Photo: Peter Lovino, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Some may say that Hollywood is running out of ideas. In fact, many do say it’s operating on a nearly empty tank of original imagination with the seemingly endless stream of sequels, prequels and reboots that studios crank out every year with the streamlined efficiency of an early Ford assembly line.

But when you run out of established cinematic franchises to plunder, where are you to turn for a shot at maintaining box office relevance? The answer to that predicament is the smaller, flashing screen you look at when you’re not at the movie theater.

The television.

Transplanting TV shows onto the big screen is nothing new, especially with feature length films being made as extensions of popular series like “The Jetsons,” “Firefly” and “The Simpsons,” to name a few. But the 1990s brought about a novel phenomenon: adapting popular television shows into movies that would parody their source material. These films were mostly made out of programs from the 1960s, which were just begging to be mocked, given the cheesiness and camp and as a result, we got passable outings like 1994’s “The Flintstones” to downright bizarre ones like “The Brady Bunch Movie” a year later. The decade was wrought with them (“The Beverly Hillbillies,” “McHale’s Navy,” “A Very Brady Sequel”) and even bled into the 2000s with “Bewitched.”

And yet, these were comedic adaptations of comedic shows; no new trails were being blazed.

What if you took a dramatic, over-the-top show from back in the day and retrofit it as a comedy for moviegoers? To do this, Hollywood turned its sights (“Mission: Impossible” notwithstanding) from the ’60s to the treasure trove of campy shows from the ’70s and ’80s. “Starsky and Hutch” (2004) and “The A-Team” (2010) come to mind, but they were both box office and critical failures. Nevertheless, everything changed in 2012 with a little movie called “21 Jump Street” that got the drama-to-comedy formula just right and paved the way for others to try their hands at replicating its success.

The latest to attempt to turn TV history into box office gold is “CHiPs,” a surprising laugh-out-loud R-rated comedy that, while following in a similar vein of “Jump Street,” also ups the ante on the entire trend of turning shows into movies.

Based on the dramatic series of the same name (about motorcycle-riding California Highway policemen that made a star out of Eric Estrada and ran from 1977 to 1983), “CHiPs” was written and directed by Dax Shepard (“Idiocracy,” “Let’s Go To Jail”) who also stars in it and doesn’t waste any time getting to the punchlines. “The California Highway Patrol does not endorse this movie … at all,” says the cheeky opening title card. Still, that doesn’t mean it totally disavowed the movie.

“In all honesty, they were very, very helpful,” Shepard told The Triangle during a particularly entertaining press conference in Philadelphia. “I had many many meetings with the CHP and I would keep passing the levels like a video game. It’d go so well, then they’d then fly someone someone even higher up down to [Los Angeles] and I’d meet with that person and then by the end of it, I was meeting with the very head of the CHP and they said, ‘Look, we know you’re gonna make this movie with or without us. We’d like to be helpful. We can’t publicly endorse it, it’s an R-rated comedy.’ [But], they were helpful — we got to shoot at CHP Central, which was what they used on the TV show so that was an important location we got. We had them shutting down roads with us, we had a liaison. So we had a great, great relationship with them.”

“CHiPs,” like the show it was based on, centers around the partnership of Jon Baker and Frank “Ponch” Poncherello who were played by Larry Wilcox and Erik Estrada respectively. Except here, they’re not the straightforward badasses they were in the show, which makes sense. You need to play around with the variables of the source material in the adaptation process for the comedy to work much like Hill and Tatum were incompetent in their jobs as cops (undercover and otherwise) in “Jump Street” unlike their counterparts in the show.

In “CHiPs,” Baker (Shepard) is a pill-munching shlub with bad knees who only joins the CHP to win back the affections of his apathetic swim-instructing wife, played by his actual real-life wife, Kristen Bell. Shepard, who isn’t hesitant to describe her character as an “a–hole,” says it’s nothing like who she is in real life.

“It was pretty fun to watch actually because my wife is so inherently likable,” he said. “It’s nauseating how nice she is. So, to see her pull off someone who is really an a–hole was really  really fun to watch, I thought. It’s really fun to watch in the movie as well because you like know what a good person she is and it’s fun to watch her be bad.”

Shepard also made the insanely smart move of casting Michael Pena as Ponch, who is actually an undercover FBI agent sent to join the CHP as part of an operation to root out some dirty cops who have been committing literal highway robbery. Pena, who proved himself a comedic dynamo in Marvel’s “Ant-Man,” plays a man who is cocky and foolhardy enough to shoot his own partner in order to catch the bad guy and score with every woman he meets even if they’re the wife of said bad guy. The running joke throughout the movie is his Kryptonite-like weakness and as Shepard puts it, “savant”-like knowledge of yoga pants (particularly if they’re made by Luluemon) and the latest sexual trends. Yet another reason the real-world CHP could not endorse the movie. “They cannot possibly endorse a movie that has a– eating in one of the conversations,” said Shepard.

The comedic chemistry between Shepard and Pena is what elevates “CHiPs” from an early spring distraction to a truly entertaining piece of comedic cinema and carries it in the lulls between the action sequences. Shepard and Pena credit their onscreen rapport to the extensive rehearsals they did before shooting.

“I would give Pena credit for this because I personally don’t like to rehearse and he loves to rehearse and so, we did rehearse a ton,” said Shepard.

“I ended up falling love with the process myself and we got a ton of great stuff out of that that ended up in the movie and that’s just where we got to know one another and let’s say we met for three hours, we might be reading the script for an hour of that and then we’d just be shooting the s— for the other two hours like getting to know each other and a lot of that zuzz ended up in the movie and I think that’s what helped a lot,” he continued.

“I think, for me, it was like really important to make sure that I was connected and in the zone and not overacting, not playing for the jokes,” added Pena. “That’s all the stuff that was needed and wanted that you find out during rehearsal, but then it’s one thing to know about it and then it’s another thing to kind of do it in the movie and then it’s another thing with going into the movie, knowing what the rules are for this particular film.”

