Fantastic Four Review (2015)

In order to remind us that Fox owns the film rights to a couple of Marvel series, a reboot of the Fantastic Four (2015) was made. Fox still has movie rights to X-Men, as well. If not for the last two amazing X-Men movies, I'd say Disney is the only one that does Marvel movies right anymore. This is the fourth attempt at a Fantastic Four movie, including 1994 movie that never got released. Sooner or later Fox will have to accept they can't do a Fantastic Four movie that's worth seeing, and  it would probably be better in the hands of another studio. Perhaps this cinema atrocity will put them on the right path.

Transported to another dimension, four young outsiders gain superhuman powers which alter their physical form in shocking ways. Reed Richards (Miles Teller) becomes able to stretch and twist his body, while Reed's friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) gains immense strength and a rock-like body. Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) is able to control and project fire, while his sister Sue (Kate Mara) can become the invisible and generate force-fields. Together, the team must harness their new abilities to battle former colleague, Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell) who poses a threat to Earth.

Really, that simple synopsis is everything that happens in this one hour and forty-six minute movie. They spend a lot of time showing us montages of the group creating an interdimensional transport, broken up with token bits of poorly done, awkward character development. Then they go to another dimension for a little while and acquire some powers. Then Doctor Doom shows up when the group attempts a second expedition and then they have to fight him. That's literally everything that happens. The first fight scene in this action movie is at the climax at the end! This might be the most boring and uneventful super hero movie to date.

I appreciate the fact that they were trying to get this new version of the Fantastic Four to be more character driven and more realistic on some level, but the result was so sloppy and poorly written. Compounding that with the fact that it takes itself very seriously makes it hard to enjoy. I understand that in the world of comic book based movies you have to allow for a certain level of whimsy, but so many plot devices and character abilities were left unexplained. As an example of these infractions, just because you can fly, your body can be engulfed in flame, and you can throw fire balls, doesn't really mean you have the strength or physical structure to smash through colossal stone pillars like Superman might. Why is this weird radiation energy from another dimension able to alter people's physiology, and why does it grant someone powers who had never gone to that other dimension? Why do they need space suits to traverse the other dimension early in the movie, but not later? Most of that could be explained with one or two lines of dialogue, but that wasn't bothered with.

One of the fun things about superhero movies is seeing our protagonists discover their newfound abilities. I love watching Tobey Maguire learn about his new powers in the first Spider-Man movie, or Tony Stark try to perfect his Iron Man suit. It's even funny watching Thor having to acclimate to a lack of powers he's always had. That scene was completely lacking in Fantastic Four. Our heroes make it back to our dimension unconscious, but exhibiting signs of their powers. Then we get a slow fade to black and a caption that says "One year later" and we catch up with everyone who has basically mastered their abilities by this point. It felt like we were being cheated of crucial character development and potential for humor. We didn't even get to see much of their reactions to new powers, let alone them trying to figure them out. It's stunts like this that made the movie much worse than it should have been.

There were several annoying changes made to the characters, some of which are really going to upset Marvel fans. Reed Richards is the most intelligent person in the Marvel Universe, and a couple of times, Victor erases and corrects Reed's calculations during a montage. An often critical device when fighting Doctor Doom in the comic books is that Reed is one of the few people that can outsmart him, but we're just going to ignore that, apparently. Doctor Doom was really bad, though. Doctor Doom's powers include technological manipulation and some mystical abilities like energy projectiles and creating protective shields. In this movie, he's psychic, telekinetic, can open gateways to other dimensions, can convert matter into energy, and can control rocks and apparently some weather. He just walks down the hall, and people die without him lifting a finger or even looking in their direction. Not only does he look too far off from what he is in the comic books, his powers and personality are so off the mark that he's basically not Doctor Doom at all. They don't even call him Doctor Doom in this movie, just "Doom" maybe once or twice. Doctor Doom is as far from his source material in Fantastic Four as Deadpool was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and that disgraceful depiction of Deadpool made everyone furious!

