Mother! (2017): A couple's relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

Mother! is a tough film for me to review. For those who don't know, the purpose of this blog and my reviews has always been to try and provide a casual moviegoers critique on the latest Hollywood film. Now, admittedly that becomes increasingly difficult to do when you've reviewed about 350 films in just over 4 years, (wow I didn't know I could be that committed to anything!) but with a film like Mother! I feel both sides pulling me in opposite directions. The critic (and I still use that word loosely) in me sees this film and thinks....."Wow. That was another spectacular Darren Aronofsky film. I wonder what it meant? I need to sit here and do nothing but think about this film for the foreseeable and ultimately write my review at 1 AM in the morning when I can't sleep and try and figure out what happened with this film and I will LIKE IT!" (With that bit of aggression at the end too, of course. Also I'm tooooootally not doing that last part) While the casual film-goer in me keeps it simple and is saying....."WHAT THE F*** DID I JUST WATCH?" So which part of me do I listen to? The critic? Or the fan? Why don't we go on this journey together and see who wins, shall we?

First off, let's have the "critic" talk about the good. I love how this film is shot. Yes, we're leading with cinematography here. The entire film is shot from Jennifer Lawrence's perspective, which leads to a discombobulating and disorienting experience when the film kicks it up to eleven, but it's a unique and interesting way to shoot a film, especially one like this. It's as if Aronofsky saw Hardcore Henry and said....I see what you're doing, now let me just make it, well, infinitely better to the point that it would be considered laughable that I just compared these two films. Hey, you never know....he could've said that! In addition to shooting this film from Lawrence's POV, most of the film is shot with headshots and over the shoulders. (A la Les Mis, but also better) That's probably 90% of the film's cinematography. The entire film is also shot inside a single location. That means the film needed to nail the set design, and nail it they did. Thanks to some great sound as well, the house almost feels like a character in and of itself in this film. All of this is like ingredients in a wonderful recipe that makes the film feel INCREDIBLY claustrophobic. At least early on. The tension is there, particularly in the first and second acts, and until the third act I was on the edge of my seat loving every second of this film. Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Domhnall Gleeson are all fantastic. But then the third act happened and this film got WEIRD.

Aaaaaaand that's where the casual moviegoer takes over. This is not my first rodeo with a Darren Aronofsky film. His films are out there. But Mother! is out there even for him. Aronofsky turns this film up to a 15 in the third act and abandons all semblance of sanity and unfortunately loses me in the process. He abandons the feeling of claustrophobia for over-the-top, borderline unnecessary shock value, and went for an uber meta ending that is certainly up for interpretation, I'll give him that, but.....what? What are you trying to do here, man? People say this ending is beautiful because of its ambiguity. It's up to you to decipher it, and there are already a lot of opinions out there for sure about the statement Aronofsky is trying to make here. Because of this I think this film is destined for cult status, which is familiar territory for this director. But for me? I don't mind having to figure things out in a movie, but there's a limit for me and we found said limit here.

Ok, so this part I'm writing in the morning after thinking about this film for most of the night. Mother! is a weird film. It's certainly not for everyone, however if you're the kind of person who's fed up with the constant barrage of Hollywood sequels and reboots and are looking for something unique, creative, and new that a big studio actually put some money behind.....Mother! is for you. I would strongly advise watching some of Aronofsky's previous work if you haven't already before jumping into this one, but it's definitely the most unique film in cinemas right now, and not a bad way to spend a Friday night by any means. Oh! And make sure you've seen The Fountain before you watch this film, because Mother! definitely operates on Fountain rules.

The Critique: The most unique and creative film in cinemas right now, Mother! features beautiful cinematography and great set design, but ultimately falls short of greatness thanks to an incomprehensible final act.

The Recommendation: Here it is. Aronofsky fans will probably love this film like its predecessors, but everyone else? Start with another of his films before moving up to this one. But if you like creativity it is worth seeing!

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 6.5/10 Almost Good

Tried to find a middle ground there but if anything the critic won out there

Oscar Talk: I think there's a chance this film gets a few shout-outs from the Academy when January rolls around. There's potential here for Hollywood's favorite poster child, Jennifer Lawrence, to receive another nomination for acting, but I'm not sure if that's gonna happen or not. Also look for potential nominations in set design and cinematography!


Image Credit: 
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzAwMTllZTQtNTlkNy00NGVjLWJmZjMtMmZlOTcwOTM0Zjk5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzgyNzQzOTM@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

It (2017): A group of bullied kids band together when a monster, taking the appearance of a clown, begins hunting children.

I LOVE this movie. One of the most anticipated horror films of the past few years, It is a big-budget horror movie that is a remake (I know......another one) of a 1990 TV movie bearing the same name. But, believe it or not, the film lives up to the hype. Personally, I have not seen the original, but that allows me to look at this film in a vacuum and not compare it to the original in any way. But after seeing this version I am going to change that very soon, because if it's anywhere near as good as this film is I will have an absolute blast watching it. The short summary is It is one of my favorite movies of the year, and is well worth the time of anyone who even kind of likes horror films. Sure there's some studio tomfoolery here, and sure it's yet another remake of an existing property, but somehow this film overcomes its major potential shortcomings and becomes a surprisingly strong film in its own right. So, without further ado, let's dive into what makes It so great!

What makes It one of my favorite movies of the year? There are several reasons behind this, but the top one is without a doubt Pennywise the DANCING Clown. Played brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård, (this will probably be one of my top performances of the year, by the way) Pennywise is a menacing and terrifying villain, stealing every single scene he's in. (Or may be in) The delivery of the character from Skarsgård is fantastic....he is completely unpredictable, and from his small mannerisms with his body to his emphasis on certain words, (it's not Pennywise the Dancing Clown, it's Pennywise the DANCING Clown) this really is one of the best villains I've seen on screen in a long time. Skarsgård has said in interviews about playing the character that Heath Ledger's legendary performance of The Joker was one of his biggest inspirations for Pennywise, and looking back at it I can certainly see why. Pennywise is easily worth the cost of admission alone, but there are several other reasons for why I like this movie so much.

Besides Pennywise, the big thing this movie has going for it is character development. So many horror films nowadays do not take the time to slow done and flesh out its characters: they're mostly about going from one pop scare to the next. But It is 135 minutes long, and much of this time is spent developing each member of The Loser's Club. There are 7 members of this club, and yet it feels like each and every one of them is given their moment to shine. I kind of expected Finn Wolfhard, coming off his huge success with Stranger Things, to steal the show here, (he kind of does) but for the most part everyone is given equal screen time. Director Andy Muschietti and co. did a great job ensuring that every one of The Loser's Club has their individual encounter with Pennywise, and that really helps ensure they each have believable incentives for banding together. Seriously though.....this film does a better job fleshing out its characters than The Hobbit franchise did, and there Peter Jackson had 9 hours of film to do it! Ughhhhhh why did The Hobbit get broken into 3 films.....? Anyway, back on track. This movie also does a great job with its visual effects. While there were a few swings-and-misses in this department, I really think overall (and for a horror film) the effects were fantastic. Finally, I loved the score! Benjamin Wallfisch did a great job creating the perfect score for this movie. Too many horror films nowadays forget that having a good score makes your horror film that much scarier, but Wallfisch's score certainly adds to the ambiance as a whole.

That said, this film does have a few problems. First and foremost.....you remember how I complimented the film for taking the time to flesh out The Loser's Club? You know who loses a lot of screen time because of this? Pennywise. I know, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one, but Pennywise is undoubtedly the best part of the film, so I wish he had received more screen time. Also, this film has a very rushed side story about a bully separate to Pennywise that doesn't really go anywhere. I'm guessing it's from the original novel and they wanted to keep it around, but it doesn't seem to do much other than give the film an unnecessary second villain that isn't even on the same planet as Pennywise. Finally, sequel-baiting! I guess this was inevitable, since this film's studio is Warner Brothers, but of course we have to bait the unavoidable sequel that will likely turn into three films after WB stumbles into an absurd amount of money with this film. The last few moments of this film just made me shake my head as we have to, yet again, put up with a studio trying to make as much money as possible. (Can you say a WB horror cinematic universe? Because knowing WB they're certainly going to try!) Fortunately, though, the sequel-baiting wasn't enough to deter the film as a whole for me. In conclusion, despite a few missteps, It delivers on the scares and is the best horror film I've seen since 2014's It Follows. Go see it if you even remotely like horror flicks!

The Critique: Anchored by an incredible performance from Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise, It is one of the best horror films in recent years, combining great character development and terrifying scares.

The Recommendation: A must-see for anyone with an inkling for horror films. And a great date movie! Right......?

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome

Oscar Talk: Yes, it's time for one of the first Oscar Talks of 2017! I only include this because I how the Academy remembers this performance from Bill Skarsgård come January. Best Supporting Actor can sometimes be a weak category and if it is this year Skarsgård should have a great case for being included. We'll see!


Photo Credit 
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTg1NTU5NTgwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTQ1NzMzMzI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

By: Peter Kosanovich

Wind River (2017): A​n FBI agent teams with a town's veteran game tracker to investigate a murder that occurred on a Native American reservation.