When Ponch and Baker mount their hogs, the action really kicks into high-octane gear with some truly incredible chase scenes and GoPro-ey shots across the highways and beaches of Los Angeles, so much so that you could almost swear you can see “La La Land’s” opening number being filmed in the distance. Aside from the pitch perfect comedic beats, the stunts are what captivated me and, as it so happens, the film crew during shooting.

“I remember at the beach this guy going up a hundred feet … I think they cut for [lunch]. Nobody went to lunch. They wanted to see these guys make this incredible jump,” recounted  Pena.

And as for Shepard, who actually rides bikes in his spare time, found himself competing with the stuntmen and coordinators while on set. “I’ve never felt competitive with other actors per se. I don’t think I’m all that gifted as an actor, but I’m really competitive with all my motorcycle friends and all my friends were either the stunt guys or the stunt coordinator,” he said. “There was a lot of weird machismo stuff going on with me and the stunt guys.”

The awesome action set pieces in “CHiPs” help assert that television shows need not remain on television. Rather, they can be made bigger, badder and more awe-inspiring if adapted for the big screen with a bigger budget to boot. In addition, the abundance of explosions, shootouts and epic motorcycle chases that help showcase the beauty of California were not an accident.

“The defining characteristics of that TV show, from my point of view, were California, which was, at that time, in the late ’70s, early ’80s, [“CHiPs”] was one of the only shows where California was the star of that show and also motorcycles,” said Shepard. “There was no other shows about guys on motorcycles and as a little kid, those two things were amazing to me, but also the wink at the audience is, in that show, things blew up inexplicably all the time. Like you couldn’t go ten minutes in that show without something exploding so there’s an inordinate amount of explosions in “CHiPs” and part of it is because of the show had so many.”

He also said that he watched “Lethal Weapon” and “Bad Boys” on repeat while writing the script to nail the buddy cop vibe.

For a movie about cops, “CHiPs” doesn’t play things too close to the vest in terms of its villain who is revealed within the first half hour or so. It’s not much of a spoiler to say it’s Vincent D’Onofrio playing a corrupt cop named Ray Kurtz. If that surname is conjuring up memories of “Apocalypse Now,” don’t be alarmed. That was kind of planned too.

“I was careful to look that up and make sure [Marlon Brando’s character is] not exactly Ray Kurtz [in “Apocalypse Now”]. Funny enough, you asked earlier about the California Highway Patrol. In order for them to help us, they had three really tiny requests for the script. They had read the script and one of them was that his character was originally named Ray Blackwell and they said to us in this meeting, “Look, we think it’s really funny that you named the guy Ray Blackwell, but we do think it would probably hurt his feelings” and I go “Who’s Who?”

“There’s a real Ray Blackwell,” chimed in Pena.

“He was like their most-decorated captain of all time,” said Shepard. “They thought I was purposefully accusing him of being a bad cop or something or a dirty cop, but I was like, ‘Oh my God. That’s a total coincidence. I’ll change the name.’ so I changed it to Kurtz like a week before we started shooting.”

D’Onofrio is joined by a veritable group of other well-seasoned actors of comedic and dramatic backgrounds like Maya Rudolph (“SNL”), Isiah Whitlock Jr. (“The Wire”) and Jane Kaczmarek (“Malcolm in the Middle”) who all bring their own zany brand of humor to the party. Specifically, Whitlock Jr. is terrific as Ponch’s exasperated boss — another example of turning the serious into light-heartedness — who can’t get over the exorbitant amount of federal money being spent on the operation, not to mention the revolving door of California women Ponch sleeps with.

Like I said, “CHiPs” makes a very strong case for its existence and TV shows turned movies in general. Anyone can make a comedy out of a comedy, but it takes some real forethought to turn a drama into a comedy. The credit here lies with writer-director-star Dax Shepard whose love and admiration of the original show helped make the transition as smooth and and loving as possible so that the film is equal parts original buddy cop movie and thoughtful homage.

Moreover, it brings about an awareness and relevance of pop culture that may have fallen by the wayside after all these years. Does that mean we’ll be seeing feature length “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” comedies in a few decades?

Probably not, but if Shepard and Pena want to take a crack at it, I’m game.

Usually, writers, producers and directors struggle with creating a unique experience for moviegoers and TV bingers that’s different than anything they’ve ever seen before. Whether your film or show takes place in a fantasy word a la “Game of Thrones” or on the “Hacksaw Ridge” battlefields of WWII, it is on the people behind the scenes to immerse the viewer in that universe.

That being said, the practice of world building is something that just comes naturally to the Lego brand. Aside from the fact that the company has made a fortune on literal building blocks for kids, it also has licensing deals with every major pop culture property out there: superheroes, wizards, Joe Dante, you name it. We got a taste of this with 2014’s refreshingly original “The Lego Movie,” whose story didn’t overly rely on its side characters from other franchises who made nice little appearances throughout.

Now, Lego is doubling down on these connections with “The Lego Batman Movie” and while the title may reek of toy selling cash grab (let’s face it, that’s probably a little true), I’m here to assure you that everything is still awesome — at least until we can see Emmet and Wyldstyle again.

It makes sense that the Master Builder Lego version of Batman would get his own spin-off film from “The Lego Movie.” He’s a super-charged household name that has endured for nearly a century and is practically a sure hit for Warner Brothers, whose live action DC Extended Universe has been struggling as of late. The lukewarm (if that) receptions to “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” and “Suicide Squad” this past year didn’t help either.

However, the animated DC universe is alive and well, allowing Warner to rake in the box office profits via its animation division before setting sail for stranger tides with film adaptations of in-house Lego brands like “The Lego Ninjago Movie,” which is set for a release this September.

From the very start of “Lego Batman,” animation seems the better route to take, given that the ever-changing roster of live action Bruce Waynes of recent memory may have left audiences a little lassitudinous to say the least.