I'd like to say that the graphics are at least good, and occasionally they were. There's a scene where Reed is trying to squeeze out of some constraints, and you see the muscles in his arm working even though his arm is stretched out. When you see him try to pull out of the constraints, still with his arm stretched, you can see his skin bunch up around the bands as he tries to free himself. Some things like that were pretty impressive. But there were other bits that were so lacking in refinement they may as well have come from a Sy-Fi Channel television movie, like Sharknado.

This latest Fantastic Four movie fails everything essential to make a good superhero movie. Good superhero movies need exciting action, colorful thrills, enticing visual effects, a few laughs, and characters we can relate to, root for, and watch grow and develop. Fantastic Four literally has none of that available. The story is extremely boring and slow. The first fight scene is at the end of the movie, for crying out loud! The characters aren't even likeable and are changed for the sake of the movie in all the wrong ways. The camera work was sloppy, transitions between scenes were often awkward and confusing, and the script is just terrible. The previous Fantastic Four movies were better than this, and that's saying something. This is the worst superhero movie I've seen since Daredevil or Elektra. I implore you not to see this in theaters; if this ends up as anything more than a box office bomb, Fox will just try to make a sequel. If for some reason you truly want to see this movie, wait for it on Redbox or something. It's certainly not worth the price of a movie ticket, and barely worth what you might spend to rent it.

Okay, what is the worst superhero movie you've ever seen? Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, any comic book series that has had a movie based on it. Comment below and let me know!

Oz The Great and Powerful Movie Review

As a long time fan of the 1936 film The Wizard of Oz, I was beside myself with excitement when I saw the trailer for the upcoming Oz The Great and Powerful.  After the initial euphoria wore off I then feared the movie would be little more than a CGI-fest set in popular, established setting with little plot and weak characters, similar to Tron: Legacy. I still jumped at the opportunity to see it, but braced myself for disappointment.

Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco), a small-time circus magician with dubious ethics, is hurled away from dusty Kansas to the vibrant Land of Oz. At first he thinks he's hit the jackpot-fame and fortune are his for the taking. That all changes, however, when he meets three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams), who are not convinced he is the great wizard everyone's been expecting. Reluctantly drawn into the extensive problems facing the Land of Oz and its inhabitants, Oscar must find out who is good and who is evil before it's too late. putting his magical arts to use through illusion, ingenuity, and even a bit of wizardry, Oscar transforms himself not only into the great and powerful wizard of Oz but into a better man as well.

If you've never seen The Wizard of Oz, I have to wonder where you've been for the last 77 years. It's one of the most beloved movies ever made; you owe it to yourself to watch it and to introduce your children to it. Since Oz The Great and Powerful is a prequel to a 77-year-old classic, there will probably be some audiences (i.e. post-Harry Potter children) who don't know or care about The Wizard of Oz. They will probably be lost watching this story about a not-very-nice grownup in a magic land, but for long time watchers of The Wizard of Oz, Oz The Great and Powerful is enchanting and fun.

Oz The Great and Powerful sadly shares a kinship with George Lucas' Star Wars prequels in the way it presents a beautiful, borderline-sterile digital update of a world that was richer, purer, and a lot more fun in lower-tech form. Like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, the actors in Oz The Great and Powerful look artificially superimposed against their CGI backdrops. However CGI is nothing short of gorgeous and while it does look artificial, it's nothing short of stunning to watch. It's also uses 3-D well; it shows a lot of depth, not just projection.

There are lots of subtle little things that hint at events in The Wizard of Oz which are fun to watch for. There are characters in the Kansas prologue and in Oz that are played by the same actors and have thematically similar conflicts. Before heading to Oz, one of Oscar's old flames says she's going to marry a man by the last name of Gale; suggesting she is Dorothy Gale's mother-to-be. One of Oscar's first feats in Oz is frightening off a cowardly lion with smoke and mirrors. We also meet a tinker whom it is implied builds the Tin Man. We even see that distinctive spiral beginning of the Yellow Brick Road where Dorothy starts her journey a few years later.

James Franco has worked with director Sam Raimi before in the Spider-Man Trilogy as Harry Osborn. In Oz The Great and Powerful, he plays this occasionally sincere character that is often a con man. Oscar is an illusionist and a serial liar, Franco has played this kind of role before, but here he seems more believable when Oscar is being deceitful than he is when Oscar is being sincere. It evens out to a less-than-captivating performance.

