The COARD: Ghostbusters

If there's something strange, in your neighborhood.

Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters.

If you want a cool review, of a movie reboot.

Who ya gonna call? COARDwriters.

My patronus takes the form of
Kate McKinnon in goggles

Cody: Well done, ladies. Well done. This reboot was exciting throughout, and sprinkled in just the right amount of laughs. And I don't know what you're talking about, I wasn't legitimately scared at some points. It's basically a parody film. Only a wimp would be afraid during this. So clearly I was wasn't afraid. Lady Power enthusiast Paul Feig did a fantastic job as writer/director. Two of his favorite actors, Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy were great costarring in this. However, none of

these things matter in comparison to the shining star that is Kate McKinnon. She is the current answer to the question, "which Saturday Night Live cast member is most likely to make everyone in the scene break?" Which, for the record, is the most prestigious fake award I ever bestow on SNL casters. I had a great time watching this movie, and McKinnon's hilarity was the biggest reason among several other worthwhile reasons. Bravo Busters.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Roy: I think that Cody enjoyed this movie just a tad more than I did. I really liked it, but I didn't love it. My biggest peeve with this movie was I expected more laughs. I'm fully aware this is my own fault. You all should understand something. I'm 36 years old. How is this relevant? I'm an 80's child, unlike my millennial partner. It's safe to say that the original Ghostbusters is not only one of my favorite movies from my youth, but also one of my favorite 80's movies. It doesn't get better than Murray, Akroid, and Ramis. There was so much to like about it, not the least of which was the chemistry, which was off the charts. So this remake had a lot to live up to. About halfway through I realized this movie was not going to live up to my comedic expectations. But I was still really enjoying it. The ladies also had fantastic chemistry and there was more to like about this movie than there was to dislike. Did I like this more than the original? No. But I had a good time, and really that was all I should have asked from this film.

Cody: I did enjoy this movie more than you, and that is because I was capable of accepting it for what it is. This is new Ghostbusters. Feig paid homage to the original, while making this movie stand on its own. He and the producers knew that people over the age of 35 were going to be impossible to please. I commend you for keeping your mind open enough to actually enjoy yourself. Many your age will not have the same attitude. I'm not going to deny the advantage of my age. I was negative seven years old when the original came out. I walked into this reboot without having had my childhood drastically impacted by what came before (for what it's worth, I have seen the original, and I do not consider it to be any funnier than this new version *cue Gen X throwing things at their screens*). The key to a reboot is self-awareness. One must say, the original is the original, and what we're doing here is adding to that brand, not overwriting it. Jurassic World knocked it out of the park with a new premise but a few timely throwbacks. Ghostbusters and, well, Ghostbusters have similar equations, new feel (ladies!), and the latest iteration features the right number of timely throwbacks. If you watched the original dozens of times as a kid, then you're never going to fawn over the new one. However, if you follow Roy's lead and give it a chance, you might find yourself with a lovable third film to add to your collection of ghost hunting comedies. And that all Feig is asking from you.

Roy: Let me just say, that in 11 years, when they remake Speed and you want to burn the world down, I will send you the link to this review. And then laugh. You brought up Jurassic World, but the difference is that was a sequel, not a remake. That being said, you're right. They didn't try to reinvent the Ghostbusters wheel. Feig just added some spokes and gave it another spin for funsies. And it worked. He accomplished this through many nods and every important cameo one can think of minus Rick Moranis because he doesn't like to have fun anymore apparently. Even the late Harold Ramis got a cameo in the form of a bust in the halls of Columbia. But it wasn't just the cameos that made this a thoroughly enjoyable Ghostbusters experience. This entire move felt like Ghostbusters. From the cinematography to the story, every second of this film you know where you were. You were in New York, and in the presence of scientists who found themselves in over their heads when it comes to the dead running amok in their fair metropolis. I could gripe about how most of the laughs in this film were in the trailer, but I won't. Instead I am going to focus on one of the things I thought worked best in this film. The role reversal of the hot bimbo. This is very old hat in movies. Men employ a horribly under-qualified and wildly idiotic woman because she possesses certain "assets" they enjoy looking at. More than that, they refuse to fire her for all of the same reasons. The fact that these ladies hired Stupid Chris Hemsworth and even went into danger to save him because he, "was just starting to learn the phone system" worked beautifully. This is an antiquated trend that was ripe for parody. The best thing about it is they didn't do it to prove a point, although they could have and would have been justified. They did it because it was funny. And let me tell you. It was all of that. 