“All important movies start with a black screen,” says Will Arnett’s Batman — a gravelly version of Arnett’s dimwitted and egotistical magician character from “Arrested Development,” Gob Bluth — before we open on the blue-tinged Warner logo taken straight out of that the tour de force known as “The Dark Knight” and some ominous Hans Zimmer-esque drum banging.

The movie jumps right into the action as The Joker (Zach Galifianakis already showing up Jared Leto as the best Joker of the past year) attempts to blow up Gotham City’s fragile foundations with a cavalcade of Batman’s greatest villains and some obscure C-grade ones like Orca and The Eraser. “They’re worth a Google,” says The Joker (and believe me, I did to make sure they’re canon) to the pilot of a plane he has hijacked in the style of Tom Hardy’s Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises.”

“Is it gonna be like that time with the two boats or the parade with the Prince music?” inquires the pilot about the latest dastardly plan concocted by Gotham’s Clown Prince of Crime. “No, it’s nothing like that!” exclaims Galifianakis’s kid-friendly Joker. And that’s the style of this movie: to mock the rich 78-year history surrounding the Caped Crusader, from the campy days of West and Romero, to the gothic team-up of Burton and Keaton and all the way to the brooding era of Nolan and Bale.

Even Batsy’s 2016 presence in “Dawn of Justice” and “Suicide Squad” gets a shoutout, a sure sign that pop culture is becoming self-aware at a faster rate than modern technology. The characters know they’re ageless pawns in a vast mythological well that has quenched the thirsts of legendary comic book writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman. It also gives them a chance to take some well-aimed potshots at archrival Marvel.

Of all the things for a kid’s movie to revolve around, “The Lego Batman Movie” is about relationships: Bruce’s relationship with his late parents, with Alfred (Ralph Fiennes, with the people of Gotham,  with his newly adopted son Dick Grayson aka Robin (Michael Cera) and, most importantly, his relationship with his arch-enemy The Joker.

The latter becomes heartbroken when Batman says that he has no “greatest enemy” and that The Joker (and anyone else for that matter) means nothing to him. It’s a rare day in comic book history when you feel bad for a murdering sociopath like The Joker, but director Chris McKay (“Robot Chicken”) and his team of animators do just that.

Like the beautiful and mock stop motion animation style, the movie’s jokes and cameos come fast and heavy as Batman attempts to banish Joker to the Phantom Zone, which only unleashes an evil rogues gallery of pop culture history’s worst baddies — this is where the true might and reach of Lego comes into play with some truly bizarre yet epic appearances. In response to this massive threat, the selfish and vainglorious Bruce is forced to accept help in the form of Robin, Alfred and newly appointed Gotham police commissioner Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson moving from one major superhero brand to the next).

And while the voice actors are spot-on (no one could better voice this exaggerated Batman persona than Arnett), more time could have been given to  the classic villains and heroes alike (Jim Gordon, Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow, Cat-Woman, Bane, Two-Face and all the rest) who have had a profound impact on the development of Gotham City’s eternal protector. If you’re going to hire the likes of Billy Dee Williams, Conan O’Brien, Jason Mantzoukas and Hector Elizondo to lend their voices to such iconic characters, they need to be put to better use.

Other than that one complaint, “The Lego Batman Movie” continues the wacky convergence of cartoons and reality. In the Lego cinematic universe, these two things aren’t mutually exclusive,  but have a symbiotic relationship that keeps the kids entertained with the flashy colors and mile-a-minute jokes while simultaneously winking to the adults in the audience with nostalgic references to their own upbringings. Moreover, the movie honors its hero’s extensive source material by having the brazen Joker-esque ability to laugh at itself, scars and all. Shortly put, it’s the Batman movie we both deserve and need right now.

Photo courtesy: Netflix

What are the essentials for wooing your significant other on Valentine’s Day? Some roses, maybe a bottle of iced champagne and a dash of a far-reaching conspiracy that just might get you killed over sensitive information.

That’s the general balls-to-the-wall premise of “Girlfriend’s Day,” another Netflix movie that gets everything right, except the execution. With its release timed perfectly with the onset of Valentine’s Day earlier this week, the film is like the hardboiled and heartbroken fever dream of a recently divorced Dashiell Hammett or a Raymond Chandler who has just told his lady that yes, those jeans do indeed make her look fat.

“Girlfriend’s Day” takes place in some kind of strange alternate universe where greeting card writers are treated like celebrities — more accurately, they are the celebrities. Forget the Hollywood glamor of acting and producing; penning the next greatest “Get Well Soon” card is where it’s at! And it’s in the heart of a mostly sunless Tinseltown (or Greetingtown, I should say) that we meet Ray Wentworth (Bob Odenkirk) who was once the best romance card writer in the business. Ironically he hates holidays and is strictly a writer of love-related cards or, as he puts it, “I don’t have time for that other sh–.”

Like all great noir protagonists, Ray’s a textbook cynic, jaded by a divorce that drove his wife into the arms of a cartoonist whose claim to fame is a character known as Optimistic Owl — interestingly, the other man is played by an owlish Andy Richter. In short, Wentworth has lost the ability to capture love in just a few words, reduced to reliving the good old days in the break room of the greeting card company he works for, AAAAA, with a ragtag group of amateurs played by — and I kid you not — Flo from the Progressive commercials and Ryan McPoyle from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.”

When the California governor announces the movie’s eponymous new holiday to help give the greeting card industry “a boost,” Ray, now fired and spending his days watching homeless people fight on TV, is hired by his old boss to write one more card for the newly-christened occasion.

What ensues is like J.J. Gittes browsing the greeting card aisle in a pharmacy greeting as Ray gets himself caught up in a morally dubious meshwork of murder, MacGuffins, lies, femme fatales and crooked cops set to the mainstay sound of horns and high hats. Like I said, all the pieces are in place, if only someone had really cared to move them around anywhere.

