Davrosdaleks1

I liked this even better than the first one. This is a widely creative story. Like the its predecessor, this is both funny and surprisingly heartfelt, considering the chaotic world of the Guardians. There is some wonderful character work in this. (The cast is great across the board.) I appreciate how much this feels like a natural extension of the first. So rarely do films and their character arcs have such clear progression. There are a couple issues I had. It felt like Drax (Dave Bautista) was dumbed down. Also, I like new character Mantis (Pom Klementieff), but there is the issue of the changes to her character in comparison to the original comics. Writer and director James Gunn has a fondness for making big changes to comic characters. Usually that works. Here, however, here we have a martial artist female hero transformed into a meeker, more reactive-than-proactive character; problematic. The whole thing looks great. The first film was distinctive, but this one raises the bar. The sci-fi designs are colorful and creative. The CGI in this is amazing. Really, I think this one of the greatest visual attempts in film. James Gunn's direction and incorporation of classic songs works so well. Overall, I can't stress how good this is. I highly recommend.

In My Spy, currently on Amazon Prime, a young girl (Chloe Coleman) blackmails a CIA operative on a stakeout (Guardians of the Galaxy's Dave Bautista) into helping her out with her life. I thought this was decent. Let me start out by saying that this is predictable. It's the general story of the odd couple becoming friends and a tough law enforcement/government agent working with kids like Kindergarten Cop and The Pacifier. (This is very The Pacifier). The predictability can at moments make things drag as you can tell what's going to happen and are just waiting for the movie to go where it's going to go. The love interest in particular feels by-the-numbers and rushed and lacks chemistry. Despite all that, this was still an enjoyable time for me. The movie's cookie cutter, but competently handled. It's the two leads that make this movie as they manage to elevate the material and work so well with each other. If you were one of those people that thought that Bautista's character in this film and in his last one Stuber seemed really similar (they are both comically impulsive men of the law), you'll pleased to know you're not just watching the same performance. I thought Bautista works a lot better here. He's a lot more nuanced and easy-to-like. The Last Man on Earth's Kristen Schall also does a decent job as Bautista's partner on the stakeout. Admittedly, there are only a couple of downright funny parts, but the humor generally works and has its charm. This is a PG-13 family film. Most of this is basic family film storyline mixed in with the occasional bit for adults. Overall, I recommend this. It's not perfection, but it's a generally nice film for a group deciding on something to watch on a Friday night.

This is a filmed recording of the hit musical Hamilton, a musical about first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton featuring a predominantly Hispanic and African American cast and hip-hop music mixed with other styles. From what I understand, it mixes footage from a live performance and separately filmed close-ups. This is a wonderful show! The story in this is an engrossing look at one man's life and death, his tremendous highs and lows. Besides being dramatic, the clever lines in this can also be pretty funny. The songs in this are truly unique. This presentation shows why Hamilton is the biggest musical of the decade. It accomplishes something that appears to be rarer and rarer in recent decades: every song is a winner. This is especially impressive since this is a song-only musical with basically no spoken dialogue. The one part of this show that could be an issue for some is that singing and exposition can go by pretty quickly, especially in the first fifteen minutes, and you could miss something. The choreography and staging are also great, not to mention very creative at times. The dancing really accentuates the story and songs. The set rather than changing scenes takes the minimalist route of having one basic set and the use of body movement, props, and a couple other stage aspects in order to tell the story. It's all so complex and fascinating to watch. The performances in this are top-notch all-around. I've heard and seen a lot of comments that Lin Manuel-Miranda (the lead and creator of this) isn't as strong a singer as the rest of the cast, however it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role. (Though by now, I'm sure plenty of people on stage have.) He just pulls off the man's drive so well in such a passionate manner. Going back to the show's sense of humor and unique interpretations, we are treated to a couple of delightfully flamboyant turns from Daveed Diggs and Johnathan Groff (from Frozen and Mindhunters). The nice thing about this compared to seeing the show live on stage is that the close-up shots allow you to truly get a good look at the actors' expressions. (Though once in a while since the blocking is done in relation to talking in the direction of an audience, the actors can be facing the camera at an odd angle. It's not a big issue.) Overall, I can not recommend this tremendous work enough.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best adventure films and blockbusters ever made. This 1930's set film is so excellently shot by Stephen Spielberg. All the sets and scenes look great. There is a plethora of wonderful and at times really creative action scenes. John Williams produces another fine score that really works in tandem with the action. The main theme is one of his best pieces. The script sets up an intriguing treasure hunt as archaeologist Indiana Jones goes to all sorts of exotic places looking for the lost Ark of the Covenant. The script can also be pretty funny. Really good cast. Harrison Ford is the epitome of fun as Indiana Jones. He's smart and tough, but also a likable grump. Karen Allen does a good job as Indy's love interest who manages to go toe-to-toe with him personality-wise. Villains in this are good, too, especially Belloq (Paul Freeman) as Indy's cocky rival and Ronald Lacey as an appropriately slimy ****. I highly recommend this classic.

In the horror film You Should Have Left based on the German novella by Daniel Kehlmann, a couple (played by Kevin Bacon and Amanda Seyfried) and their young daughter (Avery Tiiu Essex) take a vacation in a rental house in Wales. Soon, the father starts noticing weird things about the place. I thought this was decent. This has a pretty good psychological angle going on as the driving force is the couple's relationship and the husband's past. Even if you can tell where things are going, it's interesting to see things play out. The house helps push the unsettling mood. A lot of this the film is shot during the daytime, but that doesn't detract from the eeriness of the decor. This isn't one of those creepy old houses but a sleek, modern, European one. However, it is still scary due to it's minimalist, austere look and muted colors. Admittedly, the best scare is the first and none of the others quite match. I can't say this is the scariest or most inventive of horror films. However, I felt things worked well enough and there are some nice visuals. I've heard complaints about this being drawn out. Personally, I thought there wasn't anything that felt too superfluous, though the third act could've been cut down a little. I won't lie that this could be too slow for some, but I felt that the movie justified itself more than it didn't and had a nice ending. The dialogue often doesn't quite feel natural. Both Bacon and Seyfried have trouble making it work at times, especially the latter. Child actress Avery Tiiu Essex does a surprisingly good job as their daughter. Overall, I can't say this this is a must-see, but if you like haunted house movies or psychological horror then you may like this. It's a nice time-waster when you're washing the dishes or something.

A movie version of the Artemis Fowl book has been in and out of production since '01. We finally get it, and wow, this wasn't worth it. This a very disappointing adaptation. Especially surprising is that this is brought to us from Disney and director Kenneth Brannagh (Thor, Murder on the Orient Express, Cinderella). The problem is that this is a bunch of quick short scenes and characters thrown at us one after the other with very little impact. Heck, the character of Artemis' friend Juliet (played by Tamara Smart) feels like an afterthought and barely functioning character, used so sparingly despite being around the main action most of the time. I think there was a lot of trouble in editing and reshoots. There is one very clear moment of poor dub work. The barrage of scenes and characters results in a complete and utter lack of being able to become invested or relate to the characters. The only character who feels completely developed is large dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad). I feel that Disney may have felt he went best with test audiences and pushed all the attention onto him. The biggest issue is the presentation of Artemis Fowl (Ferdia Shaw) himself. He's a criminal genius in the book, but that isn't well represented here. He's still smart, but the choppy editing doesn't much make it feel like he's a master strategist. He's watered down from an antihero to a more traditional protagonist. It's Pinky, Elmyra, and the Brain all over again. The studio feels that an antihero may not sit well with parents and they water the product down. The director and/or studio also tweak Artemis' backstory, which was a mistake. (There are good movie adaptations where they change things. This just isn't one of them). They give a frustratingly basic and uninvolving story for Artemis. The characters' setup scenes are some of the dullest moments. Plus, the backstory pales in comparison to the original. The movie doesn't seem to have much faith in Artemis as he doesn't even seem to the be the main focus. Shaw also gives a rather dull performance. Last complaint: there are a couple moments that look like they might be death scenes, but I don't think they were supposed to be. It's very poorly handled. To the movie's credit, there is a good line once in a while. Gad and Judi Dench as an elf commander do a good job. Nonso Anozie as Artemis' bodyguard seemed like fun, but he just wasn't given enough attention. Being a Brannagh movie, it looks nice but it doesn't quite compare to some of his other recent works. You can avoid this one, especially if you're a fan of the book. It's not painfully bad, just barely functioning.

This movie on Amazon Prime is a Twilight Zone homage about two friends (played by Sierra McCormick and Jake Horowitz) in the 50's who discover suspicious airwaves and events hitting their small town. This was an interesting film. This is one of those movies that is so well visually planned, including a couple inspired moments of cinematography. Vast takes place in real time. Now, this isn't a continuous-shot attempt like 1914, but the film makes use of a lot of tracking shots driving in the immediacy of the events. For a movie made on a small budget, it looks pretty good. The sets, clothing, and vehicles all evoke the time period. I also appreciate that although a lot of this involves scenes with a small cast (this takes place at night), the populated scenes look busy. A lot of moderately or low-budget movies these days never seem to have as many extras as they did in the 80's, making them feel less natural. This doesn't have that issue. The dialogue too flows well. Both the rapport between the two leads and moments of unsettling exposition are so well handled. However, the dialogue can fly pretty fast at points and with most of the characters' heavy southern accents it can be hard to follow sometimes. I definitely missed lines. Be forewarned that this may be too slow-paced for some people. Also, one may be disappointed in the ending. I had a good time, but I admit that this may be more of an on-the-fence situation when suggesting to others. The visuals definitely work, but the plot may be more subjective.

