Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones, and Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albiet with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which recieved international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predicatable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to hone in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Major League: Back to the Minors.

Review #1676: Major League: Back to the Minors.

Cast: 

Scott Bakula (Gus Cantrell), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), Takaaki Ishibashi (Taka Tanaka), Jensen Daggett (Maggie Reynolds), Eric Bruskotter (Rube Baker), Walton Goggins (Billy "Downtown" Anderson), Ted McGinley (Leonard Huff), Kenny Johnson (Lance "The Dance" Pere), Judson Mills (Hog Ellis), Lobo Sebastian (Carlos Liston), Thom Barry (Frank "Pops" Morgan), Peter Mackenzie (Carlton "Doc" Windgate), Tim and Tom DeFilippo (Juan Lopez), and Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle) Directed and Written by John Warren.

Review: 

You can tell there is probably a bit of laziness with the filmmaking with one little shot about 25 minutes before the end, where you can see the scoreboard that signifies the runs and hits in the wrong place (runs are listed in the inning portion for one team while the runs column says the game is 0-0); this also happens in the baseball game in the climax, where it lists a score of 4-2 but has two runs listed in the seventh and one in the eighth for the home team (which happens right before one sees the third run scored). Watching high school baseball a long time ago makes one appreciate the fine art of having a scoreboard operate correctly. Anyway, here is the third and final installment of the Major League films. Imagine thinking that the best things to follow up a foul-mouthed classic is two movies that all people of age would groan away at. If you didn't know already, David S. Ward (who had lived in a Cleveland suburb growing up) wanted to make a movie where he could see his beloved Cleveland Indians win (and with that in mind, he felt it would only happen in a comedy). The result was Major League (1989, #426) - a riveting classic, one that I revere as the perennial baseball movie that had a collection of name actors to go with soon-to-be familiar presences in an enjoyably predictable and raunchy time. It is actually one of the few movies I try to watch every year, preferably as baseball season is starting. The sequel (1994, #444), released five years later by Ward, was not quite as successful, likely owing to middling returns of humor that for some reason was done for a PG-audience. The co-producer of that film in James Robinson returns to produce this film, but this time around the attempts at humor try to reach a PG-13 level (Ward, who had no involvement in this movie, disowned it while trying to shuttle hopes for a true third movie, which has not gone anywhere). It is perhaps a bit baffling to see that the team of focus besides the minor leagues is the Minnesota Twins.. Welp, perhaps the state of Minnesota was more accommodating to the production or something, but I can technically say that I do think of pity when I think of sports in the state (on that matter, go Vikings), so I guess that works out, and Little Big League (1994) featured them while a child became their new owner, so technically this is a step up. This makes this the only Major League movie to actually use the right filming location for its intended team, since Milwaukee County Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards doubled for Cleveland for the first and second film, respectively; one is curious about that air-supported roof of the Metrodome and its unique right-field wall that I kid you not was called "The Baggie" (besides, I cannot fault its Astroturf setup because the Astrodome would be one of the first places I could visit if I had to visit Houston). Besides, the movie can't even get the minor league aspect correctly, since the "Buzz" were actually the minor league team of the Twins...who played in Salt Lake City, not South Carolina (I suppose filming in the high elevation would have been quite a difference in contrast). I will admit that despite being a baseball nut, I really don't have many minor league team names on hand to note, except for one - my region had an independent baseball team named the Whitewings for over a decade, and my parents took me to a game when I was a young boy that resulted in a baseball I still have in my house.