The movie does pull off a few highlights of dark and deadpan humor, however: Odenkirk gets off a few Bogarty quips to a corrupt police officer — even if he can’t match the sarcastic wit of ol’ Humphrey — and comes into contact with a pair of neo-Nazis who are now reformed because hating a whole race of folks is “an awful lot of work.”

What should have been a riotous and wildly offbeat comedic neo-noir (like last summer’s “The Nice Guys”), is a disappointingly bland venture from director Michael Stephenson. Not really a surprise coming from a filmmaker whose most glamorous role was in one of the worst movies ever made, “Troll 2.”

The film can’t even commit (all the relationship puns intended here) to its final payoff that brings together Ray’s budding romance with a store clerk, Jill (Amber Heard), with a titan of the greeting card industry, Robert Gundy (Stacey Kreach), who makes an excellent point about how the existence of every holiday is preceded with bloodshed. It’s a climax a little too reminiscent of “Chinatown” (with some “Maltese Falcon” sprinkled on top) and feels like it was plucked out of the leftover dime store pulp from the alley out back.

At the very least it was an hour-long distraction for anyone who was alone on Valentine’s Day this year. Nevertheless, Odenkirk gives it his all, and, at times, “Girlfriend’s Day” does kind of feel like an episode of “Better Call Saul” without the oomph! from Vince Gilligan pulling the strings (interestingly, the movie contains three actors of “Saul” and “Breaking Bad” notoriety).

“Girlfriend’s Day” likes to think itself a high-minded indictment on the commercialization of modern holidays. “Why buy an overpriced card written by somebody else when you can just speak from the heart?” it asks. And to a certain degree, that’s true. We’ve lost sight of what some might call “holiday spirit” and instead place importance on material possessions to give to one another in order to mark the significance within the calendar year, when all we really need is each other.

But even with its truly inspired moments and message, the film resembles a lazy noir checklist. Like a Valentine’s card on Feb. 15, it rings cheap and hollow. Forget it, Jake, let’s get some reduced-price chocolate instead. It’s 70 percent off.

J.J. Abrams reinvented the “Star Trek” universe back in 2009 with the introduction of an alternate reality parallel to the one seen in Gene Roddenberry’s iconic 1960s television series. Since then, the franchise has boldly gone where no iteration of the USS Enterprise has gone before.

Well, sort of. The 2013 sequel, “Into Darkness” was a partial rehash of 1982’s beloved “Wrath of Khan,” but thrilling nonetheless for new and old fans alike with better special effects, a topsy-turvy take on the classic material and a dastardly turn from Benedict Cumberbatch as the famous villain whose name is better spoken in shouting tones.

Has the nerd-centric sci-fi franchise pushed the final frontier in terms of new movies? “Not by a long shot,” says the latest sequel, “Star Trek Beyond” (released July 22). Captain Kirk and Co. are just getting started. In fact, in the words of this film’s villain, the frontier is actually pushing back! And what better way to symbolize a new chapter in the “Star Trek” mythos than new director, Justin Lin?

While the first two films were more introductory to the adventurous world of the Federation and Star Fleet, “Beyond” gives us a more seasoned Enterprise crew that has a better idea of what the hell it’s doing out in space. In other words, it’s a take on “Star Trek” that’s more akin to the original series. However, it’s also about a crew that’s beginning to question its very purpose.

The film opens with one of James T. Kirk’s infamous captain’s logs, which serves more as an educational montage video on starship workplace etiquette. It’s nearly three years into the Enterprise’s five-year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where yadda yadda yadda and Kirk is becoming somewhat disillusioned with the vast unknown of the universe. Things are becoming, in his own words, “episodic” (har har).

Is his mission a futile one? Should he give up flying and take the cushy job as Vice Admiral at Star Fleet’s “Elysium”-esque space station known as Yorktown? As handsome and charismatic as he ever was in the role, Chris Pine is just the right man for the job.

Meanwhile, Spock (Zachary Quinto) dumps Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and wonders whether or not he should quit his job as first officer to pursue the repopulation of New Vulcan by shacking up with a nice Vulcan female. Moreover, the shocking discovery of Ambassador Spock’s death hits him hard. While the passing of Leonard Nimoy could not be ignored, its place in the movie never feels cheap. It’s actually a fitting and respectful send-off to the classic character while also having an important role in Quinto’s new take on the “logical” commander.

But, all these existential and occupation-related questions are put on hold when the Enterprise is sent on a rescue mission inside an uncharted Nebula where the ship gets destroyed … uh-gain by yet another crazy enemy with an irrational grudge. This time against Star Fleet and the Federation who they believe wronged them in the past. The villain in question is Krall (Idris Elba, as terrific as always), an unsettling foe with an even more unsettling Fountain of Youth-like power.

As they crash land on an uninhabited planet, the spatially divided crew must find a way to stop Krall from unleashing a horrifying biological weapon on Yorktown. The original and funny script co-written by Simon Pegg (who plays Montgomery Scott) allows for genuine camaraderie and bonding among pairs of characters like Kirk and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), Bones (Karl Urban) and Spock and Scotty and Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), an alien also marooned on the planet with a taste for “classical” earth music (FYI, Public Enemy and the Beastie Boys are considered classical in the future) somewhat of an English deficit similar to that of Drax in James Gunn’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

After his work on some of the “Fast & Furious” movies, Lin knows how to successfully bring off a grand cinematic spectacle. The grand explosive set piece near the end set to “Sabotage” will blow your mind and have you saying, “bruhhh, that was awesome!” And despite his already magnificent work on these movie’s Michael Giacchino is still able to add some distinctive new cues to his lofty score.

The end credits rightfully dedicate “Beyond” to Nimoy and Yelchin who were both cultural icons, one old and one new, taken from us too soon. While this movie is fun, exciting and worthy of the “Star Trek” title, it is also a reflection on those we have lost, who really gone above and beyond in popular culture and in life. I will close out this review by saying that they, Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin, have been and always shall be our friends.