Lovebirds, is about a couple (Issa Rae and Kumail Nanjiani) whom after being mistaken for the culprits of a murder go chasing after the real murderer (Paul Sparks). This was a little hard to rate as the film equally has stuff I liked and disliked. Jokes are hit-and-miss. The funniest parts are derived from investigating the mystery (we know who did it but not why.) Things can get dark, and it is at the sure unexpectedness of this darkness that the movie works best. The jokes that don't work are often at the points that the focus is more on the personal lives of the characters, which isn't as strong. There is a conflict set up between the couple that never feels real enough. It doesn't help that the jokes are often stretched. So if you don't like one, expect it to go on for a while. There is a little too much observational humor and the characters overreacting to things. Though they can't make the weak bit work, Rae and Nanjiani are good in this and have chemistry together. I was on the fence about how I felt about this. I actually recommend you watch this because I feel that there'd be a good amount of people who'd prefer this more than me. Even if you don't like it, I think it's more likely to be a miss with you rather than something you outright dislike.

I found this new Scooby-Doo movie, the first to use computer animation, to be good but with room for improvement. Let me get this out of the way for Scooby-Doo fans: This isn't the traditional type of story. There isn't a lot of mystery solving or spooky situations. This is more of a superhero adventure. Warner Bros. (which now owns Hannah-Barbera) is trying to start a shared HB universe. So they were more interested in doing a movie using HB characters from more than one show. Scooby was basically chosen as the first lead because he's the most prevalent character. Shaggy (voiced by SNL/Last Man on Earth's Will Forte) and Scooby (voice-acting veteran Frank Welker) spend a lot of the show working with other HB characters in order to push the shared universe concept. The rest of the Mystery Inc. characters only play supporting roles. I would've preferred the main gang in more of this, but I give the movie credit. This isn't the only SD show or film to focus on just the duo, but I felt that this was the only one where they managed to make it work. (That's right Reluctant Werewolf fans, come at me.) This may not be a perfect representation of what Scooby-Doo is, but as a movie by itself it's an entertaining children's film. It doesn't have the most ambitious story, but it's fun and upbeat. (I ended up watching this twice.) The best part is the jokes, there are a lot of funny lines. There are a lot of moments where I felt myself thinking that the movie could have been stronger. The setup in the first few minutes feels rushed. The movie offers an obstacle to Scooby and Shaggy's friendship and confidence, which feels formulaic and forced. However, when it comes to their and other characters' emotional moments, the movie nails it perfectly; no complaints. Some of the voice actors felt miscast. (Jane the Virgin's Gina Rodriguez sounds too old to be Velma.) Others were good, but couldn't quite make the dialogue pop. The MVP in this is Jason Isaacs, who played Lucius Malfoy in Harry Potter, as **** ****. He completely encaptures the feel of old-timey mustachoid villainey. The animation is cheaper than say a film from Disney, Dreamworks, or Pixar. (Given how their attempt to create a DC shared universe didn't pan out, I can't blame the WB for being financially cautious. Even the director Tony Cervone was brought from within house.) That having been said, design-wise the entire thing looks great. There is a distinctive colorful look to this. Several characters get redesigned. I know some people don't like it when they mess with characters' classic looks, but I really, really liked how everyone appeared. Really, the design team knocked it out of the park. I know my jaded adult mind has been critical of this. Plus this isn't my, or probably many other adult SD fans, idea of the ideal Scooby film. (Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island is still the high bar to judge by.) But, I'm pretty sure kids won't have any complaints from this. Plus, I think this won't bug parents if their children rewatch. This is a perfectly decent way to spend your time.

This HBO movie is based on a real event where a prestigious public school district was struck by an embezzlement scandal. This was a well put-together film. This was an interesting character study into those who betray their positions. Director Cory Finley does a great job here. This is one of those films where all the edits and shots are so well planned. Hugh Jackman as the superintendent gives what might be the best performance of his career and lifts every scene he is in. He is so nuanced in this and can say so much from just a facial expression. Be forewarned that this is a deliberately paced film. The movie does a good job of building the characters out to be three-dimensional, but some might find this slow-paced. Also, be forewarned that the scenes of the characters' personal lives aren't quite as juicy as when the movie is addressing the crimes. Overall, I say give this a shot.

I liked this sequel. I admit that this may not be the most ambitious children's film ever made. I remember people complaining that the last film was predictable. I didn't see that. Here though, ... yeah. You get a quest for magical macguffins. You get a whole new brand array of trolls in order to sell merchandise. Plus, there is a formulaic "guy tries to express his feelings to his love interest but can't quite get it out" trope going on. However, what the movie lacks in originality, it makes up with presentation. The writers were clearly having fun in this. There are a couple jokes where I laughed out loud. With the trolls traveling across the land meeting more trolls, I felt there was more going on than in the first film. I expecially liked the new villain Barb (voiced by Crazy Ex-Girlfriend's Rachel Bloom). In comparison to the villain in the first film, who was mostly just served to move the plot along, Barb is more morally ambiguous and relatable with some amusing lines. The movie's message about accepting people's differences and different likes and cultures may not be the most original, but it is well done. I admit that due to the busy cast of characters, a couple of characters' storylines don't get a whole lot of conclusion. In particular, the writers didn't really seem to know what to do with Biggie (voiced by James Corden). World Tour continues with the fantastic-looking felt scrapbook look. This is even better looking than the first film. There's even a little visual experimentation in a couple parts. Overall, I think I might rewatch this more than the first Trolls because this is a general pleaser that delivers a lot.

So, I've got free time on my hands what with the corona virus and was weirdly curious about the decision to make a computer-animated remake of an individual Pokemon movie. I watched the two back-to-back and, yeah, this is ultimately the same as first one: not particularly bad or good. This is basically Gus van Sant's Psycho. It's the same film, just with slightly different dialogue and the occasional slightly different moment. (Sometimes, the dialogue is exactly the same.) Heck, the original director Kunihiko Yuyama is a co-director on this. (Fun fact: he has directed the majority of the Pokemon films since the nineties.) I've only seen the dubs. I mostly found the original one better written than this. The original English version had part of Mewtwo's backstory, which made it sadder, cut. Nowadays American distributors are far more likely to distribute the original products untouched, however the Japanese creators decided to drop this part all together which is unfortunate and I feel let down that they didn't stick to their original guns if they were just doing the same story over again, anyway. As for the story in general, it suffers from too much setup and dialogue from the main antagonist Mewtwo. However, there are a couple of surprisingly well done emotional moments in the final act and the villain is fleshed out in his motivations. The movie also manages to stand out among most of the many, many other Pokemon films by being darker and having a pseudo neo-gothic feel to it. As for the computer animation, it all looks good and is well designed. The weather, aerial fights, and the ending credits particularly standout. On the other hand, there are a couple moments where the computer animation isn't able to tell the story as well as the original's 2D animation did. I don't know if this movie justifies its existence, but it doesn't feel like a slap in the face to its predecessor either. Overall, if your kids like Pokemon, they'll like this. If you're nostalgic toward the first film then you might find this interesting. However, if you're not into Pokemon, this won't do anything for you.

I found Bloodshot, a film adaptation of the Valiant comic book superhero, to be a so-so film. The sad thing about this movie is that it is one of those movies that are so close to be being a good film but can't quite reach. There are several positivie parts in this. There are some clever or funny lines of dialogue. Undone's Siddharth Dhananjay is the standout in this as a comic relief coder. I give first time director Dave Wilson, who is a video game cinematics guy, does a pretty competent job cinematography/visuals-wise for his first live-action work. The whole thing looks great, except maybe for some CG effects that stand out too much. The villains' technology is well designed and thought out. Fight scenes work well; the first one in particular is really impressive. However, the plot never grabs you. I didn't feel involved in Bloodshot's journey or in anticipation for what happens. The script just wasn't interesting enough. For every line that works there is one that doesn't. The villain's plans feel undercooked. The most frustrating part is that Outlander's Sam Heughan's character's animosity toward Bloodshot feels so painfully forced and unnatural. I could see many people liking this more than me. Like I said, there are some good parts. Just have lowered expectations when going into this. I don't think this is bad, per se. It just doesn't leave a mark. I have no plans to revisit this in the future.

