Movie Review - "Steve Jobs" (2015) - A Fallen Idol

To see the world through the eyes of an innovator is to see a bleak and often miserable existence. We might praise people like Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King Jr. now, but during while these fighters were in a constant struggle against not only their own demons but against society for daring to be different. Most of the people who change the world do not get their recognition until after their deaths.

I can honestly say I did not know who Steve Jobs was until after he passed away and everyone would not stop talking about how he changed the way we looked at computers and invited them into our home. That the digital age of social media, instant access information and handheld devices would not be possible without Steve Jobs. And after the release of his biography, which detailed his turmoil with Apple and his personal life, it only seemed natural to turn his life story into a film.

That is, after the disaster that was Asthon Kutcher's "Jobs."

Danny Boyle's "Steve Jobs" is a unique film-going experience that takes a vastly different approach to telling one man's life story while still capturing the essence of why this flawed creature is beloved and praised. Aaron Sorkin's writing shifts between pretentious and enlightening, but that is to be expected at this point. But Michael Fassbender's performance as Steve Jobs is what people are talking about, even if Fassbender can never reach the ego of this innovator.

The film details three key moments in Steve Jobs life - The reveal of the Macintosh shortly after the début of the "1984" Apple commercial, Steve's first independent creation of the NeXT computer in 1988, and his return to Apple with the creation of the iMac. Each of these takes place a few hours before Steve (Fassbender) showcases these products to the world, while we watch his life fall apart around him, including from Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogan), the CEO of Apple John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), his personal assistant Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) and Steve's daughter Lisa, who he constantly denies as his offspring.



How you react to this movie will depend entirely on how you feel about Fassbender's performance.

While he nails the emotional scenes, realizing how much of a prick he can be to the people who care about him, there is a certain air to his performance. I never got the impression this was Steve Jobs, just Michael Fassbender pretending to be Steve Jobs. You might argue that is exactly what acting is, but great acting makes you forget the illusion of cinema and feel that you're watching real people, not just actors trying to be someone else.

I felt the performances from Seth Rogan, Jeff Daniels and Kate Winslet were emotionally-driven and often sympathetic to those who had to consistently deal with Steve Jobs. But it always felt like I was seeing Michael Fassbender flaunt his ego, and not become Steve Jobs. Perhaps this was because the man has become a legend by this point that it almost impossible for any actor to portray him.



That being said, Fassbender made Steve Jobs vulnerable. He showed that this was a man who wanted to make something of himself in the world and took every opportunity to showcase that. Because he was so caught up in changing the world, he would neglect everything that any normal man would, like his daughter. This is a man so absorbed in his own ego that he is astonished that other people don't feel the same way about him.

Because of that, I can't say that Fassbender's performance was off-putting. It works perfectly for Aaron Sorkin's screenplay, even if he does not fully emulate Steve Jobs. From the moment of Fassbender denying that he has a daughter to the revelation of why Time magazine made his computer the "Man Of The Year" and not him, this is a noteworthy performance.



Overall, "Steve Jobs" is about a man so caught up in changing the world that he forgot to be apart of his own world. The visual style of Boyle's film matches this theme and character-arc for Jobs, as we watch his dreams become larger than life, then all fall apart, only to rise from the ashes and for the world to see him as he sees himself - an innovator.

Final Grade: B+

Movie Review - "Spectre" (2015) - A Tribute Worth Remembering

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!

Confession time - I'm not a big fan of James Bond.

To this day, I've only seen a few James Bond films, in particular "Goldfinger," "Dr. No," "Casino Royale," "Die Another Day" and "Skyfall." And while the two Daniel Craig Bond films I've seen have amazed, they have not made me want to see the other roughly 20 movies in the franchise.

It is like discovering the Godzilla franchise for the first time. You learn there are 30 films in the series, most of which aren't that great, and you're put off by a task so large that may not yield great results.