I remember when I first saw “Finding Nemo.” It was a particularly hot summer’s day in 2003 when I went to the theater with my cousins It was the same summer that my family moved away from the home I had lived in all my childhood – a home complete with a pool, diving board and slide.

It is for this reason that “Finding Nemo” holds a special place in my heart and memory. Pixar Animation Studios is so successful because it knows how to exploit those last bastions of innocence and mystery: the power of a child’s playthings, the complexity of one’s emotions, the creepy crawlies of the earth and, of course, the deep blue sea.

Nemo was a hit. The movie grossed over $900 million and spawned the pop culture phrases like “touch the butt” and “fish are friends, not food” and even the fictional address of P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney.

When I watched “Finding Dory” (released June 17, about 13 years after its predecessor), I couldn’t help feel the way a person does when a new narrative is added to their sentimental and formative memories. In other words, I found it a somewhat unnecessary follow-up to an already perfect movie; like another chapter tacked on to “Citizen Kane” or “Casablanca.” In my opinion, Pixar sequels have only been triumphant for the “Toy Story” franchise and nothing else.

Before I’m burned at the stake for such horrible blasphemy, “Finding Dory” is not without its merits. In it, we learn about the history of the eponymous and forgetful Blue Tang voiced by Ellen DeGeneres. Little Dory is as cute as a button and the opening scene with her parents (voiced by Eugene Levy and Diane Keaton) will melt your heart into a puddle of salt water. The main action, however, takes place a year after the events of “Finding Nemo” when Dory sets out to find her family off the coast of California with the clownfish father-son duo of Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence).

Their non-journey with the help of some familiar shelled friends brings them to a marine life institute and rehabilitation center off the coast of California whose spokesperson is Sigourney Weaver for some reason (not complaining, just confused). Here, we meet a few new and fun characters such as a near-sighted whale shark named Destiny (Kaitlin Olsen), an echolocation-impaired Beluga whale (Ty Burrell), and a helpful sea lion (Idris Elba in his second animal role for Disney this year). Personally, my favorite was Hank, an octopus with only seven tentacles (a “septopus,” really), voiced to crotchety perfection by Ed O’Neill. Hank is like the Bogart of the place, he don’t stick his neck out for nobody and only wants to retire to a quiet aquarium in Cleveland.

There are some creative scenes that will draw a laugh or two like one that turns the two-finger petting rule in aquariums into a horror sequence. But, it’s still just a repeat of the jellyfish forest scene from the first movie. In fact, “Finding Dory” is a lesser rehash of “Finding Nemo.” The theme of how far we’ll go for the ones we love is definitely touching and tear jerking, but we saw it done better and on a greater scale in the first movie where there was more at stake. There’s no real villain or threat or even adventure in this film unless you count a short encounter with a giant squid and a car chase climax near the end. It was more satisfying to see Dory and Marlin traverse the entire ocean to save Nemo against the ticking clock that was Darla than it is to see Dory navigating her way around a marine life institute for a while.

That being said, the animation is gorgeous; the opening short titled “Piper” is really cute; the end credits scene is totally worth it; and Thomas Newman is at his enigmatic best with the score and Sia’s ironic cover of Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” is beautifully haunting.

“Finding Dory” is not a bad movie and it will prove to be a magical experience for today’s young kids who are new to Pixar, but it just pales in comparison when stood next to a classic like “Finding Nemo” and it certainly doesn’t hold a candle to last summer’s “Inside Out.” Yes, I cried, but more out of nostalgia than anything else!

All in all, it was just hard to forget my deep-seated feelings for the original movie. Instead, I would have preferred to get the “Incredibles” sequel (coming in 2019) sooner than this one or even an original story for that matter. But, as fate — that cruel mistress — would have it, we’ll have to sit through a third “Cars” before that glorious day comes.

The post ‘Finding Dory’ falls just a fin shy of lofty expectations appeared first on The Triangle.

You have to hand it to 20th Century Fox. The studio has released two Marvel comic book films this year, which can easily stand toe-to-toe with Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), if not surpass it. “Deadpool” brought a unique blend of mirth and silliness to the genre and now “X-Men: Apocalypse” (released May 27) brings an epic and globetrotting sorrow to the world of super-powered beings.

I refrain from using the word “superhero” because, like the entirety of X-Men canon, “Apocalypse” grapples with the important questions that come with the existence of mutants. Do supernatural abilities automatically bestow upon you the responsibilities of savior or ruler? How would the world of regular citizens feel about such individuals? Would they welcome mutants as equals or shun them as second-class threats?

The discussion on the relationship between superpowers and society as well as keeping them in check seems to be the overarching cinematic motif of this year’s roster of comic book adaptations. “Civil War” was the first to breach the topic and “Suicide Squad” will do it later this summer.

On that note, Mutants: Where are they now? Ten years have passed since the events of the ret-conning “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (Bryan Singer returns as director) when Magneto almost killed Nixon on live television and the Sentinel-related apocalypse was avoided. Now, it’s 1983: Charles (James McAvoy) is back to honing the powers of young mutants, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is a symbol of heroism to mutants everywhere and Erik (Michael Fassbender) is living a quiet life as a steel mill worker and family man in Poland.

The emergence of En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac is nearly unrecognizable in makeup and voice), the world’s very first mutant endowed with near omnipotence, a major ego and the philosophical rasp of Brando’s Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now” (how fitting, right?), brings back the X-Men together. Worshipped as the OG deity before he was betrayed in ancient Egypt, he awakens from a thousand-year slumber and seeks to wipe out humanity and its “false gods” to create a New World Order ruled by the strong with himself at the top.

To do so, he recruits four mutants and horsemen (Angel, Storm, Psylocke and Magneto) to help him bring about the end of civilization. For all his villainous actions, Apocalypse does one good thing that Doctor Manhattan never did: rid the world of its nuclear arsenal. The mutually assured destruction paranoia is reminiscent of that gold standard of the comic book world, “Watchmen.”

