Change Your Image
timothyalanwilliams
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Ready Player One (2018)
Masterful Storyteller Spielberg Saves "Ready Player One"
Let me start with a disclaimer. I have never read the best-selling book this film was based on. I'm also not a big video game person. So "Ready Player One" was not necessarily on my "must see" movie list when it came out last month. But I do love most Steven Spielberg movies and I had heard that there were lots of 1980's pop culture references in the film (and the book) so it began to pique my interest.
I must admit though, I didn't go in with very high expectations.
The story is a hodgepodge of familiar tales. There's a "Willy Wonka" vibe, a heavy dose of "Avatar" feels, and even a few scenes that reminded me of "The Goonies" and "The Breakfast Club". Some of those I think are obvious while others are perhaps implied. But either way, it's pulling from some great past movies, stories, and pop culture icons, so it keeps you entertained (much like the hit show on Netflix, "Stranger Things")
Steven Spielberg continues to prove what a masterful storyteller he is because he took a story that could have been all spectacle but without any heart or emotion to connect us to it. But he was able to balance both parts really well, although he didn't have me fully invested until well into the second act. There are still some plot questions I don't think were answered or explained very well. But "Ready Player One", much like the video games of our childhood and the current "cyber reality" we all find ourselves in (whether we like it or not), is meant to pull us away from the "real world" and enjoy some "pure imagination" for a few hours in our day.
I would recommend seeing it in the theater while you still can, but I expect to do very well on home video because it's really designed for multiple viewings so you can catch all of the pop culture Easter Eggs in the background. I'm looking forward to seeing it again myself.
Black Panther (2018)
Wakanda Forever!
After two comedy-heavy entries in its cinematic universe, "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and "Thor: Ragnarok", Marvel has finally come back to its senses with "Black Panther". Under the very capable hands of writer/director Ryan Coogler (who breathed life back into the Rocky franchise with "Creed"), along with an all-star African-American cast, "Black Panther" brings a fresh approach to the comic book/superhero genre.
Chadwick Boseman returns as newly-appointed King T'Challa after his breakout role in "Captain America: Civil War". He is joined by Danai Gurira ("The Waking Dead") as his army general, Okoye; Lupita Nyong'o ("12 Years A Slave") his ex-girlfriend and wanted spy; Daniel Kaluuya ("Get Out") his close friend and Okoye's lover; as well as scene-steeling newcomer Letitia Wright as his tech-savvy sister, Shuri. Add in Forrest Whittaker ("Rogue One") Angela Bassett ("9-1-1"), Michael B. Jordan ("Creed"), Sterling K. Brown ("This Is Us"), Andy Serkis ("Lord of the Rings" trilogy) and Martin Freeman ("The Hobbit" trilogy) and you have enough star power to energize a major city. But star power alone is not what carries this movie. It is the well-balanced story and grounded tone that makes it feel more like a Bond movie with hints of "The Lion King" and "Game of Thrones".
What impressed me the most is the cultural relevance throughout the movie. The action scenes are good (although I prefer the action sequences in the Russo Brothers' "Captain America" films), the tech/gadgets are cool, and the humor is nicely placed to keep it light. But best moments are in Wakanda, where the African scenery, fashion, and culture are on full display.
Kudos to Marvel for placing "Black Panther" into the right hands and kudos to the actors who felt the weight of each role and delivered on all counts.
The only things that could have been improved were the action scenes (primarily hand to hand combat scenes), some sketchy CGI moments, and a rather sluggish first act. But none of those minor criticisms should deter you from seeing and enjoying this next chapter in the Marvel saga. Wakanda forever!
Red Sparrow (2018)
"Red Sparrow" Never Really Takes Off In Order To Soar
"Red Sparrow" which is based on a book trilogy written by former CIA operative, Jason Matthews, tells a long and winding story of a premiere Russian ballerina who is trained to be a spy after suffering a career-ending injury. Jennifer Lawrence brings her "Hunger Games" star-power to this severely sluggish film which runs about 30 minutes too long and saves all of its action and suspense for the ending.