Even so, I'd still take Godzilla over James Bond. While Bond is the man who every man wants to be and every woman wants to be with, I could never get past his dead-pan reaction to every thing he encountered.



The building behind him blows up? Eh, it had it coming. The woman he was sleeping with is dead? That's a shame, have room service send me up another. Another assassin is after him? Is it Tuesday already?

I get that he is an assassin that has been desensitized to violence and crime over the years, but he has become so removed from reality that his childhood home blowing up gets little more than one quip out of him.

Do I hate the James Bond films? Not all. Like I said, I really enjoyed "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall," plus "Goldfinger" was action-packed and had a good sense of humor from Sean Connery. But I would not call myself a Bond fan, just someone who respects the franchise.

With that said, I also respect where the most recent Bond film, "Spectre" is coming from.
I've seen so many people bashing it for being boring, far too long and implausible, far removed from the realistic tone of the Daniel Craig films thus far. But "Spectre" was going for something much different from "Casino Royale" or "Quantum Of Solace," and that was to pay tribute to the older Bond films, like "Dr. No" and "Goldfinger." A film where the villain's plan is elaborate and convoluted, Bond is always grasping for even a moment's break, and the action is high and non-stop.

However, "Spectre" still has its share of problems.

Set shortly after the events of "Skyfall," James Bond (Daniel Craig) has been assigned one last mission by his former boss, to track down and kill a man who even his current boss, M (Ralph Finnes), has never heard of. What Bond finds though is a trail of bread crumbs leading him to a man who has been considered dead since James was a boy. This man, Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) has a plan for Agent 007, and intends to use his shady connections to ruin Bond's life.



There are several memorable scenes throughout "Spectre," and they all deal with convoluted action sequences that would make "Mad Max: Fury Road" blush. The opening sequence comes to mind, where a building collapses onto Bond, followed by a fist fight inside of a helicopter over Mexico City with the streets overflowing with bystanders, hoping that the blades come nowhere near them. I was blown away to see the helicopter fly upside down yet moves so smooth through the air, as if it had been launched off a ramp.

Not to mention, preceding that sequence was four-minute unbroken steady cam shot that followed James Bond from the streets, into a hotel, and to the rooftops of Mexico City. Seriously, opening your film with a long scene that is unedited is one of the best ways to get the audience's attention.

The chase sequence through the snow-capped mountains of Austria was also breath-taking, as the plane Bond uses slowly disintegrates and the kidnappers get further away. It was also a nice change of pace to see Bond doing the chasing and being in a vehicle normally associated with the villains. I think I heard people in the audience clapping at the end of this sequence, and it rightfully deserved that.



That being said, that story of "Spectre" was nothing special and almost ruins the earlier Bond films. As it turns out, Christoph Waltz's character is actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld (complete with cat and scar across the eye) and he blames everything bad in his life on James Bond, and that he was the one who orchestrated villains like Le Chiffre in "Casino Royale" and Silva in "Skyfall," just to get back at Bond.

In other words, Le Chiffre didn't want to get out of the clutches of terrorists across the world or anything personal, but was all a puppet for Blofeld's needs. Silva didn't want revenge on M for abandoning him when he needed her the most, but was a tool to get back at James Bond, because Blofeld apparently had daddy issues.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this if Blofeld's reasons for hating Bond weren't so baffling - Blofeld's father adopted Bond after his parents died, and Bond "stole his father away from him." Waltz makes the comparison to a cuckoo, which throws out the babies of another bird's nest so that another set of parents will take care of it. Except that, based off the photos, Blofeld's father clearly spent time with him after adopting Bond, and the two were together in the accident that supposedly kill them.

And all the while, Bond has no reaction to any of this. He just found out that Blofeld killed the only woman he ever loved, sent a former agent to kill his boss, and he says nothing about substantial about it.

Up to that point, the story is one action set piece to another, in trying to get Bond to Blofeld. But once we get to the reason behind Spectre going all out in stopping James Bond, the plot goes all over the place, trying to wrap everything up nicely.



