Tomorrowland is a movie based on a section of Disneyland. What's next? The Section of Universal Studios Between the Jurassic Park Ride and the Building Across From It: The Movie?
To be fair, I do think that this film could work as an adaptation of that section. That section was supposed to be about the future, and it would have been easy to take the Battleship approach to this movie, and just make anything about the future and slap the Tomorrowland name on it. However, director Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol) develops a movie with the positive spirit of a Disneyland attraction, even if the rest of the movie isn't as great.
The story revolves around a teenage girl who finds a pin that takes her to an technologically advanced utopia for a moment. She then sets out to find out more about it, and encounters danger along the way. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that she eventually teams up with George Clooney to take down some bad guys.
Like I said before, this movie has a positive attitude that fits into Disney's traditional style. It has a very strong message of optimism and progress. However, I feel it got preachy at times. There were several moments where they shoved the "think positive" message down the audience's throats.
But in spite of this positivity, there are a few moments where it actually got dark or otherwise questionable for a family movie. In one scene, a group of police officers get vaporized. In another, the main character steals a car from a man who pulled over, believing he ran over a little kid. And probably the worst offenders are the scenes that try to convince you that the world is actually going to end. (Minor spoilers for the rest of the paragraph) Near the end, it is explained that the world is going to end in about a month, due to all of our real life problems, like war, famine, and global warming. This makes it a little to real for a family movie based on Disneyland.
However, this film is still ambitious. It has an original story, and stays entertaining throughout. Also, the few scenes that we see that take place in Tomorrowland look good. It's just a shame that the movie couldn't overcome it's preachiness.
2015 is turning out to be a great year for the R-rated action flick. Normally, this genre is an endangered species in a market full of semi-kid-friendly superhero movies, and other action movies which get toned down to a PG-13 rating. However, this year we have gotten two success stories. First, the excellent Kingsmen: The Secret Service became a surprise hit. Then, Mad Max: Fury Road, one of the most anticipated films of the summer, decided to stay true to its gritty, R-rated roots, and delivered a good movie in the process.
The movie sees Max, now played by Tom Hardy, as he escapes imprisonment from a tyrannical leader. He then joins a party led by rogue worker, played by Charlise Theron, on a journey to Theron's homeland, while being chased by an army of evil soldiers.
Now, prior to watching this, I have unfortunately only seen the first Mad Max movie, so I probably can't speak for a lot of the die-hard fans. However, I really enjoyed this movie, and from what I've heard, a lot of the fans did as well.
This film is action-packed, with a lot of car chases, and I mean a lot of car chases. These chases are very intense, and they are made even more intense by the fact that some of the good guys actually die in them. This tends to be more tense for me than many movies where I am sure that all of them will survive. It also does a good job of displaying the cynical nature of this world, that was displayed in the first one.
These characters are also very well-acted. Tom Hardy plays Mel Gibson's character of Max pretty well. He convincingly plays a man who is still haunted by the death of his family, which I thought made him a more sympathetic character. Charlise Theron also does a great job of playing a convincing bad-ass soldier.
In conclusion, Mad Max: Fury Road is an intense, well-acted film with plenty of car chases, explosions, and crashes using practical effects. What a lovely day indeed.
Hollywood loves sequels. They make more money, because fans of the original are sure to see them. Most of the time. It makes sense that these would be successful, but every once in a while, there comes a sequel that is such a bad concept that it makes people wonder why anybody thought it would be a good idea. So now I present to you my picks for the top ten worst ideas for a sequel.
To be clear, this is not a list of the worst sequels ever. In fact, I haven't even seen most of these films. Some of them, I haven't even heard of before I did research to jog my memory. Instead, I'm going to talk about what I think is the stupidest concepts for a sequel that were ever actually made.
Also, in order to make this list, the movie need to have a theatrical release. So no straight-to-DVD sequels will be on this list, because I don't know much about straight to DVD movies.
10. Jason X
Jason goes to space! That is the concept of this poorly received tenth entry in the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Vorhees is cryogenically frozen and thawed out hundreds of years in the future... in space. The franchise has been to some weird places, but this just seems kind of too much.
9. The Taken Sequels
Both of these sequels are going to take this spot, because I can't just single out one of them. The first Taken was a surprise hit which redefined Liam Neeson's career. But did it really need a sequel? How could members of his family get taken more than once? Even though they do give a decent reason (the family of the people Neeson killed in the first one are out for revenge), this just feels kind of forced. Then they made a third movie, in which nobody gets taken. While I guess this would make sense for the story, it raises the question of why they would still call the movie Taken.
8. The Hangover Sequels
This series follows pretty much the same trajectory as the Taken franchise. It puts out a badly received sequel where the same thing somehow happens twice (if this happens twice, you have a problem), and then a third movie that has almost nothing to do with hangovers. I ranked these movies higher because while Taken 2 at least tried to explain how the same thing could happen again to the same people, The Hangover Part 2 makes no such attempt. Lightning just strikes in the same place twice. Also, while the Taken sequels stayed consistent in tone throughout, The Hangover franchise seems to gradually change from a fun, raunchy comedy, to a dark, violent one.