If you're spooked by spoilers, then you should turn back now, as we're about to enter the spoiler zone.

Cody: Heh, see what I did there, everybody? You can't let your ghost puns just lie around, you have to exorcise them. Oh man, I am on a roll. Silly Roy, you can't remake a Keanu movie. He's Keanu. There is nobody in this world that could be Keanu. What's that you say? They already remade Point Break? Sweet strawberry molasses, Hollywood. What's next? Trying to remake Arnold films with exceedingly non-Arnold actors? Wait....what? You have got to be freaking kidding me! Let me try to collect myself here. Okay. Roy didn't give anything too dramatic away up there, but I still want to talk about Chris Hemsworth. He was fantastic, but the interactions between him and Kristen Wiig. Fan-tastic. She was incredible as a drooling idiot who kept stepping on herself because of how hot Hemsworth was. When she drank out of the coffee he spit back into the mug, I rolled (for the record, this was a great laugh that was not in the trailer, not that I'm tracking them or anything). I liked how they wove in Wiig's character's insecurities around other people's opinions. They kept those moments light and funny, but her ultimate acceptance of who she is added a nice heartwarming touch. On the other end of the heartwarming spectrum, Rowan North. What was up with the villain? That character is probably my only complaint with the movie. I got the sense that Neil Casey played him exactly as Feig wanted him to. It all felt intentional, so I'm not saying they screwed something up along the way. I just didn't get it. The character seemed so dumb to me. My movie senses tell me that the villain was supposed to be as much a loser as the four ghostbusters. I found him to be...too much of a loser? I don't know, okay? He sucked. He sucked and I hated him. Ghostbusters 2 needs Will Ferrell as a villain or something.

I want to go to there.

Roy: Hollywood gets this wrong way more than they get it right, Cody. I just bought the original Point Break last week to celebrate its 25th anniversary, (dear God I'm old). As I was watching it and enjoying literally every second I made the decision to refuse to ever see the remake. I'm not going to taint Keanu and The Swayze at the height of their power with that piece of feces Hollywood plopped on us. ... So it appears I have painted myself into a corner here. And I have no exit strategy! ....WAIT. I have one! That's why I was really nervous going into Ghostbusters, given the history of remakes, we had no business expecting this movie to be good. Bam! Landed that beast! The villain didn't really bother me. I don't think he was meant to be a major player though. Think about it. The original Ghostbusters didn't have a human villain. North was meant to be the catalyst  for releasing ghosts into New York and not much more. And he performed in this task adequately. The real problem was he couldn't compete with the star power already there. Especially when you consider how great everyone in this movie was. He was a means to an end. I don't really have any huge spoilers to discuss. This movie doesn't really warrant that. It all just worked, really well. I do want to give a few more pats on the back though. You fawned over Kate McKinnon, and rightfully so, but all of the ladies in this movie were great. Kristen Wiig is wonderful doing everything you'd expect from Kristen Wiig. And that's not a negative. I never tire of her act. Leslie Jones was captivating in all of her sassy glory, and Melissa McCarthy also handed in a stellar performance. The casting was so well done in this movie. You get the wrong four ladies and the whole thing gets thrown out of balance and falls flat. They found the perfect cast and because of that gave us a very enjoyable two hours. I would encourage everyone to go see this. This isn't going to replace the brilliant original, but it will look really nice in your blu ray collection snuggled up beside of it.

The COARD: The Secret Life of Pets

Against our better judgment we are going to split this up between non-spoilers and spoilers. Sometimes in life, we commit to things. And after completing half of the task we realize that we are only finishing because we have committed to said task, regardless of how stupid it is. That's us and this movie. We are officially writing this review under protest.

Roy: The Secret Life of Pets is exactly like Toy Story. Except it's about pets, and it sucks. Cody?

Cody: Remember when we thought that this movie would be so good it would force us to hate on Dory even more by comparison? Those are happy memories. They were better times, Roy. Better times.