​               Taylor Sheridan is batting three for three with his recent screenplays. 2015’s Sicario earned him a Best Original Screenplay nomination with the Writers Guild of America. 2016’s Hell or High Water garnered further acclaim with another Writers Guild of America nomination and an added Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay. This year he took things a step further with Wind River, by not only writing the screenplay but also making his feature length directorial debut. Let’s just say Mr. Sheridan is a man of many talents.
               Wind River stars Jeremy Renner as Cory Lambert, a US Fish and Wildlife Service agent, his job is to hunt predators that kill livestock in and around the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. One day Lambert discovers the body of an 18-year old girl from the reservation, laying face down in the snow covered in her own blood, having escaped some ordeal before freezing to death in the snow. At this time rookie FBI Agent Jane Banner, played by Elizabeth Olsen, is brought in to oversee the investigation – taking place on a reservation creates interesting jurisdiction, as it does not fall under traditional United States law enforcement, but instead a combination of the FBI and tribal police. Upon Banner’s arrival it is revealed that the victim, now identified as Natalie Hanson, was raped prior to her death.
               Being a total outsider, Banner requests the aid of Lambert to help track down the potential rapists and murderers. While the pair, along with Tribal Police Chief Ben, begin their search the audience is treated to some absolutely stunning cinematography courtesy of Ben Richardson; it demonstrates how beautiful and yet utterly bleak the area can be. It paints a portrait of life that is both stunning and haunting. After questioning the various members of Natalie’s family, her father and her drug-addict brother, Lambert, Banner, and Chief Ben learn of Natalie’s new boyfriend. But it is not long after that they find him dead too – and not just dead, but also his body has been scavenged by the wildlife. At this point the search intensifies to discover what happened to both victims.
               This is easily one of Jeremy Renner’s best performances – a return to The Hurt Locker and The Town, but more tonally more akin to his performance in last year’s Arrival – he carries the film at points, and does so marvelously. Elizabeth Olsen plays her “fish-out-of-water” FBI Agent to a T, and even if her material was not greatest, she still nailed it. Each of the supporting cast were absolutely phenomenal! Gil Bermingham’s grieving father lent an emotional weight to a role that could have easily felt one-note – he truly lives in the character of a man on the verge of losing it all, while also trying to preserve the traditions of his fading heritage. Graham Greene portrays a likeable and completely believable Tribal Chief. Kelsey Asbille absolutely lives in Natalie’s skin, exuding the fight to survive mentality, and while her screentime was limited, it was worth every second. And Jon Bernthal, no spoilers, gives an incredibly tragic performance that continues his remarkable streak of recent credits.
               While this was a tragically beautiful story with exceptional direction from Taylor Sheridan, it is not without flaw. The overall pacing of the film was on the slow side, which does not bother me in the slightest, but there was one scene in particular around two thirds through the film that dragged and continued on for too long. Aside from that, my biggest complaint was Elizabeth Olsen’s character. Olsen’s performance was what we have come to expect from her, exceptional, but the writing left something to be desired. Structurally Oslen’s character Banner sat in her “rookie-fish-out-of-water” role for too long and never really progressed out of it. Yes, she jumped into action and did not hesitate to assume her role as the lead FBI investigator, but the depth of her character made her rely on Jeremy Renner’s Lambert too often, allowing him to often dictate the search. That being said, the story was told from the perspective of Lambert, so it is not necessarily surprising that Olsen’s arc took a bit of a backburner to Renner’s, I just wish her character had not been written so wide-eyed for so long.
               The rest of the screenplay was stunning – sparse where it needed to be, emotional at all the right moments, intense where appropriate – and the direction matched it perfectly. Taylor Sheridan truly knows how to build tension, and even when you predict what is going to happen it still shocks you! And he truly cares for each of his characters – Olsen’s character might not have been the strongest, but she still resonated with the audience and you believed her in the situation. Sheridan is one of those rising stars that needs to be noticed and taken seriously, whatever project he picks. He is structurally sound and emotionally poignant, and Wind River is a hell of a debut!
 
Rewatchability: High, but only if it’s your kind of movie. I know, that’s a caveat, but it’s an accurate one.
 
Recommendation: Definitely! Parts may be a little difficult to watch, but the subject matter is undeniably important. The film was dedicated to Native American women, who are make up the largest demographic of unreported crimes.
 
Rating: 8/10

Dunkirk (2017): Allied soldiers from Belgium, the British Empire and France are surrounded by the German army and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II.

Wow. Christopher Nolan does it again. Undoubtedly his strongest technical film to date, Dunkirk is perfect. This is exactly why I love movies. I am going for 100 films reviews in 2017, and that means I will sit through some pretty bad ones (see: Transformers) in the process, but if anything that makes experiences like Dunkirk that much better. A film like Dunkirk will revitalize me and prepare me for the inevitably mediocre (and worse) films that are still to come this year. But there is no doubt this will be one of the best films of the year, and thanks to its mastery of all technical categories, will undoubtedly receive some love come the Oscars. So let's dive into it, shall we?

There's one thing that I didn't like about this film, and that's its non-linear story. The editing early on was a tad jarring as I didn't know I was in for a non-linear story, but once I realized what wass going on I actually enjoyed this film's simplistic story. Nolan has run into problems in the past when he tries to make his stories more "important" than they really are, but that doesn't happen here. This story is quick and easy, with the events themselves providing all the drama this film needed. But the calling card of this film is not it's story, or even the acting. Rather, it's with the viewing experience itself.

First off, before I talk about the technical masterpiece that is Dunkirk, do yourself a favor and see this film in IMAX. Now. It is undoubtedly the best film I have seen in an IMAX movie theater, and that's thanks to the care Christopher Nolan put into creating the film. Most of this film is shot on native IMAX 70 mm cameras, so we had no black bars on the giant IMAX screen. Additionally, there's the INCREDIBLE sound design. From the first moments of the film, I was blown away by the sounds of the movie. The planes roaring overhead, the bombs exploding, the gunshots.....simply incredible. Additionally, the dogfights are, simply put, the best WWII dogfights I have ever seen in a film, and that's thanks to those sequences being (somehow) shot entirely in IMAX 70 mm. The film made me feel like I was really up in the air in the middle of these fights. These dogfights alone are worth the price of admission. 

Finally, the other major accomplishment of this film is the score. While it doesn't provide any "catchy" lines, so to say, it did provide exactly what this film needed to continue to build tension. By the climax of the film I was as close to the edge of my seat as I could be, even on the second viewing! I give Hans Zimmer's masterful score major credit for this tension. The one thing I haven't really mentioned is the acting, but that's because it's largely secondary in this film. It's definitely well-acted, and Fionn Whitehead is great as the closest thing this film has to a lead, but other than that I didn't really see any standouts in this film. But still, the overall cast is excellent. Ultimately, this film is a perfect technical experience, and it also delivers in every other category to make it the best film of the year so far.

We are on some kind of roll right now! Hopefully Atomic Blonde can keep it going, but in the meantime, see this one with confidence. And see it in IMAX, please! You will not regret it!

The Critique: A technical masterpiece, Dunkirk features incredible sound design, beautiful visuals, and an innovative score.

The Recommendation: An absolute must-see. See it with confidence!

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 10/10 Perfect


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjgyNTYyNTQwM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjE5ODE1MjI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

War for the Planet of the Apes (2107): After the apes suffer unimaginable losses, Caesar wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own mythic quest to avenge his kind.

So, let me start out my review by saying I'm not the biggest fan of the Planet of the Apes franchise. I've seen most of the films (pretty much everything minus the sequels to the '68 film) and I really enjoyed Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but since the 2011 reboot I've been kind of bored by the franchise. Both Dawn and now War feel like setup films, with neither really progressing through the fall of earth, or worse showing it off-screen. I'm sure the defenders of the franchise will say that's not the point, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what I want to see! When you call your film WAR for the PLANET of the Apes, I expect to see a freaking war! When the marketing campaign is "Winner take all" I expect it to be WINNER TAKE ALL. Not just another random base outside of San Francisco. But on the flip-side, I was absolutely blown away by the motion capture of the film. The visuals are gorgeous, and the acting from Andy Serkis and Woody Harrelson was absolutely incredible.So, at the end of the day.....while I can see why many would absolutely love this film, it just wasn't quite my thing. Anyway, let's dive into it, shall we? Because that would be depressing if that was my full review.

First off, the good. (And in this case, incredible) This film's visuals are some of the best I have ever seen in a film. The calling card is certainly the motion capture. Most of this film is nothing but apes, which means the film had nothing but motion capture performances in it. This is undoubtedly where the film excels, and it's all held together by a truly incredible performance from Andy Serkis as Caesar. We're still decades from someone being nominated for an Oscar for a motion capture performance, but he just might crack my top ten performance this year. It's hard to put into words just how good this performance really is, but everything helped factor into it, from the convincing performance of Serkis behind the motion capture to the incredible CGI being able to showcase so much detail in Caesar's face to convey all the emotions they needed to convey. Oh how far we've come. Not to be outdone by Serkis, though, is the villain of this film, played by Woody Harrelson. He puts in a terrific performance, though one of my faults with this film is how little screen-time he actually receives. But the complaint of "I wish he was in this film more because he's so good" is definitely a good complaint to have.

However, my negative complaints are quite negative for me, unfortunately. As I mentioned, I have a problem with the overall story of this film. Personally, I try to see a film for all its characteristics, not just the story. There's no doubt this film is a technical masterpiece, and it's well-acted, but my GOD did I all but despise this story. The marketing for the film was very deceptive as it heavily implied this overarching war between humans and apes that we didn't actually see. Caesar's story arc was pretty good, as the crew definitely realized that the best part of this franchise is Caesar/Andy Serkis, but I just wanted.... more. Additionally, this is a LONG film at 140 minutes, and is mostly devoid of any humor. I don't mind a film with this serious a tone (it's way better than the forced comic relief in the Transformers or even the Fast and the Furious franchise) but it doesn't change the fact that this is a long film that feels overly long. Sure, Bad Ape has some funny moments, but those moments are few and very far between. I really wish the tone had been just a bit more lighthearted than it actually was.

Ultimately, while this is a marvelous technical masterpiece, and will hopefully FINALLY win this franchise it's first Best Visual Effects Oscar, it still wasn't quite my cup of tea. The marketing just turned me off so much after I watched the final product, and the film is just too long. See it for the visuals, but see it when you're ready to fully devote yourself to a 140 minute film that's more of a serious drama than a summer blockbuster.

The Critique: Although it features gorgeous visuals and terrific performances from Andy Serkis and Woody Harrelson, War for the Planet of the Apes is held back from greatness because of a slow pace and overlong story that is too serious in tone.

The Recommendation: If you want to see films at the forefront of what Hollywood can do from a technological perspective, see it with confidence. If you're just a casual fan of this franchise, there might not be much else going on here to keep you drawn in.

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjkzYjE2NWQtYzFmMC00ZGY1LWJjNzItN2M2YTNmZGFhZmU0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg2MjUxNjM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,864_AL_.jpg

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017): Several months after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker, with the help of his mentor Tony Stark, tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens, New York City while fighting crime as his superhero alter ego Spider-Man as a new threat, the Vulture, emerges.

Finally. After years of waiting and 2 sub-par films that were shameless cash-grabs from Sony, Spider-Man is back with the film he deserves. My personal favorite superhero, Spider-Man has long had a special place in my heart. Spider-Man 2 is actually one of my more coveted films of the early 2000's. One of the reasons I loved that film was because it featured a fallen hero as its villain. I am a major sucker for this ploy in superhero movies (of course The Dark Knight did this best with the fall of Harvey Dent) and I am delighted to see it again here. A superhero film is only as good as its villain, and FINALLY we get a good one here.