I wonder if the film would have been an even bigger failure if it didn't have "Major League" slapped on (such as calling the movie Minor League). This was the work of writer/director John Warren, who apparently would not direct or write any more movies after this (the only other directing credit was for The Curse of Inferno, released in 1997). Keep in mind, nothing makes much sense in this movie. Beyond the collection of misfits that range from a ballerina-turned third baseman to a catcher that has to be told he stinks in order to be any good...a major league team plays a series of exhibition games with its minor league affiliate. Honestly, how does that work? Do the players in this mythical series get paid extra, or is it all just on the whim of their nut owner (who if you've seen these movies has somehow managed to purchase a baseball team on two separate occasions)? Is this really going to help inspire the major league team if they are playing against guys who could presumably replace them? Just how long is the major league manager for the Twins going to last at the position if he can't even beat the minor league team, especially when he apparently can just call the electricity man at the Metrodome and turn off the power in the span of a pitch being thrown? Then again, in this movie players will just come out if you call out to the sky and say you need a player right before you take a ball to the head. Five folks from the first two films return here through means that I can't really explain very well, because you have one guy who is managing a putt-putt course and a major-turned-minor league announcer. Maybe this was actually supposed to be thought of for television, because the levels of humor certainly feel that way, and it only seems to serve as the further de-evolution of a series that should have stopped when it was ahead. This isn't to say that the first movie is perfect (because it really isn't), but there is something about how it handled the clichés when it comes to the sports movie and made it a warm story that was never too crude or syrupy with characters and lines that actually could stick with you. Yes, seeing the Indians win is the end note, but it is the journey to get around with in the various little stories that encompass it that make it mean something; strangely enough, this statement might also apply in some way to another movie that received sequels with Slap Shot (1977). In short: there is no real heart to the movie. It has essentially turned into a product, one that groans and heaves towards trying to mine moments that are used for obvious gags or to remind you of something from before.

It is weird to see Bakula in this film, honestly. This isn't because of some sort of animosity towards him, because his star role in Quantum Leap (1989-1993) is a favorite of mine, but it is because half the time he really looks lost here (that, and one wonders if an imaginary friend will start to show up - incidentally, the second episode of that aforementioned show featured him playing a baseball player on the skids). Besides, the attempts to move along with the player-turned-manager plot in ways different from what one saw in the second movie might have felt more interesting with Tom Berenger. Bakula here just seems too reserved to really stick as a lead trying to shepherd this ensemble into anything. Bernsen probably has even less to do this time around when it comes to generating humor that sticks beyond sitcom stuff. Haysbert is playing for the laugh track like everyone else, and it proves just as disappointing as was the case last time, complete with him even putting a hood over his head as practice. Ishibashi is used here and there for silly gags that involve him stating dialogue that will either be translated to English, Japanese, or snarky guesses at what he is saying - the result is a performance blander than his appearance in the second one. Daggett has barely anything to do as a whole, with snippets providing no spark between her and Bakula through fault of the script and not her. Bruskotter probably play acts baseball better than he does with acting for laughs, which is technically an accomplishment. Goggins (in one of his first film roles before hitting it big with television in the 2000s) moves through the drawl of attempting confidence that sometimes can seem like a refreshing presence for a movie in need of one, but the traps of the story means that there isn't much tension to really draw interest. You might think that Bakula is the only television favorite to experience this weird feeling, but then one recognizes McGinley from Married...with Children (he also appeared in other shows, but we both know where favorites reside) shows up from time to time as the adversarial manager. He reflects the sitcom-level of filmmaking that happens here, for better or worse. The movie can't be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, but one can at least think that McGinley is at least trying to have some sort of fun with it, regardless of how goofy he seems, particularly since he is always shown with lush hair and no hat (this obviously gets used for a gag near the end, where he shakes his hair to prove it is real). Johnson and the others collect into obvious gags and quiet failure that play for the laugh track and nothing better. 100 minutes can not pass by soon enough when it comes to a limp movie filled with the bare minimum in meaningful baseball and even less in meaningful heart that prove that some movie ideas should just stay as ideas.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

House of 1000 Corpses.

