CarFan1999

The execution is great here. We learn about these people, their personalities, and throughout the movie, see them evolve. The action scenes are done really well. There are many battle scenes and the camerawork puts you right into the action. It's exciting and makes you really respect these soldiers. They rode on horseback against tanks and other high-end weapons, not to mention that they were often outnumbered. My only issues with this movie is that the pacing is a little uneven in areas, dialogue was hard to hear at times due to somewhat subpar sound mixing, and in general this movie doesn't stand out much from other war movies. Mind you though, these are only minor issues. 12 Strong is a mostly good war movie with good acting, fantastic action, and a story that makes you really respect these men.

Neeson does a good job here. Despite being 65, he can still kick butt and does a role similar to what he did in other movies like Taken and Non-Stop. The thrills here are good too as there are a couple white-knuckle moments and some suspense. However, the writing is a bit sloppy. It's hard to understand what's going on at times, the story itself becomes implausible and over-the-top, and overall, there's not much that sets this apart from other mystery-thrillers. The Commuter is a decent movie. The story is a bit ridiculous and the writing weak, but nethertheless a fun thriller with a good performance from Liam Neeson.

It's an interesting sci-fi film that has a lot of beautiful and sometimes horrifying imagery. More of a slower moving, high-concept sci-fi rather than a strait-up thriller. It's worth seeing.

All the Money in the World is directed by Ridley Scott and stars Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, and Christopher Plummer. The movie is about the 1973 kidnapping of J. Paul Getty III, grandson of Paul Getty, one of the richest men in the world. When his grandson is captured, Getty refuses to pay the ransom money, partly because he feels his other grandsons would get captured if he paid up, but also because Getty was in love with money. Despite having so much money, he hated to spend it and felt insecure. When he bought paintings, he thought of it as an investment and he even had a payphone for guests to use in his England residence. Anyway, Getty has his adviser, ex-CIA agent Fletcher Chase, played by Wahlberg, assist the kidnapped boy's mother in finding him and rescuing him from the kidnappers. The best part about this movie is Christopher Plummer. Plummer, who's 88 years old now and made his big debut in 1965's The Sound of Music, is wonderful playing Getty. He acts both cold and witty in his portrayal of Getty. It's more amazing because Kevin Spacey originally played Getty. When the horrific allegations against Spacey came out, director Ridley Scott cut Spacey out of the movie entirely and replaced him with Plummer. In the space of 2 weeks, Plummer was able to do all his shots and the movie was finished in time for it's Christmas release. As for the other actors, Willaims does a good job playing Paul's mother while Wahlberg did an only decent job in his role. Ridley Scott, who's directed movies for 40 years now does a decently good job here. The cinematography and music is well done, while the execution of the story (which does make some changes from the real-life story) is only done in an ok manner. As a character drama, the story works. We see Getty's state of mind and Paul's mother pleading for the elder Getty to pay the ransom. However, this movie also tries to be a thriller, and it's there that it does not work. Despite Scott's efforts, there's simply not enough tension to make this story thrilling. The somewhat slow pacing also hurts this. But in the end, All the Money in the World is movie with some great acting and story that works in some areas and does not as much in other areas.

Darkest Hour is directed by Joe Wright and stars Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, and others. This movie isn't necessary a biopic about Winston Churchill's entire life. Instead, the movie focuses on Churchill as he first comes into power up to the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, he deals with the doubts many people have about him, and it shows the process of how he made many of his great speeches. In addition, it shows the debates he has with other members of parliament over ****, whether Britain should fight on or sign a peace agreement. In many ways, this is a political drama in addition to a biography. In a sense, this movie is a companion piece to Dunkirk, as this movie mainly shows the conflict from Churchill's point of view while that movie showed the conflict from the soldiers point of view. The best part of this movie is Gary Oldman. He does a terrific job playing Churchill. He shows both charm and charisma. Unfortunately, the story is a let down. It's a very interesting story, but it would've worked better as a tv mini-series or normal documentary. As a film, the story feels as if parts and details were cut out or shortened and it makes the overall film feel rather dull and a little disjointed in areas. In the end, Darkest Hour benefits from a terrific performance from Oldman, but apart from him, there's not much else to see unfortunately.

The Greatest Showman is directed by Michael Gracey and stars Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Michelle Williams, and Rebecca Ferguson. Jackman plays P.T. Barnum and the story is about how he started what's now called Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. It's ironic that this movie was in production for 8 years and happened to be released the same year the actual circus shut down after 146 years. What's important to know is that this is not a biopic of P.T. Barnum. The movie's story is very loosely based off of his life, thus there are many changes from the real-life story. For example, Barnum created his circus when he was 60, but Jackman is only 49 and he wears no makeup that makes him look older. The movie's story is very simple. It shows how Barnum goes from having nothing to opening a successful circus with unique people such as the bearded lady, a very tall man, very fat man, a little person, and so on. Then it shows how he got greedy, lost almost everything he built because of it, and how he corrects everything in the end. It's a simple story that's ok. There's no depth with any of the characters, but they are pleasant enough. The action is ok. Jackman overacts a bit, but you can tell that he's having a lot of fun. Surprisingly, ex-Disney channel star Zac Efron acted the best here, playing Barnum's partner. This is a musical and the songs are overall disappointing in my view. Instead of music that would have been typical of the 1800's, all the songs here are modern pop songs. They are pleasant to listen to, but generic and forgettable. Only one song, "This Is Me", stood out. The musical choreography and stunts are done quite well however. In the end, The Greatest Showman is an ok movie musical that has a feel-good vibe to it. However, it is bland and generic in almost every way. If you like musicals or feel-good movies, you will probably like this. I was in the minority at the screening. I could hear people crying during parts and almost everyone clapped when the end credits started to roll. But as for me, a guy who's not really a musical fan, this was a pleasant enough, but forgettable movie.

The Shape of Water is written and directed by Guillermo del Toro. It stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Rickard Jenkins, and Octavia Spencer. The story focuses on Elisa, played by Hawkins. She's a mute woman who works as a janitor at a government research facility in 1962 Baltimore. While working, she notices scientists bring in a creature that looks like a combination of a fish and human. They experiment on the creature, thinking that it might help the US in the space race. When no one is around, Elisa goes to where the creature is held out of curiosity. She then starts communicating with the creature and forms a romantic bond with it. Eventually, she decides to break the creature out of the facility after she learns it's going to be killed. It's a very unique story, so I won't reveal more. This original story is a little bit like Splash or Beauty and the Beast, but is easily the most unique movie I've seen this year. It is a rather strange story. What you think will happen doesn't happen and what you think will never happen does happen. It makes for a simple but odd story that may turn a few people off. As for me, it felt odd at first, but by the middle, it won me over. Once I decided to just go with the flow, I enjoyed this movie. At its heart, this is a simple, sweet romance story with bits of drama, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, thriller, and even a little social commentary thrown in. The cinematography is great as this movie looks beautiful. The music score from Alexandre Desplat is very lovely to listen to, and the acting performances across the board are good, though not great. The characters are investing as they're an outcast in some way. Eliza for example can't talk and she feels the creature is the only one who can understand her. Even the villain here has a feeling of being incomplete. In the end, this is a strange movie, but ultimately very charming and original, especially in this time of sequels and reboots.