"Spectre" does not even take advantage of Christoph Waltz's talent, as he always speaks in a low tone of voice, unimpressed by anything. Even when torturing Bond, the man "responsible" for all his pain, he looks as though he'd rather be eating a sandwich. Waltz is at his best when he's living it up and having a great time taking advantage of other people's naivety and stupidity, which is absent in this role. That is unfortunate.

Overall though, "Spectre" was a blast. High on action and low on intelligence may be a different game than the previous Craig Bond movies play, but as a tribute to the Connery Bond films, this one pulls it off nicely. The story is a mess and the acting is not as crisp as it has been, especially from Waltz, but the action sequences are some of the best this year. This is not one of the best James Bond films, but it was certainly a fun one.

Final Grade: B-

Movie Review - "Bridge Of Spies" (2015) - Spielberg, Hanks and Communists

Sometimes a films' greatest crime is being just average.

You never forget a truly great film, as Steven Spielberg has proven countless times and has done so since the mid-1970s. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a godawful film can leave a lasting impression on you. In place of excitement and awe with a great film is frustration and laughter in a bad film. Movies like "The Room" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space" might be glowing with faults and bad storytelling, but you remember how bad it was. You are reminded why you have standards and that these films don't hold up to them. They're entertainment of a different kind.

But a movie that falls in the middle is something else entirely. A movie that is neither good or bad has very little to remember about it. Scenes will come and go, do their job adequately so that you don't notice anything special but you don't question anything, and leave you feeling like nothing was gained or lost.

An average film is a forgettable film.



Such is the case with Spielberg's newest film, "Bridge Of Spies." I would not say there is anything wrong with this film, as it does a fine job at keeping the suspense of the Cold War and does not stray from that. But nothing truly outstanding shines in this film either. It was a by-the-numbers spy thriller with a bit of courtroom drama thrown into the mix. While it does have the Spielberg style and has a captivating performance from Tom Hanks, that is about all "Bridge Of Spies" has to offer.

My favorite scene comes about an hour in, when a CIA agent is questioning Hanks' character about his actions - defending a known Soviet Union spy and pleading that he not be sent to the electric chair. Hanks brings up how he is Irish and that the agent must be German, but that what makes both American is that they believe in the Constitution - that all men are created equal and deserve to be treated as such, even known enemies.

Beyond that, not many scenes stuck out to me. I'm writing this hours after watching "Bridge Of Spies" and I can hardly remember any scenes. I recall the plot of a prison transfer during the Cold War and tense moments once Hanks moves the action to East Berlin, where the film takes on a "Schindler's List" feel, but the sense of atmosphere and focus is lost.

 

Overall, "Bridge Of Spies" is not bad at all, but is not impressive either. The performances from Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance as the Soviet spy are charismatic and pleasant, but everything is so mellow and calm about everything. It is like watching a debate between two men that respect each other - There might be some parts where they speak something profound, but they care too much about one another to raise their voice or question what they have to say.

 

Final Grade: C+

Movie Review - "Crimson Peak" (2015) - Gothic Horror At Its Finest

One of the great points of living in the 21st century is having the widest range of learning and listening to other opinions and voices than any other point in history. Normally, you'd have to read about what others thought about a movie through your local newspaper or by reading a critic's book.

I bring this because I learned something about Guillermo Del Toro's most recent film "Crimson Peak" that I would not have known otherwise - That it is an homage to Italian horror cinema from the 1960s and 1970s. From the gothic landscapes, to excessive violence, to even outlandish plots that normally involve ghosts and spirits, "Crimson Peak" was meant to be a modern-day addition to those classic horror films.

Outside of Quentin Tarantino, it comes across like Guillermo Del Toro is the biggest movie buff in the film industry. Each of his films pay tribute to a genre that he adored, like "Pacific Rim" and the giant monster genre. His films emulate what makes those genres so great, while also making it accessible to those who may know nothing about these films. And "Crimson Peak" is no different, as long as you don't mind lots of violence and disturbing plot lines.

