becca and Jules, with an especially hilarious scene happening between Cera and MacIssac that involves quite a lot of alcohol. Overall, Superbad is a great example of raunchy comedy done right, combining the brash humor with wit and character that makes the film shine.

Grade: A-

​Based on Goldburg and Rogen’s earliest colaberation, a short film called Jay and Seth Versus the Apocalypse, This is the End uses its interesting and creative concept to drive its characters and elevate its humor. The movie follows Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel, played by themselves, who have been friends since they were kids but unfortunately drifted apart once they became celebrities. During one of their regular get-togethers involving weed and video games, Rogen convinces Baruchel to attend a party at James Franco’s house, where a number of other celebrities will be in attendance. Baruchel reluctantly agrees, but the two end up finding themselves trapped in the house with a few of the attending celebrities after an apocalyptic event occurs. 

What makes This is the End so clever and interesting is the way it creates its characters, having actors essentially play parodies of themselves and working from there. Every actor in the film plays themselves during the apocalyptic events, which leads to some great moments between actors. The movie escalates stereotypes about certain actors, like James Franco’s eccentricity, which makes for fun parody comedy. It is odd to see a movie that is almost entirely self-parody, which helps keep This is the End from feeling like every other parody on the market. Chemistry between characters is also helped by having characters play themselves, especially when it comes to the relationship between Rogen and Baruchel, who actually were good friends pre-fame. 

The great and satirical interpretations of these actors/characters creates excellent comedy, especially through some of the cameos that happen before the apocalypse. Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride and Craig T. Robinson all do a great job as the six main survivors, but my favorite performance comes from Michael Cera. Before the apocalypse occurs, Cera plays a completely wasted and insane version of himself, which had me in stitches the few times he was mentioned or seen on screen. The other celebrity cameos, like those from Emma Watson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mindy Kaling and Aziz Ansari are fun as well, emphasizing the stereotypes of each. In the end (pun intended), the movie is another hilarious outing by Goldberg and Rogen.
​
Grade: A-

​As I have previously stated in other articles in this series, I feel as though we live in the age of superhero films. And while I find the argument that this is not a good thing fully justifiable, as the abundance of superhero movies which have dominated the big-budget action movie have potentially pigeonholed the genre and become quite stale, I don’t necessarily agree with it. While I think that superhero movies could begin to become stale if studios get lazy, I believe there has been enough variety among superhero movies to keep the genre running. Sub-genres of superhero films have begun to surface, and I assume many have begun to choose their favorites. My personal favorite is likely the ensemble superhero genre, superhero movies which do not focus on one hero, but a team of them. These movies tend to lend themselves to characters working off each other more than other superhero films, exchanging one hero who calls all the shots for a number of heroes whom are forced to work together. So, in preparation for the newest ensemble superhero movie Suicide Squad, which comes out this Friday, I thought I’d take a look at two other ensemble superhero movies that have helped keep the genre fresh.

While Iron Man was the film that kick-started the now monstrous Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Avengers is the most financially successful of the MCU’s films, bringing together superheroes who had, up until that point, never been seen together on-screen. The movie follows the newly-formed Avengers, comprised of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye, forced to work together to stop the evil Loki. Loki, Thor’s Asgardian brother, plans on using a super-weapon called the Tesseract to bring an army of aliens to Earth, effectively enslaving the entire human race.

It’s difficult to talk about this movie without at least mentioning the way that it was crafted. With many other ensemble superhero films, audiences may be completely unfamiliar with the majority of the characters before going to see the movie, having had no reference material to understand the characters' motivations and general behavior. The Avengers, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general, did a very good job at introducing you to the characters in the film before it even came out, familiarizing audiences and skipping over the need for slow exposition. Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and The Hulk all had stand-alone movies before the releases of The Avengers, which fleshed-out the backstories of the characters and clued audiences in to their character traits. Though some may consider this homework, having to watch four other films before they can see this one, I feel as though it’s a clever way of making an ensemble movie with character depth without having to bog the movie down with tons of expository dialogue.