When was the last time we had a good villain in a Marvel film? I'd argue you'd have to look allllllll the way back to Loki in the original Avengers film for a truly good villain. But finally, we have another. Thank you, Michael Keaton. Were it not for a terrific performance from Tom Holland as Peter Parker himself I'd say Keaton stole the show. But as it stands, there's Tom Holland. Move over, Tobey Maguire. There's a new Spidey in town. Holland's rendition of Parker is easily the best rendition I have seen of the character, and he quickly cements himself in the MCU here. Kudos to Marvel's crew for the fantastic casting. Outside of Holland and Keaton, we have a great performance from Jacob Batalon as Parker's best friend, Ned. Here's another great casting decision from the Marvel crew. Before Spider-Man, Batalon had a single film credit to his name and it was for a small budget horror movie. But I absolutely loved him, as well as Zendaya as Michelle. Seriously, the casting crew for Marvel deserves a huge raise for their job with the young actors in this film. 

The other star of this show is its story. Homecoming is a great coming-of-age film that would easily stand up to any of the 6142131123 other coming-of-age films we get every year. Holland and Robert Downey Jr. are great together, and RDJ goes through as much of a good story arc as he takes on the role of a father figure as Holland does learning the classic Spider-Man life lesson. (Tell 'em, Uncle Ben) There are several good story arcs in this film, including with the Vulture. Even Zendaya's Michelle has a good arc here. I really have to give a lot of credit to Jonathan Goldstein and company for doing a great job here. There's six writing credits on IMDB for this film. (And that doesn't even mention the writers-for-hire) Usually when there's that many writing credits it's the result of a subpar script, but not here. Well done, guys.

That said, it's not perfect. It's never good when the weakest part of an action movie is your action sequences, but unfortunately that is the case here. While overall the set-pieces are fine, I really did not care for the big battle sequence on the plane towards the end of the film. In this sequence the film flirts with "Spider-Man vs. Electro" levels of terrible as it was bitterly obvious that everything on screen in front of us was fake. Unfortunately this really detracts from the film as it is meant to be the climax of the movie. Also, please stop objectifying Marisa Tomei. She's a terrific actress and did a great job in her extremely limited role as Aunt May, but it seemed like the film spent more time remarking on how hot she is versus actually letting her be Parker's mother figure. She does get a great moment at the very end though, so at least there's that. Also, do yourself a favor and stay until the VERY end of the credits because there is a gem of a post-credit scene waiting for you.

Ultimately, this is the Spider-Man film we needed and were it not for a lackluster final action set piece, we'd be looking at a film as good as last week's Baby Driver. As is, however, we do have ourselves possibly the best Marvel film to date, and certainly the second-best film of 2017. You're up, War for the Planet of the Apes. Let's keep it rolling.

The Critique: One of Marvel's best installments to date, Spider-Man: Homecoming features a great story and terrific performances from Tom Holland and Michael Keaton, and is the second great summer blockbuster for Hollywood in as many weeks.

The Recommendation: Make it a double feature everyone! We're all gonna see this film because Marvel's name is on it so be sure to watch the excellent Baby Driver too!

Rewatchability: High

​The Verdict: 8/10 Great


Image Credit: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4MDAyNjQ3N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTMzNTMzMjI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

Baby Driver (2017): After being coerced into working for a crime boss, a young getaway driver finds himself taking part in a heist doomed to fail.

​What a fun film. Baby Driver is the latest from the fantastic director Edgar Wright, a man with some of the funniest comedies of the modern era under his belt, including Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World’s End. Each of these films has a very recognizable fingerprint that makes it an Edgar Wright film. Despite the fact that this film is not a comedy, (it's actually the first foray into a drama for the director) it’s still another classic Edgar Wright film. Somehow, the man can do no wrong. He produces what is easily the best film of 2017 so far, and certainly the best summer blockbuster of recent memories. This film could not come at a better time. We've had a terrible summer blockbuster season so far, so it is really refreshing to see a film be original and actually try and push the envelope. Were it not for some faults in the third act from a storytelling perspective, this film would score a perfect 10 in my book. But this film, like other Edgar Wright films, is a wonderful reminder of what happens when a filmmaker actually uses the entire spectrum of cinema to tell a story.
 
I’ve long appreciated his visual style, as he’s basically the only director of modern American comedies outside of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (of 21 Jump Street fame) to actually employ visual humor and not have his films essentially be lightly edited improv. Here his visual storytelling style comes out in the music. The music of Baby Driver is the calling card here, as Edgar Wright does a marvelous job not just employing effective musical choices for any given moment of his film, but also syncing up his film to the music thanks to some fantastic editing. Everything from car doors closing to gunshots are done to the beat of whatever song is playing at that moment, and it was really fascinating (and fun) to watch. I honestly would not be surprised at all to see this film be nominated for Best Editing come Oscar time next year. Outside of the fantastic editing were some great visuals. Edgar Wright has clearly watched a lot of heist films, and he’s picked up on how to shoot them effectively. The car chases in this film are some of the best sequences I’ve seen in recent memory, and even give The Fast and the Furious a run for its money. Additionally, the acting in this movie is awesome. Ansel Eigort puts in a great performance as the lead, playing a wide range of emotions from start to finish as the quite and reserved Baby. Kevin Spacey is Kevin Spacey (and there’s nothing wrong with that) and Jamie Foxx was over-the-top. However, for me the two that steal the show are Jon Hamm and Eiza Gonzalez. They play husband and wife in this film and are menacing and unpredictable. I absolutely loved them. Lily James was fine, but her character was also the reason this film does not receive a perfect score.
 
So, let’s talk about the story briefly, shall we? While overall we have a strong story here, there are definitely problems as well. Most notably, the character played by Lily James. The scenes between Ansel Eigort and Lily James were fine, but they also slowed down the film tremendously. I think Edgar Wright realized this and left several scenes between the two of them on the cutting room floor, however the unintended side effect of doing this was the actions of James at the end of the film weren't earned at all. One second she's a waitress, the next she's risking her life for a person she just met a few days ago? I really have no idea what they could've done to improve this as Wright was definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the weakest part of the film. Fortunately, though, this is just about the only misstep here, and doesn't detract from the overall viewing experience that much. I'd say this is the first true "must-watch" film of 2017, and it is easily the best film of the year so far. See it with confidence.

The Critique: Baby Driver is a marvelously executed summer blockbuster with exhilarating action sequences and few faults.

The Recommendation: A must-see for everyone. Don't miss it!
​
Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjA3MTIxMDcxNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDczODMyMTI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1611,1000_AL_.jpg

Baywatch (2017): Devoted lifeguard Mitch Buchanan butts heads with a brash new recruit. Together, they uncover a local criminal plot that threatens the future of the Bay.

If there is such a thing as "So bad it's good," Baywatch would get top consideration. A shamelessly bad film, Baywatch owns its premise and appeals to its target audience about as well as you'd expect. And, believe it or not, I actually had a pretty good time watching this. Pretty good. When the film was just being straight up ridiculous, I was into it. HOWEVER, whenever the film tried to have any semblance of a, oh....what do you call it? "Plot?" It was terrible. That said, the acting was pretty good, with the undeniable chemistry between The Rock and Zac Efron being at the forefront of it all. The raunchy, R-rated comedy seems to be a sweet spot for The Rock, and whenever he was able to just do his thing, I was having a blast. The females of this cast are definitely placed in the background, though Alexandra Daddario does a great job in her role as one of the female lifeguards, as does Illfenesh Hadera. However, outside of the acting and the improv, there isn't much going on here. This is yet another American comedy that is lazily made, but I don't think its target audience will care about that too much. But you know what? I found myself laughing a good deal, so the movie did succeed in this regard. (Even though several times I was laughing at the movie instead of with it) Ultimately, if you have a few drinks before and go see this with a group of friends, it's not the worst way to spend a Friday night. Just don't expect any semblance of a plot. Or editing. Or pretty much anything other than some pretty raunchy and crude humor.

​My Number: 4/10 Below Average

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017): ​Captain Jack Sparrow searches for the trident of Poseidon while being pursued by an undead sea captain and his crew.

YES. IT'S ANOTHER PIRATES MOVIE. THAT LOOKS LIKE EVERY OTHER PIRATES MOVIE. Seriously. I haven't liked this franchise since the original film came out all the way back in 2003. Yet here we are, 14 years later, looking at the FIFTH Pirates movie. This movie is hyped up to be "Javier Bardem vs. Johnny Depp" and that's about all this movie had going for it. And by that I mean all this movie had going for it was Javier Bardem, because Johnny Depp is just Johnny Depp. All my problems with Depp and how he's Hollywood's single-most overrated actor in the business can be traced back to this franchise, and he's once again just.....there. The newcommers don't bring much to the table, either. Though the cameos were ok, I guess. Pretty much the only person you could like in this movie, (as Bardem too was mostly sleepwalking through his role) was Paul McCartney. And yes, he was legit. But that's about all this film has going for it-it's a snooze-fest from the technical departments, and Bardem's hair, which I'm sure a lot of money went to, just looked soooooo silly. Basically, this is a film that no one asked for but we got nonetheless, and it can be added to the pile of crap films we've gotten recently that can be labeled as good ol' fashion corporate directed filmmaking. But hey. At least Paul McCartney is in it.

My Number: 3/10 just for Paul

Wonder Woman (2017): Before she was Wonder Woman she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war to end all wars, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

I know I had the awesome Peter Kosanovich review this film already, I just wanted to add my two cents on what is undoubtedly the best DC film to date. While it certainly is a decent film, with Gal Gadot stealing the show in the film's title role, there are many problems with this film as well. First off, it's WAY too long. I don't know why DC films feel the need to flirt with the 2.5 hour mark, but can you please STOP? The entire opening section of this film felt unnecessary, and the pacing is just all over the place from start to finish. Also, the action sequences were pretty terrible. They just looked so corny! This is another trend of DC films that Marvel has (mostly) avoided. CGI porn is exactly that-CGI porn. We're getting plenty of it in the new Transformers film.... we don't need it here. That said, there is plenty going on in Wonder Woman that I liked. Gal Gadot carries this film, as DC has undoubtedly found its Iron Man/Captain America with her. Not to be outdone by Gadot is Chris Pine, who is excellent as Steve Trevor. Outside of them this movie is mostly bare, as pretty much everyone else is forgettable. That's about all this film has going for it, but it's all it really needs. Gal Gadot plays the character so well, and having a female-led superhero film is refreshing and wonderful. See it just for that, and just ignore its faults.