Again, Pixar comes up with a rather fresh concept, fantasy creatures in a modern times world, with some strong emotional moments. It was an excellent idea to make the film about the two brothers Ian (voiced by Tom Holland) and Barley (Chris Pratt) going on a quest to briefly reunite with the the late father they never knew or barely remember. It is a very heartfelt tale: wanting to connect with a relative you never knew. The connection between the two brothers (one's the shy guy who isn't into magic but can do it and the other is the outgoing, immature one who is into magic but can't do it) is handled really well. The ending may be up there with some of Pixar's great moments. The movie has a fine cast of characters and voice actors. Chris Pratt is the VIP here. Yeah, he is doing a variation of the typical Pratt kind of character, but he is good enough that Barley is distinguishable from his other characters. He especially does a well with Barley's more sympathetic moments. I was a little at odds at whether I should rate this a little higher. Ultimately I realized that while this is up there with some of Pixar's better films this wasn't in their top tier. Onward is mostly a road trip movie and it had the issues that I felt were in Up or some of Pixar's other road trip movies in that the creators have some great core ideas but feel like they were throwing in whatever they could to fill out the movie. This could've been shorter and the third act in particular feels like the film is stretching. There are also moments where Ian, when he's being shy or angry, is too underwritten or stereotypically portrayed. I'm not the biggest fan of the character design in this. It feels a little simple compared to other Pixar films almost as if this was designed by a different studio. I know that a lot of animators prefer more simple designs because it makes animating or character expression easier. Personally as a viewer, I prefer when a character looks better defined. I especially don't like the way they made the elves' tragus in their ears. (The part of the outer ear that sort of covers the earhole). They look like quarters. Criticisms aside when this movie is good it's really good, and I highly recommend it.

In this new version of The Invisible Man, Cecilia Kass (Handmaid's Tale's Elisabeth Moss), has escaped her abusive, controlling boyfriend (Haunting of Hill House's Oliver-Jackson Cohen). He's been declared dead, but she finds herself menaced by this unseen force. This was a decent film. Though there is violence, this is one of those films that relies on more on suspense, and it's done really, really well. Rather than kill Cecilia, the invisible man is trying to ruin her life. He's subtle at first and there is a lot of tension wondering if he's in the room or not and what he's going to do next. And when stuff happens, it can be pretty startling at times. The movie looks great. Director Leigh Whannell (Upgrade, Insidious 3) continuous his style: a starkly lit look. There are a lot of nice wide shots and pans to give the impression that Cecilia is being watched. (However, I thought that the opening scene was a little too darkly lit.) Moss, whose character is the biggest part of the film, does an excellent job portraying a woman going through trauma but is also wily when threatened. This isn't a perfect movie, though. Running at two hours and four minutes this didn't have to be that long. There are too many scenes of Cecilia being freaked out or people not believing her. The antagonist's plan didn't have to be that complicated. (Though it does mostly make sense in the long run. I've seen other movies with this level of intricacy that couldn't pull it off.) Also, there are several lines of dialogue and decisions that don't feel natural. Overall, I don't think you need to see this immediately, but if you like suspense then this if for you.

In Brahms, a boy finds the titular creepy doll from the last installment and soon falls under its sway. The original The Boy was a decent suspense horror. This, however, is a very dissatisfying follow-up. It's been said by practically everyone who saw the first film, but it has to be said, that Brahms actively throws out the setup it was given. It's like if Friday the 13th Part 3 revealed that Jason Vorhees was an alien robot the entire time. They take the one element from the original that truly, really made it work and separated it from all the other haunted doll movies and completely disacknowledged that element. What makes this all really weird is that there wasn't a regime change. The original director and writer were heavily messing with their own work. This is a pretty dull film. The plot is mostly predictable so you aren't surprised much except for a couple moments. Things just drag on. The parents in this make a couple really dumb decisions in this. To the movie's credit, it does look nice. I liked the interior to all the houses. The cinematography is good. Also, there are a couple scares that work well. Still, as a whole there isn't much to recommend about this. I wouldn't say there is anything painfully bad about Brahms but there really isn't that much to entertain. Fans of the original will especially be disappointed.

Fantasy Island, based on the 70's TV show, takes the concept of the original, an island where your dreams come true, and adds a dark twist to the proceedings as a group of visitors find their dreams becoming nightmares. I know making a different genre out of a show whose star has faded may seem like an odd choice, but they did make two successful comedies based on 21 Jump Street. Plus the nice thing about working with a property that the newer generation was never familiar with is that you get leeway with creative changes. (Note to self: work on script for Petticoat Junction political thriller.) I don't think this is perfect, but it is an interesting watch. This actually honors the feel of the original far more than the commercials made me thought it was going to. A good part of the beginning and middle is looking at the characters' fantasies before anything goes crazy. (This PG-13 film is kind of more a dark fantasy than full horror.) All the characters have their personal conflicts and lessons. Each fantasy is distinct and I found them all rather interesting. There were a lot more twist and turns than I'd anticipated. Though there was a lot I liked about this, it could've been better. It's one of those cases where the director/writers had good ideas and came from a positive place but couldn't reach their full potential. The dialogue is often basic or just weak. The actors aren't able to do much with it. We're talking about a cast with experience too, not a bunch of newbies. Pretty Little Liars' Lucy Hale particularly fumbles and Michael Pena as Mr. Roarke, the one running the island, is hit-and-miss. A lot of people are downright hating this movie. I think that's bit much. Personally, I think it'so-so at worst. I think it's worth your risk seeing it at some point. It feels a little different than most films.

I found this to be a good time. I felt that Sonic (voiced by Ben Schwartz, Jean-Ralphio from Parks and Rec) had a surprisingly sympathetic backstory/character arc There are a lot funny lines in this that will also work with adults. Effects and action-wise the movie does a good job of depicting the hedgehog's superspeed and his attack abilities. Dr. Robotnik's robots are also well designed and I like their sleek look. I'm especially pleased that the studio took the time to change Sonic's appearance after the world first got their look at the attempt to make him more realistic. (Kind of creepy. Everyone's complaining about the human teeth, but it was his weird suction-esque lips that weirded me out.) He looks good in this. I think some of the lighting on him doesn't always match the scene but this is a nitpick considering that the computer animators had to redo the character within a short amount of time. Bare in mind that this isn't the ideal Sonic story I'd have gone with. This takes place on Earth, so we see very of Sonic's distinctively imaginative video game world and most of his supporting characters. (Yeah, a lot of people don't like a lot of Sonic's growing number of ancillary characters, but I think most of us would've liked to see him alongside Tails or Knuckles.) One wonders why this had to be live action instead of entirely computer animated. This taking place on Earth is hurt more by the fact that this goes with a basic odd-couple-on-the-road-together-scenario. Moments where Sonic and his human friend (X-Men and Westworld's James Marsden) get into heated disagreements can feel forced. Also, Marsden's character has an at times frustratingly one-dimensional disapproving sister-in-law. Schwartz was a really good choice for Sonic. He has an energetic delivery. Though Jim Carrey doesn't have the round physique of the original Dr. Robotnik, he does an excellent job as a completely egotistical madman. The actor has some of the best lines in the movie, maintaining his gift for improv while never feeling like he is out of character. Credit should also be given to Lee Majdoub who does a pretty good job acting off of Carrey as Robotnik's put-upon assistant. Compared to the other recent video game-based family film Detective Pikachu, this isn't quite as good. The movie just isnt' as ambitious or innovative. Still, this is a nice film the kids should like.

In Troop Zero, based on the play Christmas and Jubilee Behold The Meteor Shower, during the 1970s' young astronomy-nut Christmas Flint (McKenna Grace who played the Warrens' daughter in Annabelle Comes Home) decides to form her own Birdie Scouts troop in order to enter a talent show and win the opportunity to have her voice recorded and shot into space. This is a very predictable misfits-stand-up-to-society-type, but it does it well. You get some really good dialogue, plus you get a cast of eccentric characters. Grace does an excellent job as the quirky Christmas. We're also treated to a trio of fine adult actors: Jim Gaffigan as Christmas' father, Viola Davis as her scout leader, and Allison Janney as a rival scout leader. The last two are particularly good with both actresses delivering some deliciously cutting remarks in this. Overall, I feel this is a fun little time waster.

BoP is just a genuinely fun time with a unique style. It runs at a breezy pace with a diverse cast of distinctive and interesting characters. The movie is an interesting mixture of live-action cartoon, spaghetti western, crime saga, and more flamboyant superhero flick. I must especially stress the crime saga aspect. What separates this from a lot of other superhero films is the emphasis on the multiple interconnected storylines that all mesh together at the end. Director Cathy Yan brings a unique style to the whole thing. Pacing is tight. Music is good. The costumes and sets have this fascinating combo of bright seventies/eighties pop and the inner city and the criminal world. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this. Margot Robbie does an excellent job as Harley. Though her Brooklyn accent never sounds quite convincing, she appears to be having a ball. The entire cast is good and I just don't have enough time to mention them all. Admittedly, this is a very lightweight film. Even the comedic Deadpool movies had more of a stronger emotional backbone for the characters. To clarify, this shouldn't be put on the same level of lightweight superhero films of old, specifically Batman Forever or Batman and Robin. Effort is put into building this world. And yeah, what everyone else has been saying is true. There aren't a lot of Birds of Prey in this Birds of Prey movie. Though all the BoP members have their moments to shine, this is a Harley Quinn movie. This kind of feels like a backdoor pilot for the superhero team. I'm especially disappointed we didn't get more time with Huntress (Cloverfield Lane and Fargo season 3's Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who gets the least amount of screentime. It's also true that fans of the BoP comics may be disappointed in certain changes from them. In particular, Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Baso) who originally was an assassin trained from birth and one-time Batgirl is now a sterotypical streetwise latchkey kid. Just a heads up that though this R-rated movie is trying to have fun and may not be super dark like the recent Joker there are a couple moments that may be a bit much for some. The villains Black Mask (Ewan McGregor) and Victor Zsaz (Chris Messina) do a few pretty messed up things in this. Though I don't think any comic book movie in recent memory has done such a good job of making you hate the villains. Overall, I can't say this is the most substantive superhero film, but it's such a joy to watch.