Dane Cook being mildly funny in front of what we used
to consider a large crowd

Roy: Finding Dory. I would happily watch that dumb little fish swim around in a fictitious bay again if it meant I never had to be subjected to Louis C.K. trying to be funny without swearing. I shouldn't fault the actors, though. They did what they could. In fact, if I had to find a bright spot in this movie it would have to be Kevin Hart. I didn't hate his character. Truthfully, I used to loathe him and the movies he made. But then I watched his episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, and I had instant respect for him. I suppose it's possible I was basking in the Jerry Seinfeld glow and some of it rubbed off on Hart. However, I caught a glimpse of how hungry he still is as a comedian. Then I saw the trailer for Kevin Hart: What Now? and oh my sweet goodness. This dude sold out a football stadium... to his stand-up act. Is everyone understanding what I just said?! Don't believe me? LOOK. How can you not be impressed by that? Remember 10 years ago when we all saw Dane Cook sell out a semi-large "arena" and we were blown away? Hart makes that look like Dane was doing stand-up at a small night club in Bemidji, Minnesooota. Did I just write 220 words about Kevin Hart to avoid talking about this turd of a film? I resent the implication!

Cody: Kevin Hart was definitely the bright spot of this movie. Well, more like dimly lit lamp. But a dimly lit lamp looks like a beacon when all you know is darkness. You're right, we can't blame the actors here. It's an animated movie after all. They can only work with what they are given. What they were given was a movie for toddlers. Yes, I realize it is an animated movie about animals. I know how I sound. Have you seen Zootopia, though? Zootopia is filet mignon. Pets is whatever they pass as steak at Taco Bell these days. We all had reason to expect more from this. Zootopia was charming, clever, and funny. It had an important and simple message that both children and adults could learn from. It was everything you hope for when you watch an animated movie. So there's this adorable rabbit, and this wily fox. They are natural enemies, but they grow to be friends despite their differences. But then there....what's that, you say? I'm not reviewing Zootopia? I'm reviewing Taco Bell? Well, then I've lost all interest in this section.

Roy: In all seriousness though people. If you want to waste 90 minutes that feels like three hours, you can... But I suggest you do something more productive with your time, like watch the Point Break remake.

Here in lie the spoilers. As you may have guessed, they are not going to go well for the poor poor Life of Pets. Enjoy the rant.

Cody: Alright, first and foremost, what in the biscuits was that sausage factory scene? I was already about 80% tuned out due to the glaring lack of plot and annoying animal characters, but that really put me over the top. I quite honestly have not the first clue what that scene was actually supposed to be. My instinct told me the dogs eating the sausages was a similar experience as being on acid. But every other piece of this movie was tailored for toddlers, so that doesn't add up. The only conclusion I can come to is that they just kept throwing stuff at the wall to see what stuck. Including having pets continuously do ridiculous feats, clearly for the entertainment of aforementioned toddlers. So, this is the "secret" life of animals? We're to believe these are animals that exist in the real world. And yet. They accomplished so many asinine tasks right out in the open in front of humans. A maniacal rabbit stops traffic on a major New York bridge, a small dog uses karate to knock unconscious several other assailant animals, and the rabbit dives into the depths of the Hudson to unlock a cage and rescue a dog. The climactic stretch that was a microcosm for this entire movie. Maybe it should have been called the Implausible Life of Pets. At least our expectations would have been re-calibrated. However, nothing could have adequately prepared us for that stink bomb we walked into.

