brando647
Joined Sep 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings636
brando647's rating
Reviews635
brando647's rating
X-MEN: APOCALYPSE is the worst film in the franchise since X-MEN: ORIGINS. I don't think any X-MEN movie will ever be as big a failure as ORIGINS, but believe me when I say I'd rather watch THE LAST STAND again before I ever revisit APOCALYPSE. That relative disappointment, while wreaking as much havoc with the source material as APOCALYPSE, was at least entertaining to sit through. I was so incredibly bored with this latest X- Men adventure that I could've fallen asleep in the theater. It's nearly two and a half hours long and I can count moments I actually enjoyed in this movie on one hand. My distaste for the movie is even more depressing because there has not been an X-Men comic storyline I've been more excited to see on the big screen than one featuring Apocalypse. This movie should've been a surefire success. It incorporates my favorite X-Men villain with promises then of seeing his Four Horsemen, and it has the chance to dramatically affect the future of the X-Men cinematic universe and perhaps take things in an exciting new direction. What we got instead was a lukewarm villain who never felt threatening in the least who's wasted in a dull globe-trotting "adventure" where we spend half the movie waiting for Apocalypse to recruit his Horsemen before returning to Egypt for a big messy final battle where Magneto, as the most powerful member of Apocalypse's posse, unleashes a CG debris storm visually identical to countless other summer blockbusters.
For an Apocalypse storyline to have been done any real justice, it would've needed to been released as a trilogy of films. The brief moment of excitement I experienced when it was revealed the 2016 movie would adapt Apocalypse for the big screen was short-lived when I realized they'd be cramming everything into a single movie. There was a lot of promise in introducing this major villain but it was squandered pretty painfully. As Fox often does, they've made modifications to characters to fit their movie universe but the basic premise of Apocalypse remains intact. Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) is the world's oldest mutant, dating back to ancient Egypt and beyond. He's a mutant of immense power who, as the movie opens, is having his essence transferred into a new host mutant which gives him a couple benefits: (1) a form of immortality and (2) access to his host mutant's abilities, adding them to Apocalypse's existing roster. He's betrayed in ancient times and left trapped under the rubble of a collapsed pyramid in stasis before he's uncovered in the early 1980's and reawakened. He takes a quick look around at the state of the world and despises that humans have risen to power over mutant-kind. Apocalypse, a firm believer in "survival of the fittest", decides to remind the world who's in charge. He recruits his "Four Horsemen", powerful mutants who serve as his lieutenants and protectors in his moments of weakness: in this case, he's collected Storm, Angel, Psylocke, and Magneto.
Now just because the movie is boring and squanders an awesome opportunity doesn't mean it's a total bust. There are a few small moments I appreciated. There's a quip as the latest batch of X-kids are exiting a movie theater after having watched RETURN OF THE JEDI and someone (I think it was Jean Grey) cracks a joke about the third movie in trilogy is always the weakest. I'm sure they'd intended it as a dig at Brett Ratner's THE LAST STAND but, sorry Bryan Singer, it just as readily applies to APOCALYPSE and that's honestly how I read it. Around the same time, we get the Quicksilver sequence. I'm sure most people can agree that Quicksilver's slow-motion escape sequence in DAYS OF FUTURE PAST was the most memorable moment so the studios, also recognizing that, give us yet another in APOCALYPSE as Quicksilver arrives at the X-Mansion just in time to evacuate everyone in super speeds to the beat of Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)". A rehash from a studio hoping to capitalize on the love for the original sequence? Sure, but it works. And finally, the only other moment in the entire film where I felt the briefest flash of hope for this surely never-ending film franchise was the very last minute in the movie when the new (old) team of X-Men are assembled in the Danger Room in costumes that more accurate to their comic counterparts than they've ever been before in these Fox movies.
APOCALYPSE was a real bummer of an X-MEN movie but I'm not going to let it ruin any anticipation of future movies. The series is now, what? 9 movies in? And we've had only a couple that disappointed me and one that was a total misfire. My problems with APOCALYPSE aren't enough to override the fun I've had in this series in so many of the other films. X-MEN movies aren't going anywhere anytime soon and my frustration with APOCALYPSE will eventually fade, and all we can do is hope that Singer gives us a better film when he returns with his new vision of the Dark Phoenix arc.