Review #1590: House of 1000 Corpses.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), Karen Black (Mother Firefly), Chris Hardwick (Jerry Goldsmith), Erin Daniels (Denise Willis), Jennifer Jostyn (Mary Knowles), Rainn Wilson (Bill Hudley), Walton Goggins (Steve Naish), Tom Towles (Deputy George Wydell), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Robert Allen Mukes (Rufus), Dennis Fimple (Grandpa Hugo), Harrison Young (Don Willis), William Bassett (Sheriff Frank Huston), Irwin Keyes (Ravelli), and Michael J. Pollard (Stucky) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007))

Review: 

"The first film I directed, which people seems to love, is just a calamitous mess. Well, when it came out it seemed like everyone hated it. Now everyone acts like it’s beloved in some way. All I see is flaw, upon flaw, upon flaw… upon flaw.”

Sure, there have been quite a few directors that came across film after having made a name for themselves with another form of media. But how many were musician-turned-directors? Rob Zombie (born Robert Cummings) is one such director. He grew up with an three-pronged fantasy of being like Alice Cooper, Steven Spielberg and Stan Lee, having grown up with an interest in horror as a young child, noting the boom of horror in the late 1960s with media that ranged from The Munsters to magazines like Famous Monsters, although other favorites later included Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Westerns. The Massachusetts native attended both the Pratt Institute and the Parsons School of Design for a time before coming up with the idea for what became the band White Zombie in 1985, which he co-founded with Sean Yseult. Alongside others in the band, they contributed four albums over the next thirteen years, eventually finding recognition for their heavy metal sound, with Zombie directing the music videos. His first album after going solo was influenced by classic horror films (complete with some songs having samples and quotes from his favorites) while also doing work for various media (including animation for Beavis and Butt-Head Do America in 1996). He expressed an interest in directing in 1997, with an actual plan to have him write and direct a sequel to The Crow (set in 2037, I kid you not) before it was shelved. He worked with Universal Studios in designing a haunted maze attraction in 1999, and it was its success that led to them wanting to work with him on a film (thought of on the spot while designing another attraction), which he started directing in 2000. The resulting film did not please Universal, who shelved it in fears of receiving a NC-17 rating due to its violence (an Adults Only rating, as if Universal decided releasing a violent horror film was suddenly too much) before Lionsgate Films eventually signed on to release it, with this serving as the first of so far seven theatrical films directed and written by Zombie.

One can see the influence of films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Spider Baby (1968) while also seeing the drive-in qualities that make a gritty and weird experience. Is it for everyone? You best believe it isn't for everyone, because for some it will feel tedious even at 89 minutes for where it wants to go in the art of the grotesque, a film that seems constricted by its influences to be anything more original. On the other hand, there are arguments to be made in favor of Zombie and his direction (alongside co-contribution to the music with Scott Humphrey) when it comes to his mix of horror and dark humor with ghoulish charm, which is why it has proved to have a cult following (alongside two sequels released in 2005 and 2019). I can firmly state that while it may not be exactly as well-developed as something like say Motel Hell (1980), I found enjoyment with its vision of macabre thrill and a fairly consistent cast to make it a worthwhile effort. I found it to be pretty enjoyable, in the sense that it made a madhouse worth investing time to look into without being driven senseless into gore without something to go along with it, even if it isn't exactly the most subtle horror film (its setting of the 1970s is believable to those who want to pretend it looks like that era). To start off, one goes with the first focus-point in Haig, the actor-turned-hypnotherapist-turned actor again (going from blaxploitation and heavy roles to horror). He mainly has three scenes to highlight, but he sure makes them ones to enjoy in ghoulish curiosity, amusing but effective in keeping you on your toes (he, alongside Moseley and S.Zombie, would feature in both sequels). Mosley (best known for his role in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) alongside other cult horror films) proves just as fiendish in grabbing attention to creep on one's shoulders, demented but useful to what is needed from him. S.Zombie (a dance choreographer and fashion designer that has featured in each of her husband's films) does fine with providing wicked allure for what is needed here, wrapped in terror just like the others that holds well with other fellow familiar actors in horror, such as the case with Black (long noted for work in independent films alongside horror fare), soothing but just as out there with the other members of family creeps (one that seems reminiscent of the Mansion family, what with Zombie inspired by recordings of them for the rants presented here). The other side of the action is the doomed travelers, which is mostly amusing to think back to the faces that eventually found prominence beyond horror, which involves Wilson, eventual star of The Office (2005) and Hardwick, comedian and podcast host (if one is into that sort of thing...no comment). They, alongside Daniels and Jostyn are just fine, in a room temperature kind of charm. I mean, we're watching a haunted ride of ghoulish people that murder people, the least one can do is make sure we aren't taken out of the experience with some jarring seriousness or bland set-ups for body counts. In that sense, I found it to be just enough to win out in the end, despite my reservations about its unwieldy consistency, which may seem like an excuse for Zombie to show off with references or in its weird cuts to those who desire more. It is exactly the kind of weird drive-in charm that makes Zombie an interesting face in horror cinema, one with a passion for the genre that yearns to creep its viewers out to their enjoyment (whether squeamish or not). It's a love it or hate it kind of movie - and I'm just fine with what it is.

