Ant-Man & The Wasp, Charmed, and Legacies

1. Ant-Man and The Wasp -- was a lot better than expected or I was lead to believe by various online reviews and reports from friends, who'd seen it. (Obviously my taste on some things varies from others, also the dark twist after the credits didn't bother or upset me -- I was expecting it. It also works on multiple levels.

There were quite a few laugh out loud moments -- one, in particular, that I burst out laughing during and could not stop for five minutes. Walter Goggins and Michael Pena are comic gold.

Also, I rather liked how the film made the focus not defeating some Monster, but rather a rescue mission. Far more interesting. The villain fighting gets old after a bit.

Evageline Lily, the gal who played AVA - the Ghost, and Michelle Pfieffer were all great additions, along with Laurence Fishburn.

Totally worth $5.95 rental via On-Demand. And in some respects better than seeing it in a theater -- due to the fact that I could rewind when desired, and fast-forward through the credits. Also go to the bathroom during the credits. And no annoying people checking their cell phones. (Folks, your wives, kids, family members, friends, etc can live without you texting them during a movie. Seriously.)

( Spoilers )

This is among the better films in the franchise -- and it works as a sort of stand alone. You really don't have to see anything but the previous Ant-Man to enjoy it. Although it would help if you saw Civil War and possibly Infinity War.

There's a lot of movies in the Marvel Film Franchise and they've all been hooked together. And astonishingly enough, I've apparently seen all of them. What can I say? I have a weakness for Marvel superhero films.

2. Other reviews...

*Charmed

Eh, not as good as the original, unfortunately. It's nicely diverse, the original wasn't, hello, 1990s. Nothing was diverse in the 1990s. (They did token casting in the 1990s, which the Black Panther film made fun of). In the 1990s, the racist and sexist white male studio executives believed that only white people watched television and only white lead characters, who were sexually appealing, could attract an audience. (If you don't believe me watch the commentary to the film the TV Show, with Judd Apatow, who explains the casting behind Freaks & Geeks, or the back story on how both Buffy and The West Wing were cast, not to mention the original Charmed.) Now, in the 21st Century they've been proven wrong, many of these executives have either found themselves in jail, fired, or in early retirement, and diversity reigns. Which is a good thing.

That said...unfortunately the writing is not quite there. (Seriously, you'd think television writers would be better at dialogue?) And outside of the oldest sister, Macy, who I like quite a bit...the casting isn't there either. I've seen two episodes to date and I'm not sure I want to bother with more. I may just be too old for it. It feels very...silly to me, somehow.

There's a White-Lighter who helps the three sisters, and allegedly has chemistry with one of them, the telepath, who doesn't like him. One of the sister's is gay and dating a cop. The third and my favorite is a scientist. Other than the three sisters, and the white-lighter training them, and how they are chosen to save the world -- everything else has been changed. The bits they kept from the original are rather cheesy -- the book of shadows, the white-lighter, and the power of three. But, what can you do? It's the basis of the story.

Based on two episodes? C

*Legacies - this is another spin-off from Vamp Diaries, which has oddly been more successful with Spin-Off's than Supernatural. OR maybe not so oddly, it's an ensemble drama, not two guys chasing monsters. It's very hard to do a spin-off off of a series about two guys chasing monsters -- let's face it, people are watching for the two leads nothing else. X-Files had the same problem, people watched for Mulder and Scully, nothing else. Remove Mulder and Scully -- interest jumped out the window.

[As an aside? I've watched about the same number of years for both Vamp Diaries and Supernatural - I think Eight Years, give or take. I tend to give up on television series after about year seven or eight, with few exceptions. Sometimes I don't make it past year three.]

Anyhow, this spin-off focuses on Alaric raising his daughters and Klaus's daughter, Hope, in a school for gifted youngsters, which bares more in common with Xavier's School than Harry Potter. Although I think the writers were striving for a Harry Potter/Vampire Academy vibe. The kids with about two or three exceptions are rather boring. And there isn't anyone in the cast that has the charisma or sex appeal of Ian Sommerhandler, Nina Dobrev, or Paul Wesley, or even the supporting cast.

It's about as diversely cast as the original was -- so no big difference there.

The writing also isn't as compelling. I'm not that curious about these characters. And again they feel rather young to me -- so I'm possibly (no, wait, it's the CW, definitely) the wrong demographic.

But what is good about it -- is the focus is on the female characters for the most part. Hope is the central one and she's sort of kick-ass. Hope, Lizzie, and Josie are the fighters here, not the Salvatore brothers.
( mild spoilers for those who didn't watch Vamp Diaries )

The plot is typically teenage soap, with a bit of monster hunting thrown in. I think they are going for the Buffy formula over the Vampire Diaries formula, but not sure they'll pull it off.

It's okay. Not sure I will stick with it. Am sort of curious where they are going with the bad-boy orphan, who can't be compelled, but isn't exhibiting any other talents to speak of. He's actually the most interesting of the characters on the series.

Overall? C+

3. Didn't feel well tonight -- due to sinus headache from hell and sciatic nerve down left leg, so skipped party and stayed home. Stupid leg.