For an Apocalypse storyline to have been done any real justice, it would've needed to been released as a trilogy of films. The brief moment of excitement I experienced when it was revealed the 2016 movie would adapt Apocalypse for the big screen was short-lived when I realized they'd be cramming everything into a single movie. There was a lot of promise in introducing this major villain but it was squandered pretty painfully. As Fox often does, they've made modifications to characters to fit their movie universe but the basic premise of Apocalypse remains intact. Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) is the world's oldest mutant, dating back to ancient Egypt and beyond. He's a mutant of immense power who, as the movie opens, is having his essence transferred into a new host mutant which gives him a couple benefits: (1) a form of immortality and (2) access to his host mutant's abilities, adding them to Apocalypse's existing roster. He's betrayed in ancient times and left trapped under the rubble of a collapsed pyramid in stasis before he's uncovered in the early 1980's and reawakened. He takes a quick look around at the state of the world and despises that humans have risen to power over mutant-kind. Apocalypse, a firm believer in "survival of the fittest", decides to remind the world who's in charge. He recruits his "Four Horsemen", powerful mutants who serve as his lieutenants and protectors in his moments of weakness: in this case, he's collected Storm, Angel, Psylocke, and Magneto.
Now just because the movie is boring and squanders an awesome opportunity doesn't mean it's a total bust. There are a few small moments I appreciated. There's a quip as the latest batch of X-kids are exiting a movie theater after having watched RETURN OF THE JEDI and someone (I think it was Jean Grey) cracks a joke about the third movie in trilogy is always the weakest. I'm sure they'd intended it as a dig at Brett Ratner's THE LAST STAND but, sorry Bryan Singer, it just as readily applies to APOCALYPSE and that's honestly how I read it. Around the same time, we get the Quicksilver sequence. I'm sure most people can agree that Quicksilver's slow-motion escape sequence in DAYS OF FUTURE PAST was the most memorable moment so the studios, also recognizing that, give us yet another in APOCALYPSE as Quicksilver arrives at the X-Mansion just in time to evacuate everyone in super speeds to the beat of Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)". A rehash from a studio hoping to capitalize on the love for the original sequence? Sure, but it works. And finally, the only other moment in the entire film where I felt the briefest flash of hope for this surely never-ending film franchise was the very last minute in the movie when the new (old) team of X-Men are assembled in the Danger Room in costumes that more accurate to their comic counterparts than they've ever been before in these Fox movies.
APOCALYPSE was a real bummer of an X-MEN movie but I'm not going to let it ruin any anticipation of future movies. The series is now, what? 9 movies in? And we've had only a couple that disappointed me and one that was a total misfire. My problems with APOCALYPSE aren't enough to override the fun I've had in this series in so many of the other films. X-MEN movies aren't going anywhere anytime soon and my frustration with APOCALYPSE will eventually fade, and all we can do is hope that Singer gives us a better film when he returns with his new vision of the Dark Phoenix arc.
NEIGHBORS was a fun movie. It told it's story about a couple of new parents who are struggling to accept adulthood battling a legion of college frat members as led by a young man who was rapidly approaching his own moment where he'd have to learn to become an adult as his graduation looms. It's all about both sides inability to let go of carefree youth and accept their responsibilities, focusing their energies on an escalating prank war against each other instead. It made its point. It was funny. It ended. That should have been it. For some reason, it was followed by NEIGHBORS 2 (originally with the subtitle SORORITY RISING, but that seems to have since been dropped). We check back in on Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) Radner who are about to have their second child and they're preparing to sell the home they bought (and fought for) in NEIGHBORS to upgrade to a larger home. They've got an interested buyer and all they have to do is get through 30 days of escrow and the deal is done. Unfortunately for them, a group of outcasts from the local college have decided to rebel against college regulations that prevent sororities from throwing parties. These three girls, led by Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), found their own sorority, Kappa Nu, in the house next door to the Radners and the battle starts all over again. It's round two of the battle of the young versus the not-quite-as-young (late 30's?).
Comedy sequels are a tricky business because you don't want it to come across as a cash grab. It's real easy for a studio to see a comedy do better than expected and immediately dump money into a sequel that rehashes all the jokes and plot devices from the first film. I'm looking at you, HANGOVER II. The second NEIGHBORS movie actually tries to add something new to the series. I appreciated how one of the first things director Nicholas Stoller addressed in the film's commentary (yes, I listened) was the fact that comedy sequels are generally a bad idea because comedies are premise-based and it makes additional movies tough since you're sort of stuck adhering to the premise that was so popular. So he was aware he'd have to keep the age gap prank war gimmick but he found a way to mix it up, making the adversary a sorority. I'm not saying "It's different because they're girls this time"; it's because the sorority is a bit more sympathetic. The battle isn't against cocky frat guys whose pride won't let them give the Radners peace. It's against a trio of girls who are a bit awkward and were having a rough go at college before they came together and were determined to buck the system and have the first sorority that can throw its own parties instead of forcing them to attend frat parties. They just want equal privileges, and they're not fighting for spite but for survival.