Well, it's November 7th. I'm glad to have reached just as many films done in the week following Halloween as it was for the year before with five, and I hope you enjoyed Halloween: The Week After Part II. You can always throw suggestions in for horror films to be done any time of the year, but it is fun to make time for ones to really highlight in the month of fear alongside my personal extension week - enjoy the fun. There may or may not be another themed week coming up before the year ends, so stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Review #1108: Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Cast: 
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / Wasp), Michael Peña (Luis), Walton Goggins (Sonny Burch), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet van Dyne), Laurence Fishburne (Bill Foster), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Bobby Cannavale (Jim Paxton), Judy Greer (Maggie), Tip "T.I." Harris (Dave), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie), and Randall Park (Jimmy Woo) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man and #789 - The Break-Up)

Review: 
Three years ago, Ant-Man came onto the screen with a bit of production struggle but also a dynamic cast, with the final result being something that I described as one that "has fun with itself and its premise", which seems easy to still say today. With the sequel, the fear of staleness in terms of its charm and action is avoided, with a good majority of the credit being attributable to the cast, particularly Rudd and Lilly. Rudd (who is listed as one of the five co-writers of the film)does a fine job once again, having a degree of humility and amusement that is always watchable on-screen, whether when dealing with aspects of family or the main plot as a whole, and his moments with Forston are pretty neat. Lilly does fine with making her character an engaging one to see through that brims with confidence and energy (signified during her action sequences) that balances well with Rudd. If you enjoyed the trio of Peña-Canavale-T.I from the previous film, you will get a few laughs from them, particularly from Peña, and they help keep the flow of the movie go fine at times, even if they aren't as the forefront of the movie like with before. Goggins is fine, even if his adversary role is a bit standard for some tastes. John-Kamen does fine with her adversary role in showing a degree of menace but also a degree of vulnerability, and it is refreshing in some way to have one of these Marvel movies to not have a villain and their arc play out in the routine way like other films, and she is just as interesting to watch as the villain (and his arc) from the earlier one, with Fishburne being an acceptable accomplice in her sequences. Her sequences involving her power and the action scenes are also fairly well-done. Douglas is also interesting to see again, and Pfeiffer proves refreshing in her brief time on screen. The effects are to the standard that you would likely expect from these comic book films, with the highlight being the Quantum Realm sequences, and the parts involving size also prove acceptable. The plot moves itself at a fine pace, juggling itself handily without becoming too routine or having the stakes present themselves to be too low (or improbably high). It's a riveting experience that never wears out its welcome even at 118 minutes. On the whole, this is a fairly nice crowd-pleaser kind of film that improves itself from the original in small but crucial ways that will satisfy audiences looking for some neat fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.