I will admit, I have never been a huge fan of Ms. Lawrence (except for "Silver Linings Playbook" which she won an Oscar for) and this movie didn't change my mind too much. I think that she brings all that she has to the role, and even has some shining moments, but the movie overly sexualizes her and wastes her talents on flirting and seduction (as the Sparrows are known to be trained to use sex in order to get information from their targets).
The supporting cast shines where they can. Joel Edgerton ("Bright"), Jeremy Irons ("Justice League"), and Mary-Louise Parker ("Red") are the stand-outs in the crowded cast. Mary-Louise pretty much steals the movie in just one scene, the best scene, which should have been the tone of the entire film.
"Red Sparrow" tries really hard to be like "Salt" and "Atomic Blonde" but has none of the action that kept those films moving and at least entertaining. Instead, "Sparrow" takes itself too seriously and too sexually to be worth its over two hours running time.
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Thanos Rules in "Infinity War"
The anticipation has been building for years. The ultimate baddie, Thanos, who has remained in the shadows, is coming to earth the get the five Infinity Stones that would give him the power to destroy half of the universe with one snap of his fingers. With the current Avengers disbanded, after the events of "Age of Ultron" and "Civil War", they weren't exactly prepared for a foe like Thanos.
To avoid any spoilers, I will leave the plot details at that.
"Avengers: Infinity War" really packs a punch. It's relentless action and quick (and often witty) dialogue keep the two and half hour movie rolling without slowing down for you to relax or, at times, really process what just happened. To balance all the Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, and subplots, was a feat in and of itself. I applaud the Russo Brothers (who also directed "Winter Soldier" and "Civil War") for taking on such a daunting task and succeeding in keeping us engaged while giving the primary Avengers, as well as The Guardians of the Galaxy, their own moments to shine.
But this movie isn't really their movie. It's all Thanos, played by Josh Brolin buried under CGI to make him look more monster than man. But he finds a way to emote and make his character more than just another big baddie without a soul.
The movie isn't perfect. There are a few CGI moments, mostly of Thanos, that looked like they needed more time to finish. And it's cliffhanger ending (the untitled "part two" will release May of next year) left me feeling numb and somewhat unsatisfied. But be sure to stay for the post-credits scene. It's worth the wait.
John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
"Chapter Two" Lacks the Passion of Its Predecesor
"John Wick: Chapter Two" is everything you probably loved about the first installment. Lots of fast-paced, bloody, and violent action mixed with Keanu Reeves stoic, yet intense, acting. I really wanted to like this one as much as the first one, but it came up just a bit short. Not in heart-pounding action sequences, but in story. You have to admit, much like the "Taken" franchise, it's tough to duplicate a strong story-line which made the first one more than just an action movie. In the first "John Wick", the reason and rationale for his break from retirement was clear and felt in every scene. But Chapter Two doesn't carry that same passion. The biggest let down, for me, was the ending (or lack there of). To find out Chapter Two is just the set up for Chapter Three left me feeling duped. Will I see the third installment? Most definitely! I just wish the story could have stood on its own (like the first one). All in all, I still recommend it for the die- hard Keanu action flick fans. And it's still one of the better action sequels I've seen.
The Boss Baby (2017)
"The Boss Baby" Was Fun For Our Family
My daughter had been asking to see "Boss Baby" ever since she saw the first preview over two months ago. So as you can imagine, expectations were pretty high. I knew from the start there were going to be lots of jokes with a tender story about sibling rivalry that turns to love of family. What I got was lots of imagination, some good chuckles, and a decent story. Much of the humor for the kids is potty humor and slapstick at its best. But they also chocked it full of nods to great movies and jokes that only the parents would catch or understand (which worked great). Alec Baldwin (the voice of Boss Baby) is the obvious the star of the show and he takes no prisoners. I can't even tell you who the other voices were in the movie because they didn't matter. This was his time to shine and he took it. The story moves very quickly and my wife actually felt that it was too convoluted for kids. I thought the ending got overly dramatic for no good reason. My daughter thought it was "great" and chose the ending as her favorite part. All in all, we all enjoyed it as a family.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
"Volume Two" Is How Sequels Should Be Made
I'm gonna keep this review short and sweet. If you loved the first "Guardians of the Galaxy" then you will absolutely love "Volume Two". It has a groovy classic pop soundtrack, well-paced action, laugh-out- loud humor (thanks to Drax and Rocket mainly), cool cameos, and the joy of watching Baby Groot steal every scene he's in. This is how sequels should be made. Keep what works. Don't over do it. Don't add a bunch of characters that don't matter. And keep us wanting more when it ends...even after 5 mid and end credit scenes.