Much of Oz The Great and Powerful centers around Oscar's transformation from the me-first snake oil salesman into the Wizard of Oz, or rather "the man behind the curtain." Oscar relies on inventions of his earthly hero Thomas Edison to pull off his biggest trick ever, which will likely even have the audience convinced. Around that point, the movie breaks free of its beautiful, but artificial trappings, and becomes a story with heart in the final act.

Oz The Great and Powerful doesn't have the classic feel that The Wizard of Oz has, but it's still a fun movie. Viewers who have never seen The Wizard of Oz are not likely going to enjoy it as much. Nevertheless, Oz The Great and Powerful is very effective as its own film and as a prequel to one of the most beloved movies in history. It's not perfect; most of the live actors do an adequate or sub-par job. The story has several plot twists to keep it interesting; such as who the Wicked Witch of the West is. You know she's going to be in the movie, but you're still blown away when we find out who it is. There are a few scenes that might be a bit too scary for viewers under the age of 6, but this is an excellent family film that is worth catching in theaters. Possibly in 3-D if you enjoy 3-D; it was well implemented. I'm glad I saw it; I had low expectations for this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't quite like it enough to get my own copy, but it was worth the ticket price.

There is an obscure third Oz movie also made by Disney. It came out in 1985 and is called Return to Oz. Freaked the heck out of me as a kid. Have you seen Return to Oz? Would you like to see more movies set in  the Land of Oz? Comment below and tell me about it!

Enthiran Movie Review

A couple of years ago I saw a YouTube video about some crazy action scenes from a movie made in India. Several segments looked like they were trying to imitate visual effects from a number of big budget American movies. Recently I found the movie where these clips were from. It seems to have two titles depending on the language version; Enthiran (2010) if the language is Tamil or Robot when it is in Hindi.

Dr. Vasi (Rajnikanth) invents a super-powerful robot in his own image named Chitti (also played by Rajnikanth). The Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Institute (AIRD), the scientific body that must approve the robot, declines it based on its not having emotions and the ability to make rational judgment. A spontaneous bolt of lightning that hits Chitti evokes emotions in the robot, and he is seemingly ready for integration into the human world. But Chitti falls in love with Dr. Vasi's fiancée, Sana (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan), and turns on his creator. Vasi's mentor, Dr. Bohra (Danny Denzongpa), has been trying for years to construct a functional robot for military purposes. After Vasi's success with Chitti, Bohra seeks out Chitti to turn him into a killing machine.

  Before I get into the review, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm not well-versed in Indian cinema; I don't think I've seen an entire Bollywood movie before Enthiran. I also don't speak Tamil, so I had to watch a subtitled copy of Enthiran and it didn't display the most nuanced grasp of the English language. I therefore don't feel like I have grounds to criticize the dialogue as I'm sure things have been lost in translation.

Enthiran is more than a wacky viral video, it's the most expensive and highest grossing film in Indian history. This is like the Avatar of Indian Cinema. There are tons of practical special effects and CGI animation, the likes of which have not been seen in Indian cinema before. Enthiran has a star-studded cast; Rajnikanth is often billed in his movies as "SUPERSTAR Rajni," and is the second highest paid actor in Asia after Jackie Chan. Aishwarya Rai is a former Miss India and Miss World pageant winner, and is often credited to be "most beautiful woman in the world." Enthiran is a big deal, yet Western audiences will primarily be familiar with it through a 10-minute YouTube clip that they chuckled at and forgot about.

The CGI and special effects are impressive on the one hand, but still looks a bit like the quality of CGI work that appears in a direct to DVD movie here in the United States. They also seem to try to mimic some American movie effects. Before his "skin" is put on, Chitti resembles the robots in I, Robot. There are dozens of identical robots swarming in attack similar to Agent Smith in The Matrix Reloaded. There's an exciting train fight scene similar to the one in Spider-Man 2. Chitti gets shot in the eye, imitating Schwarzenegger's iconic Terminator look. There's some subtle nods to The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man effects, and even a big Transformers type giant robot attack. These are the types of over-the-top action scenes that were showcased in the YouTube video, but I can assure you that seeing Enthiran in its entirety gives it a lot more context and credibility within its world setting. If nothing else, seeing the whole movie will give you some more CGI craziness to enjoy.