My Number: 6/10 Above Average

The Mummy (2017): An ancient princess is awakened from her crypt beneath the desert, bringing with her malevolence grown over millennia, and terrors that defy human comprehension.

The Dark Universe is here and lands with a loud thud with yet another re-incarnation of The Mummy. Gotta love corporate-directed filmmaking. The biggest problem of The Mummy is the fact that there's not enough Mummy in it. Wait, what? Can someone please tell me why we have to focus on Tom Cruise so much when Sofia Boutella as, you know, The Mummy, is EASILY the best part of this film? Even after what happens at the end (which is total BS, by the way) I still think the film made a mistake focusing on Cruise so much. He's pretty forgettable as Nick Morton, and were it not for Jake Johnson providing some much-needed comedic relief by helping Cruise out throughout the film it would've been a whole lot worse. But man. It's still pretty darn bad. The writing here is an absolute travesty. Everything is focus-group tested and none of it feels organic. What happens at the end is TOTAL, frustrating BS, and isn't earned at all, and, well, come to think of it, pretty much none of the Cruise's actions feel earned. Outside of Boutella's stellar performance as The Mummy, the only other thing this film really had going for it was Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll. Crowe is signed on to play the role in several more Dark Universe films, and that's about the only positive takeaway from this whole movie. And those who know me know I am not the biggest fan of Russell Crowe, so that is actually a pretty decent compliment.. Despite the lackluster reception and mediocre box office numbers, Universal has already invested massive amounts of money into their Dark Universe, so like it or not these movies are here to stay. But if this first film is any indication, it's that it takes a lot more than a single idea to make a film enjoyable. Hard pass.

                                                                                             My Number: 3/10

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017): Autobots and Decepticons are at war, with humans on the sidelines. Optimus Prime is gone. The key to saving our future lies buried in the secrets of the past, in the hidden history of Transformers on Earth.

Hey, look! It's another TERRIBLE Transformers movie! I know most of you are rolling your eyes and saying, "Obviously." but my job is to see the films that are going to bring in big box office numbers, and yes, Transformers is one of them. But this film is AWFUL, even by Transformers standards! The pacing is atrocious, the dialogue is hilariously bad, Michael Bay is still a misogynist, and the film is SO. FREAKING. LONG. Seriously, guys? 2.5 hours? Really? Oh ya, let's hit the misogyny for a second, because it's STILL here. Why does every female character in a Michael Bay movie need to be uncomfortably objectified? There are two women in this film, played by child-actor Isabela Moner, and Laura Haddock, and both have to constantly answer the unnecessary question of "Why don't you have a boyfriend?" Poor Laura Haddock is forced into a very unnecessary and uncomfortable love story with Mark Wahlberg that was actually unwatchable at points. Of course she's supposed to be the smartest person in the room at all times, with multiple degrees from Cambridge and Oxford, but of COURSE the only thing that matters is, "Where's your boyfriend?" SMH, Michael Bay. SMH. Also, what the heck was going on with the editing and aspect ratios? There are THREE different aspect ratios in this film, and they are all interspersed throughout the film. Sometimes these aspect ratios would change for a SINGLE shot. It was very distracting. And, of course, the CGI was terrible. In short, this is the worst film of the franchise to date and the worst film I have seen in 2017 so far. AVOID LIKE                                                                                                THE PLAGUE.
                                                                                         
My Number: 2/10 just because when she wasn't uncomfortably objectified (and actually in the movie because Bay forgets about her for around 90 minutes) Isabela Moner was pretty bad-ass. And the 2 minute fight scene between Bee and Prime was cool.

By: Peter Kosanovich

Wonder Woman (2017): Before she was Wonder Woman she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war to end all wars, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

Wonder Woman was, in many ways, the superhero movie we needed right now; as a people, as a society, and as a viewing audience. This movie was a work of love, and better than just about any other superhero movie, it new its emotional core.
              
Let me go on though, Wonder Woman is definitely flawed! It is far from perfect, and there are definite reasons for that. I have been immensely critical of Zack Snyder and the cinematic universe he has established for DC and Warner Bros. – he desaturated the color palette of his movies, required everyone to conform to his overuse of speed-ramping in the editing suite, wrote stories that were overly convoluted and didn’t flow, and gave us no emotional connection to any of the characters – and while my deepest condolences and best wishes go out to the Snyder family in their time of sorrow, these stylistic choices have harmed the quality of these movies. Because of this, Patty Jenkins, the director of Wonder Woman, was required to go outside her normal wheelhouse to accommodate his style. Generally speaking she managed to accomplish this, but on occasion it got in her way of telling a compelling story.
               
In terms of the story itself, Wonder Woman, like most of DC’s movies, went through a number of scripts, and directors, and producers, right up until just before principle shooting. Patty Jenkins stepped in last minute after the previous director left; this meant she was working with already established scripts, storyboards, shot lists, locations, much of the crew, etc. These are hardly ideal conditions for a director to step in, and still manage to hit a home-run! To that I say, Bravo Patty Jenkins! You deserve any and all praise you get!
              
Based on all of this it’s a wonder that Patty Jenkins managed to make the movie as good as it ended up being. I thoroughly enjoyed it! I teared up at points! And for anyone who knows me, that is not an easy feat to accomplish. That is a testimony to Patty Jenkins understanding and devotion to her characters. I will say the script was not the strongest, it had its moments, but it was far from perfect. Patty managed to bring out some of the best moments through the performances she brought out of the actors. I commend her.
              
Now, enough on the backstory!

Wonder Woman takes place during WWI, “The Great War.” In his escape from German soldiers, American spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), crash-lands at the Amazonian island of Themyscira. He is rescued by Diana, AKA Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), who agrees to return him to the war because she believes it is her duty to save the world of man from Ares, the Greek god of war. While in Themyscira the world is filled with bright, vivid colors – paradise – but upon reaching London Diana comments that “it’s hideous,” noting the bleak color palette often associated with war time and the industrial era of the time.

After assembling a team, Steve and Diana go to the front; we see images of amputees, civilians fleeing danger, smoke and ash raining down. Here the now iconic “No Man’s Land” scene occurs, Diana cannot just stand by and watch the carnage of war. It is here that we feel the power of Diana, the power of Wonder Woman, the power of women. It is an incredible scene, and very emotionally resonant and empowering!
 
Without going too much further to avoid spoilers, I loved this movie! I did have issues with parts – some of the writing, some of the speed-ramping, one particularly awful piece of CGI/VFX – but most of that I attribute to the constraints Patty Jenkins was required to work in. I cannot wait for the sequel, when Patty will hopefully have more creative control! But regardless of the films issues, it exceeded all expectations from an emotional standpoint. It knew its core! The emotional center of the film felt incredibly grounded and compelling. If for no other reason that is why Wonder Woman succeeds, it made us care about those characters.


The Critique: Wonder Woman was, pun fully intended, wonderful! It was grounded, had a core, and spread love and hope in a bleak and uncertain world! It was empowering and resonant in all the right ways. Many of the issues were from previous problems in the DCEU and should not be attributed to Patty Jenkins or the cast.

Recommendation: Go see it!

Rewatchability: High!

The Verdict: I want to make it clear that, despite the universal praise it’s receiving, this movie is far from perfect, but so lovable regardless. My number is 7.5/10

Alien: Covenant (2017): The crew of a colony ship, bound for a remote planet, discover an uncharted paradise with a threat beyond their imagination, and must attempt a harrowing escape.

Yes! Finally! An Alien move with Xenomorphs actually in it! We've been waiting 20 years for the Alien franchise to finally bring back, you know, the alien, and that wait is over. (Shush.....not including the AVP franchise) I was a giddy little schoolboy while that Xenomorph was on screen. It was AWESOME. The problem with this film, however, is when you really start to think about it. Ridley Scott has been given complete creative control over his Alien franchise, and raised a lot of questions in his first installment, Prometheus. I still don't really know what was going on in that film. While this film does actually answer more questions than it poses, some of those answers are going to leave fans of the franchise (such as myself) wishing for more. The lore-building here SUCKS. But hey. There are freaking Xenomorphs this time around. And the film looks absolutely gorgeous. And the acting is awesome. Basically, your mileage will vary with this film. If you're coming in just wanting a monster movie, you will enjoy the crap out of this while you're not sitting around waiting patiently for everything to be explained to you. But if you're coming for the fact that this is a freaking Alien movie, and you want to know more about the origins of the Xenomorphs.....well you're gonna be disappointed.

So! Let's start out with the good. Let's talk cinematography. Dariusz Wolski is one of the best cinematographers in the business, and he does an absolutely marvelous job here. This film is absolutely gorgeous. I'd recommend seeing this film in the theater for the cinematography alone, as it's easily the best of 2017 so far. The set design is great as well. I don't know where they went to film this but Ridley Scott and company did a great job making this look like a foreign world and maintaining the overall grandeur of its predecessor Prometheus, which was definitely the strongest part of that film as well. The sound crew had a lot to do with this as well. This film overall has a strong showing from the technical departments, to the point that it may get a nomination or two from the Academy despite its early release. The acting here was outstanding as well. Katherine Waterston, man. Where has she come from? She is the hero this franchise needed, a worthy successor to Sigourney Weaver. While we may never get a resolution to Ripley's character because Ridley Scott doesn't feel like returning to that part of the lore, they definitely stumbled on a new actress to build the franchise around in Daniels. She has a great story arc and is just overall a total badass. You know who else is great in this film? Danny McBride. Ya. I'm just as surprised as you are. But he shows off his dramatic side in this film and was great! And, of course, there's Michael Fassbender. His duel portrayal as David/Walter is chilling. Though his characters do get to an absolutely TERRIBLE resolution. I guess that leads into the bad!

So, let's first hit that point. So for the first and second act Michael Fassbender's characters are awesome. They get some one on one interactions that are great. But then their characters get the worst resolution ever. Anyone who has ever watched a movie will see this coming from a mile away, and yet for some reason Ridley Scott builds it up and when he pulls back the curtain he seems to think that we're all gonna be like, "Whoa! Didn't see that coming!" Well, I did. As did everyone else in the theater. Then there's the contributions to the lore. I know only people that care about this franchise will be upset about this, but I'm one of those people, okay? The contributions to the lore here are so freaking lackluster man. I was so disappointed! I won't spoil, but it appears that I'm in the majority here thinking that these contributions and resolutions and the answer to "Where did the Xenomorph come from?" are weak, and bring down the overall franchise. Ridley Scott clearly wants nothing to do with the lore of Alien: Resurrection, but if you're going to give the legendary Xenomorph a backstory it's gotta be strong. Unfortunately this is anything but strong. 