Murder On The Orient Express is directed by Kenneth Branagh and stars Kenneth Branagh as world-famous detective Hercule Poirot. As this story is based on a famous book, some of you might know the story already. For those who don't, the story revolves around Poirot as he travels on The Orient Express, a luxurious European passenger train in 1934. After a murder occurs onboard the train, it's up to him to solve the crime and find out who did it. The other passengers are played by Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Daisy Ridley, among others. As someone who never read the book, I went into this knowing nothing. The story is great, for which I give more credit to original author Agatha Christie than screenwriter Michael Green. Branagh, the star and director does a great job in both areas. His character is rather witty, but also serious. The pacing of this is near-perfect and the mystery aspect both is well done and surprisingly emotional. It also has an old-school feel to it. The story doesn't feel modernized at all and the sets, as well as the costumes are beautiful to look at. The cinematography was well- done as well and was actually shot on film, not digitally. It all adds up to very good, old-fashioned Hollywood movie. However, I would've liked if the film focused a little bit more on the other characters and not Poirot. The tone is also uneven. The 1st act is almost a witty comedy, but it abruptly changes to a serious drama after the murder. In addition, while the sets are great, the backgrounds are mostly computer-generated and they simply look very fake. But on the whole, this is an enjoyable mystery with good directing, good performances, and beautiful set pieces. It also has a nice, old-fashioned feel. If you miss the way Hollywood made movies back then, then you'll appreciate this.

Only the Brave is directed by Joseph Kosinski and stars Josh Brolin, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, and Jeff Bridges, among others. The premise centers around the Granite Mountain Hotshots, an elite firefighting crew in which 19 out of 20 of them died in 2013 fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. Based on true events, the story does not necessary focus on the tragedy itself, instead focusing on the history of the hotshots. It focuses specifically on Eric Marsh, the leader of the crew, played by John Brolin. We see him as he tries to get his crew upgraded from a normal fire fighting crew to hotshots. It also focus on Brendan McDonough, a new recruit on the hotshots. After dealing with drug addiction, getting arrested for stealing, and learning that he's going to be a father, he decides to clean up his life by joining the crew. In addition, the movie show the hotshots fighting various fires, we see the deep brotherhood the men have for each other, the stress the job places between the men and their wives, and just how terrifying fires can be. Thanks to special effects, there are many scenes where the camera is up close to a fire and it creates a thrilling experience. The movie illustrates how dangerous their job is and yet shows how they love doing it. You can't help but smile seeing these men saving towns, enjoying what they do, and seeing the close bonds between them. It also shows the local culture very well. What makes the movie unique is its format. The movie is like a combination of a western, a drama, and a thriller. It's overall unique approach to its storytelling helps out the film. However in the last 15 minutes, that's when the tragedy occurs, and when that happens, it's like a giant punch to the gut. The movie ends on a sombering, somewhat bittersweet note. The acting from Josh Brolin was fantastic and Miles Teller also put in a good performance. What holds back the movie is the somewhat uneven directing. Some scenes were too short (like a some of the action scenes) while others went on for too long. But overall, Only The Brave is a good movie and is a respectful tribute to the men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots.

Jackie Chan is excellent in this movie. He pulls off a very dramatic performance and despite being older now, he can still do impressive action stunts. This isn’t really an action movie, but all the fight scenes are exciting and well-done. Brosnan also does a good job here playing an emotionally conflicted character. The directing is solid, and while some technical aspects (like the sound) could’ve been better, it’s fine enough. Overall, The Foreigner is a very solid movie. It’s more of a political thriller than a straight-up action movie, but it still does a good job with an intriguing story and well-done action scenes. In addition, both actors do a great job in their respective roles. It’s also nice to see that Chan can still do the things that made famous in the first place. The Foreigner is nothing spectacular and the story can get too convoluted in areas, but in the end, it’s a solid thriller.

This movie is based off a 2010 television series of the same name, which itself is based off the 30+ year old Hasbro toy line. As far as the premise is concerned, it’s the common story where everything is fine in this magical land until the big villain comes to take over. Then it’s up to our main characters to go on a journey to get help in order to defeat the villain and save the day. The biggest surprise with this movie is that it isn’t like what the title implies. This isn’t necessarily a movie that only for little kids. In many respects, My Little Pony is just like a classical Disney movie. You have a big adventurous story and multiple songs. I was actually entertained by this movie and it was surprisingly a lot more emotional and violent than I thought. It’s also not as frantic and loud ad many other kids movies. Adults can find enjoyment in this. As for the target audience, there’s enough jokes and action to keep them happy and the message about the importance of friendship is well delivered. However, My Little Pony: The Movie has too many characters, although I somewhat forgive it since it’s based off of a television series. The premise is fine but not the most original or memorable, and some of the songs are bland. Still, the story itself is strong and it's overall entertaining enough for both kids and adults. It's no Disney or Pixar movie, but still decently fun.

The best part about this movie is the visuals. Every single set piece is amazing to look at, every shot from the cinematographer is perfect, and the computer effects are so good that everything in this looks real. It’s easily the most visually stunning movie I have seen this year. The acting from Gosling and Ford is also well-done. The story is fine and a little basic, although some of the deeper philosophical questions it poses (like most sci-fi flicks) doesn’t add up to much. The only real problem with 2049 is the pacing. While better than the original Blade Runner, it is still really slow. This movie is unnecessarily long, almost 3 hours to be exact. You could cut over 30 minutes of footage in places and it wouldn’t make a difference. In addition, the advertising is also misleading. You would think that this is an action-thriller, but instead it’s a slow moving detective story with some moments of action. In the end, Blade Runner 2049 has fantastic, stunning visuals and good acting performances. However, the slow pacing and overlong runtime hurt the overall experience. Please note that you have to watch the original in order to understand this.