Does it make a huge difference? Big enough, I guess. NEIGHBORS 2 still retreads a lot of the same ground as the first film. The motivations have changed but the execution is the same. The movie even brings back the Radners' former nemesis Teddy (Zac Efron), originally as an adviser to the sorority seeking revenge for his frat before jumping ship to team with the Radners against this new threat. I said it for NEIGHBORS and I'll say it again: Zac Efron is a funny dude. He's one of the best parts of these NEIGHBORS movies. Rogen and Byrne are great in their own right but, just as with the first movie a bit, some of their lines (improv?) seemed forced and disingenuous. Efron's delivery and performance is more natural; I genuinely buy him as a muscle-bound halfwit who only knows a life of partying and sincerely wishes his life held some sort of value. The girls in the sorority do a pretty good job but I found it harder to believe their dip into utter villainy by the end (in part because they were so sympathetic). When Shelby and her friends start chucking tampons at the Radners' house, it feels too extreme for them because I don't think the movie established them as insane as the fraternity from the first film. Regardless, it all works well enough that NEIGHBORS 2 will entertain anyone who liked the first movie. It's pretty harmless. We didn't need it. We got it anyway, it's way better than it could've been, but it's not quite funny/different enough to have warranted its existence in the first place.
Comedy sequels are a tricky business because you don't want it to come across as a cash grab. It's real easy for a studio to see a comedy do better than expected and immediately dump money into a sequel that rehashes all the jokes and plot devices from the first film. I'm looking at you, HANGOVER II. The second NEIGHBORS movie actually tries to add something new to the series. I appreciated how one of the first things director Nicholas Stoller addressed in the film's commentary (yes, I listened) was the fact that comedy sequels are generally a bad idea because comedies are premise-based and it makes additional movies tough since you're sort of stuck adhering to the premise that was so popular. So he was aware he'd have to keep the age gap prank war gimmick but he found a way to mix it up, making the adversary a sorority. I'm not saying "It's different because they're girls this time"; it's because the sorority is a bit more sympathetic. The battle isn't against cocky frat guys whose pride won't let them give the Radners peace. It's against a trio of girls who are a bit awkward and were having a rough go at college before they came together and were determined to buck the system and have the first sorority that can throw its own parties instead of forcing them to attend frat parties. They just want equal privileges, and they're not fighting for spite but for survival.
Does it make a huge difference? Big enough, I guess. NEIGHBORS 2 still retreads a lot of the same ground as the first film. The motivations have changed but the execution is the same. The movie even brings back the Radners' former nemesis Teddy (Zac Efron), originally as an adviser to the sorority seeking revenge for his frat before jumping ship to team with the Radners against this new threat. I said it for NEIGHBORS and I'll say it again: Zac Efron is a funny dude. He's one of the best parts of these NEIGHBORS movies. Rogen and Byrne are great in their own right but, just as with the first movie a bit, some of their lines (improv?) seemed forced and disingenuous. Efron's delivery and performance is more natural; I genuinely buy him as a muscle-bound halfwit who only knows a life of partying and sincerely wishes his life held some sort of value. The girls in the sorority do a pretty good job but I found it harder to believe their dip into utter villainy by the end (in part because they were so sympathetic). When Shelby and her friends start chucking tampons at the Radners' house, it feels too extreme for them because I don't think the movie established them as insane as the fraternity from the first film. Regardless, it all works well enough that NEIGHBORS 2 will entertain anyone who liked the first movie. It's pretty harmless. We didn't need it. We got it anyway, it's way better than it could've been, but it's not quite funny/different enough to have warranted its existence in the first place.
If ever there was a movie that's difficult to recommend, or even describe, to someone who hasn't seen it, it's SWISS ARMY MAN. It's a comedy of sorts. You could probably even call it a romantic comedy. Or maybe it's more "bromantic" comedy. It's never made entirely clear what the relationship is between Paul Dano's Hank and the corpse he befriends (Daniel Radcliffe) when stranded on a diminutive island. Hank discovers the dead man, named Manny, when he washes ashore on the island where Hank's been surviving since whatever shipwreck left him there. Manny saves Hank's life; Hank was about to hang himself when Manny came along with his rocket-propelling flatulence. Hank is able to ride Manny like a jet ski back to the mainland. Little by little, Hank discovers there's more to Manny than one might believe. Aside from rocket flatulence, he's capable of vomiting up an apparent limitless reservoir of fresh water, directing them home with his dowsing rod erection, and hyper-powered karate chop action. Manny has essentially returned to pseudo-life, but he's still a corpse and he has no memory of anything from life. Right down to the basics. As Hank and Manny traverse the wilderness from the shore to civilization, Hank passes the time by explaining life and living, going so far as to build elaborate props so Manny can experience life himself. So if the premise of a miserable soul finding personal connection with a dead man with explosive gas sounds appealing, there you are.