Logan (2017)
Sad "Logan" Isn't Too Much Fun
"Logan" is the last chapter of Hugh Jackman's stand-alone Wolverine trilogy and has been one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year. Being the first R rated film in the franchise and Hugh's swan song to his most recognized role, you can expect to see a very different kind of superhero movie. And that's exactly what "Logan" delivers...for better or for worse. Set in 2029, we find Logan (with a frail Professor X and their hired help, Caliban) trying to lay low as a limousine driver. His secret identity is quickly blown by a woman and child who beg him for safe passage from some dangerous men who are after the child. As you garner from the previews, the child, Laura, has similar mutant tendencies as old man Logan. What follows is not your typical superhero flick. There are no aliens. No sinister plot to destroy the planet. No assembling of other heroes to defeat an army of attackers. It's just Wolverine protecting and defending those he has learned to care about. There is plenty of violent and bloody action. This is much more "John Wick" than "Captain America". I believe this is the first time you see blood on (and spraying from) Wolverine's blades during his fight scenes. And because of the R rating get ready to hear everyone drop the f-bomb frequently (I think it's the only word Logan uses for the first 10 minutes of the film). Leave the kids at home. This is NOT that kind of superhero movie. The biggest downer for me is the overall sad tone throughout the whole movie. There's not much "fun" to be had on this ride. "Logan" is serious, violent, and yes, even emotional. Like I said, not your typical superhero movie. It's very much the Ying to last year's breakout R rated superhero movie Deadpool's Yang. Where "Deadpool" came for your laughs, "Logan" aims for tears.
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
A Good, But Not Great Remake
It's a tale as old as time...and this "live action" remake of the beloved animated "Beauty and the Beast" from 1991 wants desperately to pay homage to the original while adding its own spin. I will say up front that I loved the original and even owned the CD of the Broadway musical it spawned years later. This movie pulls from both as well as the original story. Does it work? At times. I will break down this review in three sections: Casting, music, and direction. Casting: Seeing as I'm not really a Harry Potter fan, I can't say I was all that ecstatic with the casting of Emma Watson. The movie didn't change my mind much. She sang well, but didn't do much else for me. Even her musical numbers felt flat with little expression on her face or in her body. Kevin Kline was excellent as her father Maurice even though his part felt limited. The real star of this movie was Luke Evans as Gaston. He was having so much fun and ate up every scene. The rest of the top-notch cast were fine with what they had to work with. Music: All of your favorites from the original are here ("Belle", "Be Our Guest", "Gaston", etc) and a few new songs added as well. I enjoyed some of the new lyrics and arrangements that were added to the original songs. Nothing was taken away from them, which was good. The new songs were okay, but none will be as memorable as the originals. Direction: Bill Condon is no stranger to bringing musicals to the big screen as he previously directed "Dreamgirls" as well as "Chicago". So it's no surprise that this movie feels much more like watching a Broadway show than sitting in s movie theater. (One of my friends said the guy next to him would applaud after each musical number) The big musical numbers ("Belle", "Be Our Guest", and "Gaston") were grand with extravagant visual effects and fun extras. Unfortunately Mr. Condon still struggles with is good CGI (he also directed the last two "Twilight" movies. For this to be "live action" just about every scene was computer animated in some way (and was blatantly noticeable). The beast, nor the household items, ever had much real expression. The backgrounds were clearly green- screened (George Lucas would be so proud). And the final scenes at the castle were so dark, you could barely make out what was happening between the beast and Gaston. The last thing I will mention is I would not recommend this to young children. I'm sure there are plenty of little girls (let's just say 10 and under) who love the cartoon are going to want to see it. But it's too long (over 2 hours) and at times can be too scary. My 7 year old got bored about halfway through. Several other young movie- goers in the theater seemed to lose interest at times as well. Overall, it was good but not great. I hope they do better with "The Lion King".