The advertising would suggest that this is a survival thriller. Two strangers having to work together in order to survive after a plane crash and they face epic challenges along the way. At least the trailer would make you think that was what the movie was about. Instead, the movie is actually a badly directed romance disguised as a survival thriller. Both of the main characters fall in love during the journey and it’s all just awkward. The dialogue is pretty bad, there’s odd pauses when Elba and Winslet talk, the pacing is really slow, and the last 20 minutes are completely unnecessary. Not to mention that the story becomes really predictable. It’s all a shame because Idris Elba and Kate Winslet are talented actors. They try their best, but it can’t save this movie. Some action sequences (like the plane crash) and camerawork are well-done, but the predictable story and terrible directing bring it all down. Essentially, this is a big budget Hallmark Channel movie disguised as a survival thriller. If you like those kind of movies, you’ll enjoy this. But as for me, this was a bad movie.

Coupled to the amazing story is an award-winning performance from Jake Gyllenhaal. He powerfully conveys Bauman’s emotions throughout the movie and simply does a fantastic job. His performance feels natural to the point where you see Bauman himself and not an actor playing him. It is helped out by a story that also feels natural and not dramatized by Hollywood. Most of the supporting cast, especially from Tatiana Maslany (who plays Jeff’s girlfriend), also give emotionally rich performances. Stronger isn’t an easy watch. I personally teared up 4 times. There are also some lulls in the story, not to mention lots of strong language. However, with a story that feels natural and an absolutely outstanding performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, Stronger is a powerfully moving film.

American Assassin is an entertaining movie with well-done action and good pacing, as well as a committed performance from Dylan O’Brien. However, it is also generic with nothing to make this stand out from countless other action-thriller movies.

The plot is really simple. Halle Berry plays a single mother who’s going through a bad divorce. She takes her son to a park and the second she leaves him to take a phone call, he gets kidnapped. From there, the movie consists of car chases and fight scenes until the inevitable conclusion. It’s a simple premise and the best part about the movie is Halle Berry. She is what holds this movie together. Her character is one who is strong, protective, and will do anything to get her son back, though it can be said that some of the things she does in order to get her son back are reckless and dangerous. She isn’t great here, but does a good enough performance. The rest of the actors did an ok job. However, apart from Berry, the rest of the movie is a mess. The story had potential, but the execution of it is rather poor and predictable. This movie takes itself seriously, but some of the stuff that happens is way over-the-top and unrealistic. Berry also occasionally overacts, so at times, you’ll enjoy watching this for the wrong reasons. It’s more like a standard action movie than a dramatic thriller. Some scenes were well-done while others were more silly. The action scenes were decent for the most part, but the car chases were done in a mediocre way. After awhile, it becomes somewhat boring. The editing is the worst part of the movie. During key action scenes, the camera cuts between multiple shots, making the movie feel quite choppy. The visual effects and camerawork were just ok. Overall, Kidnap is a decent movie. It’s more of an action film than a drama. Hally Berry does a mostly good performance and some of the action scenes were exciting. However, what hurts this movie is somewhat poor directing, terrible editing, and a story that’s just average. I give it a 50%. It’s not worth watching in theaters, but because the run time is very short (under 90 minutes) and it was entertaining (in both good and bad ways), it’s worth watching on-demand if you have nothing else to do.

In short, Dunkirk is a near-masterpiece. It’s a thriller that puts you on the edge of your seat throughout the runtime and only lets up for small amounts of time. What makes this movie unique is that it doesn’t focus on the characters, but the event itself. In most war movies, we focus on a single character as they go through an event. In this case, the movie focuses on the event itself. It does focus particularly on a soldier played by One Direction’s Harry Styles, a father played by Mark Rylance, and a pilot played by Tom Hardy. However, there’s no backstory on any of these characters. Instead, we only see them as they go through this event. We see from their perspective, the events of Dunkirk. The movie has 3 different plotlines. One focuses on the soldiers stuck on the beach. The second focuses on a dad and his two kids who answer the call and head to Dunkirk to aid in the rescue, despite the danger involved in doing that. The third focuses on airforce pilots and their efforts to take down **** warplanes. Nolan switches between the 3 plots throughout the movie and they all join together by the end. This movie is a little under 2 hours long and it gets into the action almost immediately after it starts. There isn’t much backstory provided, so it’s important to research the background of Dunkirk before you go and watch this. Dunkirk is more of an experience than a movie. The camerawork makes us feel that we’re there right alongside these people. It makes us feel that we’re in the war, instead of watching the war. The sound work influences this as well. When bullets are fired, they are as loud as real bullets. When planes approach the soldiers on the beach, their roar will almost make your ears ring. When a ships sinks, the camera is at water level showing struggling soldiers trying to escape. The camera shows the airplane dogfight scenes in detail. Since minimal computer effects are used, it makes it all the more real. In fact, some of the small boats that were used in the movie were the actual boats that aided in the rescue in 1940. It all feels as if a cameraman were there with the troops in 1940, filming what was happening in real time. It makes the movie very realistic and horrifying. You’ll feel exhausted (in a good way) by the end. Dunkirk’s also almost a silent movie as the characters say few lines. The action and soundtrack propel it forward. While it could have provided more backstory on the event and the characters, Dunkirk is a fantastic movie. It’s not as memorable as other movies, but the experience you feel while watching it is unlike any other film. I’d give this a 90%. It’s the type of movie that’s made for the big screen and you’re doing yourself a disservice by not seeing it in a theater. Dunkirk is a unique experience that’s worth seeing. It is a fitting tribute to the troops who served there.

The best thing about Cars 3 is that it is a massive improvement over Cars 2. In fact, there’s no connection between Cars 3 and Cars 2, this one only flashes back to the first Cars. It’s as if Cars 2 didn’t exist. You could watch Cars, skip Cars 2, watch Cars 3, and you wouldn’t miss a thing. As usual, the animation is beautiful and it shows how much technology has advanced between 2006 (when the first one came out) and now. While the first movie took place in a mostly western environment, this one takes place in a mostly southern environment. The characters are also fantastic. McQueen goes from the immature young racer in the first film to where he’s now older and is getting beat by younger racers. It’s hard for him to accept that he’s no longer the youngest kid on the block and may no longer be able to compete. It goes to the theme of where a person who’s older and has a lot of experience in a certain field is threatened to be overtaken by someone who’s younger and is better with technology. Perhaps a few of you here can relate to that. Going back to the characters, another standout is Cruz Ramirez, a young car who basically becomes Lightning’s trainer. I won’t go into more detail, but she’s great. Doc Hudson, Lightning’s mentor is also fine. I won’t say what role the character has, but the unique thing his that he’s voiced by Paul Newman, like in the first film. The thing is that Newman died in 2008, so Pixar decided to use archival recordings of his voice, instead of finding a different actor to fill the role. All of the other original characters (including Tow Mater) make an appearance, but their role in the movie is very minor. As far as the story goes, it’s fine, and there are several exciting race scenes and more dramatic scenes. It’s not as complex as other Pixar movies, but it works. However, Cars 3 lacks the emotional gut punch of other Pixar movies, the 2nd act is rather disorganized, and the ending is overly convenient. It’s nowhere near Pixar’s best and I’d argue Cars 3 isn’t as good as the original Cars. But it’s worlds better than Cars 2 and overall I’d give this a 70%. Overall, Cars 3 isn’t great, but it’s definitely worth watching. If you haven’t seen any of the Cars films, I’d recommend seeing Cars 1 and then Cars 3. Both are filled with fun and have heart.

