Ant-Man

3 Stars (out of four)

Dammit, Marvel has done it to me again.  From the Avenger you cared the least about (if you knew him at all, but was part of the original Avengers lineup), comes Ant-Man.  Like Guardians of the Galaxy last year, when Ant-Man's production was announced, I was so underwhelmed about this new entry into the Marvel cinematic universe.  And yet, like last year, they pull another rabbit out of the hat and blow away all my expectations.  With the exception of the incredibly perfect casting but pretty dumb Thor series, Marvel is batting near 1.000.  We will give Iron Man 2 and 3 a pass because the first one is so good.  Marvel is really hitting its stride and it seems to be just getting warmed up.

Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang, a self-professed cat burglar (not a thief, there is a difference) who is released from a three-year stint in prison for robbing ill-gotten profits from a nameless corporate CEO (the bad-guy du jour of today's obscenely rich Hollywood that acts like they're salt-of-the-Earth types) Robin Hood-style and redistributed the booty back to the swindled customers.  Now he is an ex-con, an electrical engineering genius who can't find a job in San Francisco, home of the high-tech industry that might have an opening for an electrical engineering genius.  Anyway, he is trying to get his life together when he is approached by Michael Douglas' Dr. Hank Pym (the original genius and Ant-Man in the comics) to destroy a formula and suit that will cause humans to shrink down to ant size (don't ask).  This will involve a complex heist to get into a highly sensitive facility and destroy it using ants.  Trust me, it makes a lot more sense in the movie than on paper.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy before this, Marvel Studios (and more specifically, original writer/screewriter/director Édgar Wright) wisely chose an adventure-comedy to lessen the blow of the unfamiliar Ant-Man to make it more approachable for people new to the material, and they succeeded brilliantly.  There is just enough humor for great entertainment and yet enough pathos to keep a story about a guy who can shrink to the size of an ant grounded in a pretty realistic universe.  You actually care about all the characters, even when they are played for laughs.  There are no cheap shots, no over-the-top bad guys like Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2, just out-and-out fun all around.  The reasons the movie rates three stars are there are some plot holes so big you could drive a truck through and it is a tad formulaic in the final confrontation/extended fight scene.  I also felt like I was watching an update to Honey, I Shrunk The Kids a little too much.  But in the end, the reasons don't detract from some good old-fashioned fun.  This is why we go to movies, grand entertainment.

Also like Thor and the first Captain America, this movie is a placeholder, setting up the pieces for next year's Captain America: Civil War.  With the introduction of Hank Pym, who hates the Starks and distrustful of SHIELD's motivations, as well as some key scenes at the end (stay all the way), Civil War is shaping up to be a universe-shaking movie.  This is the second piece of genius to the Marvel cinematic strategy.  Every one of these movies exist in their own microcosms, and can be viewed as such.  Marvel has such a rich mythology to refer to, and they have been deftly linking all their movies into a seamless universe from the beginning.  They have been patient and methodical, and they take their subject matter seriously, never descending into Batman & Robin buffoonery.  For the most part, the movie company has wisely stayed out of the visions of the filmmakers, despite what news reports say.  Artists are always a prickly lot, and will never be satisfied without total creative freedom.  Many times, they are also disdainful of the art versus commerce debate.  But they should never be fully trusted with the keys to the kingdom.  Otherwise, they end up with a bloated, indulgent, but incredibly beautiful vision like Heaven's Gate.  This is a great movie that I highly recommend for all ages.

Terminator: Genisys

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Normally, I'm pretty hard on sequels and reboots.  They tend to be formulaic, predictable and in some cases, insulting in their condescension to recreate the lightning in the bottle that made the original great.  They are overthought, overworked and distilled (read: dumbed down) in a ham-handed attempt to make a hybrid, improved film that is all the good stuff and more; but normally, they turn out to be a hideously deformed mutant that takes on a life of its own, strangling everything that was good and prescious into a pale reflection of what it once was (see Jurassic World for a recent demonstration of this phenomena).  I went in expecting the same from the newest entry into The Terminator series, which has been veering off the rails (with a couple interesting side journeys) ever since the second movie in 1989.  Thè bad news is that Terminator: Genisys is far from perfect, but the good news is that it is a LOT of fun and a worthy entrant into the series.