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
"Skull Island" Exceeded My Expectations
"Kong: Skull Island" is a straight up old school action adventure, war film, and monster movie all wrapped into one. With all of the star- power (Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, and the ultimate scene-stealer John C. Reilly) it's no wonder this is just part one in a new franchise that will eventually lead to a match up between Kong and Godzilla. **Spoiler Alert** Don't miss the extra scene after the credits!! But before we get there, we have a well-crafted story that's nothing like the previous remakes. The special effects were outstanding and the action scenes were spectacular. I will admit, I liked this movie a lot better than I expected to. I look forward to seeing the next chapter.
The Fate of the Furious (2017)
"Fate" Is More Ridiculous Than Furious
I remember seeing the preview for "The Fast and The Furious" back in 2001 and thinking "That movie is gonna bomb! Who wants to watch a movie about street car racing?" Little did I know that a movie studio's idea of re-imaging the cult classic, "Point Break", with street cars instead of surf boards would turn into a box office hit and make Paul Walker and Vin Diesel household names. Diesel and director Rob Cohen abandoned the sequel, "2 Fast 2 Furious" with Walker starring and John Singleton directing. It couldn't match the success of the original and most thought the franchise was over. Then up-and-coming director, Justin Lin, attempted to breathe life back into franchise with a whole new cast on a new continent with "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift". Although the film bombed at the box office, Vin Diesel saw potential and inked a deal with Paramount to get the original cast back together with Lin directing and shifted from just a street racing movie to more of a straight-up action flick. 2009's "Fast & Furious" was the revival no one saw coming and jump started the franchise...uh, so to speak. Each sequel after ("Fast Five", "Fast & Furious 6", and "Furious 7") got bigger, bolder, and, at times, to more ridiculous than furious. But each one dominated the box office and turned out to be quite entertaining popcorn flicks. After the tearful farewell to Paul Walker (who died tragically during a break in filming) at the end of 7, I wasn't quite sure how the franchise would move on. The bond and chemistry of Walker and Diesel were the key components of the previous movies' success. And I have to say, "The Fate of the Furious" suffers from Paul's absence. The movie is still full of action, and even more street racing and car chases than the last few movies. But that's no surprise with new-to-the-franchise director F. Gary Gray who took movie car chases to a new level in "The Italian Job". But even with those cool car chases, The Rock going toe-to-toe (again) with Jason Statham, and new villain Charlize Theron, "The Fate of the Furious" feels like it's running out of gas. If you are looking for a solid story line, this isn't for you. But if you just want some ludicrous action (pardon my pun), some amusing wise-cracks from Tyrese Gibson, and a hint of high-tech hi-jinks to save the world from a ruthless hacker then 8 just might be in your fate, Side Note: I am hoping that The Rock gets his own spin-off movie based his "Luke Hobbs" character, because he is becoming bigger than this franchise can handle.
Collateral Beauty (2016)
Will Smith's Performance Is Worth Watching
When "Collateral Beauty" hit theaters last Christmas it pretty much got lost in the box office shuffle. "Hidden Figures" was still inspiring audiences and the one-two punch of Denzel and Viola made "Fences" another must see flick for the holidays. So when it finally hit video a few months ago, I almost forgot that I had missed it at the theaters. With such an all-star cast (Will Smith, Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Keira Knightley, Michael Pena, and Ed Norton) I was expecting a much stronger movie. The story is a solid one, it just didn't get the chance to fully evolve. Will Smith is the ultimate reason to see it. His heart-wrenching performance is the only thing that really grounds the film. The supporting cast (as talented as they are) never got the chance to fully explore their characters. It wasn't a bad movie, it just could have been so much more. I don't say this about too many movies, but "Collateral Beauty" needed about 30 more minutes to completely tell the story it was trying to tell.
Wonder Woman (2017)
DC Finally Got One Right!