There's going to be a lot of cultural gaps between Indian and American cinema that's going to give Western viewers a sense of scurrility when watching Enthiran. The movie focuses a whole lot in the chaste romance between Vasi and Sana. It was almost weird seeing such chastity between romantic partners in a big movie like this; even the villain was intent on marrying Sana before daring to have sex with her. There's a scene where Chitti rescues a young woman from a burning building. She's naked from taking a bath and her body is blurred out. For some reason having your life saved while not fully dressed is deeply shameful. I didn't understand that; yeah, I'd rather have clothes on, but I'd be more concerned about dying. It's just an example of cultural gaps that didn't quite make sense to me.

Another part of Enthiran that I thought was surreal was the periodic music video breaks. When I was in theater we did a Broadway musical once and had an Indian man in the audience. He thought it was unusual to have the characters break into song while remaining in character. He explained to us that in Indian theater (and I have to assume movies by extension) the actors go out of character to sing, get back into character, and continue with the story. There were about three or four points during Enthiran where the story simply stops and suddenly Rajinikanth and Rai are in a completely different location  and they are dancing and singing about love and romance. That scene ends and we return to the story. They act like music video segues but the songs are only loosely related to what's happening in the story. They drag on for at least five minutes and really disrupt the pacing of the movie. They are really neat to watch, though; they feature beautiful cinematography, sets, and music. I have yet to hear contemporary Indian music that I don't enjoy.

Enthiran is a very long movie, about three hours. This is pretty normal for Indian movies, but if you don't take a break and pause during the intermission, your butt will be asleep well before the end credits. There is so much crammed into Enthiran that chances are you will find something to enjoy, be it the glitzy music videos, the over the top action, special effects, or the out of sorts Three Stooges-style slapstick humor. There's certainly some weird scenes, like when Chitti has a conversation with a mosquito, and the movie sets itself up for sarcastic quips and riffing. If you don't particularly enjoy foreign films, I'd stay away from this one. It's lengthy, somewhat demanding (in keeping up with subtitles), and has a modest pay-off. If you do enjoy Bollywood films, elaborate costumes and dance numbers, killer robots, and physical humor gags, Enthiran is something not to be missed.

Here's the YouTube clip so you can see some of the over the top action sequences:

What's the strangest foreign film you've ever seen? Was it still good? Comment below and tell me all about it!

The Amazing Spider-Man Movie Review

As a life-long fan of Spider-Man I had a duty to see The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in theaters. If I didn’t, my inner child (who still carries his Spider-Man coloring book everywhere he goes) would be upset with me. Still, I was very skeptical about a Spider-Man reboot only 10 years after the original Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movie, and only 5 years after Spider-Man 3. Did we really need a reboot that soon? I’m still not sure we did, but wow, did I ever enjoy this one!

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents at the age of 4, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and impress the cute girl at school, namely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). After helping Uncle Ben salvage boxes from a minor basement flood, Peter discovers an old fashioned suitcase that belonged to his father. Using the information he finds inside, he begins a quest to understand who his parents were and their disappearance. It leads him to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), the former partner of his father. Dr. Connors is working on cross-species genetics, in an attempt to regrow his missing arm. Peter is bitten by one of the spiders in the genetics labs and begins to develop spider-like powers. Meanwhile the information from the suitcase that Peter provides to Dr. Connors helps complete an equation Dr. Connors has been working on. In desperation, Dr. Connors tests the formula on himself, but it slowly turns him into a giant lizard. Donning a mask to hide his identity Peter Parker goes by the alias Spider-Man and takes on the bestial maniac, The Lizard, who is bent on forcing the citizens of New York to undergo the same process he did.

First and foremost, what does The Amazing Spider-Man have to offer that the previous three didn’t? The special effects weren’t all that different; it’s the same kind of web-slinging we saw in the Sam Raimi’s movies. It’s not like special effects have made huge leaps and bounds in the last 10 years to show us something new that Spider-Man can do. Spider-Man’s origin story is probably the best known of any super hero. The thing that stands out the most in this movie, though, is the characters.