All horsemen are underdeveloped except for Magneto who still manages to be the best and most tragic character of the franchise. Fassbender brings a profound pathos to Lehnsherr’s Holocaust survivor who is deeply scarred by the discrimination he faced as a Jew in a war-ravaged Europe and now as a mutant in the modern day. His hatred for mankind is not without justification and he gets all the scenes that will bring tears to your eyes. “Where were you?” he asks Apocalypse who fancies himself as the first god, referring to when his people were being slaughtered. In one particular cathartic sequence, Magneto lays waste to Auschwitz concentration camp, the horrific place in which his powers were born. He also gets the honor of the one awesome R-rated moment the MPAA will allow in a PG-13 movie.

Other standouts are the pint-sized, hormonal versions of the most iconic X-Men: Jean Grey (Sophie Turner aka Sansa Stark!), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee). At one point they sneak away from the Xavier mansion to do the most teenager thing of the ’80s: go to the mall and see “Return of the Jedi.” “At least we can agree the third one is always the worst,” says Jean as they leave the theater, discussing the merits of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. Haha we get it, Bryan Singer, “X-Men The Last Stand” was terrible.

And remember Evan Peters’ Quicksilver defining sequence from the last movie? Yeah, he’s back with another hilarious (literal) showstopper synchronized perfectly to the synthesized “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)” by Eurythmics. CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) returns to stir up some old feelings in Charles and the audience. And if you’re wondering how the Professor lost his hair, don’t worry, that’s answered as well.

Overall, “X-Men Apocalypse” is a delight for old fans and newcomers alike on both a visual and character level. Filled with tons of goodies, cameos (you know the one I mean) and callbacks to previous movies and classic comic story arcs (you also know the one I mean), “Apocalypse” nicely ties together the X-Men Cold War origins trilogy that began with “First Class.” It’s fitting that the three movies should take place in a time when the world feared the reach and mutating effects of atomic radiation. As such, the X-Men are the physical embodiment of this phobia like the aliens or giant insects in a 1950s B-movie.

Sorry, Cap, but “X-Men: Apocalypse” is the best, most mature, well-crafted blockbuster and Marvel-related movie of 2016 so far. However, I’m willing to reserve a final judgment to see if “Doctor Strange” can work his magic to influence my decision on the matter.

The post ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ shines as mature summer blockbuster appeared first on The Triangle.

With an amazing second season of “Better Call Saul,” Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould prove you don’t need blue meth to have a good time. In season two, we dive further into the shaky relationship between the diametrically opposed McGill brothers, Jimmy (a hilariously dark Bob Odenkirk) and Chuck (Michael McKean). We also see inspiring flashes of the flamboyant personality that will define Saul Goodman and his experimentation with bending the rules to their ultimate breaking point. Let’s also not forget to mention the development of Mike (Jonathan Banks) and Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn).

When we last saw Jimmy, he wasn’t going to let the law get in the way of greatness. In the opening of this season, he turns out a cushy gig at law firm Davis & Main to be a full-time “Slippin’ Jimmy,” going all Chevy Chase at the local country club. After pulling off a great tequila-related con with Kim, he caves and takes the job.

Is professional walk-the-straight-line the kind of life for our eponymous antihero? Clearly, the answer is no as he manages to get in hot water with his boss by airing an unauthorized commercial on the firm’s behalf— a prelude to the schlocky late-night infomercials we later see in “Breaking Bad.” Then he concocts a hilarious scheme to be fired while also being able to retain his signing bonus. In one of the season’s great montages, he wears flashy suits, plays the bagpipes and doesn’t flush after using the restroom.

For all of Jimmy’s misconduct, Kim is placed in the doghouse (a.k.a. file review in the bowels of Hamlin, Hamlin & McGill) by Howard. She gets courted by Schweikart & Cokely before deciding it’s time to start her own practice. Kim’s romantic relationship with Jimmy comes under tension when she becomes aware of his unorthodox methods of tampering with evidence or straight up lying. I’ll never look at banana cream pie the same way again.

Meanwhile, Mike pisses off the wrong Salamanca, Tuco’s uncle Hector (a returning Mark Margolis) when he gets Tuco put in jail for possession of a firearm as a favor to Nacho. But Mike is one dude Hector can’t intimidate with fear or threats against his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. Needless to say, one purchase of a hunting rifle later and I think we can assume how ringing a bell becomes Hector’s main form of communication.  

The last few episodes of season two focus on a battle of wills and wits between Jimmy, Chuck, Mike and Hector.  Jimmy sabotages his own brother in the name of love and Mike plots the downfall of an imbalanced crime lord.

“Better Call Saul” is slow, sure, but manages to say and do so much with very little. A location, a flashback, a song or a stunning camera shot — one particular tracking shot recalls the opening scene of Orson Wells’s classic noir “Touch of Evil” — all make the show a golden companion to “Breaking Bad” while also standing on its own. This skewed juxtaposition of law and discord in this modern version of the “Wild West” is what it’s all about.

Much like his future client Walter White, Jimmy does tend to ruin everything he touches, even when approaching with the best intentions. For instance, changing some addresses opens a Pandora’s box of mayhem. And by the cliffhanging (albeit a little lackluster) season’s end, it seems like Chuck has caught Jimmy at his own game in a Watergate sort of way. As if we didn’t need more of a reason to hate the goody-goody Chuck. It will be interesting to see where the story goes from here and how we will inch ever closer to Saul’s intersection with the drug-fueled world of “Breaking Bad.” In other words, give us more Jimmy!

The post Vince Gilligan’s ‘Better Call Saul’ maintains drama, intensity in second season appeared first on The Triangle.

So rarely is Hollywood able to capture the electric magic of American summertime youth like fireflies in a mason jar.  The closest a director has gotten over the last few years was J.J. Abrams who harkened back to a simpler time before the Internet and cell phones; a time when kids were kids and adults were nothing more than an irksome “Peanuts” trombone in the periphery. Now, over 20 years after his ganja-puffing cult classic “Dazed and Confused,”  Richard Linklater has trapped the aforementioned lightning in a bottle once again with “Everybody Wants Some!!” a movie that’s all about transitions.  