The biggest issue is the editing. The director, in an attempt to make this movie appeal to younger audiences, has the movie edited like a music video. This means that the dialogue is said really quickly and the camera rapidly cuts back and forth between shots. The pacing is also really choppy. Core parts of the story that should be 20 minutes long are only 5 minutes long, thus parts of the story are really rushed. Likewise, other parts of the story could’ve been shortened. Another issue with the movie is that there are many fantasy elements in the story, like creatures and people with wizardly powers. For example, Arthur’s aided by a sorceress while on his journey to claim the throne. These elements are either never explained or explained in a split second. This goes back to the super fast dialogue. You see stuff like giant snakes and elephants and you just have to go with the flow. When watching, it’s better not to question certain things that happen on-screen. To be fair, there are many good aspects of King Arthur. The basic plot is easy to understand and there are no subplots or love interests to speak of. The massive budget is put to good use as all the special and visual effects are fantastic. Things like the lighting and setting were well done and all the battles were spectacular. The majority of the film is very entertaining and the actors do fine work. There’s just enough character development, so you feel what these characters are going through. In the end, the trailers describes this movie in a nutshell. It’s weirdly paced, the dialogue is super fast, and certain areas of the story are rushed. However, it’s nonetheless very entertaining and epic in terms of the visuals. I rate this a 50%. I would not recommend seeing this, but if it’s a rainy day and you have nothing else to do, watching this wouldn’t be a bad idea. As long as you go with the flow and not question some of the fantasy moments, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, is simple fun.

The best aspect of the movie is the set design and visual effects. The budget of this was $160 million and it shows. Every set piece is simply gorgeous and full of detail. The cinematography is great. Although this is live-action, there are a lot of animated characters and they all fit seamlessly into the picture. The songs were also fantastic. Most were from the original film, but those and the few new songs were all done well. Having seen the 1991 film, the story of the new one is almost identical to the original. The only difference being that there are a few new scenes added. Then again, the original story was near-perfect, so not changing it is just fine. As far as acting goes, all the performers do a fine job, especially Luke Evens as Gaston. The only one who didn’t do well was the lead actress, Emma Watson. She does an ok job in the role as Belle, but she seemed to lack energy and her vocal performance was only so-so. On a side note, the soundtrack by Alan Menken is amazingly good. This isn’t a surprise, as he also scored the original film. Overall, I would give Beauty and the Beast (2017) a 70%. While it’s nowhere near as good as the original, it’s nonetheless a beautiful film. The story’s predictable (it’s nearly identical to the original) and Emma Watson’s performance could’ve been better. On the other hand, every shot is full of beauty and the songs are memorable. There are parts that’ll have you tear up and others that will make you joyful. I would recommend seeing this, regardless if you’ve seen the original or not.

Long story short, Moana was nowhere near as good as Zootopia was, but still nice. The songs were great, the animation was some of the finest computer animation that I had ever seen, and the characters were enjoyable. However, what held it back was the story. The story was very predictable, simplistic, and the side characters weren't interesting.

The best part of Snowden was the lead actor. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a great job playing Snowden, the camera work was excellent, and the story was simplified to where a general audience could understand it. However, instead of simply telling a straightforward story about the guy, the director infuses his own personal left-wing politics at points and thus, the film becomes a bit cringe-worthy at those points. For example, while Oliver Stone tries to remain neutral and let the audience form their own opinion of Snowden's actions, it's quite clear from the way the story is told that he supports him. In addition, the film doesn't have as much drama as it should have. It's a bit dry emotionally. However, Levitt's fantastic performance and beautiful camera work saves it and makes Snowden an overall decent film.

Storks is... ok. I liked the mostly original concept and the fact that the story was nicely offbeat, making a lot of unexpected twists and turns which meant that the story wasn't as predictable as some other animated films. Storks is cute and the third act was nicely emotional. However, I didn't like the improv-style comedy, the pacing was punishingly fast, the characters weren't interesting, and the animation was mediocre. This is especially considering that the studio that did the animation (SPI) also did the animation for The Angry Birds Movie. Overall, it's a safe film that kids will definitely like. Adults... not so much.

As a disaster movie, it was great with tons of explosions, great camera work, a good performance by Mark Wahlberg, and realistic action. It's also quite depressing how 11 people died on the oil rig and how BP basically got away with this. Where the film suffers is that the characters aren't that interesting, there's technological talk that the average person wouldn't understand, and there are times where it's hard to understand what's going on. Overall, it's a good tribute to those who died, a good account of what happened that night, and what caused the oil rig explosion to happen. But when it tries to expand beyond a typical disaster film, it falters a bit.

Finding Dory has many good things going for it. The animation is nicely improved over the original and the new characters are simply lovable. Dory is able to be the new protagonist and the backstory she's given is inspiring and heartwarming. The film's message about disability and how to deal with it is great. This shows very cleverly that someone who suffers from something can overcome it and live a normal life, just with a little extra help. Dory's memory problem; which was comic relief in the first movie; is now treated as a major problem that her and the other characters have to deal with. Most, especially Dory's parents, treat Dory the right way. They never gave up on her and found clever ways to make Dory remember certain things. Both Dory and her parents should be commended for the way they deal with their problems. The saying, "just keep swimming" is a simple, but very effective message. The fact that disability is even mentioned, let alone fully explored, is great in itself and demonstrates why Pixar is one of the best animation studios in the world. They're able to make beautiful films that have great characters and that tackle thought provoking issues; while still being funny and emotional. Dory is no different. The old characters make nice cameo appearances and the new ones; especially Hank the octopus; could have their own spinoff movie. Many scenes are simply hilarious, especially one towards the end that had me laughing for over a minute. This definitely is more goofy over Finding Nemo, but like classic Pixar, there still many scenes that will make you tear up. There are also many scenes that were quite tense and suspenseful. The end credits song by Sia is also wonderful and sums up the feeling of this movie quite well. However, there are two major problems with Finding Dory that really set it back. First, the plotting of Dory was very clunky. There were some points that I felt that the movie was going to end and the way the plot progresses is somewhat contrived. At times, characters literally say nothing but the emotion is a bit forced, not earned. In addition, no matter how many things this movie got right, I always felt the sense throughout the runtime that this was made only to make a profit for Disney. It feels like there was no need for this to even be made in the first place, like Monsters University. Overall, Finding Dory is clunky, contrived, and really only made to make money. Nonetheless, this "cash grab" is beautiful, emotional, and thought provoking with fine new characters and a unique story. Dory is no where near Pixar's best, but ranks similar to Monsters University and The Good Dinosaur. Although somewhat unnecessary, it's very good nonetheless.