At the age of 28, it’s hard to believe that Garfield is actually a teenager. But a lot of Hollywood movies do that. Anyway, Peter is an outsider by choice, not because he is disliked. In the original comics, Peter Parker was an outcast because he was a nerd. The concept of a nerd has changed a lot in 50 years, though. Today, nerds are running the world. So even as a science wiz, that’s not what makes Peter an outcast. Being left by his parents has given Peter abandonment issues and he’s afraid to get close to people. What was important in the original comics was that he was an outsider and that has been modified for this new version of Peter Parker in a contemporary context. Spider-Man was always a wise-cracking character, taunting his enemies with sarcastic, witty remarks. We see him do that more in this movie than the previous ones, but here we understand that it’s sort of a defense mechanism. Peter really lets his personality out once he is able to hide behind a mask, almost like how internet anonymity rids us of our inhibitions. Spider-Man practically becomes an internet troll in face-to-face interactions with thugs. Uncle Ben’s famous advice isn’t as prominently repeated as it was in previous films. It even takes a while before Peter starts to understand the philosophical idea Uncle Ben is trying to teach Peter. But still, Peter’s character isn’t defined by an obligation to be a good guy in memoriam of Uncle Ben. Peter is his own character, not the result of someone else’s expectations. I really liked that aspect of this character.

Most people don’t know that Mary-Jane Watson was not Peter’s first and only love interest. I’m glad we got to see Gwen Stacy in this film. And unlike Mary-Jane in the previous movies, Gwen isn’t there just to scream and beg Spider-Man to save her. Gwen is a strong female protagonist who was both cute and independent. She isn’t the damsel in distress character; in fact she helps oppose The Lizard, and not in a small token sort of way. She plays an important role in the overall plot. She also offers Peter a sense of stability. Peter comes from a sort of broken family and she offers him an environment free of parental loss. This isn’t to say the movie insists that the atomic family paradigm is the best. Peter simply wants to see parents present, and the Stacy family is able to show him that. Gwen and Peter form an intellectual bond that is beyond physical allure, and emotional connection. It’s great to see that kind of a relationship in movies as there isn’t enough of it.

Finally, The Lizard was a great pick for this story. Dr. Connors and Peter are like thematic equals. The theme is that we all have missing parts. Dr. Connors has no arm and Peter has no parents. These make each character feel incomplete. Both Peter and Dr. Connors are seeking to fill the void somehow, causing the story to become a kind of cautionary tale about choices. The Lizard isn’t the embodiment of evil, but rather a good man who made a poor decision. Connors genuinely wants to help people, but his reasoning becomes muddled as The Lizard takes over, almost in a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of a way. My only complaint is that unlike in the comic books, there wasn’t a real separation of Dr. Connors and The Lizard. In the comic books, it’s all about stopping The Lizard and saving Dr. Connors. We don’t see enough humanity in Dr. Connors to get that sort of feel. Maybe if we had seen Dr. Connors with his wife and kids, it may have worked that way. But as it is in the movie, we would have been happy had the Lizard fallen to his death at the end.

Worth noting about the special effects is that the action is slowed down enough that we can see and understand what is happening in the action scenes with beautiful detail. In fact, one of the bigger fight scenes takes place in broad daylight. We’re able to see everything in glorious detail; nothing is left to obscurity in darkness. The movie has lots of detail to show us, and it makes sure we see it. Super powered as Spider-Man is, The Lizard is physically far stronger. In one scene we see The Lizard thrashing about while Spider-Man “wall-crawls” over his body, embalming him in webbing. Not only do we see that in great detail, it’s also tense. It’s obviously taking time and effort and The Lizard’s huge claws could slice Spider-Man in half. It was an awesome fight to watch.