That’s not to say that The Avengers is difficult to follow if you haven’t seen other MCU movies. The plot is a fairly standard “bad guy wants a powerful thing to destroy the world” kind of deal, with a lot of flashy and fun action. But the chemistry between the superhero characters, who spend much of their time exchanging witty banter, makes much more sense and feels more organic to those who have seen the other movies in the canon. That depth is what makes a pretty standard superhero action movie feel more interesting. The characters work off of each other very well, thanks in part to the audience not having to learn about how they act before it gets to the fun stuff. Overall, The Avengers is a good superhero movie that was propelled to greatness through the excellent way that Marvel handled its build-up.

Grade: B+

​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+

​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+

I don’t know if I just missed something in previous years or if what I’m about to say is actually true, but I feel like there are more animated children’s films coming out this year than we’ve seen in a long time. By my count, there are twelve animated films being released this year which are being targeted at a child audience, meaning there are a large number of choices for families eager to go to the theatres. All of the biggest names in American animation are among those twelve, with films coming from Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks. But two of this year’s animated movies are coming from a more recent animation studio, one that has only just begun to gain prominence at the box office. Illumination Entertainment released their first animated film in 2010, but has quickly become a big player in animated films. So, in anticipation of their newest film The Secret Life of Pets, which releases this Friday, I thought I’d take a look at a couple of their previous works. ​

​The first of Illumination's animated works, Despicable Me is a decent and harmless kid’s movie, not very innovative or different yet not unwatchable. The movie follows Gru (Steve Carell), a professional villain who finds himself out-done by another villain who recently stole one of the great pyramids. He plans on using a shrink ray to steal the moon, but his plan requires that he adopt three young girls, who change his perspective on both his job and the world.
​
Everything about this movie screams mediocrity, but the most average part of the movie is its story. Nothing about this movie’s story differentiates it from most other children’s films. You can tell exactly what is going to happen from the minute the three young girls arrive in the movie, and every trope that one would think a story like this could have is present. There is the scene where Gru finally begins to feel for the kids, after a first act of swearing he was only going to use them for his nefarious purposes. There is the montage where Gru is supposed to be working on his evil plan, but instead begins spending more time with the kids. And, possibly most clichéd of all, there is the conflict where Gru’s moon heist falls on the same day as the girls dance recital. None of these elements are altered or innovated on to make a different-feeling film, but just allowed to take their normal course to make an overall bland experience.

And that’s the best way to describe the movie: bland. The voice acting is fine, with Steve Carell leading the charge doing an odd, somewhat Eastern European accent. The animation is a bit iffy, (especially considering How to Train Your Dragon was released the same year and the animation in that was astounding) but, considering it is the studio's first film, it’s passable. The humor is what you would expect, not funny but certainly not too bad. The minions, who became one of the past few years’ most annoying trends, aren’t nearly as annoying as they have become in more recent films. At the end of the day, what we get is a movie that does everything just right enough to be passable, but just wrong enough to not be memorable. It’s fine, but that’s about all it is.

Grade: C

Based on one of Dr. Seuss’s most famous and classic works, The Lorax suffers from all the same problems as other feature length Seuss adaptations, leaving me wondering why studios keep trying to milk the magic of Theodore Geisel’s writing. The Lorax's central focus is on Ted’s (Zac Efron) attempt to woo his neighbor Audrey (Taylor Swift) by finding her a real tree. In his town of Thneedville, nothing is alive, with citizens having to buy fresh air just to keep breathing. Thus, Ted must journey outside his town to visit The Once-ler (Ed Helms), the only person who knows what happened to the trees and their protector, The Lorax (Danny DeVito).

My biggest issue with The Lorax is present in every feature length adaptation of a Dr. Seuss work, and it’s not that hard to understand why. This movie, even at its mere hour and thirty minute runtime, feels insanely padded. Dr. Seuss books aren’t known for their length, and thus the stories have to be elongated in order to maintain feature length. Unfortunately, The Lorax fails at elongating the story in a meaningful way, filling time with useless musical numbers and a lengthy chase scene that add nothing to the story or characters. Much of the movie is bogged down in padding, and the main character even jokes about how the Once-ler forces him to hear the story of his life in installments rather than all at once. With the amount of padding that is present in the film, it gives a lot of time for the audience to reflect on how much better off they would be just reading the original story.