In The Gentlemen, Mickey Pearce (Matthew McConaughey), the head of a large British marijuana ring, is planning to retire and sell off his business. However, things go awry when his empire is threatened. This was a fun film. This is directed and written by Guy Ritchie, and like his Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and, I believe, some of his other crime films (I haven't seen the rest) it relies on a lot of characters and twists-and-turns. What results is a good helping interesting moving parts, dialogue, and performances from great actors. The script isn't quite as tight as LS&TSB. The movie could've been a bit shorter. The character of a tabloid editor played by Eddie Marsan could've been cut without effecting anything. I also felt the last scene missed a bit of a punch. The previous criticisms are more nitpicks than major issues. Overall, this movie is a good time and I recommend it. It's not something you need to see immediately but should be given a shot.

Being both a third installment and a sequel made a long time after the last one, there's reason to worry that this wouldn't work out. I'm happy to say this is pretty entertaining. This is the first time Michael Bay isn't directing, so the movie doesn't have quite the director's level of action and style. However, it's not too much ****. Directors Adil El Arbi and Billal Fallah prove competent at taking the reins. There are some pretty good action ideas and scenes, especially in the finale. The movie just looks good in general. I'm glad that the regime change didn't result in darker lightning; Miami really pops in this. The bright side of Bay no longer being behind the wheel is that the movie isn't awash with his overindulgences. (I'm sorry but Bad Boys II had way too much of the guys arguing with each other and just randomness in general.) The plot here is definitely the strongest of the trilogy and tries something new and interesting. I felt that Martin Lawrence got a better material to work with than he has had in the series. The villains are probably the best asw well which is saying something since the last two weren't half bad. The movie could be shorter. Some scenes drag. In this, Lawrence and Will Smith's characters work with a younger police squad called AMMO. I like the new characters and their actors, but some of them aren't given enough time to let them develop. I'd rank this above BBII and on about the same level as the first one. I think this is one of the better action movies of the last few years.

The Netflix movie 6 Underground is about an independent/off-the-radar task force trying to topple a dictator. Though light on substance, this turned out to be a crazily entertaining film. If you've seen Michael Bay's Bad Boys movies, you know the director has no qualms about violence, but here he kicks it up to another level. Everything is up at11 out of 10 in this, and Bay makes the most of the R rating. There are some innovative action ideas in this. The movie also looks great. Overall, this is one of those Bay films where he leans into his best qualities and mostly avoids his worse. It doesn't hurt that this is written by Deadpool and Zombieland writers Rett Rheese and Paul Wernick. Also being a Bay film, the plot isn't as strong as the action. It's pretty hard to believe the characters are able to stay off-the-grid as many of them exercise very little discretion throughout the film. Still, the plot is decent, not to mention the characters and villain. Admittedly the movie does lean into the character of Three (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) either making too many jokes or stupid decisions. Still, he does have his moments. I went into this without a lot of expectations and was surprised. Recommended.

Yep, this is what it looked like in the trailers: Aliens underwater or a clone of Leviathan or similar movies about aquatic monsters. (There's also a good amount of disaster survival in the mixture.) A basic tale but a well directed one. The whole thing looks really, really good. I think the futuristic underwater suits in these may be among some of my favorite sci-fi suit designs. It is clear that effort was made to plan out the future deep sea oil rig this movie takes place in and around. The huge scale to this whole thing is made clear. You get a great opening shot of how deep the operation is. For a movie shot with a lot of darkness scenes, it is well lit. Cinematography, creature design, and pacing are all tight. The best parts are the beginning and the end. These are the moments that buck expectations. I don't want to spoil anything, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Only downside is that the music and sound effects are too loud at points and the dialogue is so quick that you can miss plot points if you're not paying attention. This is fun. Definitely didn't deserve to be held back for almost three years and dumped in January. I recommend this specifically for the beginning and ending.

1917 is about two World War I soldiers (George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) who are given a very important mission: travel across enemy territory and inform the leader of 1,600 of their brothers-in-arms that they're walking into a trap. This is an incredible piece of cinema!!! This movie is really a ride with sort of a dreamlike feel to it as the characters are taken from one unpredictable situation to another unable to know if they'll encounter friend or foe. Director Sam Mendes already showed in Skyfall that he commands an excellent visual style but this is a whole other level. The movie is filmed to give the illusion of one full tracking shot. Every moment the camera looks like it's following the characters. It is quite an achievement. Besides the tracking, the film also does a great job of deciding what elements of the scene to focus on. The scenery in this is a thing of ethereal beauty. The characters travel through a constantly shifting landscape, from trenches to abandoned farms and so forth. Even the worse of environments look good. In my opinion, the war torn town at night scene is one of the best images in film history. The one aspect that didn't always quite work for me was the music. Don't get me wrong. it's not bad. The issue is that the tracking shot gives a very natural, engrossing feel to what's going on. Suddenly, the music will boom loudly and take you out it. Overall, I highly recommend this. This is a truly stunning flick.

Bombshell is about how the revelation that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and other members of the network came out as sexual harassers due to female employees who finally spoke out. This was a really well directed work. Given that this is about a pretty unpleasant subject matter, director Jay Roach (who started off in comedy with such films as Austin Powers and Meet the Parents) made perhaps the wise decision to try not to go too dark. There is a more of a focus on the female leads efforts within and against Fox News, trying not to define the women merely with what was done to them, and a darkly humorous look at a the company culture. A lot of exposition in the first third is is presented in a pretty audience-friendly manner. Understand that when I say that things don't get too depressing that that doesn't mean the harassment is sugarcoated. The scenes that address this are emotionally striking with how awful the whole thing is. The movie is also pretty nuanced and three-dimensional in depicting the people involved and the situations. My one issue is that a little too much specific factoids are spoken directly to the audience. However given that a movie criticizing conservative Fox News is a politically taut situation, I can see why the filmmakers want to demonstrate that they weren't being sloppy with their presentation of the events. The cast is all around great. You'll probably be surprised by some of the faces that pop up here. Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman are great in this. John Lithgow delivers one of the best roles of his career as Roger Ailes, managing to portray a loathsome creep while also making it seem natural how he manages to command loyalty among his employees and allies. This is a well done film and I recommend this.

I know this is getting a lot of bad review, but I really enjoyed Cats. This is such a wildly imaginative movie in both story and appearance. In order to help explain the plot, it helps to look at this film's origins. At first, there were a bunch of poems about cats written by T.S. Elliott in the 1930s. Then came the crazy idea to turn them into songs for an eighties musical. It really didn't have any spoken words. A loose story was added to tie the songs together. Now we've got a film trying to to sell this loose concept to a general audience. I don't think it did too bad a job. The movie takes the basic musical and adds some dialogue and a little more to flesh things out. The story is this: a bunch of cats compete in order to win the honor of cat reincarnation. The story still isn't big; a lot of this is just the contestants introducing themselves through song. (You can go through multiple numbers without dialogue.) Still, I feel it works well enough. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is kind of nuts. We've got a whole bunch of humanoid felines doing a bunch of random stuff. (Also, some of them are magic apparently.) But that's what I like about this. It's basically creative pageantry that is just trying to have fun. (Although, there is this really dark turn in the Jenny Anydots song, which wasn't in the previous works. It left a bad taste.) Director Tom Hooper really tried to keep the highlights of the musical: the songs and the dancing. A lot of musical movie adaptations have to cut stuff for time, but this one is surprisingly intact. The movie manages to keep all but one song I believe. Fans of the original be prepared that they change up the lyrics or musical tempo or style for some of the numbers. (I think the movie was trying to update these to appeal to the mainstream.) Personally, I didn't find any of the changes too outrageous. As for the songs, well Memory, which the musical is best known for, is an excellent piece. The other numbers, though... Well, these contain thirties lyrics and peculiar feel to a lot of them. I think the songs are decent, but they don't compete with a bunch of other musicals. They're a bit of a selective taste. The new song Beautiful Ghosts (the one they usually create for films in order to get a best original song Oscar nomination) is okay. The lyrics are very poetic, but the music can't live up to them. One of the things I like best about this is that it brings back what is missing in a lot of modern musicals: the extended dance sections. The choreography is really good the cinematography does a fluid job of displaying the action. There is a real distinctiveness to people dancing like cats. This movie is eye-candy personified. All the sets are huge, dreamlike, and colorful in a dark neon sort of way (as confusing as that sounds.) There are these big fantastic-looking set pieces and so many of them. The cats are created using computer graphics on mo-cap actors. The people-cats are definitely distinctive looking. The animation for the faces never quite feel natural, but it I didn't find it to be a deal breaker either. For a movie where people act like cats, I'm impressed that almost the entire cast really committed to this. Idris Elba seems to be having a hell of a time eating up the scenery. It's rather fascinating seeing how veteran actors Judi Dench and Ian McKellan take such goofy actions as rubbing heads together or scratching themselves so seriously. McKellan puts so much work into his character's mannerisms that I think this is one of his best roles. The lead Francesca Haywood, a ballerina, does a fine job as the newbie to the group. Remember when I said "almost?" Well, Rebel Wilson as Jennyanydots is the only actor who doesn't feel like they're trying to play a character. She's just doing Rebel Wilson stuff and throwing jokes. The character Jennyanydots as she plays her doesn't really match the character as described in her introductory song. This movie, especially the songs may not be for everyone. It's kinda artsy, but I found this to be a truly unique and creative ride. I say give it a shot.