The Secret Life of Pets is insane, but in a fun way. First, I'll say the problems I had with this movie. For one, it's too noisy in places. There is a lot of screaming from the characters and the action is non- stop. There is never a quiet moment, just constant noise. The pacing is also too fast, which doesn't allow for full character development. In addition, it makes the emotional moments not as emotional or deep as they could have been. But that's about it, now to the fun stuff. What makes up for the lack of character development is the vocal performances. The celebrity voice actors all do a great job of giving life to the characters. Louis C.K., Jenny Slate, and Bobby Moynihan all do a fine job. And despite yelling a bit too much, Kevin Hart also does a good job. As far as the story goes; yes; it's like Toy Story in the beginning and ending. Also that the whole premise of "what your pets do when you're not around" is also like Toy Story. But this is thrown out the window after just the first two minutes, devolving ultimately into a series of chases for 90 minutes. Frankly, that's fine. The biggest pleasure I had watching this was the amount of sheer craziness that happens. Not only is it fun, but it goes far beyond anything Disney or Pixar would ever do. Some themes (like death) are presented in an even more blunt manner then Disney or Pixar. The jokes and Looney Tunes- esque comedy work, thanks to good writing and timing. Pets isn't necessarily a funny film, but it is fun and will put you in a good mood. What makes something like this work for Pets, but not for something like Angry Birds, is the characters. Thanks to the voice work, most of the characters here are lovable and memorable. Max and Duke are fine main characters, Snowball and Gidget are fine secondary characters, and even the large supporting cast is fine. Thanks to the large cast, it allows the film's subplots to all work and support the standard main plot. While the main plot is basically Toy Story or Garfield, it's where the emotion comes from. Snowball's subplot about revolution is interesting and original. The other subplot about the others rescuing Max and Duke is where the comedy comes from. All together, it works out. Not to mention the awesome jazzy soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat. Making all the physical comedy work is thanks to the animation. While a bit basic, I love the unique stylization this goes for. All the pets have big bodies, but very skinny legs. New York City looks the way a tourist would see it, clean and gleaming. The fast movements, the variety of pets, the cuteness of the pets, and the many different settings keep the animation interesting. Overall, The Secret Life of Pets was surprisingly a great movie. It doesn't pander to the audience with over cuteness, pop culture gags, or bathroom based jokes. Instead, thanks to wonderful writing, slapstick like Looney Tunes, subplots that nicely support the main plot, and lovable characters, makes Pets is a very good movie. As a pet owner myself; specifically a cat owner; I can say that the stereotypes depicted here about all the various pets are hilariously accurate. Pets is a bit too loud and fast at times, but simply is a fun and heartwarming experience.

Eye In The Sky has terrific acting, especially from Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman. The story over whether or whether not to launch a drone attack is original and has great suspense. This film questions the morality of using drones from a neutral standpoint, pointing out all the pros and cons of this technology. It doesn't take a side, thus allowing the viewer to make his or her own conclusions. This also shows how hard the process is to launch a drone strike with all the political and military involvement. The story itself is also great. The suspense is gripping and the emotion is quite moving. The pacing is also perfect and there is some lighthearted comedy thrown in to keep this from being depressing. The only main issue I had with Eye In The Sky is that some of the background characters were overly goofy and stereotypical. In addition, the conflict over using a drone is too dumbed down to simply a yes or no answer. There is a lot of nuance and complicated things that go on when deciding military issues, not simple yes or no answers. Overall, while Eye In The Sky dumbs down the subject matter a bit too much. However, its wonderful acting, gripping suspense, and great emotion make Eye In The Sky great overall.

Sausage Party is a decently good, fun movie. The appeal for this is that it's an R- rated animated film with the feel and story of a Pixar film. As you know, even though animation is an art form, you'd think this is a kid's genre. Pretty much every animated film released is a PG- kid friendly film. There are adult animated films, like the recent Anomalisa or Japanese Anime, but they never get wide releases. Now this is not to say that all these kid- friendly animations are bad. Recent films such as Finding Dory, Zootopia, and The Secret Life of Pets all show that you can tell a fine story that appeals to anyone of any age, despite that PG rating. Even G- rated Pixar/ Disney films can tell great stories for all ages. Nonetheless, having a R- rated wide release is quite rare. The story of Sausage Party basically uses the Pixar formula, complete with social commentary. Think Toy Story, but with food. There are allegories and stereotypes for every single race of people from the Israeli- Palestinian conflict to illegal "Mexican" food. These themes are shown in a very not- so- subtle way, unlike Pixar. There's even a joke in here that takes a direct jab at Pixar. The main theme here is whether to believe in God or not. Rather surprisingly, this topic is presented in a nuanced manner that shows the pros and cons of believing in a religion. This intelligence makes the story very smart and improves the overall film. Not to mention a good song at the start from the guy that did the music for Beauty & The Beast Now if you think that this seems unusual for a Seth Rogen movie, than that's where the R- rating comes in. There is constant cursing, violence, drugs, and many sex scenes. There is the shock value of seeing all this raunch, but after a while it gets old and there's too much of it. The animation is decent considering the low budget, but the designs are rather lackluster. The characters are fun to watch, but they don't convey any emotion. There are a few laugh- out- loud moments, but a lot of jokes fall flat. This satirical movie won't make you guilty of eating food, but the ending is insanely cool. All in all, Sausage Party is forgettable, not as funny as it should have been, and the raunchiness goes a bit too far. However, fun characters and a very intelligent, Pixar- esque story make Sausage Party simply a fun time at the movies.

The action scenes are amazing, suspense & camerawork are both well done, and I liked how this tried to remain neutral- both culturally and politically. However, it was hard for me to care for the characters because there's little character development and there are simply too many characters. The 1/3 of the story could have been shortened as it contributes little to the main plot. Overall, it's a good film with fine acting, but could have been much, much better.

Based on the trailers, it looked liked this would be something different from Disney; an intense rescue drama. However, The Finest Hours turns out to be exactly what you would expect from the Mouse House. This film benefits from very good acting, top- notch special effects, a few heart pounding moments, and it's so authentic to the time period that this felt like it made in 1952. But the problem with the film is that it doesn't focus enough on the sea rescue. The romance takes up to much of the run time and does not add anything to the overall story. In addition; being a Disney movie; useless moral lessons are thrown in that also add nothing to the overall plot. In the end, this is a typical feel good Disney film with fine acting and special effects; but also some useless elements that add nothing more then melodrama and a lack of intensity.

