Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie Review

Based on the popular books by Dav Pilkey, the movie adaptation "Captain Underpants" was titled with the expectations to make sequels, hence its subtitle "The First Epic Movie." Only I wish it never made it past the desks of Hollywood executives. It is eighty nine minutes of pure potty humor, which even the film calls "the lowest form of comedy," and I agree. If your kids, or the kid in you, laugh at the idea of a chorus of whoopee cushion noises, then this is the movie for you, because there is a tireless scene of it. And if just the thought of a towering, walking toilet has you immediately going and buying your ticket, then stop reading. I might spoil one of the poop jokes for you.

Despite debuting the same day as "Wonder Woman," and coming before and after numerous other superhero flicks, "Captain Underpants" is too afraid to parody them. This could have been the audience's relief from all the the darkness of the genre, all the gluttonous and sameness, but like this years "The Lego Batman Movie," the underwear wearing captain settles for flashy visuals interrupted by only by musical numbers, flatulence, and a story that wraps up far too conveniently, with a message about friendship to boot. For a superhero who literally wears tight underwear, there is a funny idea here, somewhere, buried deep below more potty jokes than Adam Sandler would dare tell.

The animation is fast paced but painfully boring, save for that one "sock puppet" scene. Simple geometry and bland art style pale in comparison to the company's other films, and particularly when graded against Pixar or Disney's offerings. The budget is smaller; perhaps that is why the most of the cast are "for-rent" comedians and actors.

The plot goes something like this: George (Kevin Hart) and Harold (Thomas Middlehitch) are grade-school delinquents who spend their free time writing a comic about the imaginary "Captain Underpants." Their principle, Mr. Krupp (Ed Helms), spends his time trying to prove that the duo are behind all the pranks around the school. But through the power of a cereal box prize "hypno ring," which actually works despite the reluctance of both the two heroes and the principle himself. As a joke, they snap his fingers and poof, Mr. Krupp is now the title superhero; splash him with water, and he is back to his school-running self. I like how the film never bothered explaining how or why the ring works, or why water retards its effect; it adds to the sugar-coated visuals and zippy pacing, but why they never try and hypnotize villain "Professor Poopypants (Nick Kroll), disguised as the district's new science teacher. Or why the police don't show up when a giant toilet rampages through the school until the film's credits are revving to start rolling. Or where everyone's parents are. Or why Professor Poopypants doesn't  change his  name (that is, of course, the reason he is evil). Or why every punchline involves farting, burping or nose-picking.

It isn't that farting, burping or nose-picking isn't funny- only it isn't. But every line sets up the same punchline, and that punchline is well, farting, burping or nose-picking. Kids are smarter than that; I saw this in a theater fairly filled, all kids with the parents, but very few laughs were generated. That is the sign of a movie failing to realizes its target audience.

The Mummy Review

I always thought that mummies in movies were zombies with personality (they are the real talking dead). They can think, plot, and murder like man but take a beating like their undead movie brothers. But in "The Mummy," their characterizations are as thin as the rags they are wrapped in.

But none of that matters. Actually, the laws of physics, logic, and common-sense matter in a film like this one, the first in Universal's proposed "Dark Universe." It spends its introduction luring you in, lowering your guard only for it to grab onto that little kid in you and never let go. Well actually, looking at what other critics gave this movie, perhaps it was only me. So what? Is this a good film? Hell no, but did I like this film? I can't say for sure, but I was childishly happy throughout the entire run time.

The plot is a regurgitation of every other "mummy" incarnation on film, cannibalizing the genre and even its own franchise. Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) plays a thieving former Military something or other who is far too good-looking to believe he is sells priceless antiquities on the black market (his looks make him look like he is an actor. Perhaps a "movie-within-a-movie" would have been a better avenue). His buddy Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) are introduced to use in Iraq, where men with guns spot them, shoot guns only to be blown up by an air strike Chris called in for once the first bullet was fired. The strike unearth a prison tomb of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), where Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) shows up and orders the sarcophagus to be airlifted out of the desert. Bad idea. Actually, if this film tells us anything, it is that Americans have no business in Iraq.

Nothing this film does is unique; it is a madcap tour of reused scenes and ideas from everything from 1979's "Zombi 2" (with the undead swimming underwater) to the films 1999 precursor "The Mummy" (with the lead mummy sucking the life out of tertiary characters). It is spectacularly stupid, but every actor here plays it completely straight, the film's biggest problem. Even Tom Cruise spends most of the movie looking aloof in front of a green screen. The lack of fresh ideas, or even one genuine scare, could have been saved by a wink or two from the cast.

But the title mummy herself, Princess Ahmanet, is a great movie villain, B-movie material carried by actress Sofia Boutella's wildly seductive performance. The film has a fetishistic obsession with her, lusting over her whether she is covered with rags with a chunk of her piercingly beautiful face removed or completely naked, the PG-13 rating remains thanks to convenient shadows her buttocks and breasts. She uses her sexuality to try and beguile Nick into letting her stab him with a sacred dagger to bring forth the Set, the deity who gave her her own powers explained in the prologue. Where as a less confident actress (or a more modest director) would have looked clumsy during these temptations (or shied away from them), Sofia goes all out to the point of hammy overacting. Perhaps she thought she was starring in those other "The Mummy" movies with Brendan Fraser. To say the mummy in "The Mummy" has no heart would be an insult; Egyptians often left the heart intact during mummification.