Set in the early 1900s, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) is a budding young writer in Buffalo, New York, but is haunted by the spirit of her mother, constantly warning her about "Crimson Peak," even though she's never heard of it. But when Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddelston) visits, inquiring about funds for a project he is constructing back in England, Edith is infatuated by him and the two hit it off. After some strange looks from Thomas' sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastain), it seems like Edith will do anything to be near Thomas, even move back into his slowly disintegrating mansion across the pond.



If you're going to watch "Crimson Peak" for anything, watch it for the visual style. Once the film reaches the mansion, the house takes on a life of its own. The house rests on top of a fine red clay, but this monument to time long since passed is so far gone that it is sinking into this muck, as if the house is bleeding. With every step these characters take, the clay oozes from underneath, and can almost always be seen coming out from a nearby wall. Anytime the water is turned on, the first bit of it is red.

It is as if the house has seen too much and is crying out in agony.

There is a gigantic hole in the middle of this mansion, where the seasons pass on the ground. Leafs fall below, even though there are no nearby trees, and a fine snow collects during the winter months. There are many scary aspects to "Crimson Peak," but the atmosphere alone is to die for.



I'm reminded of Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hallow," which was another tribute to a group of horror filmmakers - in that case, England's Hammer brothers. Both "Crimson Peak" and that film share a similar color palette, most characters and backgrounds are desaturated and look either pale or bleached, as if it had been out the sun too long.

But one color remains untouched - red.

"Crimson Peak" loves red and wants to showcase how bright and colorful it can be. Not just the clay or blood, but the many ghosts throughout the film are stained in red. Because everything else is so bland to look at, anything that is red stands out so much more. In a way, this is Guillermo Del Toro's most beautiful film so far.



Like I said earlier, "Crimson Peak" is not a film for the faint-of-heart. They go into graphic detail on each ghost and how it got to looking like it did, and many of the characters do some despicably violent acts, with Lucille being the biggest culprit of them all. I won't go into detail, but let's just say I still feel dirty even after watching it. So if that makes you sick, this is not the film for you.

But if you like gothic horror tales of ghosts, ghouls and haunted mansions, as well as passion projects to a long forgotten form of cinema, then "Crimson Peak" is right up your alley. Though the film is short on story and does take a while to get going, there is no denying this is a visual thrill ride.

Final Grade: B

Movie Review - "The Martian" (2015) - Best. Mars. Movie. Ever.

Much like Woody Allen, I have a love-hate relationship with Ridley Scott.

The problem with Scott is that he is inconsistent in his direction. One moment, he'll make a science fiction classic that took full advantage of its space horror scenario with "Alien," but then ruin it with "Prometheus" by wanting to be sophisticated, only to have it ruined by dumb character writing or logic gaps that make the audience question everything that has been built up.

I've made it no secret that I do not care for "Blade Runner," as that film has put me to sleep on more than one occasion. I also do not like "Gladiator," "American Gangster" or "Black Hawk Down," and despise Scott's version of "Robin Hood."

Part of the problem with Scott is that he seems to take a lot of fun out of going to the movies. His films are often visually stunning and go by the epic style of classic directors like Cecil B. DeMille and D.W. Griffith, but there is a general disconcern in his films. That everything is set up for one gigantic action piece, but never bother to ask how all these people got to this place and what their stake is in all of this.

In other words, Scott's films are all style, and no substance.

Which is why I adore Scott's newest film, "The Martian." While Scott does not diverge from his roots of making impossible landscapes feel so close to home, he does something that I have never seen out of Scott before - Telling an optimistic tale without any sort of violence or action set piece.



At times, "The Martian" feels like a fusion of "Gravity" and the worthwhile scenes of "Interstellar," where space is unforgiving and we are fools for trying to explore it. But then there are moments in "The Martian" that remind us why we explore space and the lengths we will reach to survive. That even in the face of overwhelming adversities, we will fight to see the sun rise one more day over that horizon. Even if that horizon is another planet.