I think we can all agree that Gal Gadot's portrayal of Wonder Woman was the best part of "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice", so this stand alone movie was no surprise to anyone who saw it coming. And because she shined so bright in the dreary and grim "Dawn of Justice", the expectations were lofty for this to be the film to save the critically-panned DC Expanded Universe franchise. Mine will not be the first review to say that this is the DC movie that we have all been waiting for. Well written and gracefully directed, this action- packed epic finally delivers a DC comics superhero movie that is worthy of our attention. There were only two things that disappointed me when the credits began to roll. One was that some of the CGI in the action scenes (specifically at the beginning with the Amazons) didn't seem finished. There were certain shots that didn't come off as "clean" as they could have. (I'm really knit-picking here, but it did bother me some). Second was the the final battle with the supernatural baddie (no spoilers here). It just felt way too over-the-top compared to the rest of the movie. I didn't hate it, it just seemed unnecessary. But, all in all, this is still the crown jewel of the DCEU movies (so far) and is worthy of all of the critical praise it continues to receive. All hail Princess Diana aka Wonder Woman and her first blockbuster feature film. ...and one more thing. We couldn't get one...not even ONE extra scene during or after the credits!?! Even "Suicide Squad" got a Bruce Wayne cameo!! I'm just saying.
The Mummy (2017)
"The Mummy" Is Not "Monster Mission Impossible"
Reboots are all the rage in Hollywood. Some work and some don't. So when I heard that Universal Studios had cast Tom Cruise to breathe life into "The Mummy" franchise (pun intended) I wasn't too sure how this was going to turn out. I loved Brandon Fraser's "Mummy" reboot back in 1999 (and even it's sequel "The Mummy Returns") with its Indiana Jones adventure type of style. With Tom Cruise (who is in his 50's by the way) making a string of ageless action-packed hits of late ("Mission: Impossible" franchise, "Jack Reacher" franchise, "Edge of Tomorrow" to name a few), I thought this would be in that same type of vein. But this remake went for the spooky-thriller route instead. And it worked! There is a lot of story (backstory mainly), but the action is there too. Then you add the suspense and creepy characters (dare I say "monsters") to that and you find this film is much more like the classic Boris Karloff Mummy movies from the 1930's than just "Mission: Impossible" with monsters. Tom Cruise pretty much plays himself (or at least the same character he's played the last ten years or so). His supporting cast (Russell Crowe, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, and Jake Johnson) are adequate in the parts they play, but the ultimate scene stealer was Jake Johnson who seems to be making his way from small screen fame on "New Girl" to more big screen roles (he had a small role in "Jurassic World" too). But this movie isn't about acting. It's about "gods and monsters". It's about Tom Cruise (looking 10 years younger than he is) running. It's about starting a new "Dark Universe" franchise that will eventually bring us Frankenstein's monster, the Invisible Man, and Dracula to name a few. The biggest surprise was how funny the movie was. There was lots of well-placed humor amongst the thrills and chills. I will admit, I am not a frequent horror/suspense movie watcher, so you may think the thrills and chills were milder than I did. So if you like action-adventure, "The Walking Dead" (you may see some zombie-like creatures chasing our lead characters) and some good old-fashioned laughs, then "The Mummy" could be your kind of early Summer popcorn flick.
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg Deliver Another Gripping True Story of Heroism
Mark Wahlberg teams up, once again, with director Peter Berg to bring a gripping true story of heroism and "against all odds" survival to the masses in "Deepwater Horizon". Much like "Lone Survivor" and the often overlooked "The Kingdom" this movie starts off slow and steady but once the action starts you won't have time to look away. Mark Wahlberg does his best to play the "every man" Mike Williams, but he pretty much acts like Mark Wahlberg throughout the film. Honestly, every actor plays who we expect them to be. Kate Hudson is the playful wife (who does get a few dramatic scenes). Kurt Russell is the tough and ornery supervisor who wants to keep everyone safe. And no one does over-confident "bad guy" like John Malkovich. But each actor made it easy for you to love (or hate) their character from their first scene. I do think the ending of the film was a little too quick. It packed a powerful emotional punch, but it left me feeling there was more story to tell. Overall, this is a solid film and a sure crowd-pleaser.