Action remains the picture's best feature, where fist-fights break up car chases in woodlands to zero-gravity airplane crashes. Oh sure, there is the occasional conversation, but most talking is done either zipping from one lavish set piece to then next, or with cuts to the mummy raising her army of the dead. It is all decidedly deliberate; it is almost as if the film knows no one cares, especially when script contains such flavorful dialogue as "She is real!" and "You can't run!" It is no coincidence that director Alex Kurtzman didn't know any better; his own writing credits include the trite film "Cowboys & Aliens" and the campy TV show "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys."

It is a shame how things take place in modern day; the plot concerns no technology outside of the invention of the parachute (oh wait, sorry, I think I saw a computer in one scene). There is no cloning, no space travels, nothing that calls for its present day backdrop. Here everything is about curses, old gods- things that beg for a period-piece setting. The previous trilogy used a wonder early 1900's background, where the luscious sets we're punctuated by vintage costumes, weapons, accents, and the likes. Here, everything outside of the tombs look like they could have been leftovers from other blockbusters.

Look, this four-star material reduced into a two-star film, but yet it gets three-stars? That is because for all the "cinematic universes" out there, I am just glad there wasn't a man in rubber tights running around. I had fun this time; it isn't as good as this years "Kong: Skull Island," but it is right up there with last summer's "Independence Day: Resurgence." If either of those movies make the adult in you cry for a film with craft and care, then "The Mummy" will not be able to find that little kid inside of you.

Wonder Woman Review

I had no idea that WW1 was resolved by a woman in a metal bikini; if they taught that in high school, I probably would have passed history class. Or at least that is the story to "Wonder Woman," the latest DC superhero movie. It is a movie with the ambitions grander than what ends up on screen, one that is getting better reviews from critics than it perhaps deserves. I guess that is what happens when the competition for female-led superhero movies includes "Catwoman" and "Elektra."

The film attempts to combat sexism, but still, our title hero needs a man. That man is Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), who is not a superhero himself (unless having two first names is his superpower). He is a spy working inside Germany and has stolen a notebook detailing their latest mustard gas cocktail. If you are wondering what the hell this has to do with Wonder Woman, that is because existing near Germany is a portal to the land of the Amazons (I wonder if they offer free two-day shipping).  How this portal, which allows anything through, had not been discovered until now is beyond the laws of logic; you would think a plane would have accidentally flown through, or a ship sailing awry (or a lost post man perhaps, trying to meet the two-day delivery deadline, no doubt). But none of this came to mind until the film moves beyond its inspired "Xena: Warrior Princess"-esque beginning, a world where the Amazons participate in generally believable sword fighting, archery, and other antiquated forms of battle so often underutilized in these superhero flicks. An almost "medieval" setting was what this film need, it never needed to branch outside of the world of sword and sandals. Fans seeing this movie have already seen a character go from "the land of the gods" to the real world with Marvel's "Thor." The jokes they tell here are variations of the fish-out-of-water story told a million times before, and done so with better set-ups and better jokes.

I wanted more of this mystery Amazons land and less of its unpleasantly murky depiction of London. The only fun thing to look at are the old-fashioned outfits and patterns of speech. But Wonder Woman's birthplace (creation-place?)? There were grand sets that inspired wonder (no pun intended), a marvelous landscape free of obvious CGI, and articulated speeches about gods without ever showing one (save for a bedtime story for a young Wonder Woman (Wonder Toddler?)).

Everything else? Dark, dreary, and depressing. I guess it had to be, considering this takes place during the first World War, but if the resolution this film offers is that a superhero ended the war, then couldn't the journey be a bit more fun? I mean at the end of the day, this is a summer blockbuster. And that is the problem here. "Wonder Woman" wants to be a painful depiction of war, a demonstration of female power, and that summer blockbuster. It holds all three ingredients but never weaves them together, creating a world that could only exist a movie. How else can so many bullets be fired but where blood is only shown to be shed dried on the casts of victims? Why else would everybody speaks English, with character's nationalities denoted only by their accent? Or why the only source of color in many shots, outside of the dozen of varieties of gray, is the shiny and skimpy metallic outfit Wonder Woman sports? What clothing she does wear is explained to be bullet proof- you would think she would cloth herself with a bit more, clothes, like her universe counterpart Batman, but hey, what ever to get those box-office dollars.

The women in "Wonder Woman" do kick ass, but it only devotes itself to empowerment halfway. There is a scene, late in the film, where the titular heroine struggles with the film's "twist" and almost gives up, only brought to her senses by a man. And following that twist, the flick  quickly becomes obviously part of the "Batman Vs. Superman" universe, with hollow special effects that never look special, with loud "bangs" of music and curt bits of dialog that sound like movie-trailer narration.

Wonder Woman herself (Gal Gadot) has many super powers, including the power to slow time, because "slow-mo" is used in almost every action scene; it is as if they film a sixty minute film and played it in slow motion to meet the two hour minimum for a movie (it is actually a 141 minute long flick, but I digress). When the action does play out in normal speed, it feels synthetic, with bodies bouncing off of walls with the artificial weight only CGI can produce. I guess it takes a computer to make a superhero.