Hail, Caesar is not a bad movie. If you work in the Hollywood industry or watch a lot of classic films, you might like this movie. Otherwise, this film offers little to like and is overstuffed with plots. Now I get that this is a satirical, humorous take and tribute to the Hollywood of yesteryear. To the movie's credit, this captures the time period / culture well and the acting is decently good. But there is nothing compelling or very interesting to attract the attention of the audience. Since there are at least 4 different plots; this means that each story is short and predicable. Do to the large amount of characters, most of them are stereotypes and not worth caring for. There is also no tension or suspense ; making the stories somewhat boring as well. Overall, this film is overstuffed with plots, rather boring, and some elements are way over the top. The only good things are that the feel of the era is well captured and and some individual scenes are quite funny. In the end; unless you're a fan of classic Hollywood; this film isn't worth watching. The 2015 film "Trumbo" did a far better job showing off the way Hollywood was back then.

I'm a major Kung Fu Panda fan and personally believe it's the best Dreamworks franchise. The 1st film was surprisingly good and the 2nd was even better with a more emotional story and lush animation. This 3rd film is good, although not as good as the first two. The best aspect of Panda 3 is the animation. It's beautifully animated with great detail, fluid motion, colorful backgrounds, and has very well choreographed fight scenes. The 2D animated backstory was a nice touch as well. The story is a nice conclusion to what started in the second film as it perfectly balances the comedy and drama out. The world is expanded into new places that keeps everything fresh and new. However, there are a few issues. Considering that Po meets his real dad for the first time and now has two dads; this is handled in the safest way possible with little conflict. Since there are so many new characters; this means old ones like The Furious Five have little screen time. In addition, many of the new characters like Po's dad, Mei Mei, and the villain Kai are rather bland. Overall, Panda 3 is a fun and beautifully animated film that nicely expands the world of Kung Fu Panda and has a satisfying conclusion. Although it's rather forgettable and not as daring as the second film was, Panda 3 is a fine movie.

The best part about Race is that it showed all aspects of the 1936 Olympics. Owens preparing for it, the US politics at the time, **** Germany wanting to look good in front of the world, and the racial injustice suffered by blacks in the U.S. and Jews in Germany. The games are shown from all viewpoints. All the racing scenes have suspense and the story becomes enthralling in the second half. This is helped by decently good acting. Unlike other recent biopics, Owens is shown as a real person instead of a perfect character. His coach is also shown as an imperfect character; making us care for everyone to succeed. In addition, the era is shown in an uncensored way; giving us a great view of the 1930's. On the other hand, there are a few issues. First, because of the various plots and subplots; Owens life is only shown on the surface. The film never goes deep inside his mind or his history. Second, some of the dialogue felt unrealistically simple and paltry. In addition, the editing is a bit choppy and some set pieces seemed rather fake. Overall, while Race only covered the basics of Owens life; it is suspenseful, interesting, and showed all aspects of the time / event in good detail. Race is as intelligently good as the double meaning of the title implies.

There isn't much to say about Eddie The Eagle; as it is exactly what you would expect from an underdog sports movie. It has lovable characters who do the impossible, cheesy music to get the feel of the era, and provides a warm- hearted feel to the audience. While Eddie attempts to go deeper into his interesting life, it mainly stays to the very predictable sports formula. The acting is fine and a few scenes are quite suspenseful. In addition, I liked how the tone was lighter and more playful over other films of the same type. Overall, while Eddie is charming and full of heart; it does have a very predictable and cliched sports plot. Unless you're a **** for these type of feel- good sports movies, it's not really worth watching.

10 Cloverfield Lane has an interesting backstory. With the trailer coming out so soon before release and little known about the story, I went in knowing little of what to expect. Well, 10 Cloverfield Lane turns out to be a great, unique movie. The story of a woman ending up inside a bunker to what seems like an abduction turns into something much more unique and original. Is this an abduction or is there an outside attack? The best part of the story is the vast amount of twists and turns. When the story seems to be going in one direction, the plot suddenly twists to something else that would question what just happened before. Information, plot details, and backstories are inferred, not plainly told. Because of this, the story is very investing and leaves the audience guessing as to what will happen next. Things that didn't seem logical before became logical and vice- versa. The tension is high and there are some jump- scare moments. Another great thing about the story is how original the whole thing is. There's nothing else like it and the unique plot plays off well. The acting is also very good as John Goodman pulls a fantastic performance in addition to everyone else. However, there are two major issues. First, while the music score is nice, it's also quite overbearing and falsely hypes up the tension. In addition, the pacing is a bit uneven. There are a few dead spots where nothing much happens and it **** away some investment from the story. All in all, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a highly original film with great acting, plenty of plot twists, and lots of tension; all wrapped up in an engrossing story.

I wasn't expecting much from Zootopia. All of the hype for 2016 was for Moana and Pixar's Finding Dory. However, the trailers looked promising and Disney is known for talking animal movies; from the decently good Robin Hood to the rather poor Chicken Little. Then the first critic reviews came in, saying this was a masterpiece and the best Disney film since The Lion King. So I went into the theater with high hopes and wasn't disappointed at all. In fact, Zootopia is the best Disney animated film in 20+ years and stands tall with the greatest of great Disney classics. Why is this? The story, animation, and characters rock! Starting with the animation, it is extremely detailed and simply beautiful. The city is a mix of old and new structures and through clever ways, is able to accommodate mammals from the smallest mouse to the tallest giraffe. All the animal characters are expertly designed and are lovable to the point where you wish you could hug their fur. Unlike other anthropomorphic animal movies where the animals were basically humans with fur on top, the animals here are a perfect blend with both human and natural characteristics. Like humans, these characters wear cloths (except shoes), walk upright, and live very human lives. Like real animals, these mammals are their respective sizes, live in their respective climates, and keep some of their natural looks/ characteristics. Both of the main characters; Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde; are quite memorable, imperfect, and complex. Even the side characters, such as Police Chief Bogo, Officer Clawhauser, and Flash all play an important part to the story and are lovable themselves. Speaking of the story; that was the most shocking part of the film. What starts out as a simple buddy cop detective story turns into a complex, Pixar- esque commentary on stereotyping, race relations, fear mongering, the media, drugs, social privilege, point of view, relationships, and bigotry. Like modern day America, this society has cultural issues that are kept under the rug until exposed. When exposed, all hell breaks loose and the city must learn how to come together and resolve their species (racial) issues. This message isn't new, but the fact that Disney took it on in full force shows the risk they took. The story and theme are presented in a non- preachy manner, stays neutral, and is rather realistic. Instead of the message being "stop stereotyping now", it is "let's acknowledge there is problem and work towards a solution". It is very realistic to the way we think and doesn't present a clear solution, leaving that to the audience to think for themselves. Not to mention the excellent comedy that's woven in to keep the tone perfectly balanced between its laugh- out- loud moments and more serious themes. It is simply inspiring. Sadly Zootopia, like its titular city, isn't a perfect movie. The pacing is uneven in areas as the jokes go by too quickly and the more dramatic moments too slowly. Do to some pop culture elements, it isn't as timeless as other Disney/ Pixar movies. In addition, the anti- stereotyping message is a little muddled as some of the animal stereotypes are true. (sloths are slow,etc.) Overall, the 55th Disney animated film in 79 years is a near- masterpiece with an uplifting important story about prejudice, lovable characters, and top- notch animation.