Not only does the padding make the movie feel bloated and unnecessary, it also deludes the message of the original story. The Seuss book tells the simple story of a man overtaken by greed, who regrets the choices that he made which destroyed the environment around him. The message of the original is about saving the world we have, before we lose it. And while the movie does keep some of those messages intact (the only good moments of the film are those which mirror the original story exactly), adding a very generic villain who is obviously supposed to represent modern-day corporations not only dates the film, but makes the story feel like it is more about pointing fingers than it is about righting wrongs. And with its lack of fun comedy or any other redeeming factors, deluding the message of a Seuss story is an offense that I can’t easily forgive. While it’s not the worst Seuss adaptation (The Cat in the Hat is one of the most deplorable films I’ve ever seen), The Lorax continues a trend of bad Seussian-based films that sully the works of one of history’s best children writers.
​
Grade: D ​

​The idea of movies being created from novels is one that is as old as film itself, but, to me, is a fairly polarizing idea. On one hand, you want to see the story that you read come to life on the big screen, experiencing the emotions of the novel through a different lens. However, on the other hand, there is always the fear that the film will butcher a story you already love, removing a number of elements that you felt made the novel shine or changing characters in ways you don’t deem fit. I have actually begun gravitating towards seeing a movie before I read the novel, as it is less common to have the novel not live up to its film adaptation. As is the case for me with Roald Dahl, whose children’s stories and novels have quickly become modern classics. I have never read a Roald Dahl work, but have seen a few films based on his movies and, in preparation for the adaptation of his novel The BFG set to release this Friday, figured it would be fitting to discuss them.

​Based on what is arguably Dahl’s best known work, Willy Wonka is quite possibly the textbook definition of a classic children’s film. The movie follows Charlie, a young boy who lives in poverty, who lives in the same town as an old chocolate factory. The Wonka factory is riddled in mystery, being closed to the public for years, until it is announced that six golden ticket holders (tickets can be found inside Wonka chocolate bars) will be given a tour of the factory by Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) himself. After finding one of the golden tickets, Charlie and his grandfather, Grandpa Joe, venture into the factory with the other five winners, finding a place more magical than they could have ever imagined.  
​
Willy Wonka is a rare film, in that it manages to maintain a level of whimsy and intrigue merely through its aesthetic. The world of the chocolate factory is so spectacular and imaginative that it is easy to get lost looking at the beautiful scenery. The movie uses this excellent setting to its advantage throughout the film, especially when the children first enter the factory and see the chocolate river in the first room. Like most Dahl adaptations, the imagination used to create the world is astounding, and the creative team that put the Wonka factory together deserves constant praise for their work.

The universe of Wonka’s factory is greatly enhanced by Wonka himself, and a lot of the credit for how interesting he is goes to Gene Wilder. Wilder’s performance is as crazy as the factory his character operates in, constantly switching between snide remarks and over-the-top antics. He keeps the audience on its toes constantly, keeping him as mysterious to the audience as he is to the characters. His nature is complimented by the aesthetic, and the aesthetic complimented by him in a way that I don’t think I’ve ever experienced. The movie does everything else excellently as well, but it is the way the movie fells (and makes you feel) that makes it a timeless classic.

​Grade: A+

The marriage of Roald Dahl’s whimsy and Wes Anderson’s charm creates one of the most original feeling children’s movies in recent cinema with Fantastic Mr. Fox. The movie follows Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a thief turned newspaper columnist who decides he wants to go back to his life of crime for a few nights, stealing from three evil farmers. However, his return to a life of crime has more repercussions than he could have bargained for, including a change in his relationship with his wife (Meryl Streep).

If any of you have ever seen a Wes Anderson film, you know pretty much exactly what you are in for. The movie has all the excellence of your standard Wes Anderson film: great dialogue, superb timing, a wonderful aesthetic and beautiful cinematography. These aspects are always present in his films, but are not always the most prominent aspects of children’s movies. Fantastic Mr. Fox’s biggest asset is that it feels like a Wes Anderson movie, not toned down for children. It never feels like it is talking down to its audience, and never feels like it was written with specifically children in mind. Other than having a lack of graphic violence and language, the movie is no different feeling from any other great Wes Anderson film, which is extremely refreshing. 