7. The Rage: Carrie 2
This is one of those movies that I haven't heard of until I did research for this list. Carrie was a classic horror movie from the seventies, and in 1999 somebody decided to make a sequel. Apart from being over twenty years too late, this sequel also does not have the title character of Carrie in it. This movie was a bomb that was panned by critics and audiences alike. 6. Blues Brothers 2000
This sequel was released in 1998, almost twenty years after the first one. It was also long after original star John Belushi's death; he was replaced by John Goodman. So in short, this didn't exactly have box office hit written all over it. It was also criticized for not having the same feel as the original. You can't make a sequel without one of its most iconic stars
5. Son of the Mask
Speaking of which...
Son of the Mask was a sequel to the Jim Carey comedy The Mask, shot without Jim Carey. Replacing him was Jamie Kennedy, a man who half of you people reading this probably have no idea who he is and the other half probably dislike him. Anyway, he is not a good replacement for Carey, whose performance pretty much made the movie. He plays alongside a creepy CGI baby and a creepy CGI dog, who are also affected by the mask. When I watched the trailer above, I couldn't help but think of somebody in the theater watching it, thinking "Yes, we're finally getting a sequel to The Mask!", but then slowly finds out how bad it is. Anyway this movie was a critical and financial bomb, with eight Razzie nominations (more than any film that year) including Worst Picture, and won for Worst Remake or Sequel.
4. Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
Oh look, another sequel to a Jim Carey movie without Jim Carey.
This prequel shows the main characters of Dumb and Dumber when they were in high school, and was released almost ten years after the original. Neither Jim Carey nor Jeff Daniels appear in this film. This film ranks higher than Son of the Mask because both Carey and Daniels are even more important to the movie than Carey was to The Mask. Why would they think that people would see a Dumb and Dumber movie without it's stars.
3. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
The Blair Witch Project was a major hit, which (unfortunately) popularized the found-footage horror genre. Most of the reason for this was because of the marketing gimmick which made tried to make people believe that the footage shown actually happened. So, of course, by the time this movie was released, people already knew that this was not real. Also, the sequel ditched the then interesting found-footage format, in terms of a bigger, more traditional horror movie style. What could go wrong? The movie was nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and Worst On-Screen Pairing for Any Two Actors, and won the award for Worst Sequel or Remake.
2. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection
This is a sequel to the notorious independent film Birdemic: Shock and Terror. For those of you not familiar with that movie, it is a thriller where global warming causes birds to attack people, and it's apparently really bad.It held on to the number one spot on the IMDB Bottom 100, until 2014 when it was beaten by Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, and (I have just found this out now) again recently by some film called Kod Adi KOZ. So why make a sequel, you may ask. Because in recent years, it has gained a cult following as genuinely so bad it's good. But did they really think that they could capture that same charm on purpose? Well, it didn't work, because many fan said that the directors new self-awareness made it less funny. This movie is also in the top ten of the Bottom 100, although surprisingly it actually has a slightly better rating.
1. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
Why was this made? Why? The first Baby Geniuses movie had a 2.5 rating on IMDB, giving it a place on their Bottom 100,and a 2% rating on Rotten Tomatoes with the consensus reading "...worse than the premise suggests." It must be pretty hard for a movie called Baby Geniuses to be worse than its premise would suggest! It was also nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy, and won for Worst Director Bob Clark. So why make a sequel? Money?
Did you read what I just wrote? That movie had no fan base!
And this movie was also released too late, five years after the original. This may not seem like a long time, but this movie was aimed only at children, who may not remember the original. If you think what I just said was dumb, and that surely some young children would remember the original, let me tell you that I was ten years old at the time of this movie's release, and I did not remember the first movie's existence at all. And I think I actually might have been too old for this movie even then; I sure as hell didn't know anybody who wanted to see this piece of s**t. Why would their actual target audience remember?
This movie managed to get even worse ratings on both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. The Rotten Tomatoes score for this movie was finally able to reach the "coveted" 0%, and the site has also called it the worst summer movie of all time every year on its yearly countdown.
So those are my picks for the worst sequel ideas of all time. It was difficult to narrow it down to just ten with all the stupid and/or unnecessary sequels out there. These movies are proof that not all sequels should be greenlit.
And so we kick off the summer movie season with it's most anticipated film: Avengers: Age of Ultron.
In this sequel, Tony Stark has created an artificial intelligence called Ultron, played by James Spader. He created it to maintain peace on earth, but it has a different way of creating this peace. Ultron hatches a plan which could endanger all of humanity (nice one, Mr Stark), and the Avengers need to stop him.
This movie is a good example of a sequel that is not as good as the original, but is still very entertaining. Joss Whedon's writing has not faltered, and we still get the same chemistry between the characters as before. However, the jokes and action don't seem to be as fun, although they are still great. It could just be that it was more fun to watch the Avengers be together for the first time, than it will for any other time, but the formula didn't seem as good as before. But it is better than many great summer films recently.
However, there is one advantage that the movie has over the original, and that is the villain. James Spader plays the role of Ultron to great effect. His personality is like his role on The Blacklist, which makes for entertaining villainry.
Joss Whedon also did a good job of introducing the new characters. There are a few new characters who weren't in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before, like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. These characters do not seem like the caricatures that they could have been in different hands, or at least not as much as they could have been.
In conclusion, while Avengers: Age of Ultron may not be as good as the first one, it is still fully entertaining. The Marvel Universe has been on a roll with it's movies, (with the exception of Iron Man 3) and it doesn't show any signs of slowing just yet. This movie should please fans of Marvels past work.
Oh yeah, and don't wait until after the credits. For the first time there is no end credit scene. I just saved you the disappointment.