However outside those two things, there really isn't much to fault with this film. Which is why your mileage will vary. If those two faults don't bother you, you're gonna have a good time and I highly recommend this film. You can certainly watch it without watching Prometheus, and given what this film does to the Prometheus story line, I would actually recommend it. (Ya, this film basically made the entirety of Prometheus irrelevant. That happened) And there are freaking Xenomorphs, man! They get to wreak havoc like the perfect organisms that they are! If only they were given the backstory they deserved.

The Critique: Despite great execution from the technical and acting departments, Alien: Covenant delivers a hilariously lackluster backstory for the legendary Xenomorph, which will ultimately leave fans of the franchise disappointed.

The Recommendation: If you like monster movies but haven't watched an Alien film since James Cameron's Aliens, this might be the film to jump back in on.

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017): Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.

Can we please start giving Guy Ritchie some credit? There aren't that many directors using the full range of cinematic aspects available to them, but Guy Ritchie is undoubtedly one of them. However, unlike someone like Edgar Wright or Wes Anderson, Guy Ritchie's films just don't seem to be held in as high regard. I don't really know why-yes, the stories may be weaker, but I'll take an overall well-executed film and a weak script versus a strong script and poor execution. The first Sherlock Holmes was outstanding, and can be credited with rebooting the Sherlock franchise, and his 2015 film The Man from U.N.C.L.E...... as I'm sure you know by now, was one of my top action flicks of the year. While Ritchie's signature can be seen throughout this film, there's just too much..... crap here to make it truly enjoyable. And the people have already spoken-King Arthur is shaping up to be the first true box office bomb of 2017. Poor Warner Brothers studios just can't catch a break.

So, let's talk about the positives first. Guy Ritchie throws a lot of ideas against the wall, particularly in the editing department. Some of them stuck, most notably with the montages. There are some really cool sequences here as Arthur and his crew lay out plans for taking back England from Vortigern. This is another strong part of the film-Jude Law plays a damn good villain. While there are some limitations with his character in the writing department, which we'll get to in a bit, Jude Law was simply eating up the screen in his role, and I loved it. Finally, some of the stylized action sequences worked, and looked pretty darn cool. However, most of them did not.

Let's start there with the negatives, shall we? While some of the action sequences were pretty spectacular, the vast majority of them were pretty laughably bad. I guess when Ritchie and co. combined their stylized action sequences with the magic within this world, we found ourselves left with some pretty incomprehensible CGI-filled sequences. The worst was undoubtedly the final boss battle. This sequence was TERRIBLE. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 looks better than this! Then there's the writing. Ohhhhhh boy. This film was passed between a TON of screenwriters, and it really shows. This film is an absolute mess from a script standpoint. Even the actors were confused, most notably the great Charlie Hunnam in the lead role of Arthur. His character randomly seems to switch personalities at several points and it was very odd. One second he's charming, then the next he's a complete jerk for no reason, then suddenly he's charming again! Jude Law's character, Vortigern, also suffers here-his character's motivations are simple, yes, but there were several occasions where it seemed like he was trying to be a nice guy and it was really confusing. I don't know if this was intentional or not, or the result of just how infectiously charming and charismatic Jude Law can be, but it just comes back to the overall tone of the movie. Or lack thereof.

This film is the result of corporate-directed film-making, and what happens when you revise your film a dozen times trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Despite some good moments from Guy Ritchie, it is simply just too toxic to be anywhere near Warner Brothers right now. There's no doubt this film suffered at the hands of corporate execs trying to find an answer to the massive success Disney is enjoying between Marvel and Star Wars, and it looks like the distributor is going to lose a TON of money because of their misadventure. And overall, while I did find some great moments here and there watching this, there was just too much crap surrounding those moments to make the overall experience enjoyable. There are several more high-profile Warner Brothers releases coming this year-Wonder Woman, Dunkirk, It, Blade Runner 2049, Geostorm, and Justice League-and there's a lot of pressure for these guys to deliver some hits. If all of these films are disappointments, the clock may honestly find itself approaching midnight for one of Hollywood's original studios. Don't falter on us now, Warner Brothers. You have too much history behind you.

The Critique: Despite a few exhilarating action sequences, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, falls flat on its face thanks to a very weak script, shaky acting, and overdone CGI.

The Recommendation: There really isn't much to like here, so I'd say go see The Man from U.N.C.L.E. instead, because.....seriously. Nowhere near enough people have seen that film.

Rewatchability: Low

The Verdict: 4/10 Below Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzM2MDk2MzE0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzQ1ODQxMjI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1498,1000_AL_.jpg

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017): Set to the backdrop of Awesome Mixtape #2, 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' continues the team's adventures as they unravel the mystery of Peter Quill's true parentage.

Wow, IMDB went right there with the reference to the mixtape. Right in the description. Anyway! Let's not beat around the bush on this one: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is more of the same. It is nearly a carbon copy of the original film. Now, is that a bad thing? No. To me that is not a bad thing. I have seen so many sequels try and reinvent the wheel on its second go and fall flat on its face in the process that I have no issue with a film taking an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," kind of mentality. THAT SAID. To all of you who groan about franchises like The Fast and the Furious being "more of the same" then turn around and love a film like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2? You need to look yourself in the mirror and say, "When in Rome." Sorry, I lost my train of thought there....I have no idea what you should do. But the double standard is real! Is my point. Anyway, moving on. Let's talk about Guardians 2 and what it gets right!

Let's talk about the dialogue. Like the first Guardians film, Vol. 2 is all about the "moments" versus the overall plot. The overall plot here is fine, but it's these moments that we all look back on and smile upon. Besides for the obvious one-Baby Groot-I think Rocket once again steals the show. Bradley Cooper just plays this character so freaking well. Pratt and Saldana are great together, and there's some good interludes between Dave Bautista and newcomer Pom Klementieff as well. And once again Elizabeth Debicki is a GREAT villain. I seriously love this woman...she can pull off a CRAZY villain character. If you have no idea who she is check out The Man from U.N.C.L.E. As if I don't talk about that film enough. Also, the effects are great! Mostly. There were a few times where the CGI was overwhelming, like, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 kind of overwhelming, but for the most part they were great. Especially on Ego's planet! That place is freaking beautiful and that's thanks 100% to the effects. Also the soundtrack is good. It's more of the same from the first film, but at least it was more than surface-level deep. There was just more marketing around it (heck it made it into the freaking IMDB description) so it didn't feel as authentic necessarily.

So! Let's talk about the negatives of this film. You may have noticed I didn't touch on Kurt Russell to this point. Well, that's because I didn't think he was all that good. Look, things start well enough with him, but as the film progresses and he's asked to be more than just charming and charismatic, he really falters. And what happens to him in the final act? Please. Terrible casting choice. Almost as bad as asking us to believe a 61 year-old Ian McDiarmid could take on four Jedi, including Samuel L. Jackson, in Revenge of the Sith, no problem. Then there's the pacing. Holy CRAP is the pacing in this film TERRIBLE. Like, seriously! Nobody else has any problems with the pacing? This film DRAGS its way to the third act with some absolutely meaningless setup. I found myself just straight-up impatient and wanting this film to just get on with it! It comes in at 136 minutes, but it could've EASILY shaved off 30 minutes off its run-time. The pacing is really a product of another big problem with this film-the overall story is really not all that compelling. Like the original, this film is all about the moments (which are great) and in the process of this the overarching story suffers. Oh! Andy FOR THE LOVE OF GOD can we PLEASE get other Marvel characters to acknowledge this crap? I mean, I know they're going to in Infinity War, but there were what? Five post-credit scenes here and not one of them was like Iron Man or someone, ANYONE, from the Avengers investigating the damage the Guardians did! C'mon! Five post credit scenes and literally none of them added anything to the film. I don't even remember them at this point, and I just saw the film a few days ago! 

Ok I'm sorry. You probably think I hated the film. I really didn't! It's fine and it's fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hate how a film like this gets a free pass for its missteps. We groan about unnecessary sequels and reboots, but we flock to every Marvel film in existence and think they're the best things ever, even when they do the exact things we always groan about. But all of this does not take away from the fact that this is a FUN movie. It is the definition of a mindless popcorn flick, and that's exactly what a summer blockbuster is supposed to be. But it doesn't change the fact that it is more of the same.

The Critique: While the dialogue is witty and the cast is charismatic, Guardians 2 is simply more of the same. Combined with a lackluster story, mediocre pacing, and a less-than-stellar casting choice with Kurt Russell, this sequel fails to live up to the charming originality of its predecessor. 

The Recommendation: We all know you're going to see it, so why bother?

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAyNDM3MjI4Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5MDIyMjI@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,935_AL_.jpg

The Circle (2017): A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover a nefarious agenda that will affect the lives of her friends, family and that of humanity.

Ok! So let's talk about The Circle. What happens when you put a bunch of charming and charismatic actors and actresses in a movie then forget to hire a writer, editor, and director and base it off some crappy subject material? THE CIRCLE. Wow is this thing bad! It's a damn shame too because this is the final featuring length film for Bill Paxton. But of course the film does everything it can to avoid this topic. Because it's not smart enough to conjure up a touching tribute for the late, great actor. Sorry this is how you had to go, man. I will remember you for your classic roles, not this. Outside of Paxton you have guys like Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt sleepwalking through their roles, and other people like Glenne Headly, Karen Gillan, Ellar Coltrane, and John Boyega are given nothing to do. And at the center of it all..... is Emma Watson. She is trying, I'll give her that, but her character is just so poorly written it doesn't matter. 

So, let's talk about the abysmal writing, shall we? This film is based off a best selling novel of the same name by David Eggers. In the novel, similar to the film, Eggers attempts to show us what a world of total transparency looks like. But it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. This is the biggest problem with this film. It attempts to try and make some elaborate statement on what would happen if we went 100% transparent, but then it just goes down the most generic twists and turns you could possibly imagine. You can see the ending coming from a mile away. Oh! Congress is investigating The Circle, and now the person leading said investigation is being investigated themselves? WHAT A COINCIDENCE. I'm sure The Circle didn't have anything to do with that! Most of these characters are just generic stereotypes that fill the void around Emma Watson. And what about that ending. GEEZ that ending is TERRIBLE! It is the most predictable piece of crap ending you can think of. Hey! Let's have a story about 100% transparency end with the top dogs getting in trouble for not being 100% transparent! Ya! NO. You have to be more creative than that, guys! C'mon! 