The dialogue, like in many of his other films, is so interesting and well put together. The dialogue feels so natural and flows in way that sounds more like a normal conversation than the script to a film. That fact is even more impressive in this film, where the lines are coming from animal creatures who steal crops and livestock from farmers. When characters that could not exist in the real world can sound natural, the movie feels so much more real than it looks. The characters are far more relatable and interesting when the dialogue is natural, and Wes Anderson is one of the masters of this. Overall, what results is one of the most original feeling children’s movies I’ve ever seen, and an excellent edition to Wes Anderson’s already amazing filmography.
​
Grade: A 

​The summer blockbuster had gone through many phases throughout the years, with the disaster movie having had its heyday quite a few years ago. Films where the world, and the people in it, are put to the test by some kind of natural or extraterrestrial disaster feel very mid-nineties, a style of movie that has gone out of fashion. During the nineties and the early noughties, Roland Emmerich dominated the disaster movie genre, creating hugely-budgeted and special effects-heavy movies that were meant to make audiences feel as though the world was crumbling around them. However, like the person who continues to tell the same joke years after people found it funny, Emmerich has continued making the same disaster movie over and over again. This Friday, the sequel to Emmerich’s 1996 hit Independence Day, Independence Day: Resurgence, is set to release. And, if it’s anything like the rest of his works, it will be boring, repetitive and as flashy as possible.

Generally, when I write these pieces, I review each of the movies individually. But, I felt like it would genuinely be a waste of time to talk about the two movies I watched this week separately. The two movies are so similar, and my opinions of them so nearly identical, that I don’t think there is any reason I shouldn’t just talk about them at the same time. While one movie is about an alien invasion and the other is about the Mayan prediction of the end of the world, both movies follow an eclectic cast of characters as they deal with the disaster. However, while one of these films embraces the over-the-top nature of the disaster genre and attempts to make the film fun, the other completely flounders as it attempts to be a piece of higher drama.

Many of Emmerich’s movies involve a group of people who know the disaster event is going to happen but are ignored (even though they are experts in their field whom one would think most people would believe), those in power who try to stifle knowledge of the disaster event and the every man, whose normal life is tragically altered by the event. These groups of people come with every cliché in the book, feeling literally copied and pasted from one script to another. Where Independence Day has Jewish scientist stereotypes, 2012 has Indian scientist stereotypes. Where Independence Day uses Will Smith as the cool soldier version of the everyman, 2012 has John Cusack to be the absentee, novelist father. On the surface these characters may seem different, but they serve identical purposes to the plot.

What is interesting, however, is how Independence Day manages to be enjoyable despite its corniness, while 2012 is, at times, nearly insufferable. Perhaps it is because Independence Day has a cast of actors that are far more charismatic, using Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum to make the film entertaining. Or perhaps it is because 2012 seems to take itself far more seriously, trying to inject the constant use of tropes that plague Emmerich’s movies with drama rather than with campy fun. Both movies, however, are far too long for what they are trying to be. There is no need for a disaster movie to be two-an-a-half grueling hours long, and any semblance of enjoyment that I got out of either film dissipated quickly after about ninety minutes.
​
And there honestly not much else I can say about these films. They are the most generic kind of movies out there; the type of films that play on Cinemax at 3:00 AM. And I’m sure at 3:00 AM, when you are barely conscious or crazy drunk, these movies are either enthralling or entertaining enough to hold at least some interest. But I found little joy out of either of them, feeling as though it were a chore to make it all the way to the end. The characters are one-note, the dialogue cliché, the plot exceedingly basic and the special effects flashy in a way that seems to hope you’ll be distracted from the rest of the movie. I found nothing compelling here, and highly doubt I will ever be compelled by his other, similar disaster movies. ​

Independence Day Grade: D+
2012 Grade: D-

​PS: I just read that Roland Emmerich called the Marvel movies “silly”, claiming his films are more down to Earth. Independence Day features a scene where the President of the United States pilots a fighter jet against a group of aliens. His 1992 film Universal Soldier is about a man who dies in Vietnam and is reanimated as a deadly cyborg. 2012 features an extended scene where Woody Harrelson tells John Cusack about the end of the world with a wacky animated film he made, while constantly eating pickles. Just makes me curious as to what his definition of “silly” is.