Terminator: Genisys starts off in the future where John Connor (Jason Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) have smashed the world-ending Skynet and now have to deal with historical issues.  That is, Reese has to go back in time and save Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke-no relation to Jason) from the first terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger-for those of you living under a rock for the last 31 years) sent to kill her in 1984.  Without giving away too much, there is some very creative storytelling that explains why another terminator has aged so much.  It works perfectly to bring Arnold back in the fold.  The time in 1984 is a fanboy's dream, and for me, the most interesting part of the movie.  The timeline has skewed and some changes have now happened, so we are not seeing quite the same story.  It is a very interesting "What if?" diversion.  There is a lot of time travel involved in this movie, and for this timeline, Skynet becomes active when the corporation Cyberdyne (which made Skynet) introduces a new worldwide computer app called Genisys in 2017.  It is a revolutionary communications system that will connect everybody and everything online.  Reese and Connor have to go to 2017 and stop it.  Mayhem ensues.

So, if the movie movie is so great, why did you only give 3.5 stars, Thombat?  Well, it's not perfect.  But it's close.  It manages to retain many little details intact to include characters (even minor ones) and storyline do from the first two movies to keep Genisys interesting and from falling apart.  The movie wisely pretends the last two (Rise of the Machines and Salvation) never happened and sticks with the good story of the first two films as its source material.  The time jumping schtick is a tad overused and is a little too cute.  It's essentially a lazy deus ex machina to fix the finality of the second film to make room for this new one.  This creates some minor plot inconsistencies if you think too much about it.  But that said, if you can accept an unstoppable killing machine surrounded by skin sent back in time to kill someone to change the future once, why not a few more times?

The biggest issue I have with movies like Jurassic World is that they stray from their original premise to create an inferior copy.  It breaks its own rules to go in a new direction.  Jurassic Park is not a story about dinosaurs.  It is a story of unintended results of tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with.  Jurassic World is a Godzilla movie.  Interesting bad guys become good guys, small things become bombastically big, more and more elements have to be added.  These are the fundamentals of what I call sequel-itis.  Star Trek (Khan, Klingons and Borg become good guys), Star Wars (Boba Fett shows up, Greedo shoots first), Indiana Jones (Salah and Brody come back for no particular reason), Batman movies (more and more villains, sidekicks), James Bond (more gadgets and stupid jokes and outrageous plot situations occur-Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, Die Another Day) and even the terminator becomes a good guy in T2: Judgement Day.  But in Genisys, these issues are very few and the movie goes off in a whole new, interesting direction.  Unfortunately, they left it open for a sequel, as well.  Genisys would have been a satisfying ending point.

So, one last observation, PARENTS: Just because it is PG-13 does NOT mean you should take your kid to see this, and if you do, you are horrible parents (Yeah, I said it!) and people and growing the next generation of serial killers.  Is it any wonder why kids seem to be more and more disconnected from empathy and more violent?  A steady diet of this type of film at such an early age will almost guarantee they will be little monsters. I must have seen at least 10-12 families with children as young as 5-9 in the theater.  The Terminator is one of those perfectly good R-rated films that has now been dumbed down to a PG-13 rating to get precisely this, more butts in the seats. (Another issue I have with the film.) Parents, please heed the 13 in the rating and don't take your kids to this. It really isn't appropriate for them.

The Decline of Western Civilization, Parts I, II and III

Part I - 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Part II: The Metal Years - 3 Stars (out of four)

Part III - 3 Stas (out of four)

The Decline of Western Civilization is one of those documentaries that gets under your skin and confirms every parent's nightmare scenario for their children.  I was so happy when I saw all 3 would be released on DVD and blu-Ray FINALLY.  These films have attained a cult status of their own, and indeed, the third part has never been available in wide circulation before.  The first two were extremely rare, and only available on VHS as originals.  Shot by Penelope Spheeris (of Wayne's World fame, due primarily because of her work on Part II), at three different time periods in L.A. (1979-80, 1986-87, and 2006-07), chronicling three music movements at their respective times.  Part I covers the burgeoning west coast punk movement that was beginning to take hold, Part II: The Metal Years covers the height of the "hair band" heavy metal scene when it was beginning to explode in an honest-to-God phenomena, and Part III, while talking to some of the new generations of punk bands, focuses more on the lifestyles of the homeless gutter punks prowling through L.A.  Spheeris must be blessed with a perfect sense of timing as she caught all three movements at critical junctures.