Set in August of 1980, the film follows a Texas college baseball team in the days leading up to the first day of classes. While celebrating their last few days of freedom, these guys, freshmen and upperclassmen alike, do whatever any self-respecting college student would do: get drunk, get stoned and get laid (in no particular order).

And just as they’re about to open a new chapter in their lives, so is the United States. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was about to become president, disco had one foot in the grave and the Cold War was practically over. All the cynicism and political follies of the previous decade were over and it was time to begin anew. That’s the underlying philosophy of “Everybody Wants Some!!”  This renaissance of fun and debauchery (in the same vein as the Van Halen tune from the same year) starts as soon as “My Sharona” blares over the soundtrack during the opening credits.

As with many of the movies he’s made over his career, Linklater’s latest is a tad meandering. It feels more like a loosely woven collection of scenarios that are never really tied together. And for a movie about a team of all-star college baseball players, there’s hardly any baseball. In a mediocre director’s hands this would be considered a shortcoming, but not for Linklater. With an ensemble cast of relatively unknown actors, he’s made “Brooo!! The Movie” that’s totally approachable. It never comes off as a douchey thing that could only appeal to frat guys.

Each character has his own specific personality and quirk, whether it’s Wyatt Russell’s token hippie pothead Willoughby, Glen Powell’s ridiculously suave ladies’ man or Juston Street’s hot-tempered oddball Jay. We enter this world through the eyes of Jake (Blake Jenner), a freshman and newcomer to the team, and it doesn’t take long for him to become another member of the posse or fall for the artsy major Beverly (Zoey Deutch).

“[The movie is] a subtle reminder to live in the now,” Jenner told The Triangle. “With everything around us, all the traffic … with Twitter and Facebook and just how connected everybody is, you forget about the moment right here, right now as the moment,” he continued.

There’s a rare authenticity to the camaraderie and humor that makes its way to the screen and it wasn’t just a happy accident of hormonal and sex-crazed monkeys writing Shakespeare. According to Street, the cast did a rehearsal process before filming at Linklater’s ranch where all the guys bonded for three weeks by sharing a room and one bathroom. Their friendship is genuine: you’ll actually care when they’re wing-manning each other at the local discotheque (groovily named The Sound Machine) or pranking one another in the locker room.

Cast member Tyler Hoechlin said his favorite part of being in the film was its social aspect.

“It was nice to be sitting in the disco club and not have any of the direction to any of the people in the background, any of the actors be like, ‘OK, at this point you’re on your cell phone and not paying attention to anything going on around you, which seems to happen all the time now,” Hoechlin said.

“I just loved living in that world for a little bit. It was nice just to have music going and people actually dancing and socializing and having a good time,” he continued.

After last year’s ambitious cinematic experiment that was “Boyhood,” Linklater returns to his humble roots with what the Paramount promotional material is calling a “spiritual sequel” to “Dazed.” However, according to the cast, this wasn’t the immediate intention of the director who they lovingly refer to as “Rick.”

“There was never any pressure there from [Rick] or any expectations to live up to ‘Dazed and Confused.’ he was telling an original story,” said J. Quinton Johnson, the youngest cast member. “I didn’t hear the words ‘Dazed and Confused’ uttered once on set,” co-star Wyatt Russell added, son of Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn.

“When Rick does a movie, he does the movie for the experience of the movie and then leaves it where it belongs, which is behind, and you move on and you make another movie,” he continued.

When asked what they most enjoyed about bringing the 80s back to life, members of the cast said everything from the music (which includes hits from The Cars, Peaches & Herb, Blondie, Cheap Trick and The Sugar Hill Gang) to the clothes (short shorts and perms galore) to the attitudes of the times:

“In the 1980s everything wasn’t so PC and I mean that in the best way possible,” cast member Will Brittain said. “People weren’t looking to take offense. It was sort of a time period where everyone was sort of enjoying themselves and the people around them … From what Rick has told and what we’ve seen, it was one of those time periods where people were just a lot more easygoing,” he continued.

To quote the words of an easygoing character from this movie’s spiritual prequel, “Alright, alright, alright.”

The post Linklater captures essence of 1980s youth in ‘Everybody Wants Some’ appeared first on The Triangle.

J.J. Abrams seems to have his hands in every proverbial cookie jar these days. Whether he’s producing a show for Hulu (such as “11.22.63”), rebooting “Star Trek” or directing box office busters like “The Force Awakens,” his name is everywhere in the entertainment world in just about every medium. And while he’s a marketing genius with a flair for the enigmatic, it was still a huge shock that he was able to keep “10 Cloverfield Lane” a secret from us for so long (the movie’s title and trailer were only revealed a mere two months before its release). It’s quite hard to wrap your mind around it in today’s omnipresent spoiler culture.

For some context, “Cloverfield” (2008) was a genuinely terrifying and game-changing monster movie. Its use of the found footage method of storytelling was used not as a cliche, but as a way of keeping the mystery and terror alive, not to mention giving some people serious motion sickness. Questions like “Where did the creature come from and, more importantly, what the hell is it?” are still being asked today. We’ll never know. That’s the simplistic beauty of it all – we saw the attack on New York City through the eyes of regular people like ourselves. Grappling with the unknown and the world’s uncontrollable forces evokes true fright from an audience.

Now, almost a decade later, Abrams is curiously trying to create a cinematic universe around the brand name of “Cloverfield,” an anthology of scary stories filled with twists and turns that would bring a tear to the eyes of Rod Serling and Stephen King. But “10 Cloverfield Lane” is more “Outer Limits” than it is “Twilight Zone.” Its intentions are good, but its payoff is lousy.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a pretty young thirty-something driving away from her impending nuptials to Ben (Bradley Cooper–only heard in cell phone calls). Where she’s driving, we can only guess – but that’s not the point. The opening is totally silent except for the ominous soundtrack of Bear McCreary as Michelle travels through Louisiana, only stopping for gas at a Kelvin station that advertises Slusho!, the mysterious drink company that started the mess in the first movie and has shown up in Abrams productions since then.