On the space mission Ares III, one of the first missions to put astronauts on Mars, the crew encounters a large dust storm which forces them to abort the mission and leave the planet. Unfortunately, Mark Whatney (Matt Damon) is struck by debris on the way back to the ship and is declared dead by the crew, as they leave Mars without him.

As Earth and the crew of Ares III mourns the loss of Whatney, he awakens to find a piece of debris lodged in his chest and alive. After some surgery, Mark begins to realize his situation - Stranded on a deserted planet, with the closest rescue team being four years away, no way to contact NASA, and only has enough oxygen and food to last him a few months.



What I love about "The Martian" may seem rather simple, but is what makes going to movies so much fun. Mark, and not giving in to the inevitable and assuming that death will happen to him on Mars, decides to go against every odd and obstacle so that he will not die here. He is aware of the fact that everything seems against him, especially since no food grows on Mars and his rover can only go 30 minutes from base before needing a recharge. But that does not stop him from finding a solution to suit his needs.

All while, and this is the biggest reason this film works, Mark never once stops being positive about his struggle. He has his share of setbacks and fumbles along the way, but every day he finds a reason to smile and keep on finding a way home.

One of my favorite examples of this is after digging up a radioactive isotope, so that he can run the rover longer at night without using up the heater, Mark has found a song left by his commanding officer (Jessica Chastain) that is "the least disco," which is "Hot Stuff" by Donna Summers. He complains about how the only music he gets stuck with is crappy disco songs and still looks disapproving when the best song is still from the 1970s.

And yet, Mark grooves to the song anyway.



To be perfectly honest, "The Martian" is not a complex movie about loneliness or the inevitability of death, though those are reoccurring points in the film. This is a survival film, about how we will not take something lying down and fight to survive anything that comes our way. It just so happens that Mark needs to survive on a planet that will kill you the moment your back is turned.

Matt Damon's performance as Mark Whatney is pitch perfect, as he captures both the highs and lows of a man being left for dead and refusing to take no for an answer. From cherishing the first time his potato crops grow in, to screaming at the top of his lungs when his bio-lab is destroyed by a breach in the tent, to posing for a picture like Fonzie from "Happy Days." Damon keeps this film grounded in reality, without ever going overboard on melodrama or psycho-analysis.

Mark is having a blast on Mars, because he loves the challenge of surviving something no one else has ever done before. He cracks his biggest smiles when he realizes that he colonized Mars and can add the title of "Space Pirate" to his list of accolades.

"The Martian" is one of those reasons why cinema is so much fun. It reminds us that the little moments of happiness can go a long way. That sometimes all you need is to be heart-warming, funny and strong-willed in order to be a beautiful film. Ridley Scott certainly surprised me with this film, but I am not complaining at all with the results.

Final Grade: A

Movie Review - "Goosebumps" (2015) - You beware, you're in for a scare

Let it be known that I have never read a single Goosebumps book, nor have I watched a full episode of the television show. As a kid, the concept did not interest me, as I hated being scared as a kid. I was your typical fraidey-cat that liked to play everything safe. Which is why I watched lots of Godzilla films instead.

But as I’ve grown older, I began to appreciate shows like "The Twilight Zone" and how an anthology horror/sci-fi show could have some of the best writing self-sustained writing on all of television. This made me rethink shows like "Tales From The Crypt," "The Outer Limits," "Are You Afraid Of The Dark?" and of course "Goosebumps."

The difference with the last one is that episodes were based off already established novels by R.L. Stine. Though "The Twilight Zone" and "Tale From The Crypt" would occasionally delve into adaptations, this was "Goosebumps" bread-and-butter.

My point is this – While most people are attending the movie adaptation of "Goosebumps" for nostalgic reasons, whether they read the books or watched the show (or both), I have no ties to R.L. Stine’s work.