Had a little trouble deciding on the rating for this. The left side of my brain is frustrated with the many plot and structuring issues, but the right side of my brain was absolutely entertained by this. The movie has maintained the current and original trilogy's legacy of being the definition of a popcorn film. The action is great. The movie looks fantastic, really the most visually impressive of all the Star Wars films. The cast and characters are again great. I'm glad to see the trio of Finn (John Boyega), Rey (Daisy Ridley), and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaacs) all together for a substantial stretch of time. The interactions between the three are great. (They could've had more time together.) I also liked the new characters with the exception of the Knights of Ren who despite being first teased in Force Awakens, just don't do enough. The humor works well. However, I felt even though C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) has been comic relief since the beginning, he was too aggressively jokey. I liked that this continued the last film's theme of hope. Now for the problems. These three films changed creative control from JJ Abrams to Rian Johnson and back to Abrams without the Disney brass doing enough to pre-plan or control consistency. Abrams did a lot of things I found so maddening that I'm shocked that the producers greenlit them. The major threat in this movie introduced so quickly and with such little plausibility. Reveals and plot elements pop up so arbitrarily that they don't feel natural at all. It's a little like poor fan fiction. Abrams jams way too much story in here in order to arrive at the conclusion he wants. I felt Finn just wasn't given enough room to breathe and was disappointed with how his story ended. The whole change in directorial voice is exacerbated by the fact that Abrams like Johnson before him is actively resistant in running with what he is given. Abrams does something that is a major slap in the face to his predecessor, which is so mishandled in its execution. It takes you out of the film. Say what you will about the Canto Blight subplot in The Last Jedi, but I liked the character of Rose Tico (Kelly Marie Tran). I didn't like that they cut her role so short in this not to mention completely axed her set up from the last film as a romantic interest for one of the characters. It's like Abrams decided he didn't like her because he didn't create her and she wasn't in his plans. J.J. still has his Achilles heel of being too blatantly nostalgic. It isn't half as prevalent as in the Force Awakens, but there are a couple moments where it raises its head and is downright insulting to the audience. I know I talked way more about the cons and the pros, but it's easier to talk about what doesn't work than what does. When it works, the movie pulled me in and would make forget the problem areas when they weren't around. It still embodies the essence of a Star Wars film. I'd rank this as the weakest of the trilogy but better than Solo and the prequel trilogy. This is one of those films where your opinion could really go either way. I've found both negative and positive criticism of this to be accurate. If you're already uber angry at the first two movies and didn't think or were unsure if you wanted to continue, then you really might not want this. However, if you enjoyed the ride so far, I suggest you take the gamble.

This film is based on the story of Richard Jewell, a security guard at the Centennial Olympic Park who during a concert discovered a suspicious bag with a bomb, which resulted in an evacuation. Though it wasn't completed before the bomb blew, the evacuation at least lessened the number of casualties. Unfortunately for Jewell, he fit the criminal profile. The FBI initially tried to trick him when being interviewed and their suspicions were leaked to the press, which caused him to be blamed by the media though there were no charges. The film follows Jewell's sad tale and how he and his lawyer fought it. This was a really well made film. This is a gripping, well-written tale. This is largely a film about dealing with the law and media, which has a lot of scenes of just talking, plus it runs at two hours and eleven minutes. Yet, the movie never feels slow. The setup to the finding of the bomb is just excellently paced and leaves you hooked. The dialogue is really good; for a movie about a serious subject it lightens the film with a little bit of dry humor. Casting is really good in this. The main triumvirate of Paul Walter Hauser as Jewell, Kathy Bates as his mother, and Sam Rockwell as his lawyer all work so well together. Now, I know a lot of critics have already mentioned this, but it's difficult not to address. The reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who first reported on Jewell is portrayed as super insensitive and obsessed with success over anything and everything else. From what I've read, the late Scruggs' colleagues disagree with her portrayal. It's a little uncomfortable that a film about the dangers of the media being used to vilify someone, is itself doing the same thing. (To her credit, Wilde does a good job selling the role she is given.) The Scruggs thing aside, I highly recommend this. It's especially impressive considering that director Clint Eastwood is 89. The movie hasn't been doing great in the box office right now and that is a shame.

Wow, this, the second attempt at a Black Christmas remake, is a misguidedly bad film. This movie carries a heavy pro-women, anti-misogyny/patriarchal-control-of-the-system (particularly in the college environment) vibe to the whole thing. Let me make it clear that I support the message, it's the way it's executed that I have a problem with. You ever went to an original college play because of a class or to support a friend, and it feels like it's trying to be deep about something, but you can't stand it? This is that movie in a nutshell. (In the director/co-screenwriter and other co-screenwriter's defense, this film had a pretty short production schedule. Not saying the movie would've been better necessarily, just saying.) The movie beats you over the head with the message. Plot and dialogue comes in second, less than second. The characters are extremely frustrating as they act and talk in a way that isn't plausible at all. A lot of them aren't people, just talking points. There are a lot of one-dimensional misogynists in this film who say nothing but the most obvious and basic chauvinistic lines. It gets really painful. Also, the killer's or killers' plan has so many loopholes. I know that horror movies often require a suspension of disbelief but even this sinks way below an accordingly low bar. You can see where the plot is going pretty early on, which makes waiting through the slow-paced first two thirds of the film a pain. In the brief moments where people aren't speaking for or against the equality of women, there are a few lines that could've been funny, but none of the cast makes the dialogue work, especially Brittany Grady, who is supposed to be comic relief. Veteran actor Cary Elwes is in this and even he gives a terrible performance. As for the actual horror in this, there are a few good weapon ideas but there isn't enough to salvage the film. The movie was originally R-rated but got cut down to PG-13 which hurt it. I'm not one of those "R-rated horror movies only" guys, but the problem is that the editor clearly just ended a couple kills abruptly. There was no attempt to reshoot or reedit scenes to make them run smoothly. If you like horror but not **** in your horror be forewarned that this movie will get uncomfortable. To the movie's credit, the cinematography is good. There are a few post-kill shots that are effective. The one major thing this movie has in common with the original is that it goes with this stark reality look to it. There is an effectively cold feel to the whole thing. The campus and surrounding houses look like a real college environment. I'd say this is about as bad as the last Black Christmas remake just in a different way. You want to see a Christmas-themed horror film? I suggest the original or Krampus.

Sure, this is generally the same story structure as the first, the characters are trapped in a video game and have to win it to get out, but I found Jumanji: the Next Level to be a fairly entertaining time. The movie's biggest strength is it is just having fun. Humor works pretty well, though a bit about the two elderly new comers to the game Eddie and Milo having trouble understanding what is going was stretched way too long. The characters all still work well off each of each other. The action is bigger than the first and pretty impressive. I liked that their are more animal threats in this, which make the events feel more diverse. The film looks nice. The location is shifted from the traditional jungle to other exotic locales keeping things fresh. The best new additions are Eddied, the crotchety old guy, and Milo, the affable but long-winded old guy. These guys serve as fresh new eyes to the world of Jumanji and are pretty funny, but their best aspect is their interactions with each other and the personal story of how these two once friends became estranged. The cast playing the video game avatars that the characters become continue to do a great job. This time, some of them are given a chance to play different people. Everyone's pretty versatile. Awkwafina's in this and she is equally talented. I'm disappointed that Danny Devito and Danny Glover as the real world Eddie and Milo aren't in more of this, because I felt these were one of their best roles. We really didn't need Nick Jonas back in this. He's mainly here because he was in the last one. The guy doesn't add much, especially since the cast is a little full as it is. Also, I felt the part of the introduction with real world Spencer (Alex Wolff) was a little rushed. The villain in this Jurgen the Brutal (Rory McCann) has a little more to him than the paper-thin villain from the last film but not by much. You probably won't think of him after seeing this. Overall, I liked the first movie, because the concept was fresher but this is a fun ride.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, inspired by a true story, is about how children's host Mr. Rogers (Tom Hanks) helps jaded journalist Lloyd Vogel (The Americans' Matthew Rhys) deal with his issues. This is just a really well-made film. This may be the feel-good film of the year. Beautiful Day is an extremely sentimental, and possibly tear-jerking, look at self-improvement. Rogers' nuggets of wisdom are really persuasive and a highlight of the film. That having been said, the movie could've been a little shorter. Vogel's negative traits are showcased so much that they get redundant. The scene that introduces the character's issues with his father never feels quite natural. Director Marielle Heller (who also did Can You Ever Forgive Me) has created a tightly edited and shot film. The whole thing looks nice. The moments where Rogers is filming his show really look like the original PBS airings. There are some creative and indie-style visual and presentation choices in this. (The film isn't too indie if that's not your thing and you were worried.) Music is real strong. There is some great acting in this. Now admittedly, Hanks can't fully replicate Rogers. The actor's large rectangular head just doesn't match, and he is unable to nail the voice. Still, it is an excellent performance; one of Hanks's best. Wouldn't be surprised if he got a best supporting actor nomination for this. He has Rogers' mannerisms nailed down. Hanks really encapsulates the man and brings such nuance, tackling both the empathy and wisdom of the man while also the melancholy aspects and the fact that he was odd. Hanks blends these facets so effortlessly. He truly gets lost in the part. Chris Cooper is also pretty versatile himself as Vogel's estranged father. Though she isn't in this much, Maryann Plunkett does a good job as Rogers' wife Joanne. Although Rhys and Susan Kelechi Watson, who plays Vogel's wife, are decent actors, they never quite shine as much as a lot of the rest of the cast. Overall this is just a really well made film and I recommend this.