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Antoine Fuqua and Denzel Washington Team Up Again for This "Reimagining" of a Classic
I will admit two things upfront. 1) I am not a "die-hard" fan of Westerns and 2) I have never seen the original "Magnificent Seven" that this "re-imagining" is based upon. I am however, a fan of the two main stars, Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt, as well as the director, Antoine Fuqua. Much like his last collaboration with Denzel, "The Equalizer", this film focuses more on the action and the strength of its actors instead of fully developed characters or an original story line. With that being said, you should go into this movie knowing that it's not trying to win any awards or change the face of cinema. It's a good, old fashioned shoot 'em up action flick with quick-draw cowboys, wild horses, sharp-shooters, native Americans (good and bad), one-liners, drinkers, smokers, an evil overlord, and a knife- wielding Asian thrown in for good measure. Where the film lacks in its back-story of the seven heroes for hire, it makes up for in it's well-placed humor (thanks to Chris Pratt mainly) and it's crowd-pleasing action scenes (there were several moments of applause during the final battle scenes at the screening I attended). Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Magnificent Seven" and look forward to seeing it again.
Suicide Squad (2016)
"Suicide Squad" is Fast and Fun But Could Have Been Better
"Suicide Squad" is the pseudo-sequel to "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice". This story takes place sometime after the events of that epic superhero showdown which ultimately sets up the "need" for the unique collection of these "bad guys" who have been locked up thanks to Batman and the Flash. The tone of this film is very dark. Much darker than "Dawn of Justice" and often feels off-kilter (which I'm sure was intentional). The writers were wise to keep the dialogue and banter between the squad quick-witted and funny. Otherwise the dark tone could have weighed down the pace of the film and took away the empathy we needed to root for the "bad guys". With any ensemble film like this one the story tends to miss having any real depth for the characters. Thanks to good back stories at the beginning, we are immediately introduced to Deadshot (played by Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (played by Margot Robbie). The rest of the squad become mere by-standers through much of the movie (until Diablo played by Jay Hernandez shares his story midway through the movie). Even though the film clocks in at 2 hours I felt that it could have taken more time to develop. But with such lukewarm reviews from "Dawn of Justice" I think the studio wanted a faster- paced film with this one (which Director David Ayers has confirmed in interviews lately). Of course the Joker (played by Jared Leto) needed no backstory, but his role in the film felt like it was just there for the fans (much like Wolverine's cameo in "X-Men: Apocalypse") However, the Joker is vital to Harley Quinn's backstory. But beyond that he doesn't do much to move the story along. I believe he was there to help set up a Harley Quinn stand alone movie in the future. Leto's performance was good but it will never touch Heath Ledger's hypnotic portrayal from "The Dark Night". The stand out performance for me goes to Viola Davis as Amanda Waller, the mastermind (and ultimate nemesis) of the squad. You've never seen Ms. Davis this sinister or this cold hearted (and you might just like it!) Overall, "Suicide Squad" is a fun and enjoyable action-comedy flick. But it suffers from being a late-Summer release. After seeing "Dawn of Justice", "Civil War", and "Apocalypse" you get the feeling "Haven't I seen this before?" But I will definitely see this squad again! **Be sure to stay for the credits to see an extra scene**
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Satisfactory But Not Superior To Any Other "X-Men" Movies
"X-Men: Apocalypse" is the third film in the prequel(ish) trilogy that began with "X-Men: First Class". Because of "reset" that the ending of the previous film, "Days of Future Past", set in motion, those of us who have followed the series since the original 2001 "X-Men" often found ourselves scratching our heads during this one. To avoid any spoilers, I won't elaborate on any specific scenes. But the X-Men franchise has always been plagued with inconsistencies and Swiss cheese plot lines. So that was no surprise here either. "Apocalypse" does its best to begin a new storyline while clinging to familiar characters and origins. I'm not sure it was hitting all of the marks it was striving for, but it is still quite entertaining and will surely appease its mutant-loving fanbase. I can't say that I loved it or, even that I hated it. It was satisfactory, but in no way superior to any of its predecessors. It was probably about 20 minutes too long due to drawn out sequences that added nothing to the plot or pacing. After a high-energy opener, there quite a lull before the action picked back up and that caused some impatience about halfway through. None of the characters (except for the villain) really carried the story so you had a lot of people to keep up with throughout. Quicksilver continued to steal every scene he was in and it made me wish he could have played a bigger role. And the Wolverine cameo was a disappointing and lackluster sequence. It felt like a vain attempt to put him in the movie at the most opportune time. Like finding the keys in a random getaway car, it was just too convenient. Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy the movie. I just felt that it was lacking in areas where it could have been greater.