So why did I watch this Jack Black family friendly-friendly horror-comedy when I could have gone to see "The Martian"? Well, one, I couldn’t work any other film into my schedule. Two, the trailer was enticing. A hodgepodge of R.L. Stine’s work as they attack a small town, with Jack Black playing the creator of all these books sounds like a film that could be a lot of fun. If there was ever going to be a movie adaptation of Stine’s work, without focusing on just one book, this is how you would please every fan of the books – by including everything.

In the town of Madison, Delaware, a young family has just moved from New York City so that the mother may pursue a new career opportunity at the local high school. Her son, Zach (Dylan Minnette), doesn’t seem to get along with anyone until he meets his next door neighbor, Hannah (Odeya Rush), though their meeting is cut short by Hannah’s father (Jack Black). After her father forbids her from seeing Zach again and locking her away, Zach attempts to break her out, only to find a wall of Goosebumps manuscripts, each with a lock on them. Things only get stranger when he opens the lock and a Yeti breaks free.



When I walked away from "Goosebumps," I thought about how most of the jokes fell flat and that it was not scary without resorting to jump scares. This soured my experience of the film, until I realized that if it were truly a horror film, it could have gone full-blown horror by making R.L. Stine creepy instead of a shut-in goof that means well. The same can be said for the comedy aspect by making the villain of the film, Slappy the ventriloquist dummy (voiced by Jack Black), less psychopathic and more of a wise-cracker.

"Goosebumps" wanted to find a middle ground between horror and comedy, while still appealing to those that liked R.L. Stine’s work, and still be something that kids could enjoy. In this case, I think the film nailed that aspect perfectly. This is all tied together by Jack Black’s performance.

Black’s portrayal of R.L. Stine feels like a combination of his roles in "School Of Rock" and "King Kong." He has his subtle and quiet moments where he resents the path his life has taken, but these could be followed by scenes of tremendous outburst where he screams at the top of mountain for his love of writing. In the end, he comes across as a man who does not quite understand the gift he has been given, nor does he know where he got it, but that he accepts full responsibility for these monsters.

 

That even though he created these creatures, he refuses to turn into one. To be consumed by them.

However, the writing of other characters outside of R.L. Stine ranges from annoying to cliché. The main character, Zach, lacks any sort of personality that makes him stand out from your average teenager. He lost his father for some unknown reason and shuts his mother out of his life, like most teenagers do. His aunt is always looking for a new ex-husband and doesn't seem to care for her family, but feels obligated to be near them. It comes across like she'd rather be bedazziling something or chasing after men while making terrible jokes.

But the worst culprit is Zach's "best friend" Champ (short for Champion). First of all, it is clear that no one likes being around him, including Zach. His goal in the film seems to be whining and pointing out the obvious about the monsters they meet, but never being the one to do anything about it. No one invited Champ to be here (Zach only needed help rescuing Hannah, and he didn't even do that), he is not the one to come up with a plan to stop the monsters and does not contribute to their plans at stopping them. Champ is a pointless character.



Overall, when "Goosebumps" focuses on the monsters, the film is captivating and it is neat to see the variety of these abominations. The effects are decent enough so that you're not questioning whether these monsters are real or not, but nothing too spectacular. The story is fairly weak though and the characters are not intriguing in the slightest, outside of R.L. Stine. This is a good family-friendly monster film that was not a waste of time.

Final Grade: C+

Movie Review - "Hotel Transylvania 2" - The Trouble With Animated Sequels

Second verse, same as the first.

In an age where sequels to well-received animated movies seems to be more common, it is a bit disheartening to find these sequels only strive to be like the first film. Movies like "Despicable Me 2," "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2" and "Rio 2" might have done well at the box office and were hits with children, but these films basically amounted to a repackaged version of their predecessor, with many of the same jokes, character development and lessons. We do get the occasional sequel from Dreamworks or Pixar, like "Kung Fu Panda 2" and "Toy Story 3," that exceed our expectations and make us realize that the animation industry can be insightful as much as it is colorful, but those seem to be the rarity these days.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you liked the first film), "Hotel Transylvania 2" does not try to do much else other than recapture the fast-paced humor and quirky horror characters of the first film.