Michelle never makes it to her destination, however, as she’s run off the road and wakes up in a well-equipped bomb shelter built by Howard Stambler, an uber creepy dude with an affinity for Martian conspiracy theories and the hits of Tommy James and the Shondells. This is John Goodman’s greatest performance in a long time. He plays Howard as a truly unnerving, menacing, paranoid, bipolar wacko who will make you pasta one minute then dissolve you in industrial-grade acid the next depending on whether or not you’re grateful to him. Think of him as Ogilvy from “War of the Worlds” with more VHS cassettes on hand for the end of the world.

Howard refuses to let his bunker guests leave, claiming that the outside world is contaminated with fallout. Michelle and Emmett DeWitt (John Gallagher Jr.) are skeptical at first, but then trust his judgment – after foreboding tremors and an infected woman begging to be let in – but then become skeptical again when arising tidbits of information begin to hint that Howard is not all he professes to be. The message of man being just as monstrous as any supernatural entity out there is the most powerful theme the movie has to offer.

Most of the action takes place inside the underground bomb shelter where first-time director Dan Trachtenberg makes things as tense and claustrophobic as possible for the three characters. The way the scenes are shot makes the audience mistrust everything they see and hear. It’s the movie’s best and only strength. How do you wait out the apocalypse when you’re cooped up underground? Well, you make fluffer-nutter sandwiches, play an ironic (yet rousing) game of Life, crawl through uncomfortably tight air ducts and watch “Pretty in Pink” to kill the time. It’s a slow and controlled burn that you would think leads up to a big reveal.

You couldn’t be more wrong in your assumption. But hey, you know what they say about assuming. The film’s ending just doesn’t mesh with the scenes before it and feels like a cop-out for the viewer who invested an hour and a half of their time waiting for that mind-blowing WTF moment. It’s an anticlimactic climax that even a script co-written by Damien Chazelle (“Whiplash”) cannot save.

Like the first “Cloverfield,” we don’t get all the facts, but since “Lane” is shot and edited like any other movie, this withholding of information makes the film feel incomplete. It also could have benefited from an R-rating to up the scare/shock factor.

But overall, it’s just not as memorable or satisfying as its cousin. Those indelible images of the military fighting the monster on the streets of Manhattan and Marlena exploding from the parasite’s bite still give me goosebumps to this day.

I get that they’re meant to be related only in name and idea, but as a huge fan of the original, I see “10 Cloverfield Lane” as nothing more than an interesting marketing miracle and an experiment of the ‘less-is-more’ filmmaking so often seen in the horror films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, let’s see how the upcoming sequels turn out. For now, let’s file it under ‘C’ for Cloverfield.

The post ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ makes for intense, albeit disappointing movie appeared first on The Triangle.

Don’t believe everything you’re told as a child. Contrary to what we’re told in our youth, cake can be a substitute for dinner, bedtimes are at the discretion of the sleeper and Batman and Superman can duke it out in a no holds-barred battle royale of epic property damage. That particular youthful fantasy is fulfilled in spades by Zack Snyder’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” the juggernaut of a sequel to 2012’s “Man of Steel” that does the impossible: makes the darker DC cinematic universe worth caring about.

Snyder once again proves his artistic prowess of conveying information through the opening credits like he did in “Watchmen” with a somber, yet tasteful montage of the “Batman” backstory we’ve seen a thousand times. Fast forward to the little spat between Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod that destroyed a good chunk of Metropolis (from Bruce Wayne’s (Ben Affleck) point of view: his employees killed or injured for life).

It’s been 18 months since that fateful day. The honeymoon phase is over and humanity is grappling with the ramifications of a god-like alien living on earth. Should he be revered? Should he be worshipped? Or should he be held accountable for wanton acts of mayhem and be destroyed? That’s the idea of Lex Luthor who has recovered a large nugget of Kryptonite from Zod’s failed world engine in the Indian Ocean. Superman’s arch nemesis gets a younger and more neurotic twist by an invested Jesse Eisenberg, as if Woody Allen became a supervillain.

Meanwhile, the dashingly handsome Clark Kent, who looks a lot like that Super fella, is exploring the implications of his relationship with Lois Lane (Amy Adams) while trying to do an expose on Gotham’s “Bat” vigilante. “No one cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman,” says Daily Planet editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne). Pulitzer’s ironic awards office senses a disturbance in the force.

In terms of his contribution to the iconic character, Affleck brings a unique approach to Gotham’s Dark Knight (aka ‘Batfleck’), with more muscle and less misgivings about punishing the wicked, who he equates to cattle. Even Alfred (Jeremy Irons) is a snarky badass mechanic who is more of a sidekick than a butler.  

Switching between Metropolis and Gotham, Batman and Superman, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, Snyder expertly builds up to the movie’s legendary climax while also laying a sh—ton of groundwork for future DC adaptations. It’s packed to bursting with Easter eggs that harken to everything from “Justice League” to “Suicide Squad.” What took Marvel almost ten years to build is introduced in the span of two and a half hours. I was skeptical, but Snyder pulls it off.

Oh, and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman is a revelation. Gone are the Underoos of yore.  She’s a strong, independent woman who don’t need no man. In fact, the men come to rely heavily on her talents.

This is the first movie since “Pacific Rim” that really speaks to the kid in all of us; our action figures and fictional scenarios from back in the day have magically come to life. As the movie cut to black after the final “Inception”-style frame (Christopher Nolan produced), the youngster in me was tempted to dig up his old Batman costume and run around the house, pretending to save the world just one more time.

The post ‘Batman v Superman’ comes together in perfect blend of fun, nostalgia appeared first on The Triangle.