The characters in The Amazing Spider-Man are really good; they’re deep, complex and layered. The story is really good, too. It keeps the well known Superhero legend intact while still presenting it in a fresh, new way. You’ll be able to empathize with the characters. Heck, you’ll probably see aspects in these characters in people you know. Aunt May scolds Peter for coming in late after crime fighting, telling him that she cannot sleep until she knows Peter is safe at home. When she said that, I recalled having a similar conversation with my mother back in my teens. I think the previous movies did a better job of casting actors who looked the part, but the actors in this one did a great job. There are a lot of unanswered questions by the end of the movie, insinuating there will be a trilogy all about discovering who Peter Parker’s parents are. Also, stick around mid-way though the credits for an extra post credits scene. You’ll be chomping at the bit to see the next installment. The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie, I highly recommend seeing it. I will be buying this on Blu-Ray when becomes available. If you’re a fan of Superhero movies, I recommend you do the same.

Who is your favorite Spider-Man villain? Mine is Venom, hands down. Comment below and tell me why you like him or her so much!

Jumper Movie Review

Haden Christensen delivered to us an insulting, lackluster, and unnecessary character of Anakin Skywalker in two of the prequel Star Wars movies. George Lucas is obviously to blame for that. Surely Haden Christensen could recover from such a terrible role, right? Well… maybe not.

High school student David Rice (Haden Christensen) lives in Anne Arbor. At the age of five, he was abandoned by his mother, so he lives with his alcoholic father. He’s got a crush on Millie (Rachel Bilson), and is picked on by at least one other kid at school. One winters' day, David becomes trapped under the ice on the river. Just before drowning, he discovers he can transport himself instantaneously to any place on earth. He leaves town, goes to New York City, robs a bank vault, and comes to the attention of a shadowy group called “The Paladins.” Eight years later The Paladins, lead by the murderous Roland Cox (Samuel L. Jackson), get a fix on David. Attempting to flee, David returns home to invite Millie to travel with him as far away as he can get. But he soon realizes that Roland and The Paladins are even more obsessive and deadly than he thought, and are bent on eliminating “Jumpers” like David. David finds another Jumper named Griffin (Jamie Bell) who is at war with The Paladins. Simply wanting to be free of The Paladins, David attempts to join Griffin, but ends up being more of a hindrance than anything.

Haden Christensen doesn’t seem to be able to act very well. He’s got this very forced style that seems on par with a high school drama student. He acts a lot like he did in Star Wars but without such “profound” dialogue. David's character is a thief, a coward, selfish, uninteresting, non-developing, and seems devoid of social graces, relying on his good looks to get him laid. No one in the movie seems to like David; Griffin doesn’t like him because David screws up Griffin’s plans and makes bumbling mistakes. Millie wants to like David, but he acts so weird and secretive that she doesn’t feel safe around him nor does she trust him. David’s father is an abusive alcoholic who beat David as a kid, and his mother flat out abandoned him. It’s a wonder that more of the cast aren’t siding with the villain; At least Roland takes the initiative to try to kill David.

It’s hard to take the story or characters very seriously because there never seem to be consequences for anything. David transports himself all over the globe, occasionally causing damage. When David “jumps” sometimes he busts up the floors and walls generating lots of dust or water damage, and sometimes he doesn’t. David appears in a crowd of people in the middle of a large city and no one bats an eye. A new car is teleported out of a dealership. A house is demolished when half of it is transported into a river. Still, not one person ever seems affected by any of this. If all this random damage and confusion doesn’t matter to anyone in the movie, why should it matter to us?

I have to admit the premise of having people who are able to teleport at random and what kind of a person that might create is interesting. Why The Paladins think it’s such an abomination and an affront to God isn’t really addressed. They are bad guys for the sake of being bad guys. But then, the Jumpers we see in the movie are rather unscrupulous scoundrels. Is Jumper really about a band of government-sponsored heroes tracking down some international petty thieves and law breakers? It isn’t framed that way, but it certainly looks to be the case.

Jumper had some potential to be a decent story. It could have made some social commentary similar to that of X-Men or Spider-Man: the injustice of attacking those different from you or “with great power comes great responsibility.” But it didn’t. Jumper just shows us a vaguely interesting premise, some half-decent special effects, some uninteresting characters, and a story with a very weak plot. Is it worth seeing? Maybe, but I wouldn’t take the effort to seek out the movie yourself. The only reason I saw it was someone gave me their copy of the movie because they didn’t want it. That alone should tell you something about the film.

If you could have any one superpower (like teleporting anywhere in the world) what power would you want? What would you do with it? Comment below and tell me the whole story!