Don’t get me wrong, "Hotel Transylvania 2" is not a bad film by any stretch. The jokes are still lightning fast and the motion of the monsters as they are set on fire or thrown off cliffs is always good for a laugh. Many of the characters see improvements over the first film, especially Dracula’s daughter, Mavis (voiced by Selena Gomez). In the first film, she had no character other than being a shut-in and serving as the inspiration for Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler). This time around, Mavis is an over-protective mother who knows about the outside world and wants nothing more than to explore it, even if that means getting caught out in the sun.



While the first film had Mavis pinning to explore the world, in this film we actually get to see her explore California and fall in love with the simplest of things, like a 7/11-type store open 24 hours a day and kids playing in a skate park. Her enthusiasm for slushies and extreme sports is contagious.

Other characters that see more significant roles include Frankenstein (voiced by Kevin James), who has a nice bit early in the film, as he attempts to wear Dracula’s cape, only for the cloth to strangle him.

Dracula is unchanged from "Hotel Transylvania." Still overprotective, proud of his heritage and just a bit goofy. Sandler still does a wonderful job as the prince of darkness, practically disappearing in the role. If you were uninterested in seeing either of the "Hotel Transylvania" movies due to Adam Sandler being in the lead role, know that this is an exception to Sandler’s suckage as of late. He has very little creative input in these movies, and only serves as the role of Dracula, making the best use out of Sandler’s comedic talent and proving that he can be funny, given the right direction.



However, like the first film, "Hotel Transylvania 2" has many of the same problems as the first film. The human characters are rather annoying or uninteresting, including Mavis’ husband, Johnny (voiced by Andy Sanberg). Johnny comes across like a slacking surfer dude without the water or the surfboard. I’m still not sure what Mavis sees in him.

Johnny’s family is even worse though, especially his mother, who makes every single statement as if it were a back-handed insult towards vampires and monsters. When you portray your world as free of prejudice against monsters and being far removed from the "old days" of burning monsters, it comes across a bit strange when Johnny’s mom keeps being disrespectful, whether that is on purpose or not.

"Hotel Transylvania 2" also loves to blast modern music, like the first film, which seems at ends with the atmosphere and old-fashion attitude of Transylvania. It is very off-putting to have a serious moment between Dracula and his grandson, only to have it broken up by a musical number to a song I still hear on the radio, while Dracula break dances.



But the biggest waste in this film has to be Dracula’s father, Vlad (voiced by Mel Brooks). Not only do we not see or know anything about him until the last twenty minutes of the movie, only to find out he is extremely old-fashion and despises his son for opening up a hotel, but that is ways of living for the past couple hundred centuries can be easily broken and convinced to run any other way. By the end of the film, Vlad is convinced of the power of love and family, and that humans aren’t all bad. I understand this is a kid’s film, but that is contrived and bad writing for the sake of a happy ending.

Part of me thinks Vlad’s character would have been so much better if he was a stubborn rock about everything, unwilling to see anything other than his way. It has worked for the past 10,000 years, so why should he change now? Vlad should have been all about the purity of monsters and that any other creäture of the night that doesn’t see like this are not worth prowling the dark corridors.

Instead, all he needs to hear is one speech from the son he supposedly disowned about how awesome his new great-grandson is and that he should love his family, and he is convinced to love humans. Weak.

Overall, "Hotel Transylvania 2" has many of the same good points as the first film, including the animation, voice acting, humor and atmosphere, but it falters on writing, consistency and character development. At times, it feels like a carbon copy of the first film, but other times it feels a bit weaker, especially near the end. But ultimately, "Hotel Transylvania 2" is a harmless, cute film that is fun for both children and adults, and proves that Adam Sandler and company can still be funny in the right conditions.

Final Grade: C+