In addition to the crap story, we had a pretty lackluster showing from the editing department, as well. Though, before I get to what I didn't like I have to highlight the one thing I did like in this film that came courtesy of this department....when Watson's character was being "100% transparent" she was basically live-streaming her life. During these moments, the editing crew put up the "comments section" of her live stream on the screen, which was pretty cool. Films have been struggling to figure out how to showcase texting and reading things on a screen for years and what they did to showcase that here was better than most films out there. This guy, Tony Zhou, did a great video essay on the subject. Anyway, moving on. While the editing crew showed up with those sequences, where they didn't show up was with the, well, editing of the film. There are a lot of cuts throughout this film that are either too late or too early. On multiple occasions I was sitting there thinking that there was going to be more of the scene forthcoming just to see it end abruptly. I don't know why the editing was as distracting as it was here, but it was. 

I don't know if all of this falls back on director James Ponsoldt. He has struggled to recapture the magic of his earlier films like The Spectacular Now and Smashed. But with both of these films the argument can be made that he had better writers and actors that don't necessarily need to be told what to do from the director. That later one is the biggie for me. Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley, and Brie Larson could be great in a film even if the director was an actual monkey, but there are just some people that have to have a director to help them through a movie, and the more I watch Emma Watson, the more I think she's one of them. Now there's nothing wrong with that....I think Natalie Portman falls into this same boat and no one is going to deny that she's one of the best actresses of the 21st century. But someone like Natalie Portman learned early on that she needs direction from experiences like Star Wars. Watson seems to have in her head that because she did a great job with Hermione she can make it on her own, but in a film like this where the direction is erratic she really struggles. I say this out of love, Emma. You have to pick films with good directors if you're gonna stay in Hollywood's elite. There will always be phone-it-in roles for you that you couldn't possibly screw up, (looks at Beauty and the Beast) but if you're looking to step outside your comfort zone you gotta do it with a great director. See Natalie Portman teaming up with Darren Aronofsky or Pablo Larraín.

Anyway, for the rest of the world not named Emma Watson....stay very far away from this film. Unless you're a movie nut like me and like seeing a bit of innovation when it comes to displaying Internet comment sections in a film, there's nothing for you here. Only pain.

The Critique: Erratic direction combined with terrible writing lead The Circle down a dark path to one of the worst films of the year so far, despite its charismatic list of stars.

The Recommendation: I know you long to hear it.....AVOID THIS ONE LIKE THE PLAGUE

Rewatchability: Low

The Verdict: 2/10 Garbage
 

Image Credit
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc2NTkxOTQ2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzMxNTAwMjI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

Beauty and the Beast (2017): An adaptation of the fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.

I'm not going to lie: I'm impressed. So far many of these live action Disney adaptations have left me thinking, "Is this really necessary?" and some of the "alternative" adaptations, like Maleficent, have left much to be desired. Well, that finally ends today: Beauty and the Beast is a surprisingly good film that still (mostly) manages to capture the magic of its source material. While it's not perfect, (looks at Luke Evans and some of the excess musical numbers) I still found myself humming along to some of its iconic scenes. I haven't seen the original film in years, so I think this definitely impacted my opinion of the film because I had forgotten just how good a story this is, but still. As far as Disney's (still unnecessary) live adaption of its classic fairy tales go, this is easily the best one yet. The CGI was excellent, (it needed to be with the talking furniture) and the editing crew showed up and really added to the movie with several well-cut numbers. These are things I have found lacking in several other iterations: if you create a well-rounded movie and don't just focus on retelling the story in as generic a way as possible, suddenly the film doesn't feel like a straight-up cash-grab. It's amazing how that works! If you've been holding out on these Disney reboots, Beauty and the Beast may be the one (and really only one so far) worth checking out.

My Number: 7/10 Good

Ghosts in the Shell (2017): In the near future, Major is the first of her kind: A human saved from a terrible crash, who is cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals.

Well, I must appreciate a film that goes all in on a premise. Ghosts in the Shell is a remake of a 1995 animated film by the same name, a film which has inspired multiple sequels and even a TV show since its release. And, while I appreciate a film going all-in on a premise and doing a great job with "immersion," this film does it so well (minus the fact that there's no people in this giant, sprawling city) that it will likely turn off most mainstream American audiences. There were many points throughout the film where I had to ask myself, "what just happened?" and before I had time to figure it out we were onto the next thing. So, eventually I just turned my brain off and enjoyed the visuals of this film. No doubt the strongest part of this film, the visuals here are breathtaking. Whether it be skyscraper-tall advertisements, or an invisible Scarlett Johansson taking on a bad guy in water, this film excelled at looking absolutely gorgeous. Sadly, though, great visuals does not equate to a great film, and the second you try and figure out just what the heck is going on in this story...you'll be lost. I went with some friends whom are super into this franchise and they seemed to mostly enjoy it, so if you're a fan of the originals you'll probably like this one, but for everyone else? If you like sci-fi and wanna look at something pretty check it out, if not consider seeing Life instead to get your sci-fi on.

My Number: 5/10 Average

Life (2017): A team of scientists aboard the International Space Station discover a rapidly evolving life form, that caused extinction on Mars, and now threatens the crew and all life on Earth.

This movie is surprisingly fun. While it borrows heavily from other films, I still had a good time watching it. The movie throws you right into the thick of it with a thrilling opening sequence like the opening of Gravity, and as the creature develops it became more and more like the Xenomorph from Alien. Actually, this film might as well be called Alien 2.0. But that's not necessarily a bad thing! The tension of this film was unreal-it may only be a 104 minute film but it felt like 404 minutes long..... And yet thanks to the slow boil to start and a few breaks throughout the "everything is going wrong" sections of the second and third act, I actually really cared for these characters. Far more so than anyone outside of Ripley in the original Alien. The creature itself is also fascinating-they take the idea of the "perfect organism" and multiply it by about 1,000, creating a creature that is basically indestructible. As fascinating as it is, this may be the biggest misstep of the entire film-if the alien creature is actually invincible, you know what the ultimate outcome will be. And believe me: exactly what you think will happen, happens here. But that really didn't matter to me. The journey getting to the final outcome was still a fun one, and thanks to some great acting from Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson, (FINALLY she has a good role to tout following her breakout performance in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation)  I had more than enough fun on the ride. Just......don't expect too much from this.

                                                                                     My Number: 6.5/10 Almost Good

The Fate of the Furious (2017): When a mysterious woman seduces Dom into the world of terrorism and a betrayal of those closest to him, the crew face trials that will test them as never before.

America's favorite series to hate is BACK with another big stupid action movie that is just so much fun to watch. Yes, I LOVE this franchise.....get over it. Even though this installment does not quite reach the pinnacle that was Furious 7, (I mean c'mon-you really want us to believe that Vin Diesel is working with the bad guys) its calling card - the spectacle of it all - is still an absolute blast to watch. The banter between characters like The Rock and Jason Statham is awesome and hilarious, the effects are great, and the cars are still sexy AF. Charlize Theron is the big addition here. She is clearly a villain this franchise is all-in on, and I can see why - she killed it as Cipher. Though.... her conclusion, admittedly, was pretty weak. This film also struggled to figure out how to write out Paul Walker without actually writing him out. The motivations of Diesel's character is the big loser with this - they basically write in a motivation for him that is not earned in any way. And they ask Vin Diesel to act too, which can be something if not hilarious to watch. Though he does his best! He clearly tried, so A for effort. But you don't go to a film like this expecting a good story! Heck you shouldn't even expect great acting. You go for the spectacle, and it's here and bigger and better than ever. I'll just say this when it comes to the set pieces: zombie cars, man. Freaking zombie cars. Now don't you wanna go see it? Plus, you know, a submarine chase scene which is easily worth the cost of admission alone. So, ultimately, if you go into this movie ready to turn the brain off and have a good time, you're gonna have a good time. But in terms of getting into the series? Start with Furious 7.

                                                                                         My Number: 7/10 Good

Free Fire (2017): Set in Boston in 1978, a meeting in a deserted warehouse between two gangs turns into a shootout and a game of survival.

Following their massive 2016 in which they took home Best Picture for Moonlight, this time the hottest studio in Hollywood right now, A24, teams up with the great Martin Scorsese and a cavalcade of stars to bring us Free Fire. What could possibly go wrong, right? How could a film starring Brie Larson, Sharlto Copley, and Armie Hammer be dull? Well, by forgetting the definition of the term "pacing." A film like this should be flying through it's 90 minute run time, right? Not here! Free Fire is an absolute drag, turning basically 20 minutes of action into 90 minutes. While there are some great one-liners, and Armie Hammer in particular is FANTASTIC, there's just not enough content here to make this one truly enjoyable. For a film where everyone has a gun, there's an awful lot of useless talking! Not to mention basically the entire establishing of these characters was a waste of time - none of them have remotely interesting back stories. And some of the ideas flirted with in the fantastic trailer, like characters forgetting which side they're on, are not investigated AT ALL. This basically just turns into an overlong Mexican standoff, with Brie Larson being the only person to have something even resembling a character arc. So, at the end of the day, while there is a good premise here, and the actors involved are clearly having fun with their roles, poor writing and pacing sinks this film from being the best it could be. For a studio that has dropped some of the best films of recent years, it's hard for me to believe they ever let this one out the door.

My Number: 4/10 Below Average

Your Name (2016): Two strangers find themselves linked in a bizarre way. When a connection forms, will distance be the only thing to keep them apart?

Hi everyone! You may remember during Oscar season I gave some massive shout-outs to the animation industry as a whole, 2016 put out some solid films! Among those I listed Makoto Shinkai’s Your Name, a Japanese anime film which has since gone on to become the highest grossing film in the history of Japan, surpassing Spirited Away from the legendary Hayao Miyazaki. Well, it’s finally here! Your Name got its US release this past weekend, and I only have good things to say. I will do my best to avoid spoilers!