This movie benefits from very good acting, especially from Sally Fields. The comedy is spot on and has a very quirky, independent feel to it. Some of the things in here would almost never happen on a big budget film. The massage about living life to the fullest and having fun are done in a lighthearted manner. However what brings down this indie goodness is a story that's a complete mess. Instead of focusing on the issues of depression, hording, and loneliness that Doris suffers from; the film focuses almost entirely on the romance between her and a substantially younger co- worker. While this would have been a nice comedic subplot, instead its the main plot that makes the ending predictable and the drama sub-par. In addition, the tone changes dramatically without warning and the editing is choppy. Despite this, the fine acting and unique overall indie feel makes Hello, My Name is Doris a quite lovable mess of a movie.

The best that I can say about Demolition is that it tries to be different. It takes the familiar concept of dealing with loss, and making it into an unique experience. With all the movie's metaphors done literally, very quick edits, and committed performances from all the actors, it nicely tries to tell a familiar story in a different way. However, remember that I said tried. That's because the end result is an uneven mess. The main plot is about a man who can't feel grief after the death of his wife. So he does the metaphor of demolishing his former life and starting a new one, literally. He bulldozes his own house, gives permission for someone to shoot him, hooks up with a girlfriend, and helps her son with his own personal problems. Now that's a lot of plots in one film. Sadly, while all these stories are nicely handled in the first two acts, the whole thing falls apart in the ending. Some things are thrown in at the last minute that aren't necessary and some main story elements never get a resolution. There are questions that simply never get answered. In addition, while the main character does these metaphors literally- which is unique, it also makes him unrealistic as I'm sure the average person wouldn't destroy their own house in order to restart their life. Overall, Demolition is a mixed bag. It tells its common story in a new, unique way and has stellar acting. But while its unique, the story is overstuffed with plots/ subplots, the main character is unrealistic, and everything falls apart in the very messy ending. Demolition attempts something new and different, but doesn't fully succeed at doing it.

Before I start the review, there are two things that i'd recommend you do before seeing this film. Number 1- watch the original 1967 animated film as there are many references from that film in this new one. Number 2- see this in 3D, as it improves the visuals and heightens the action. I was skeptical about this movie originally as previous live action Disney movies (based off their cartoons) were not highly rated and Disney itself is hellbent on making money with remakes, sequels, and spin-offs. This seemed like another cash grab movie. However, I'm happy to report that this new Jungle Book is a properly done remake. It honors the original source material (the actual book & 67' movie) and improves upon it at the same time. All I can say about the original is that it's a cute movie with nice songs and fluid animation. But it lacks a core plot, lacks drama, and is filled with filler scenes. The new one takes the basic plot line of the original and adds all the elements that were missing from it to make a deeper, darker, and more complex story. The action scenes are tense and violent, emotion is clearly displayed, and the story itself takes a balanced amount of material from the original movie and the books by Rudyard Kipling. Our main character, Mowgli, has adventures with the various animals while dealing with the threat of tiger Shere Khan. As this film is all animated, except Mowgli, the voice acting is done quite well from all the A- list actors involved and the one real actor does a superb job as well. The songs are very catchy and the lighter scenes are pleasant as well. However, the majority of the credit for this should go to the animators. The animation here is so realistic and detailed that it seems completely real and believable. Since this was filmed and created for 3D specifically, it's best to see this that way. So is this a perfect movie? No. The biggest problem with this movie is the way the story is told. While a lot better over the original, the story is a little episodic and feels disjointed. The 2/3 act is overly long and a little boring. In addition, since the voice actors are so well known that when their characters spoke, at times I could only envision the actor speaking in the recording booth. Overall, this new 2016 Jungle Book is a technical masterpiece with wonderful animation, memorable characters, and a story that; while disjointed and overly long; is an improvement over the original.

Midnight Special is a good old- school science fiction movie. The acting is superb from all the people involved, not to mention the great special effects. The most unique thing about this though is the way the story is told. The film starts right during the action and we the audience only see a dad running away with his son, who has unexplained supernatural powers. The government and a religious Texas ranch are after the boy for reasons we don't know. But the story ingeniously reveals what's going on, the backstory, and the plot in teaspoon fulls. More information is told as the film goes on. This way, the audience gets engrossed into the story as things are revealed to them along the way and the conclusion becomes unpredictable. There's just an original feel to all of this with good action and suspense. However, once the ending does come up, this original story cops out to an E.T.- esque ending in which many questions are left simply unanswered and unexplained. While details are revealed during the story, not enough of them are given. In addition, the pacing is too slow in certain areas, thus cutting down the tension. Overall though, this mostly different and original sci- fi film mostly succeeds.

Sing Street does carry a nice message about having optimism, has decent songs, and has a lighthearted feel- good feel to it. That's all I can say about this. That's because the the characters are not interesting, the film is overly long, the story is overly simplistic / unrealistic, and the whole thing is very forgettable. While it has good intentions and a nice message, this is nothing more than a glorified Hallmark movie.

The best thing about A Hologram For The King is Tom Hanks. He does a wonderful performance as a down- on- his- luck businessman who is trying to get his life in order. If the title seems odd, so is the movie. The backstory of our main character is shown in very quick flashbacks throughout the run- time and while there is a plot about trying to sell a hologram machine to the Saudi King, it's not the focus. This is more or less a character study about a man who has lost direction in life. He meets many characters throughout who help him find meaning in his life and the film's conclusion is very abrupt. Unlike the recent film Demolition, this one better shows someone going through depression, while doing it in a lighthearted way. Not to mention that this is also quite hilarious. I laughed a lot throughout and the drama here made me care for this man. However, the story lacks focus as there are many subplots that go unfinished. In addition, there are a few dead- areas where the pacing is too slow. Overall, this unique film with a unique title about depression is funny, heartfelt, and has a great performance from Tom Hanks.