Obviously, SWISS ARMY MAN is a tough sell to the mainstream audience. The strange combination of the movie's juvenile humor with the heartfelt relationship at its core can be a rough watch for some. The movie kept bouncing between these two tones and I was generally annoyed with it. A sudden shift out of a touching moment of Manny rediscovering life with an erection joke cheapens the scene and lessens its impact (for me), and the reverse is just as aggravating because the stupid humor is the more entertaining part and I realize I would've been more content to watch an entire movie of Hank and Manny's adventures without, you know, the less interesting relationship element. The tonal shifts and the overly sappy life moments meant I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hope to. I was excited for this movie because an insane premise like that deserves a chance and, while I'd recommend anyone watch this movie and decide for themselves, it wouldn't be an enthusiastic recommendation. The performances give it a little extra something. Paul Dano is a great actor and kills it as the pathetic soul Hank as he finds someone who cares about him, even if that person is a corpse. Daniel Radcliffe must've been eager to reinforce that he'd moved on since Harry Potter because Manny is just about the strangest possible role he could've taken. And you know what? He's actually really, really good. Manny is the juicier role and he nails it.
Dano and Radcliffe have a great chemistry, which is good since they are 95% of the movie until the last 5-10 minutes or so. This movie is very much two men wandering through the wilderness as one teaches the other about life and existence through the use of props and setpieces made from scraps and garbage. If nothing else, I can say SWISS ARMY MAN is the most creative film I've seen this year. I know it wasn't really the focus of the film and all but I would've loved a bit more explanation on what exactly the deal with Manny was. I started the movie believing him to be a manifestation of Hank's starved/sun-baked mind but he's able to interact with his environment and even speaks to one other person by the end. So if he's a real talking corpse, why hide his powers from everyone but Hank? And where does a talking corpse come from? Is he the only one? Am I over-thinking it? Yes. Because I was more interested in what Manny's deal was than the personal journey of these characters. I might not be the best person to give a recommendation on whether to watch this or not because obviously I walked away from it with a complete different focus than what was intended by the filmmakers. Something tells me this movie is going to be polarizing though. My friend complained when I made him watch MOON; I can only imagine the crap I'd get for this one.
Obviously, SWISS ARMY MAN is a tough sell to the mainstream audience. The strange combination of the movie's juvenile humor with the heartfelt relationship at its core can be a rough watch for some. The movie kept bouncing between these two tones and I was generally annoyed with it. A sudden shift out of a touching moment of Manny rediscovering life with an erection joke cheapens the scene and lessens its impact (for me), and the reverse is just as aggravating because the stupid humor is the more entertaining part and I realize I would've been more content to watch an entire movie of Hank and Manny's adventures without, you know, the less interesting relationship element. The tonal shifts and the overly sappy life moments meant I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hope to. I was excited for this movie because an insane premise like that deserves a chance and, while I'd recommend anyone watch this movie and decide for themselves, it wouldn't be an enthusiastic recommendation. The performances give it a little extra something. Paul Dano is a great actor and kills it as the pathetic soul Hank as he finds someone who cares about him, even if that person is a corpse. Daniel Radcliffe must've been eager to reinforce that he'd moved on since Harry Potter because Manny is just about the strangest possible role he could've taken. And you know what? He's actually really, really good. Manny is the juicier role and he nails it.
Dano and Radcliffe have a great chemistry, which is good since they are 95% of the movie until the last 5-10 minutes or so. This movie is very much two men wandering through the wilderness as one teaches the other about life and existence through the use of props and setpieces made from scraps and garbage. If nothing else, I can say SWISS ARMY MAN is the most creative film I've seen this year. I know it wasn't really the focus of the film and all but I would've loved a bit more explanation on what exactly the deal with Manny was. I started the movie believing him to be a manifestation of Hank's starved/sun-baked mind but he's able to interact with his environment and even speaks to one other person by the end. So if he's a real talking corpse, why hide his powers from everyone but Hank? And where does a talking corpse come from? Is he the only one? Am I over-thinking it? Yes. Because I was more interested in what Manny's deal was than the personal journey of these characters. I might not be the best person to give a recommendation on whether to watch this or not because obviously I walked away from it with a complete different focus than what was intended by the filmmakers. Something tells me this movie is going to be polarizing though. My friend complained when I made him watch MOON; I can only imagine the crap I'd get for this one.