Part I focuses more on the bands and the phenomena at the time.  The punk movement on the west coast was radically different than the one from England led by bands like The Sex Pistols and Siouxie and the Banshees (more idealistic) and the east coast with bands like The Ramones (more violent).  (Side Note: For an excellent documentary of the proto punk band The Sex Pistols, watch The Filth and the Fury) The west coast sort of blended the politics of England with the violence of the east coast and added a huge dose of nihilistic self-destruction.  It pulls no punches in the hard drinking and drugs lifestyle, and in fact, many people in the film are no longer alive, most famously Darby Crash (on the poster below), the original lead singer for The Germs.  Shortly before the movie came out, he OD'ed on heroin in a suicide.  The movie shows some of the rawest, electrifying and in many cases terrifying footage of these bands playing live and the violent reactions in the audiences.  In some cases it resembles a war zone.  It features a Who's Who of punk greats, with performances from The Germs, The Circle Jerks, Catholic Discipline, Black Flag (pre- Henry Rollins who would come from Washington D.C. about six months later and form arguably one of the most influential punk ensemble ever save The Sex Pistols and The Ramones), X, and Fear.  The movie discusses the band's lifestyles and world views and they are uncommonly candid once they get past the strutting.  Probably one of the best rock documentaries ever done, it crackles with life, energy and urgency.  Most of the kids you see died within five years of the film's release.  Part I speaks to a misunderstood and disaffected group of kids who think they are adrift in a sea of chaos.

Part II takes up with the heavy metal time frame in L.A., the time when "cock rock" ruled and groupies drooled.  While this doesn't focus much on the fans, it does examine the lifestyle, both real and imagined.  It takes a unique view of looking at the bands trying to make it (London, Faster Pussycat, Megadeth, Odin) and the been-there-done-that metal gods like Steven Tyler and Joe Perry (Aerosmith, just six months sober at the time), Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons (Kiss), Lemmy (Mötorhead), Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath and solo-still lucid at the time), Chis Holmes (W.A.S.P.-VERY drunk in his pool with his mom sitting poolside), and the members of Poison.  What's interesting about the young bands is their drive to succeed.  Unlike the punkers from Part I who thought they would be dead in five years (some were, many still alive) and therefore don't want to be stars, everyone in Part II wants to be a rock star.  And although members from the band Vixen are interviewed, all the rest are people you've never heard of.  Another interesting point is the old guard's perspective.  They say of course the life starts out fun, but it all come crashes down on you.  Everyone besides Kiss, to a one, say that in the end, they hated the life and weren't happy at all.  All in all, a fascinating look at the time of rockers and the strippers who want them.

Part III is the saddest of the series, as it focuses on the homeless gutter punks and the lives they lead.  Every single one of them have depressingly similar stories, tales of horrifying physical, mental and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents, many leaving their homes for the streets around age 13.  Hassled by Nazi skinheads and the police alike, every day is literally a war zone of constant struggle for survival.  Some of the older punkers who did survive the early 80's speak about the horrific downward spiral of drugs and its toll on them.  But this is primarily about the kids then and their lives from panhandling to squatting and all the danger that entails.  Almost every one of them is convinced they will be dead in ten years or less, and in the case of two, they were correct. One was burned alive in a squat fire and the other was stabbed to death by his jealous girlfriend with scissors.  The only one with a semblance of a normal life because he has a residence is there only because he was crippled in a drunk driving accident and lives on disability.  The hell of their existence mixed with the community they share with each other is stark but touching. List souls that support each other when they can, but will all probably die as they predict.

So, what does this series give us, why does it matter?  First, it's a fascinating look at lifestyles that most people want to have nothing to do with the children who live it.  These are the disaffected youth at their most bare and vulnerable.  It is a warning to all parents and guardians to love your kids and that your actions really do matter.  But it is also a plea for us to understand them, to meet them on their turf and on their terms.  We spend so much time supporting causes like PETA and Greenpeace, but we cannot muster that kind of compassion for people, children in this case.  We give more respect to a dead body or lost puppy than an abused, frightened and homeless kid.  It doesn't make sense.  These movies, while quite disturbing at times to watch, do what great documentaries should do: shed light onto a perceived problem and asks you to consider it.  Plus, they serve as a great, historical snapshot  to catch a feeling of the time, the zeitgeist, if you will (sorry, I promised not to use that term, but it fits best here).  These films are great, and should be seen.