As a pure hostage thriller, Money Monster succeeds. Every minute is tense and keeps your eyes glued to the screen. George Clooney and Julia Roberts both provide great performances and the ending is rather unique. However, this film also tries to say something about Wall Street and the media. Rather, Wall Street is bad, corrupt, and full of greedy people. The Media is cynical and only cares about making news flashy, rather than properly reporting it. Also, that the American people are being ripped off by the corporate system. This is where the film falters. Instead of taking a strong stance on these issues, the film handles all of this more or less as satire and the topics themselves are oversimplified. For example, instead of explaining how Wall Street works, the movie simplifies it to "it's bad and full of greed". Nonetheless, as a pure simple and, although forgettable thriller, Money Monster works pretty well.

The Angry Birds Movie will make you full of rage, though not in a good way. Now to be fair, the animation is colorful, detailed, and has a Looney Toons feel to it. All the voice performances are fine and some of the jokes are funny. It's also faithful to the game it's based on with elements of the game incorporated into the plot. That's about it, because the rest of the film is filled with filler and non- stop jokes that aren't funny at all. The plot is so simplistic that the story could have been done in an 1/2 hour television special. So to fill in the 90 minute run time, the movie has a bunch of filler scenes and don't contribute to the plot. To make sure the children don't get distracted, the film makers make sure there is constant noise, jokes every second, and rocket- ship fast pacing. Because of this, most of the jokes fall flat from having no build up and by going too fast. Although some work, the majority don't. Some "adult" jokes are too inappropriate for the target audience. Because of the pacing, there is no character development. Every character is either a stereotype or simply bland. Because the film never shuts up, there is no emotional moments that makes us care for the characters. It's just color and never- ending action. As far as the plot goes, like the mobile game, the green pigs come to Bird Island and steel their eggs. The birds then use a slingshot and their individual special abilities to beat the pigs. Again, while the plot is faithful to the game, it's so simple. Imagine the possibilities with this concept, but the filmmakers go at it in the easiest way possible. Noise and color for the kids, and inappropriate jokes for the adults. When the inevitable final showdown occurs between the birds and pigs, it's not exciting. That's because the pigs are non- threatening villains, are stupid, and no one ever gets hurt. Overall, The Angry Birds Movie has great animation, is faithful to the game, and is occasionally funny. But that doesn't make up for bland/ stupid characters, filler scenes, constant noise, and mainly unfunny jokes. Only young kids will get enjoyment from this.

The Nice Guys is a blast. This old school 1970's crime comedy is hilarious with the way it makes fun of the 70's and a lot of the jokes land perfectly. The story is great because plot questions get answered along the way, making the audience be involved every step of the way. The turns are unexpected and there are serious moments to balance out the great comedy. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have great chemistry chemistry and provide top- notch performances. The only two drawbacks I have for this is that it's a bit too vulgar with nudity and sex- related talk. In addition, despite the acting, the characters aren't worth caring for and some are way over the top. Overall, while it lacks emotion, The Nice Guys is simply a fun movie with fine acting and a well- written story that's involved and hilariously funny.

Before I start the review, there are two things that I should note. First, I'm a male. Second, I never read the book that this is based on. Now that that's settled, let's move on. Me Before You is half good and half bad. The good is that there are many hilarious moments in the film and great cinematography. This gives off a warm and cheerful feeling. The acting performances are also above par. The story itself is unique as it talks about disability and controversial life decisions. It's certainly better than a lot of other romance movies. Here's the bad. First off, while the story is unique, the way the story is told is in the most cliched manner possible. The characters are all stereotypes- cheerful and perfect main character, grumpy rich dude, and goofy **** boyfriend. This makes it hard to relate to the characters. The ending is also predictable and many story elements are contrived. This also is super melodramatic as the music and backgrounds force the viewer to cry. Not to mention that the film lacks the intelligence to fully explore the subject of disability and life choices. Overall, Me Before You has its goods and bads. I should note that while I didn't cry at all, 95% of the mostly female audience did. I'm just not the target for this kind of film. In the end, Me Before You is just mediocre.

Our Kind of Traitor only has two major things going for it. First of all, the cinematography is beautiful with many wide shots, nicely designed set pieces, and a unique stylization. Second, the story is unique as it's not just another spy movie. Twists and turns are abound and the conclusion is not what you expect from this type of movie. However, that's it. The acting is only ok as the characters emit little to no emotion. The plotting is also horrendous. The first act is too slow as it takes forever to the story to get going. The second act is fine as the tension builds and the pacing is perfect. However, the story all falls apart in the final act. Unbelievable things happen and events become predictable. This also leads to an underwhelming ending. Overall, Our Kind of Traitor looks very nice and has a unique spy story, but it's let down by somewhat poor acting and horrendous plotting.

The BFG, or Big Friendly Giant's greatest achievement is the visual effects. The details are amazing and the majority of scenes are simply beautiful. Mark Rylance's vocal performance is calm and soothing, giving the BFG his titular name. The little girl Sophie also performs quite well. Steven Spielberg's direction gives the BFG an old fashioned feel and conveys warmth. This easily is the most heartwarming film so far this year and I left the theatre with a smile on my face. However, despite the cuteness and great effects, there's sadly not much else. The simple story is fine, but the film is overlong. The pacing is too slow and several scenes go on for far too long. For comparison, Willa Wonka and the Chocolate Factory; another film based from a Roald Dahl book; was 1 hour 29 minutes. This is a full 2 hours. Had the BFG been 30 minutes shorter, had faster pacing, and more action; it would had been perfect. But as is, the BFG is a beautiful, simple, and cute movie; although overlong, boring in places, and lacking much action.

Nerve has major elements that work and many that simply don't work. What works is the concept and the message. The concept of a truth or dare mobile phone game is both smart, original, and relevant to today. I feel something like this could happen for real in the future and there are enough dumb people that would play this. The message is how people get desensitized online and how certain actions can mean big consequences. Like the concept, this message is important, original, and relates to today's world. This film shows the dangers of social media and how simple actions can impact people. Overall, the concept is original and the message is important. Not to mention the nice neon- colored cinematography of New York City that gives an interesting look to the city and improves the overall production. What fails on Nerve is that everything else is mediocre. The actors don't convey much emotion and all the characters are all teen stereotypes. It feels like the teens in this were thought up by adults who think they know how teens act. The characters don't feel authentic and aren't worth rooting for. As a thriller, there is little edge- of- your seat action or shocking moments. The conclusion is very predictable and cops- out in an overly safe manner. In addition, while the first two acts were believable; the third act jumps the shark. The plot becomes contrived and completely unbelievable things happen. Overall, Nerve has a nicely original concept and a good message. This is let down by one- note characters, mediocre acting, and a crazy third act that leads to a overly safe ending. Think of Nerve as a PG- 13 Disney Channel movie.