Your Name tells the story of two teenagers, Taki and Mitsuha, as they inexplicably begin body-swapping between Tokyo and a small village in the countryside. Mitsuha, a 17 year old girl in the country, wakes up one morning only to be questioned by her friends and family about her strange behavior the day before – hundreds of miles away in Tokyo, 17 year old Taki is given the similar treatment. Hitting the notes of comedy right off the bat, Your Name emulates Freaky Friday to a T. At the same time it sets a tone of mystery, as the audience is treated to Mitsuha as herself and in Taki’s body before we even meet Taki. Who is Mitsuha? Who is this boy she’s inhabiting? And then, after meeting Taki, why are they swapping bodies? They begin leaving each other simple notes – questions in school notebooks, messages written on each other’s arms, journal entries, etc. – and slowly learn what is going on.

Not wanting to mess up each other’s lives, Mitsuha and Taki decide to establish rules for each other while body-swapped: don’t spend each other’s money, limit changing clothing/showering and bathroom use, and leave journal entries in the notes section of each other’s phones. Despite these rules, the influence they begin to have on each other brings them closer together. As their emotions develop and their connection seems more a link of fate than mere chance, Taki embarks on a journey to find Mitsuha, beginning the emotional roller-coaster of Your Name. Unfortunately any more description than that gives too many spoilers, so you will just have to see Your Name for yourself.

Without a doubt this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made, and not just anime or animated movies. Your Name is stunning! Makoto Shinkai has truly crafted a masterpiece, and has rightfully earned comparisons as “the new Miyazaki.” The story itself is well done, if a little unconventional a points. Though the story is great in its own way, it lacks some of the deeper meanings and themes that are often so present in Miyazaki’s works. The characters are likable and easily identified with. And the animation itself is something onto its own. Shinkai uses vibrant colors paired with extreme lighting to wondrous effect, allowing the contrast to almost overwhelm the screen.

Simply put, I loved Your Name. It was a beautiful, stunningly gorgeous film that tells a story of love and fate.

The Critique: The overall blending of comedic and dramatic elements not only make this a great story, but something that is very enjoyable and highly rewatchable. While I’m used to Miyazaki’s deeper meanings in his movies, Shinkai tells an excellent story in his own way. It’s not a bad thing by any means, just a little different than what I’m used to.

The Recommendation: If you’re a fan of anime in the slightest, or if you’re a Studio Ghibli fan, you will love this movie. It is also a great movie to use as an introduction to the world of anime for anyone wanting a good way in. I honestly liked it more than any animated movie I saw last year!

Rewatchability: Definitely!

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome
​
Image Credit
http://cdn.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/image/featured/1031519-funimation-sets-oscar-qualifying-run-your-name.jpg?itok=oTg1WrD6

Eagles of Death Metal: Nos Amis (Our Friends) (2017): A documentary on the band on stage at Let Bataclan during the attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015.

HBO and Collin Hanks are the first to take a crack at a documentary on the band Eagles of Death Metal after their names were immortalized by being on stage at Le Bataclan during the Paris terrorist attacks in November of 2015. As much as I was emotionally moved by this documentary, and as much as it tells a story that needs to be told, I also believe its release comes too close to the events themselves to be of any real value. I think we are still several years away from the true documentary on Eagles of Death Metal and these terrorist attacks. However, this is still an excellent documentary that does nail showing the raw emotions still felt by the band. The story is told primarily through the eyes of frontman Jesse Hughes and his best friend and Queens of the Stone Age frontman Joshua Homme. These are two of my favorite bands, so it didn't take much for this retelling to pluck my heartstrings. As I said easily the best thing this documentary does is capture the raw emotions that are still being felt by Hughes and Homme and everyone else in the band, but it does also glance over some of the more incendiary remarks made by Hughes since the attacks. So, ultimately, while this is a good first attempt at retelling this traumatic story, its failures to truly encapsulate the event and explain the ramifications because of how quickly its being told hold it back from being the documentary that this band and the victims of these attacks truly deserve.

My Number: 7/10

Get Out (2017): A young African-American man visits his Caucasian girlfriend's mysterious family estate.

Ok. Let me get this out of the way: Get Out is a good film, but it's definitely being over-hyped. It falls just short of greatness for me because of it's massively predictable script. Now, I know with this genre an unpredictable story is hard to come by, but I shouldn't be able to guess what's going to happen before the movie even starts. BUT. Besides for the fact that this slasher goes exactly where you expect it to go, I still had a grand ol' time on the journey. There are a lot of genuinely creepy moments during this film, and it's well-acted. Actress Betty Gabriel stole the show for me as Georgina. Man is that role a far cry from her role in The Purge: Election Year. There's some good editing that takes place here as well, and all of this is sprinkled over a very smart and on point statement on systemic racism today. There's a moment in the final few minutes of the film that was as devastating as it was entirely because of race, and it was, for me, the most thought-provoking moment of the film. But if you're into slasher flicks, this is certainly the best one to come out since The Purge: Election Year, but hopefully it will not be the best slasher film of 2016. You're still in for a good time, (films like this are exactly why I love seeing a film in a dark movie theater with a bunch of strangers) but it's certainly not a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes kind of film. Temper your expectations. Slightly.

Also I don't know if I'm ever going to be able to look at milk the same way again.

My Number: 7/10

Logan (2017): In the near future, a weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X in a hide out on the Mexican border. But Logan's attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are up-ended when a young mutant arrives, being pursued by dark forces.

​Ahhhhh it's good to see a good X-Men movie again. Seriously, guys, what happened last year with X-Men: Apocalypse? Anyway, Logan is a grittier superhero movie than we're used to, and is the further development of distributors finally embracing the idea of a hard-R superhero movie. There is a LOT of blood in this, which is nice to see! It's nice to see a superhero movie where the hero kills someone and it actually looks somewhat realistic. There's also a lot of curse words, though some of them were definitely unnecessary. However the central calling card of this film is the Wolverine and Laura, played by the wonderful Dafne Keen. While Laura's story arc is one of the weaker parts of the film, it's still well executed, and her relationship with Wolverine leads to a climax that will emotionally devastate you. It is the best moment of the film, and it may even be a contender for one of my favorite movie moments of 2017. Patrick Stewart is also excellent in this, reprising his role as Dr. Charles Xavier one last time as well. Outside of some liberties taken with Laura's character, I did have some quarrels with the third act I won't mention here, but it certainly centered around the film's shameless attempts to setup future installments with a new generation of X-Men. Despite it's troubles though, this is a strong installment for the franchise and brings back memories of Days of Future Past, which is my personal favorite superhero film not named The Dark Knight. Any film that can be used in the same sentence as that one is pretty dang good in my book.

                                                                                    My Number: 7.5/10

Kong: Skull Island (2017): A team of scientists explore an uncharted island in the Pacific, venturing into the domain of the mighty Kong, and must fight to escape a primal Eden.

Feels like the summer blockbusters are coming earlier and earlier every year, eh? Logan kicked it off just one week after the Oscars and now Kong: Skull Island is here. It's odd, too: this film is the quintessential summer blockbuster. It's a big, stupid action movie that would be perfect to go see on a hot summer's day to escape the heat and turn the brain off for 2 hours. Don't get me wrong....as much as this film was trying to be something more than a popcorn flick, it accidentally does the popcorn flick quite well. If you go into this film wanting to see a giant gorilla fight giant lizards with shameless one-liners from the cast, that's what you're going to get. As well as a chance to see Loki and the future Captain Marvel on screen together. (Don't worry....they're the best part of this movie) But don't go into it looking for anything other than that because man....this script is a total disaster. From the WB-mandated surface level pop song every two freaking seconds, to the film changing it's tone on a dime multiple times a minute, this script may find itself receiving the "Worst script of 2017 award." I just gave up after a while, and instead had a blast watching a giant gorilla beat stuff up. This is by no means a good movie, (heck I may even have to label it a guilty pleasure at some point) but if you go into it ready to turn the brain off and have a good time....(even at the film's expense) you're gonna have a good time.

​My Number: 5/10

The Belko Experiment (2017): The IMDB description is too long. This movie sucks.

What the heck happened here? This movie is an absolute trainwreck. It has shallow characters, incredibly slow pacing, (despite its brief 88 minute runtime) and is overall just messy. This film was written by James Gunn too! The dude is the brainchild of what I think is the best MCU film, Guardians of the Galaxy, so I know he can create some fleshed out characters. What was this? Did he write this script just for the paycheck? So many characters have no real arcs, and the only one that does (Danny, and she's not even a main character) has the most unsatisfactory conclusion outside of the actual ending imaginable. Oh ya! And at the end, when we get the whole "What was it all for" discussion, the response is a shrug and the ol' "We're not at liberty to say" excuse. No. F U. Such lazy storytelling. Also most of this film is just a straight ripoff of the great The Cabin in the Woods, right down to them having an eerily similar pothead providing "comedic relief." Only this time the pothead does not have the coolest bong ever. There is a loooooooot of blood and gore in this film, (fair warning-it was a little much for even my tastes) and even if it is accidental and surrounded by a lot of stereotypes, the idea itself is pretty interesting. So I guuuuuuuuuess it has that. But Jesus is this script a disaster. There aren't nearly enough slasher flicks out there, so our pickings are slim, but I would say don't even bother with this one. Watch The Cabin in the Woods and any of The Purge films again. They're all better than this one. Yes, even the first Purge film. This movie sucks.

My Number: 2/10

Manchester by the Sea (2016): An uncle is asked to take care of his teenage nephew after the boy's father dies.

Well, here we are. My last film review of 2016. Obviously I intentionally saved Manchester by the Sea for last, as I was hoping for it to be as good a film as something like Room was. Unfortunately, though, 2016's version of Room goes to Lion, as Manchester by the Sea failed to emotionally wreck me like either of those two films did. Don't get me wrong-it is an emotional film filled with dramatic moments and buoyed by an Oscar-worthy performance from Casey Affleck, (real-life issues aside) but this film really just.....didn't quite move me like others have this year, and I think I might have to call this one "overrated." It felt more like The Revenant than Room, unfortunately. Now, I'm not taking anything away from this film by saying that, nor am I taking anything away from The Revenant. It's good-I'm not denying that-I'm just saying that it's not.....that good.