I hate people

Roy: I DEMAND ANSWERS. I want names. Specific names. Who in the name of Ricky Bobby was the individual that decided to put yet one more animal behind the wheel of a freaking vehicle?! I declare an official moratorium on all animals driving. Forever. Death will come on swift wings for any and all guilty parties involved. How did this happen? I'll tell you how. I envision a situation not unlike a scene from Mad Men. Peggy, who now works for Cutler Gleason & Chaough is talking to Stan, who is still at SCDP.  They are trading war stories and commiserating over their problems while on the phone with one another. And if you are sitting there telling me that you are unfamiliar with Mad Men then I cannot help you. You hate great television which speaks to a larger issue about you as a person... But I digress.  So. We have one person at Dreamworks and one at Pixar. The Dreamworks guy has no idea how to save the stupid dogs who are currently drowning at the bottom of the Hudson River. The Pixar guy says, "We had a similar problem. But we just made the octopus drive a truck..." This is how the world dies people. I have to respectfully disagree with both T.S. Elliot and Queen Amidala. The world doesn't die with a whimper or to thunderous applause. It dies when a bunny decides to drive a car to save his dog friends, whom by the way, he spent the last hour trying to murder. If that wasn't enough, I will leave you with more proof of how terrible this movie was. I went to Pets with the target demographic. I took my 9 year old daughter and 7 year old son. After the first 20 minutes I noticed something and began to keep track. Twice. Twice in 90 minutes did my children laugh out loud at this movie. Of course they said they liked it but what are they supposed to say? They're kids. But they didn't laugh. And it didn't matter how much the packed theater roared over the constant and literal poop jokes this movie threw at us. My kids didn't laugh, and I couldn't be more proud of them for that. 

The COARD: The Legend of Tarzan

Back to our regularly scheduled programming of general review, then spoiler included discussion. Although, do you really need me to avoid spoilers here? Couldn't you probably just guess what happens? Okay, fine. I'll do the song and dance here. It is what I promised to do after all.

Cody: I can sense Roy's fear. He knows I have the first word here, and it is eating him alive inside. Trust me, I have a knack for these things. I was raised by animals. Okay, not really, but I had to start with poking fun at the concept of Tarzan. I am a person who genuinely enjoys superhero movies, so I swear that will be the only time I question the underlying premise of the movie. I may be a lot of things, but a hypocrite is only sometimes one of them. Overall, I thought this was a perfectly enjoyable summer flick. Nothing special, but not completely terrible either. I've always liked Skarsgard, and he was well cast as Tarzan. Or sorry, was it John Clayton? Clayton seemed to take the name as an insult, but he sure embraced his Tarzan side. Either way, I give Skarsgard a solid B- for his performance. In fact, you know what, let's make this easy. Everybody except Samuel L gets a B- for their roles. Sam earned himself an B+, even if that was because of the decent comedic relief writing they threw his way. So which of us was right and which was wrong? Well, my expectations were met pretty closely, but I'll concede it was slightly better than I expected. Roy?

Sam is just Sam. Always. Never not Sam. Not on a plane,
not as a slave, not with one eye, not as a Jedi

Roy: It was exactly as I suspected. Which is to say I enjoyed this movie immensely. Everyone did well in this movie, even Cody's beloved Margot Robbie. Which is no surprise as she is a really talented actress and looks to set the world on fire in about a month with Suicide Squad. Christoph Waltz did Christolph Waltz things and that is always a plus. But let's talk Sam for a minute Cody. I agree that he was quite good in this movie. But halfway through when he had a solid back and forth with Tarzan something hit me. And actually, it has been a small theme through this summer's odyssey. Way back in our X-Men review we discussed how J-Law always seems to be J-Law no matter what character she plays as long as she is not in a David O. Russell film. We touched on this subject again citing that Emilia Clarke is the antithesis of this phenomenon. But if there is a king of this rule, that crown belongs to one Samuel L. Jackson. And you know what? That's a good thing. Go ahead, check his IMDB page. I'll wait. I dare you to find a film where he doesn't play himself. But that is exactly why he gets hired for jobs. This man does what he does and we love him for it. I'm not so sure that the following thing doesn't happen all the time in writer rooms... "You know what we need in this movie? Some style. Some attitude. Is Sam available? Excellent." Any movie that he is in I think that if all else fails, Sam will be good.

Cody: While Margot was good, I expect quite a bit more from her as Harley Quinn. Legitimately excited to see her steal that movie. Plus it could be the on screen redemption for Robbie and Will Smith after a meh performance together in Focus. But enough about what may or may not be future COARD material. You're absolutely right about Samuel L. There may be some that do it just as well, but nobody has been themselves so successfully for so long. I'm with you on that feeling too. You know what you're going to get from Sam, and what you're going to get is fun. This wasn't a classic Samuel L. movie by any stretch, but he did stick out among mostly mediocrity. The soundtrack fit the movie fine, and was even noticeably good in spots. The directing by Yates felt pretty similar to Harry Potter, but the subject matter wasn't nearly as fun. The cinematography was choppy and somewhat hectic. Christoph Waltz was the villain, which means the villain was good, but Leon Rom could have been more. In the midst of it all, George Washington Williams, the just and moral partner of Tarzan. There to counterbalance the brutish nature of the hero by just being Samuel L. Jackson. Had he not been here, I may not have been able to keep it together until the spoiler section. Sam keeps me strong. I won't attack the plot util later.

Roy: I thought the soundtrack was excellent. I love the African vibe the movie opened up with and I found the music during the many action sequences fit perfectly. Hozier closing the movie with the superb Better Love was so good that I wanted to sit and watch the credits role just to finish listening to the song. I am obviously way more impressed with this movie than you are. So allow me to throw my cards down on the table. I thought this movie had a lot of heart in it. I cared about the characters. Especially when Tarzan squared off with one of his enemies in the movie. What I expected to be an easy situation to root for Tarzan and against a clearly evil chief turned out to be far more complicated. And that was just one instance where this movie showed heart. There were many things to like about it. I thought Christoph Waltz stayed right where his character needed to be. He was an unfeeling man who was hyper focused on his goals and nothing was going to stand in his way, especially innocent life. He was great as a puppet master who was trying to satisfy the men he was working for while accomplishing his own goals at the same time.

Cody: If you're bored and you want to see a high production value summer flick that won't leave you completely disappointed, then you can do a lot worse than Legend of Tarzan (e.g. Huntsman: Winters War). This has been A Review in 30 Words or Less, with Cody Potter. Thanks for stopping by. If you'd like to see my thoughts on Deus Ex Animal, you can find them in the spoiler section below.

Welcome to the spoiler section. Here is a mini-spoiler about what follows. Cody is going to work really hard to go full Dory on this movie, Roy is going to point out that he is full of crap. All while not caring what we ruin about this movie. You've been warned.

Roy: You know what I really liked about this movie? How it wasn't what I expected for a first Tarzan reboot. Typically one would expect that you see him as a baby and you will get a story how he grows in the jungle, finds Jane, falls in love, blah blah blah. The Legend of Tarzan begins with John Clayton as a noble in London living his life with Jane. All of the fun little bits you get from the typical first Tarzan movie were still given to us but told via flashbacks. Unless you have been living under a rock, you know the story of Tarzan. So they took the best parts and dropped them into a movie with an interesting premise that I did not see coming. I thought it was a really good move. It made the movie interesting. As opposed to what it could have been. A remake of a Disney cartoon minus the dose of Phil Collins.

Cody: Subtracting Phil Collins is not a promising move for any movie, so that would have been a big hill to climb. I'll give it to you here. The premise of John Clayton already being past Tarzan was an intriguing move. I followed the plot as it was developing in front of me. I got sucked in. I was, gasp, enjoying myself. But then it happened. The first moment that pulled me back to reality was when Tarzan and crew needed to board a moving train. They swung on ropes that seemed to stretch for hundreds of yards and landed on a train moving full speed ahead. I had a sense that this movie was going to leave some serious plot holes in its wake. This was the first, but it definitely wasn't the last. It's funny that you mention Dory, because I think the writers tried about as hard for realism here as others did in a movie about an animated fish. These moments kept pulling me away from a movie I was actually enjoying, and that's what ultimately left me lukewarm.

Roy: Since you threw me a bone I shall do the same. There wasn't much that bothered me about this movie. But. I couldn't even with ant stitches. Like, if I was in a giant jungle tree, and "even" was a speeding train below me there was zero chance of me making that train. After Tarzan was bitten in a fight with a gorilla, he had to close the wound. Being Tarzan, and in the jungle, one would assume he could concoct some jungle paste to lather on his wound and then it would be all better, right? Nooooope. He and our boy Sammy sat down and grabbed ants and waited for them to bite Tarzan around his wound. After this happened he would remove the bodies from the head and bam, instant ant stitches. They just tried way too hard, and they didn't need to, because this movie was entirely enjoyable. But unlike my friend, this is where my complaints end.

Lieutenant Colonel Akut and the Gorilla Infantry
save the day

Cody: Deus. Ex. Animal. God from animal. My own spin on the common story trope, deus ex machina. I had a good feeling when I sat down to write that haiku, and I have never been more spot on. Tarzan has been bitten and could die! Ants save the day in an impossible way. Deus ex animal. It got so much worse though. They fully admit in the movie that Tarzan doesn't actually communicate with animals, he just understands them. Fast forward to Tarzan and Chief Mbonga at a Mexican standoff, neither willing to give an inch. I was so on board with this side plot, by the way. Great drama. Will these two men realize they are more alike than they think? Can they find respect and put down their weapons? Sure, but not before the Gorilla Infantry arrive. On cue, at the height of the suspense, several gorillas come from no where to jump into the scrum. Like the Riders of Rohan at
Minas Tirith or Knights of the Vale at Winterfell, they swung the battle in Tarzan's favor. Unlike the aforementioned armies, they, ya know, can't take orders. They're animals. Even if they followed Tarzan all that way on their own volition, how would they know to sit back and wait to see if they were needed when things got really dire? I'll tell you how. Lazy writers. Deus. Ex. Animal.

Roy: First of all, deus ex animal is a bit of a leap. You said yourself in your opening remarks that this is basically a super hero movie. A point that I agree with. If you are going to watch a super hero movie you enter into a binding social contract to suspend some form of reality in order to enjoy what you are seeing. This movie was no exception. If you are going to accept the premise that a baby was raised by gorillas in the heart of the Congo and developed special abilities through this lifestyle; then by extension you have to accept that within the framework of this story, animals will have higher cognitive functions than they actually have in real life. Complaining about the animals helping Tarzan in this movie is like whining that Iron Man cannot be real because the technology he uses does not exist. Furthermore, one of us really liked Disney's real life adaptation of The Jungle Book, and the other did not. How can one person be completely fine with wolves raising a child in the jungle and animals singing to each other, but swinging on a Spider-Man like vine and using gorilla family members in a fight be too much?? Because I would like to point out, at least the animals in Tarzan didn't physically talk to each other... in English.

A black panther, a grizzly bear, and an Indian child just chilling in a
tree as besties, about to break into song

Cody: I had a feeling you were going to throw The Jungle Book in my face. If you didn't enjoy Christopher Walken as a singing giant Orangutan, then there's no hope for you as a human being. It was pure brilliance. Furthermore, that movie is meant for the imaginations of children. This was clearly targeted at an older audience, thus is held to a higher standard. When panthers, wolves, and bears all join forces to raise a child through song, that's an adorable children's story. However, when lions, gorillas, and men join forces to destroy an entire town and army, that's a bit ridiculous. Superheroes are impossible, that's for sure, but they stick to the general set of 'rules' laid out in the creation of that particular super hero. Spider-Man doesn't suddenly start communicating with spiders without any previous indication of that power existing. Tarzan's animal friends shouldn't be able to suddenly start following organized plans when it was previously stated he can't actually communicate with them. Consistency. That's all I'm asking for here. The writers just kept taking the easier and easier way out as the movie went on, culminating in the aforementioned animal organized water buffalo stampede. It went over the top, and I went into eye roll mode.

"You're 'opeless"

Roy: You're taking the whole, "it was explained he can't communicate with the animals" thing way too literally. Could he carry on a conversation about how their day is going? No. But could he make them understand that he wanted to attack a herd of water buffalo? Yeah, I think that is easily within Tarzan's skill set. Now, if he had told the water buffalo to stampede into the town you would have a point. And the gorillas would fight for him because they considered him family. This is your "ant head stitches" moment. You're just trying too hard. However, we have been friends a very long time. And I'm not dumb enough to think that you will ever acquiesce to my superior logic. So in the words of yet another great Sam....

Cody: You're right that I'm not going to budge, but wrong that this is my ant head stitches moment. It's the cumulative effect of several ant head stitch moments that ultimately entrenched me in this position. When you're at the theater, you want to be lost in the movie. It's these plot fixer deus ex animal moments that continued to push me back out. Like I said before, you can do a lot worse than Tarzan. It wasn't bad by any stretch. It just wasn't great either. Middle of the road. Forgettable.

Roy: You know what?! You're forgettable.