Back in the days of black-and-white, mystery films were quite common but as the years went by, they became less and less common with the mystery genre becoming the domain of television. This is a pity, because I like an old-fashioned mystery. Between this movie and Murder on the Orient Express, it's nice to see the genre make a comeback. Director/writer Rian Johnson was definitely trying to evoke an old school mystery film with this homage, and after seeing the trailers, I definitely wanted to see this. I even went to a farther away early access screening because I couldn't wait. I'm pleased to say this definitely met my expectations. Knives Out is just a really well told movie. For 2 hr., 10 min., this is finely paced and edited. Johnson really knows how to steer the story, especially the beginning and introduction to the facts of the case. Besides being a mystery, this movie is also a critique of privilege, which I felt Johnson managed to not beat the audience over the head with. The movie also has a good sense of humor. The suspects consist of the Thrombey family, who from one extent to another all have leeched off of the money and success of patriarch and mystery writer Harlan Thrombey. They are such a delightfully self-entitled but diverse group of larger-than-life dysfunctional people. I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get more of them. (Ana de Armas' Marta Cabrera, Harlan's personal nurse, is the actual star of the film.) I especially thought that Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis) is given short shrift. The cast is excellent all the way through, and I just don't have time to mention everyone. The best performance is by Daniel Craig as Southern gentlemen detective Benoit Blanc. He just kills it as the eccentric and well-spoken detective. I also appreciate that Benoit isn't portrayed as a socially awkward, mircaulous wunderkind as is often the case with detectives these days. Benoit is definitely the smartest guy in the room, but solving the case is real work for him. Again, this is Ana's story. The trailers make Benoit look like the lead. Just don't want you to have false expectations. He is one of the biggest players, make no mistakes. The movie looks great. The Thrombey estate is delightfully grand and old-fashioned looking and is decorated with a wide assortment of mystery-themed or antiquated bric-a-brac. The outfits all look great as well. There is only one thing about this movie that bothered me. The score tries for a classic mystery feel to it but tries too hard. A couple times it felt like they were just blasting the music in my face. Overall, this is just a very entertaining movie and definitely something for mystery fans.

I enjoyed myself with this one. First off, this is one of the BEST looking animated movies of all time. It is simply gorgeous looking. The visuals have an excellent use of color and nature. I love that they decided to set this in autumn, which is something you don't often see in animated films. In contrast to the more traditional fairy tale look of the last film, this one is far grander looking. The appearance of the kingdom of Arendelle in this makes the original look so-so. Frozen II feels so different from any other Disney animated film. There are plenty of those that do fantasy, but this is the first one (except maybe for The Black Cauldron) to go for EPIC fantasy. I really loved the various legitimately challenging magical forces the characters have to deal with. The story looks into how Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) has her powers and I really liked the setup and the messages they were trying to tell. This is actually one of the more serious Disney animated films. (By their standards. Don't worry there's still plenty for your kids to love.) There are a couple surprisingly dark, dramatic moments. (Again, by Disney standards.) Based on the trailers, I was afraid that comic relief Olaf the snowman (voiced by Josh Gad) wouldn't fit into the change of tone on account of being too light, but the writers adapted the character really well. They have him growing up and being far more philosophical about the world (while still being pure). His musings often steal the show. I actually thought he was funnier in this than the last film. I did think this movie had some pacing issues. The plot just isn't as tight as the first one. There are moments where the writer didn't know how to best utilize the main characters. I do wish they spent more time interacting with a couple of the film's likable but underused new supporting characters. Songs are decent but aren't on the same tier as the last film. Half are just okay. The song Into the Unknown tries too hard to be the new Let it Go. Still, I give the songwriters credit for going with a new style not found in previous Disney films. I liked Show Yourself, Lost in the Woods, and All is Found. The last one is a particularly lovely piece. This isn't quite as good as the original, which knew more what it wanted to be and had a stronger emotional backbone. Still, this has a lot going for it and I think your kids will like it.

Noelle, now out on Disney+, is about the titular character who is Santa Claus' daughter (played by Anna Kendrick). Her brother Nick (Bill Hader), who is to become the new Santa, gets cold feet and goes missing. So, it's up to Noelle to find go out into the world and find him. Disney made this a couple years ago. It was originally going to be a theatrical release but got held back bringing on the rumors that the corporation didn't have much trust in it, and they they were probably right. Noelle is a rather stale effort. The general story on paper could've worked, but nothing about the script manages to stick the landing. The movie foreshadows how things will turn out pretty early on. Yes, a lot of successful Christmas films can be predictable, but it all depends on how it goes down and nothing of a whole lot of interest happens or is said. This is a fish-out-of-water movie, too, and I usually like those, but that aspect has even less to work with than the Christmas part. Usually good actors Hendricks and Hader aren't able to salvage the lines in this. I also found the film to be a little mean spirited. You're expecting the people behind Christmas to be optimistic, but the elves and even Noelle's mother end up being pretty petty to her. To the movie's credit, there are few good jokes here and there. (There's a good bit with a gavel.) I also appreciate that the threat to Christmas' future, Noelle's cousin Gabrielle (Billy Eichner) who wants to digitize and streamline the way the holiday is done, isn't portrayed as a true villain but in a more nuanced way as someone who means well but is misguided. I also felt the depiction of the South Pole Christmas town to be rather underwhelming. It feels a little mundane for the place where holiday magic happens. The buildings look like they're from a regular tourist town or a Hallmark Christmas movie. The outfits mostly look too much like regular winter clothes. And how much do fake elf ears cost? Because there seemed to be a lot of effort to keep ears hidden. Your kids may get more from this and be less discerning. The movie does try to provide positive messages and a story of female empowerment. As for adults, understand this isn't downright bad; it just doesn't feel an hour forty well spent. Watching felt like more of a task than a pleasure.

Klaus is the new animated film on Netflix, which is about how the legend of Santa Claus started involving a reclusive woodsman and a selfish postman. This is a truly inventive, good-hearted Christmas film. The film uses old-fashioned animation with digital techniques to bring a 2 1/2D look to it. This looks AMAZING. I don't think I've seen something quite like this. The painted appearance to the backgrounds and characters looks great. The designs of the characters and locales are all distinctive, especially the characters. There is a wide cast here and they are so stylistically designed. The movie takes place around this town where two clans are at war. The townspeople are such a wonderfully diverse group of grotesques. I also loved the look of Klaus (voiced by J.K. Simmons) who is given a large, broad-shouldered figure. The character movement is also really fluid. The story is equally good. Although the film ultimately goes the way you predict it will, the storytelling in this is so well done that it doesn't much matter. The idea of the story of Santa Claus being told through non-magical reasons and happening through the actions of a postman is definitely something different from most attempts at Santa origin stories. The warring clans part brings a nice dab of dark humor while the sentimental bits are done nicely. All the characters are likable. I highly recommend you check this out. This is just a really well-done family Christmas movie.

This is not a perfect movies. It has its flaws. Still, I enjoyed myself. I found this to be a guilty pleasure. I mean, isn't "lightweight" or "guilty pleasure" what one should expect from a Charlie's Angels installment? Let me get the script's problems out of the way. The story has its muddled plot points. There isn't a lot of regard for real world logic. Plus, there is one strange, dark element that leaves a bit of a metaphorical bitter aftertaste. On the whole, I had a good time. Admittedly, it was in a brainless way. I felt there was a fair amount of funny lines and generally liked the combination of fight scenes and stylish locales. I also liked the decision that the Townsend Agency has been expanded into this larger multinational operation. The three leads were good. Kristen Stewart was the MVP as the weird one who you can't predict what she'll say or do next. Naomi Scott also does a great job as the innocent newbie trying to stay afloat in the world of espionage she has found herself in. Ella Balinska is more of the straight woman and doesn't get as much a chance to shine, but she does a decent job when she gets to demonstrate her comedic chops. What helps the film is that it has a surprisingly strong group of villains, most of them of which are also pretty funny. As for the film's appearance: The movie has a pretty good selection of nice looking sets and locales. There were a couple ideas during fight scenes I thought were done well. The filming has some issues, particularly in the first half. There are way too many close-up shots. Also, there were a couple of times that the camera tried to balance the background and the foreground, which resulted in this brief but odd feel that's hard to put into words. It's sort of an uncanny valley-esque situation. Overall, I kind of compare this to the first two films in that it doesn't matter that much what the film is about and just sitting back and enjoy the ride.

Ford v. Ferrari is a retelling of the Ford company's attempts to compete with Ferrari in building racing cars and win the Le Mans race and the designer and driver behind getting the tasks done. This is just a really well put together, well written movie that looks at the passion for something in contrast with the constraints of the business world. The direction on this is tight. It looks nice and the pacing is pretty smooth for a two-and-a-half hour movie. Director James Mangold (Logan, Walk the Line) really knows how to make scenes visually interesting, throwing in little stuff. Though there isn't really that much racing in this, the race at Le Mans really pays off your expectations. Matt Damon and Christian Bale are the leads in this, the former being the guy who tries to work within the system and the latter being the guy who can't. Matt Damon gives a fine performance, but it's Bale who steals every scene he's in. The famously versatile actor completely sells the character of driver Ken Miles, both brash but charismatic. I'll be very surprised if he doesn't get an Oscar nomination. To be honest, the casting even to the smallest characters is pretty darn good. Props should be given to Tracy Letts as tough, intimidating boss Henry Ford II. The only weak spot I found, and it's more of a knitpick, is that they could've cut down on the scenes of Miles interacting with his family. It's good stuff, but it can be a little repetitive. Overall, I highly recommend this.

For a movie with a lot of action, I was a little bored. This is helmed by disaster movie director Roland Emmerich. He is a guy who found his voice in the 90's, and this movie kind of feels like it was made during that decade. The execution is too light for its own good. I don't mean this in a complimentary way. Dialogue is undercooked and at times cliched. I felt like a lot of good actors were wasted here. There is a lot of quick jumping from scene-to-scene. Yes, I know this is one of those war movies that look at many players, but even by the standards of these types of films, the scenes often don't hold weight. Also, this movie feels kind of odd for today. More recent war movies have tried to look at the more realistic and darker elements of the subject and the human toll and psychology of it all. Not that this movie isn't about human sacrifice, but this tries to be more of a crowdpleaser like the war films of yesteryear. It feels out of place in today's climate. Of course, I could just be jaded. If you want to see movie honoring those who died for our county, then this might be for you. The movie does a good job of laying out how the battle of Midway went down on both the American and Japanese fronts and evoking the old feel of wide-scale military battle films. Emmerich maintains his eye for action. The combat scenes are all done well. The computer graphics aren't the best; none of them look realistic enough. In Emmerich's defense, I give him credit for showing a lot of them during full daylight scenes, which is trickier than doing them during night or in grey/blue lighting. Also, props to hair and costumes in this. Overall, this is a movie that looks good enough but just doesn't stand out.

I found Doctor Sleep, based on the book by Stephen King and the sequel to The Shining, to be really, really good. This is directed by Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House) who has proven himself to be one of the great horror auteurs. (He previously adapted Stephen King's Gerald's Game, which was an impressive effort considering that it was mostly a person handcuffed to a bed.) The pacing works really well for a movie running at two-and-a-half hours. The dialogue is some of the best flowing I've seen in a while. The cinematography and general look are also top notch. Horror fans, be forewarned that there are not that many scares. This time the main foe isn't ghosts, but the True Knot, psychic energy vampires. They're powerful, but they have basic human personalities and certain limitations. But, it's a really good story! You get to learn a lot more about the world of shining (psychic powers). The personal journey of psychic and recovering alcoholic Danny Torrence and his relationship with young shiner Abra (Kyliegh Curran) is interesting. What the True Knot lack in frightening appearances, they make up with being fleshed-out characters who make very dangerous antagonists. Though not the scariest film, this works really well as a dark tale. Also, scene where you see the True Knot in action is one truly scary moment that will stick with you. The leads, McGregor, Curran, and Rebecca Ferguson as the True Knot's leader Rose the Hat, all do an excellent job.(Yes, I concede the villain names are silly.) However, McGregor's American accent doesn't sound quite natural. Also for flashback purposes and such, Flanagan got some very convincing actors to mimic the ones from the Shining. Remember when I said the pacing "mostly" works? The one weak point is reliance on nostalgia. The movie tries to be both an adaptation of Doctor Sleep but also stay true to the events specific to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Fans of the book could be disappointed by changes. Several of elements involving the previous movie work. But there are moments where it can't help but give direct "wink, wink" references to the original's scenes and shots. It feels forced and the cinematography feels off with the rest of the film. However, there is only a very small percentage of these elements in the movie. Mostly it is its own thing. Of the recent Stephen King movies (including the Netflix ones), this is my favorite. In fact, I think it's one of the best Stephen King adaptations ever made.

7/10 Understand that this review is for the average viewer. If you're a big One Piece fan, my rating may be too low for you. This whole thing is one big fan service. There was a lot of clapping in the theater I was at. The movie squeezes a TON of existing characters from the anime's extensive roster and manages to do so with a reasonable explanation of how they're gathered all in one place. You also get a ton of fighting. But putting the fan service aside, I can't say this is a perfect movie. The last two One Piece movies, Z and Gold, were really good. (The former's strength is in it's plot and the latter is in showmanship and worldbuilding.) In fact, I think they're some of the best anime films based on TV shows. (A lot of these films feel like uneventful filler.) In regards to story and execution, I don't think this compares to them. The thing about this movie is that there are so many players in this that it is mostly just showing the characters and action. The plot is thin. Some of the main characters from the show really don't get to do much. It doesn't help that the secondary villain is rather extraneous. Of course, some may only be interested in the action. The movie is jam-packed with it but there are so many character move sets that you don't get much time to focus on any of it. On the plus side, the villain, who is basically a mountain of muscle, is a pretty good threat. There's also a visual design that I can't go into detail but looks really, really good. Plot-wise there are a couple strong emotional moments. If you haven't seen the show before, this isn't the best jumping in point. I think they explain enough so that you understand the general story, but all the character appearances will probably leave you lost. As a movie in general, I don't think it's bad, just okay. I may see it again some point when I want some light watching. But as mentioned, if you love OP, you'll probably want to see this soon because it doesn't disappoint when showing you stuff you already like.

Countdown, about a supernatural app that tells you when you die, has it's moments but is ultimately underwhelming. A lot of the script, especially lead ELizabeth Lail's personal struggles and backstory which takes up half the time, is really predictable and kinda boring. There is a subplot about a doctor (acted unconvincingly by Peter Facinelli; though in defense, he didn't have any good dialogue to work with) that is pretty cringeworthy and is handled in an unnatural manner that serves to force in a plot point. The look of the evil entity in this is also pretty basic. However, there are several moments where Countdown is being a better movie. The humor in this isn't half bad, especially the reactions of regular bystanders to the leads is pretty fun. Tom Segura as a self-serving tech guy and P.J. Byrne as a nerdy priest both do good job as comic relief. There are a few ideas or scares that weren't half bad. Unfortunately, the good and bad stuff counter each other resulting in a very so-so film.

In The Lighthouse, two old-timey lighthouse keepers played by Willem DeFoe and Robert Pattinson are alone on an island and get on each others nerves. Things start getting freaky as sanity starts to wane and what is real or not comes into question. I found this to be rather a fascinating film and the best looking horror movie of the year. This movie is so visually striking. It is very reminiscent of how old movies were shot. The film is in black and white and the contrast between white and dark really adds to the stark feel of the whole thing. There are a lot of controlled shots that really direct the mood. The camera lingering on a wide shot helps show the bleakness of the island or a specific focus on something out of place or unsettling add to the madness and sense of despair. The imagery is just fantastic. A lot of the freaky stuff that goes on is quick and to the point in a manner almost like a picture in a book giving The Lighthouse an unreal feel. There are some very unique parts and there is stuff in here you won't soon forget. The psychological drama and the script are well done, too. There are some really good moments of dialogue and even an odd funny line that'll catch you by surprise. But I admit that the script is not at the same level as the visuals. Some of the many scenes of tension or squabbling between the two main characters could've been cut down a little. Understand that this is a slow movie. The characters speak in the manner of the times and you have to make sure you're paying attention so you can figure out what they're saying. Defoe unsurprisingly does a great job, but in my opinion it is Pattinson who makes the film. He can say so much with just a facial expression and he is so good at handling quick changes of tone. Overall this movie may be too slow a burn for some, but if you're the slightest bit interested, I highly suggest this. This is a movie that will really stick with you.

Based on the novella by the father-son team of Stephen King and Hoe HIll, this film continues the King tradition of bringing horror out of common things. In this case, long grass can be pretty freaky. There have been instances where people or children have gotten lost and died of dehydration in corn fields. The same principle applies here. A brother and sister end up lost in a field of tall grass and even before things start getting weird the film does a great job of showing the usual unpleasantness of being stuck out in the heat and the mud. The freaky stuff equally helps make this film. I don't know if I'd call this the scariest film ever, but it does a good job of being uneasy or uncomfortable. A fair part of this is the scares being subtle but when the nasty stuff happens: it is definitely memorable. There is one thing in particular you won't see coming. This is one of those horror films that plays a little too fast and loose with the rules of how things work for some viewers tastes. Director VIncenzo Natali (who directed Splice) has a good eye for visuals here. There are so many shots and computer and set designs that stand out. However, the computer graphics can be a bit obvious at points. Mostly decent cast, but the standout is Patrick Wilson. I won't go into detail, but he really gets the chance to play more of a character role than he usually gets. I did have issues with Will Buie Jr., the movie's only child actor. The issue isn't that he's a bad actor. He's given dialogue that just sounds too adult. Buie does a such competent job of delivering his lines he doesn't sound like a regular kid either. Once again, Netflix has produced another good Stephen King adaption. I recommend this.

Based on a true story, Jillian Bell plays Brittany, a woman with insecurities and an unhealthy lifestyle, who is told by a doctor that it would be healthier for her to lose weight. This leads her on a path to discovery and eventual plans to run a marathon. I found this to have a generally good uplifting story, but the specific parts don't all work. The script could'v gone through another revision. There are moments where the humor and dialogue really snaps and others where they don't work at all and scenes feel drawn out or superfluous. Brittany herself at times can be very sympathetic with real world doubts, but at other times her negative actions are so over-the-top that you can't relate to her. Speaking of Brittany, Jillian Bell does a great job in the role. Many of us have probably seen her in things over the years, such as 22 Jump Street and Date Night, but she's mostly been a supporting player. It's nice to see her take center stage and show that she can do a bit of drama. This movie is shot interestingly. It uses bright colors like a comedy but uses handheld camerawork and has sort of a more down-to-Earth feel. As a feel-good movie, I thinks this works more than it doesn't. Just don't expect perfection.

8/10 Jexi is about the titular Siri/Alexa-like phone program (voiced by Rose Byrne) with a mind of her own who ends up wreaking havoc with the life of an introverted phone addict played by Adam Devine. I generally liked this. Jexi makes this film. Her smack talking brings the biggest laughs. I also appreciated that this avoids some of the cliches you usually get with AI-run-amok films. Jexi lets you know what she is from the get-go. There's no slow burn of her pretending to act regularly or slowly gaining sentience. However, her arc does become more predictable in the second half. They really didn't have to hire a known actor to do this. Plenty of people could've easily spoken in a phone-like voice without vocal change. Still, I do admit that Byrne does a good job. I also liked the usually more over-the-top Devine who does a good job with a more subdued role. (This is especially a relief because I didn't think he did a great job in his last straight man role in Isn't it Romantic.) Understand that this movie works more on a feel-good level than a laugh-a-minute one. Jexi is in about every other scene. When she isn't there, some people may find some of the scenes, many of them involving Devine's character predictably growing as a person, too leisurely for their taste. This film is a little lightweight. It's not something you need to see immediately, but it's worth giving a chance sometime.

I liked this, but there are some caveats. First off: this movie looks great from the effects to the creature design to the costumes. It just has this great fairy tale fantasy look to it. Loved the world building in this. You get a lot better feel for the human society here. A new group of fairies appear in this and they are given more detail than expected with various subsets with their own costumes and customs. Found the pacing better than the last film, which had a lot of editing from the original cut from what I hear. I also appreciated that this movie was trying to be more of a crowd-pleaser. The last film's moments of harsh emotional darkness did feel like it was trying too hard to be edgy at times. However, I admit that that it did have some great character and dialogue moments with Aurora and Maleficent that Mistress of Evil lacks. Again, Angelina Jolie is the best part, stealing whatever scene she is in. She delivers the best emotional moments of the film. I was disappointed that the villain's henchwoman Gerda (Jenn Murray) is used sparingly. She is the competent and straight-to-the-task type. She evokes this odd uncomfortableness and does a lot with very few lines of dialogue. The movie's biggest problem is that it's like Tron Legacy in that the director/screenwriters found ways to depict murders without graphic violence and they felt that that justified them going crazy with them. I found the amount of death went farther than it needed for a family film. To compound the matter, the rushed feel-good ending really feels in conflict with the events that took place before it. The movie juggles way too many characters. The creators really didn't know what to do with Maleficent's sidekick Diaval (Sam Riley). Michelle Pfeiffer's duplicitous Queen Ingrith's scene time could've been cut. She was an okay villain who I think could've been stronger if her characteristics hadn't gotten old after a while. Also, Maleficent, the star of the film, is only in it half the time. Despite these legitimate flaws, I still enjoyed myself. This movie is basically fantasy porn. Just understand that this is one of those cases where you're willing to shut your brain off.

Given that this was ten years apart from its predecessor, I feared that this movie would suffer the far-separated comedy sequel curse, but my doubts were quickly shaken. The sequel remains really funny, including the return of the fun narrative cutaways and the, sometimes creative, use of text for the rules of surviving the zombie apocalypse. The returning four main characters remain great. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) and Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) are a great odd-couple duo with excellent chemistry. Emma Stone as Wichita continues to do a great job as the one who reacts sarcastically. I love new character Madison (Zoey Deutsch). She is a bimbo/airhead type, but she has a specific quirkiness that makes the character distinctive. She always has the most random lines. The plot itself is a little lightweight; the movie mostly runs on the jokes. Overall, I had a good time with this and recommend it.

This knows how to have fun. The new animated Addams Family movie delivers what you want from the titular family: spades of dark humor jokes. The movie successfully delivers when it comes to the four main family members. (Uncle Fester (Nick Kroll) and Granny (Bette Midler) are just okay.) Gomez (Oscar Isaacs) is the congenial family man with a zest for life. Morticia is the over-protective mother whose viewpoint you understand. Though the movie does have the parents be a little more sentimental than some portrayals, I do think it still captured the core of the characters. More effort is put into characterization for Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard) than a lot of previous versions. Let's be honest, Wednesday is usually the sibling that pulls focus. Speaking of which, this version is not much different. This Wednesday (Chloe Grace Moretz) gives the Christina Ricci version a run for her money. This is by far the most unnervingly emotionless one, and the animated format is able to do things to increase her creepiness that you couldn't do in animation. The story, though, is very basic. It is the trope of the "normies" vs. the misunderstood monsters with predictable parent-child rifts. The normal people, especially villainous home renovator Margaux Needler (Allison Janney), are pretty predictable and uninteresting. I've seen Janney do good voice work before but here it feels like she's trying for a vocal quality she is never able to quite capture. This appears to be a modestly budgeted film so don't expect Pixar, Disney, or Dreamworks-quality animation. I found the character design for a lot of the townsfolk to be disappointing. Though I did eventually get accustomed to it, the decision to make Morticia's face look like a skull wasn't what I felt to be the best option for the character. It felt a little at odds with the original New Yorker cartoon and previous animated versions. I think it's the chin that's the main issue. It was a little too long. I did like the decoration of the Addams Family house. I do prefer the two 90's live-action versions over this. This one is more of a children's movie, and the original ones being for an older audience were able to go darker and more-over-the-top. This movie also has less of a distinct identity than its predecessors. (Though in fairness, what can you expect with any Addams Family movie without Raoul Julia?) I can't say this is the greatest animated kids film, either. However, it is an enjoyable time waster for the family.

The Joker is a stand-alone film outside the DC Universe which is an origin story for the Batman villain. I don't think that since The Rocky Horror Picture Show's sequel Shock Treatment that I've had such a conflict over how I feel about a film. I think I equally like and dislike this movie. First off, I'll confirm most of the good things that everyone's been saying: This has some very interesting looks at wealth inequality, the failings of mental health care, what can cause the result of psychopathic attacks, and the basic human apathy and failure of humankid to take care of itself in general. There are a lot of really top notch lines and scenes in this. The final act is something. It leaves quite the impression. The whole things looks great. Director Todd Phillips provides such an impressive look and sound to the film. Some great cinematography. Dirty, crowded, crime-laden Gotham looks great. Both score and song selections really guide the mood. Again I must parrot what everyone's saying: Joaquin Phoenix delivers what could be an Oscar-winning performance as the lead. He is so nuanced and excels at making you feel uncomfortable. Joaquin has such a unique body language in this. This version of the Joker has a condition where he can laugh uncontrollably, and the actor does a great job of making it feel realistic and unpleasant. He also appears to have lost a lot of weight in this. The Joker is traditionally portrayed as a skinny feller but here the movie uses this to make the character feel at times downright primal or sickly, matching his mental state. However, the movie should not have been two hours long. In order to show the events that create the Joker, Phillips over-compensates and throws way too many plot points at the guy. There are moments that are quite tedious, especially in the middle. There is a also a subplot I was really not found of that reeks of uninspired fan-fiction. To be honest, this was such a grounded piece by superhero comic standards that it could've been a non-comic book film. Yeah, DC is trying to show that these films can be more prestigious and serious, but by taking out the over-the-top parts of the superhero genre, I feel we may lose what made them special in the first place. This is the first real comic supervillain movie. (Venom's movie was an anti-hero flick.) But taking the comics into account: his isn't the first attempt to redo a supervillain's origina story. I feat that a lot of these stories frustratingly tend to recycle concepts and this is no exception. These include: 1) Make the villain's story darker than previous incarnations. 2) Have one of their few connections be with a mother and/or romantic interest or fixation (Zazie Beets' character could've been cut out of this completely without changing anything). Considering that this is about a burgeoning psychopath, you can probably guess, but just to confirm: this is a REALLy dark movie. Violence doesn't happen all the time but when it does: Whoo-boy! Phillips has publicly mentioned that the films of Scorses, such as Taxi Driver and The Comedian, greatly influenced him. So, be forewarned if that's not your thing. I really had a hard time deciding on the rating for this. On one hand, Phillips, who has directed comedies up till now, surprisingly pulls off quite a confident, intriguing cinematic experience. The movie managed to elicit an emotional response from me that very few films have. However, the issues I mentioned prevented me from loving this or watching a second time. Some of the theater audience at the end clapped, but I personally don't think the movie was strong enough to justify that.