So, as is typical around here, let's start with the good. And the good starts with Casey Affleck. The controversy of "does Casey Affleck deserve an Oscar"  will be saved for another post where it's appropriate, because here I like to try and look at just the film itself. And yes, within the film itself Casey Affleck is outstanding. He puts in a performance that can rival anything his older brother Ben has done over the years, (except maybe The Town)  and on its own merit is more than deserving of an Oscar nomination. To be honest, Affleck plays this role so well I thought he was just playing himself, but he's also asked to display a wide range of emotions throughout the film. Taken just on its own merits, this is probably the best performance from a male actor in 2016. That said, I really feel that the cast is Casey Affleck and Casey Affleck alone. The other Oscar nominee, Michelle Williams, is good, but nowhere near Oscar-worthy good. She has a total of four scenes in this film, two of which are just her in the background. She has one emotional scene with Casey Affleck, which was a great scene no doubt but not enough to merit an Oscar nomination. This spot should've gone to someone like Janelle Monae from Hidden Figures or even Rooney Mara from Lion. Anyone, really. Not 10 minutes of Michelle Williams. Kyle Chandler is pretty good in this, as well as Lucas Hedges, but nobody else had the same pomp and circumstance as Casey. Now, I've spent this much time on the acting because it's the centerpiece of this film-there really are no risks taken whatsoever in the technical department outside of a few clever cuts out of editor Jennifer Lame, but really outside of that there's not a whole lot going on with this film. Which is a shame because it's directed by Kenneth Lonergan, who does have some excellent films under his belt from a screenplay/director standpoint.

As for the screenplay....it's.....fine. Well, no. It's good. It's a good tale of someone being thrust into a position they do not want to be in and having to figure out how to deal with it, but it's also a tale I've seen before. However it does end in a pretty good way that was....unexpected. As a result I did like the ending simply because it was different. But never was there a moment where I found myself an emotional trainwreck. There were certainly moments where I was supposed to feel that way, but I just never rocked the ugly cry. I honestly cannot tell you why this was the case. Maybe it's because I never once felt like I could identify with the son, Patrick? That might have something to do with it-the guy is kind of a jerk who does not treat Casey Affleck with a lot of respect-this might have turned me off just a tad to the story. Maybe if Hedges had looked at Affleck the same way Jacob Tremblay looked at Brie Larson in Room.....I would've been more emotional. But that would've also been out of place with this film because there are totally different circumstances going on here. I just......I don't know. Obviously I'm trying to figure this out as I go along, but I think I'm onto it, so I'm gonna go with the answer to "why was I not emotional during this film" as "Affleck's nephew, played by Lucas Hedges, is portrayed as a jerk. Final answer."

Ok I spent way too much time trying to figure that out, and it may sound like I'm trying to take away something from what was an otherwise good film. I think I have stumbled on why I don't think this film will crack my top ten this year, but hey....maybe you find Patrick a lot more likable and identifiable than I did. Maybe you have a completely different opinion about this film and think it is one of the best of 2016. But that's not me. While I'm glad I saw it, and I can safely say Casey Affleck puts in one of the best performances of 2016, Manchester by the Sea definitely failed to leave that emotional impact I was looking for. However I still look forward to seeing what Kenneth Lonergan does next. Iiiiiiiiiiin 2025.

The Critique: Despite a great performance from its lead, Manchester by the Sea failed to leave any sort of emotional impact on me thanks to poorly written teenager character that is a centerpiece for the film.

The Recommendation: Look, if you can get past what I disliked in Patrick, you will likely enjoy this film. It's also worth watching if you like the ol' comeback story for Hollywood. Even if that comeback is coming back from sexual assault allegations.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

​The Verdict: 7/10 Good.

Well, there you have it! The last review of 2016. Thanks for joining me on this adventure. Now onto lists, lists, and more lists!



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODUwNGU1ZjYtNGIyYy00MjJiLTg1YWEtNzU1YzIyNTQ4YjkwL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017): An ex-hitman comes out of retirement to track down the gangsters that took everything from him.

Before we go any further, and if you're a fan of action movies.....stop reading. Drop everything and go see this. If you are a fan of the action genre and somehow missed the first John Wick, change that. Right now. Because John Wick is easily one of the best action flicks of this decade, and this second film somehow lives up to its predecessor. Yes. Once more, like with the original, I freaking love this movie. It is wonderfully shot, choreographed, and executed. There really isn't anything out there filmed quite like John Wick, and when I come out of these movies I'm really baffled that there aren't any imitators yet. There are problems with this film, yes, but man. If you want amazing action sequences.....look no further than this.

So what makes John Wick's action so great? I think it's really the choreography of it all. The sequences are meticulously staged, right down to ensuring that an empty clip of Wick's gets thrown in the perfect spot and hits the wall at just the right time. The choreography in this film follows closely with it's predecessor, and given the fact that this is easily the best part of this franchise (and what makes John Wick, well, John Wick) I am amazed that the copycats haven't sprung up just yet. Looks like that might change with 2017's Ghost in the Shell, but we'll have to wait and see. Additionally, what makes the action sequences so great here is the camera placement. Stuntman-turned director Chad Stahelski is very conscious of where the camera is placed at any moment in these action sequences, and thanks to its wide lens the viewer is able to see everything going on. No shaky cam! No uncomfortable close ups! Just as many wide-shots as possible. And when the action does move into a more claustrophobic area towards the end of the film, the camera still gives us enough of a wide-shot to not get too disoriented.

While the action sequences are still the calling card for John Wick, this film also investigated the alternate universe that its creating. More so than the first one. Unfortunately this is where a few small missteps occur, as we see some of these big sequences take place in highly populated areas of the world and yet no one around these assassins ever blinks an eye. Like if someone fired a gun in a subway the people wouldn't go nuts. Because they, you know, don't want to get caught in the crossfire. But beyond that I loved the world-building that takes place in this film. It has just enough rules to be interesting while being grounded enough to be believable. Finally, I have to talk about this legendary cast. The marketing team focused on the reunion of Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne, but I was more intrigued by the cameos from acting legends, including Mario Donatone, Peter Stormare, and Franco Nero. It felt like every scene I was going, "Hey! I know that guy!" which is always fun. At the end of the day it felt like people wanted to be in this, and hopefully that continues with the inevitable next installment. While it's not quite as good as the original, if nothing else John Wick: Chapter 2 solidifies this franchise's place at the top of the action movie genre. Now if you're still here and even remotely like action movies.....go see this.

The Critique: While not quite as good as its predecessor, John Wick: Chapter 2 solidifies this franchise's place at the top of the action genre thanks to its breathtaking fight sequences.

The Recommendation: An ABSOLUTE must-watch for any action fan or fan of Keanu Reeves.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 8/10 Great (though not quite as strong an 8 as I gave its predecessor)


Image Credit
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzA0NjIyODY4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTUyOTIyMTI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

​Miss Sloan (2016): In the high-stakes world of political power-brokers, Elizabeth Sloane is the most sought after and formidable lobbyist in D.C. But when taking on the most powerful opponent of her career, she finds winning may come at too high a price.

So I wasn't initially going to write a full-length review of this film, but after it was over I felt....compelled...to do so. Look. I can't deny I love a raunchy political drama. Remember I'm the guy that searched out and watched Zipper back in 2015. Remember that one? Ya I'm sure no one remembers that one but me. I also love shows like The Newsroom, so it was also kind of weird to see Alison Pill and Sam Waterston playing somewhat similar characters. So I was excited to watch this! And initially after I completed it, I was smiling. Initially, I enjoyed it! That is definitely going to buoy my score, because as I started to really think about it.....I realized just how shallow this film is. This film is the political drama equivalent of a mindless popcorn flick, only it's trying to be more. Anyone who follows my blog knows I have NO problem with a superficial film that knows what it is. But, unfortunately, this film does not know it. And after I got over looking at this film and adoring Jessica Chastain, I started realizing this.

So, let's talk about what this film nails. For one, it is sexy as hell! The customers are fantastic, the colors are great, and everyone looks awesome. I don't think I've seen a film where Michael Stuhlbarg looks this good! And of course Jessica Chastain's hair and makeup is perfect in every scene, because of course it is. MAN do I love her. She is acting the crap out of this film and putting in one of the most overlooked performances of 2016. It's not perfect as there were a few points I found myself squirming, most notably when she had to convey anger, but it was certainly better than her performance in last year's Crimson Peak. But over all she does everything she can to hold this film up with her own two hands, and she looked damn good doing it. If only her character had any sort of depth.....

So let's start there, ya? Let's start with the main character, Miss Sloan. She is this extraordinary human being, who is always the smartest person in the room but looks at the world in a very different way. But, do we ever get an investigation of why she acts the way she does? Maybe some scenes where she describes her childhood to a coworker? Or flashbacks? Or really any sort of explanation of why she is the way she is? Nope! What's worse, we get the ol' "I don't have time to tell you" kind of excuse from the film when it flirts with her backstory, as if the screenwriters knew we'd be curious about it but said, "Nope! Don't wanna give you one because we want you to be sad." Additionally, and probably even more notably, was how superficial the rest of this film is. This film does the thing that you see in a lot of action films, like Jason Bourne, where the writers need to advance the plot to point B but feel the need to show you how they got to point B, which constitutes as the main characters standing in a dark room in the CIA going "Quick! We need to find out where the bad guy is!" *Violently bangs on keyboard* "There he is!" to get us there. Too many times in this film it looked like Jessica Chastain was just like "Quick! We need to find a weak point on this guy!" *Violently bangs keyboard* "That's it!" which I didn't initially notice as it was happening but realized soon afterwards. Finally, the ending? Meeeeeeh I don't know guys. Director John Madden and debut screenwriter Jonathan Perera (congrats to him-might not be the greatest script but still a heck of a way to start) both had pretty clear agendas in ensuring Chastain's character is portrayed in a specific way, but the more I thought about it the more I didn't buy it. I'd call this ending a swing and a miss.

In conclusion, while I can't deny this is a sleek and sexy film to watch, and it's covering a topic that is very engaging to watch be portrayed right now, (lobbying against the gun industry) but unfortunately it tackles this topic in a very shallow and superficial way. If it only realized this and adjusted accordingly, or turned this script into the beginnings of a TV show, maybe it would've stood a chance. But as is it's just another wannabe "serious" political drama trying to make a statement.

The Critique: Despite its sleek and sexy look and a great performance from Jesicca Chastain, Miss Sloan fails to make a lasting impression because of a shallow and superficial script.

The Recommendation: If you like Jessica Chastain or political dramas, you'll have fun. Everyone else? There are better films to watch out there right now than this.

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY4MDYwNjAyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTI4Mzc5OTE@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg