Sequels can be tricky to make, they can also be tricky to make when the predecessor is so massively successful, you feel the pressure of not pleasing your audience in the end. That is the kind of pressure I imagine that co-writers and co-directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee must have felt when they were making 'Frozen II', the Disney animated sequel to the highly successful and generally loved 'Frozen' (2013). We see our main characters return, Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) is settling in just fine since becoming the Queen of the Arendelle kingdom, her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) also seems happy with the way life is going alongside Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and Olaf (Josh Gad). However, things start to get strange when Elsa hears a mysterious voice calling to her that nobody else hears. Anna is concerned for her older sister, and tries to make sense of what's going on as Elsa fears that the kingdom could be in danger. When Anna and Elsa were kids, they heard a story from their parents about a mysterious and enchanted land full of magic that saw a great war brewing among its people. Elsa thinks that this voice calling to her could lead to answers regarding her parents and her powers. The film might do a good job at entertaining long-time fans who have become obsessed with the original film, as they'll see their favorite characters go on a more exciting journey to uncover some secrets. The pacing of the film - especially towards the middle - can feel a little slow at times, and the songs (once again written by Oscar winners Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez) aren't as catchy as the ones from the previous film (but still fun nonetheless). The film, for the most part, feels passable until the ending, whether or not this is where you see the characters go, your response to it will say a lot about that. Overall, this is worth checking out if you are a 'Frozen' fanatic.
It has become apparent to me that James Mangold is probably one of the most under-appreciated directors of our time. This is a filmmaker who has made some fascinating films and many people probably don't know they were by him. From 'Walk the Line' (2005), '3:10 to Yuma' (2007) and even 'Logan' (2017), he has made some fantastic films, and has a very good eye in how he approaches his storytelling. Here, with 'Ford v Ferrari', he uses Matt Damon and Christian Bale (surely to get some Oscar consideration for his work) as the two leads to tell the story of how Carroll Shelby (Damon) persuades Ken Miles (Bale) to compete in a race against Ferrari by driving a Ford. Shelby designs cars, and wants to team up with Ford to make the best race car possible. The big company knows that they can't remain financially stable if they keep making car after car. They need style and they need to keep up with competition, but most importantly, they need a reputation. Shelby uses Miles as a way to promote the Ford race cars as he is clearly the best racer out there. Their friendship, their bond is what keeps this movie lifted throughout. The screenplay, written by Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller keeps these two central characters interesting when they're apart and when they're together. They know that Damon and Bale can work around the dialogue and that their chemistry is vital to the story. The racing sequences are also some of the best you'll see on screen. This movie can get a little long from time to time, so it can be hard to keep interested, but the acting, the chemistry, the racing and just the overall drama, with hints of comedy sprinkled here and there, is enough to keep you invested. It's sure enough that Bale will score another Oscar nomination for his work, hopefully, Mangold can get a "Best Director" nomination for his work here. It's a film and a story that deserves to be seen.
If Michael Bay's 'Pearl Harbor' (2001) was too pretentiously romantic and historically inaccurate for you, the best thing I can say about Roland Emmerich's 'Midway' is that, it does take a more accurate look on the attacks on Pearl Harbor, but everything else about this film makes me wish it was handled by a different filmmaker. The film stars Ed Skrein as Lieutenant Richard Best, and his journey through this picture in becoming a daring pilot to save the Americans from the Japanese attack. Skrein is a good actor, whose had many different and successful roles, but here, his accent feels too fake and put-on, it also doesn't help that the dialogue, which was given to him by Wes Tooke, wants him to ham-up the cliched hero talk and over-exaggerate everything he says. He lives a rather peaceful life with his wife Anne (Mandy Moore) and daughter. The film is 2 hours and 18 minutes long, and I can definitely confirm that the pace of the film makes you feel every minute that goes by. There are so many characters here to focus on who don't get as many pivotal moments until the movie ends. We have Lieutenant Commander Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson) who tries his best to figure out a way that the Americans can defeat Japan and prevent more lives at risk. The battle sequences are fine, but the main issue I took with this film is the very bright color palette. There is a lot of yellow here that is being emphasized on screen. The picture doesn't feel gritty or at least horrifying when you take into account what the characters have to go through here. Plus, the film is PG-13, which is the same mistake made with 'Pearl Harbor' (2001), there is no sense of horror or disturbance. Many of the deaths you see on screen won't stick with you, at least not in the way Steven Spielberg's 'Saving Private Ryan' (1998) did. I understand it's unfair to compare 'Midway' or any other war film to 'Saving Private Ryan' (1998), but if you want to make an effective war film, that's how it's done. Or at least, try to find other reasons why that worked. Overall, this is a forgettable movie filled with over-the-top and clustered action, some hammy acting and crummy dialogue. I think it's safe to say that the legacy of the people we see here will only be seen through the history books.
We've seen, over the last few years now, many iconic franchises making their big "come-back" movie, with eager audiences flocking out to see it, and the movie itself fulfilling expectations as to what the fans desire most. In 2015, we had two blockbuster film franchises returning for more adventures and they were; 'Jurassic World' and 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. Both of these films, regardless of what everyone may think of them now, had the benefit of being absent for over a decade before their big-screen return. For the most part, they were big in scale and scope, entertaining and epic to the point where they broke many box office records. While the "Terminator" franchise hasn't been absent for that long, after 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (1991), we did get; 'Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines' (2003), 'Terminator: Salvation' (2009) and 'Terminator: Genisys' (2015). But this one, 'Terminator: Dark Fate' is supposed to be the big "come back" film mainly because James Cameron - who wrote and directed the first two - is returning as co-writer and producer of this film, while Tim Miller ('Deadpool') is given control as the director. The film, without giving away too many spoilers, is pretty much what you've seen before. It's great to see Linda Hamilton return as Sarah Connor, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the film lacks a big surprise or suspense. There is nothing in this film except hollow and mechanical scenes which should be riveting and exhilarating, but they just feel passable. The cast, including Mackenzie Davis ('The Martian' and 'Tully') do a good job of what's required from them, but overall, very early on in the film, fans may feel alienated as to how the story begins. You may like this as a sense of diversion, and it is arguably better than what's come before, but overall, this film will make you feel empty, and maybe there is either a hunger for more big "Terminator" adventures, or, you're just done seeing these kinds of stories being told...
I shouldn't have liked this movie, at least not to the extent that I'm giving it a generous score. 'Rambo: Last Blood' might just be the biggest guilty pleasure movie released in 2019. It's violent, sometimes poignant, and even just outright crazy knowing that devoted fans will eat it up anyway. It does lack in compelling supporting characters, and perhaps the short run-time may have had something to do with this. Sylvester Stallone reprises his role as John Rambo, living a somewhat peaceful life, residing in Arazona, he looks after a young girl named Gabriela (Yvette Monreal) who tells him that a friend of hers in Mexico has managed to track down her father who abandoned her when she was very young. Rambo is reluctant for her to travel to Mexico simply because her father, he claims, wanted nothing to do with her, which is why she should be grateful for the life that he has given her instead. She decides to secretly travel to Mexico anyway, where she winds up at the hands of some sex traffickers known as "The Martinez Brothers". They drug their victims and perform all kinds of horrific acts onto young girls. Rambo manages to hear about this and does everything he can to try and find her. Think of this movie like 'Taken' (2008) with the style of 'Logan' (2017). As I said, this is a guilty pleasure movie. If you've been a die-hard fan of the previous "Rambo" installments, you're more than likely to find some enjoyment in this. As I said, my main criticisms towards this movie mainly stems from the underdeveloped supporting characters that we see. The villain in this movie barely gets that much screen-time, and there is another character in this film who only shows up for two scenes. Overall, it's ridiculous, violent, over-the-top, and sometimes it tries to get serious for its dramatic moments. I enjoyed it for what it is, but that's no guarantee for me to even label this as a "great film", it just is what it is, and for many, that's more than enough. Take it or leave it.
French filmmaker Luc Besson ('Leon' and 'The Fifth Element') once had it all, from making good films, to being the name to look out for in a director. Which is why it's all the more disappointing to see that he fails to deliver another exciting thriller, and just gives us a disposable and forgettable one in 'Anna', a thriller which continues to use the gimmick of narrative tricks to try and connect a few puzzle pieces to surprise the audience, but I found myself frustrated and tired. Our main title character is played by Sasha Luss, who may have a future in acting in more big-budget films, but here, she is resorted to implausible cliches. She is sent on a variety of missions, and takes order from a stern and firm woman named Olga (Helen Mirren). Anna is always reluctant to take on these missions, but she is always told that she has no choice. Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy are also wasted here as just the two hard-male stereotypes who are both in some way connected to Anna's missions. Time and time again, the movie pulls the rug to try and surprise us, there was once a time where this type of non-linear narrative tricks was put to good use. Here, as I said, it's frustrating and tiring, I found myself caring less and less as the runtime went on. This movie uses so many outdated formulas and cliches, it's a wonder why a studio would green-light this for a 2019 release... overall, I think some audiences who have never seen films (better films) like this before will probably be surprised by what they see, but if you've seen the better films like this before, then you will be both underwhelmed and disappointed, or you might just forget you ever saw this film to begin with.
For decades now, the comic book genre has always seen spectacle, fantasy, powers and it's mostly fantastical. However, in recent years, we have seen them evolve and try to put characters in the front, there have been many great deep character moments in the genre with films from; 'The Dark Knight' (2008), 'Logan' (2017) and even 'Avengers: Endgame' (2019) focusing greatly on characters dealing with the situations they are in with those respective stories. Enter 'Joker', the latest standalone DC film from director Todd Phillips ('The Hangover') and he uses Joaquin Phoenix in the title role to tell this story of a man named Arthur Fleck. Arthur lives a very quiet, if not, insignificant life as a clown who holds up sale signs, he aspires to be a stand-up comedian and lives in a small apartment with his mother whose mental issues seem to pass onto him. Every night, Arthur and his mother like to watch "Live with Murray Franklin", and enjoy watching the talk show host Franklin (Robert DeNiro) bringing a sense of light and fun into their lives. The movie mainly focuses greatly on Arthur, and his turn from socially awkward individual, into a psychologically damaged sociopath. He has a condition which makes him laugh out loud uncontrollably in awkward situations, and he gets medication regularly to keep him sane. However, when a series of bad things happen to him day after day, and nothing seems to improve, Arthur then begins to question if it's him that's the problem, or is it the outside world. The film is appropriately bleak, and sets a very uncomfortable tone, with Phillips deliberately holding onto long shots for extended periods of time to create a sense of unease. Not to mention that you do feel bad for Arthur, the movie is very much told from his point of view, so you come to understand why Arthur behaves the way he does, not that it's justified, but it's in the nature of his character. As you know, the Joker has an infamously non-existent origin story. We just know him as a deranged clown who murders for the thrill. Here, Phillips has given the character, not only a name, but a plausible origin story that could work as a prequel to 'The Dark Knight' (2008), with some things altered here and there, of course. Phoenix is also terrific in the role, as his presence makes you feel unclean and uncomfortable, his voice and mannerisms convey a sympathetic sociopath, and there is even some subtlety to it as well. He doesn't try too hard to chew up the scenery, he just behaves appropriately to the environment that surrounds him. Not since the late Heath Ledger, have we seen this iconic Batman villain portrayed with such skill. Placing a comic book character and grounding him in a more realistic reality, just as James Mangold did to Wolverine with 'Logan' (2017), was definitely a smart move. It will remind you of two Scorsese classics such as; 'Taxi Driver' (1976) and 'The King of Comedy' (1982), both of which also star Robert DeNiro. I think it's great that the comic book genre was able to arrive at a point to tell a psychopathic story, we've never seen that in this genre before. Who knows when it will be the next time we see another comic film like this, but the fact that they can mix it up means this genre can bring surprises and is here to stay.
There is no denying that 'The Lion King' (1994) is one of Disney's most treasured animated classics that still impacts audiences today. So, you may ask; why did Disney want to tell the same story again, with the exact same execution? Just because they can. 'The Lion King' has visual wonder and sweeping state-of-the-art CGI, but nothing else new to add. It's disappointing mainly because this is all handled by a talented and trusted filmmaker with Jon Favreau (who also directed 'The Jungle Book' for Disney), so you'd think his charm and creative input would be suited for this particular remake. Instead, I find myself asking, can you even tell that this was from the same director as 'Elf' (2003), 'Iron Man' (2008) or even 'Chef' (2014)? These films were able to showcase Favreau's talents as a storyteller, but realistically, any other director could have made this movie and the results would be mostly the same. You know the story, you've seen the film, you more or less love the film, both as a child and as an adult. The problem that lies with this remake is, just like my issues with the 'Beauty and the Beast' (2017) remake, it is shot-for-shot, quote-for-quote exactly the same as the original, warranting the existence of these remakes, mostly pointless. The cast do a pretty good job capturing the original spirit of the iconic characters, particularly impressive are Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen as Timon and Pumbaa, they bring their own comedic flair to these characters, and it works because it's the only thing that's different, but doesn't deviate from the original. At the end of the day, you can't accuse Jon Favreau for "disrespecting" the original movie because he made the exact same film. To most Disney fans, 'The Lion King' (1994) is as close to perfection as it could get, so you can't be mad at Favreau changing little-to-nothing. But to that, I ask, why tell the same story again in the exact same fashion? Only this time, things look more photorealistic. I understand the novelty that these live-action (I also understand this doesn't qualify as one) remakes is that it's like the animated originals, but it looks real. What you can achieve in animation, cannot be achieved exactly in animation. One of the common criticisms you may have heard is that the lions don't "emote" as much here as opposed to the original, but that's because the lions in the 1994 original had eyebrows drawn on them, not to mention that Zazu (voiced by John Oliver here) had big human eyes in the original. I admire Favreau for attempting something here, but I'd rather see him add his own trademarks to his films, whether they're original, or adaptations. 'The Lion King' doesn't showcase any directorial creativity, just cashing in on nostalgia. If you're going to remake a story, execute it in the most unique way you can, that's why 'Cinderella' (2015) and 'The Jungle Book' (2016) worked so well.
'Spider-Man: Far From Home' is the perfect post-'Avengers: Endgame' (2019) MCU movie mainly because it's emotional, heart-felt, funny and suitably action-packed. Tom Holland once again returns as Peter Parker, five years after half the universe's population was decimated by Thanos, Parker, and some of his friends (who must also have been affected since they haven't aged that much) are getting ready to go on their trips abroad. Peter tells Ned (Jacob Batalon) that he plans to spend some romantic time with MJ (Zendaya) and confess his love for her, while on these romantic destinations. It seems that his romantic plans are about to be put in jeopardy as S.H.I.E.L.D. director, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) recruits Spider-Man on some big scale missions with a powerful being named Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) by his side. There are Elementals scattered across the globe, and it's up to both Spidey and "Mysterio" to stop them. I really enjoyed this movie, director John Watts (who also directed 'Spider-Man: Homecoming') does a much better job at crafting some intense action scenes, with the added emotional levels to keep you gripped. The supporting characters are also better utilized here than in the previous film. The film does a good job at keeping you hooked with the character drama, not to mention that seeing Spidey's struggle in a world without Iron Man can often remind you of the emotional intensity that was present throughout 'Avengers: Endgame' (2019). Holland does a terrific job at portraying the nervous high school kid who must balance his life as a hero. I had a lot of fun watching this movie, and if you are a fan of the character, Mysterio, Jake Gyllenhaal (who gives a great performance) will not disappoint you. This is a summer action movie not to be missed.
'Toy Story 4' may not be strictly necessary, but thanks to a very funny script, and some amazing character moments, the movie never loses its imaginative spark. The film once again sees Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) and the gang return, along with their new owner, Bonnie, along with her other toys that we met in the previous film. Bonnie is about to start kindergarten and is feeling anxious, as most children do. Woody, being the caring and sympathetic toy that he is, tries to make things easier for her. Bonnie then decides to gather some thrown away items, mainly a plastic spork, googly eyes and some thick string to make a new friend she refers to as "Forky" (Tony Hale). Forky, shockingly becomes sentient like the other toys, except that he's aware that this is not his purpose. He repeatedly mentions to Woody that he is trash and belongs in the trash, and does everything he can to get away. Woody tries to stop him and convinces him that he's the reason Bonnie will be happy and make it through kindergarten. One day, during a trip to the carnival, Woody is convinced that he sees a lamp of an old friend, he ultimately runs into a dolly toy named Gabby (Christina Hendricks), and she seems sinister, and Forky ends up being stuck with her until she gets what she wants. Woody then runs into Bo Peep (Annie Potts) and she has moved on from being a kids' toy and becoming an independent toy who is free to explore whenever she craves it. Woody tells her about his situation and she offers to help out by introducing him to a friend, a stunt-man cyclist toy named Duke Kaboom (a hilarious Keanu Reeves) who, much like Buzz Lightyear in the original 'Toy Story' (1995), Duke has over-the-top confidence, though he is aware he is a toy. Meanwhile, Buzz (Tim Allen) tries to find Woody, and is stuck at a carnival game where he meets Ducky (Keegan Michael Key) and Bunny (Jordan Peele), and these two were absolutely hilarious. I liked this movie, not as much as the first three, it doesn't have the same emotional punch like Jesse's tragic backstory in 'Toy Story 2' (1999), or the intense drama with the garbage chute in 'Toy Story 3' (2010), but it is the funniest of the franchise. Director Josh Cooley does an impressive job of making his first animated feature debut. The gang is back, it's great to see them, the new characters; Duke, Ducky and Bunny have become my favorite moments from this film. If you love Pixar, this is one not to be missed, the comedy alone does warrant this sequels' existence.
'Men in Black: International' is nothing more than Sony trying to cash-in on another franchise they own and attempt to revamp it for modern blockbuster competition. While they knew what franchise they wanted to revisit, and they knew who they wanted to be the lead stars, the only thing they forgot is to tell a story. Tessa Thompson ('Creed' and 'Thor: Ragnarok') is Molly, a dedicated and feisty young woman who, since she was a kid, witnessed the existence of strange extra-terrestrial beings among earth. This motivates her to be a part of a secret organization and she wants in. She attempts everything she could to get recruited, and when she finally meets Agent O (Emma Thompson), she manages to pass and get what she wants. Molly then also meets a strange yet handsome gentleman of an agent, Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and she persuades him to let her join in on a mission together. Their boss, High T (Liam Neeson) is concerned about H's behavior and his constant recklessness. They go on a few missions together, and they manage to win everyone's respects back at headquarters. The problem that faces this film is that it is extremely underwhelming. The "Men in Black" franchise has been known for its imagination, as well as bringing out some surprising charisma and chemistry (previously with Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith) between any two leading stars. This one is actually rather frustrating and, dare I say, boring to watch. Hemsworth and Thompson are gifted actors, and have proven their worth ever since they showed their chemistry in 'Thor: Ragnarok' (2017), a movie that allowed them to do whatever they wanted and showcase their talents. Here, it seems that they are weighed down by an uninspired plot and dialogue that does not give them a chance to be themselves. Even director F. Gary Gray ('Straight Outta Compton') seems to be punished from a creative perspective. Not adding his own directorial traits to bring new life to the franchise. This film is only 1 hour and 54 minutes long, yet, you know it's an issue when earlier this year, 'Avengers: Endgame' (2019) (also co-starring Hemsworth and Thompson) clocks in at 3 hours and 1 minute, yet that one felt much shorter. I didn't get invested in any of the characters as Hemsworth was rather underdeveloped, he's just charming, but that's all he has. The action scenes weren't nearly as exciting as they should be, they're just fast and flashy. Also, none of the jokes land, time and time again, we see two characters holding their weapons at their enemies and a good five minutes is spent on quipping, or one character side-whispers something to the other character, what they say is nowhere near as funny. I honestly don't know why such talent, from F. Gary Gray, to Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson, is wasted here. Perhaps Sony needed relevant names to bring some kind of appeal to the film, but you'll only find that appeal by looking at the poster. The film won't do much for you.
I know I may have been enthusiastic in my reviews for 'Cinderella' (2015) and 'The Jungle Book' (2016), but after 'Beauty and the Beast' (2017), my admiration for Disney's remakes have deteriorated solely because they do seem rather pointless. 'Aladdin' seems like a check-list, in which scenes only happen because they happened in the 1992 original. Directed by Guy Ritchie ('Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch'), the film obviously centers around our title character (played by Mena Massoud, who does look and sound like his animated counterpart) running around and stealing from the marketplace of Agrabah along with his monkey Abu. He then meets a beautiful young woman, Jasmine (Naomi Scott), but is unaware that she is a princess. They seem to get along and almost fall in love as she finds his warm and kind charming personality somewhat rare and unique, as well as how he helped her get out of trouble. Meanwhile our main villain, Jafar (Marwan Kenzari), is after a powerful lamp, but needs a "Diamond in the Rough", and that comes from Aladdin, so he recruits him to voluntarily enter the cave of wonders and retrieve the magical possession. Aladdin, unfortunately, doesn't escape but manages to keep the lamp, and discovers that there is an all powerful Genie (A blue Will Smith) who can grant him three wishes. The two form a friendship and come up with ways for Aladdin to impress Jasmine, as well as the Genie's promise for his freedom. As I said above, the film feels like a check-list (only if you have seen the original), scenes are sometimes structured differently in an attempt to make it feel more original, and a new song is also added to make it different. The only major issue here is the CGI. While Smith does not repeat or do an imitation of what the late Robin Williams did back in 1992, and incorporates his own charisma to the role, the CGI to make Smith look like a person-like puff of blue smoke is visually jarring, as he looks inconsistent to the environment which surrounds him. For example, when he's talking to Aladdin, the light shining on one side of Aladdin's face is shining on the other side of the Genie's. It's almost as if Smith shot his scenes separately to the other actors from time to time. Plus, his movement can be a little frightening from time to time. Overall, the acting is solid, Naomi Scott is the biggest surprise from this film, and I guess it is faithful (yet massively unoriginal) to the animated classic. I am unsure as to why Disney thought Guy Ricthie (again, the director of 'Snatch') was the appropriate choice for this project. Next thing you know, they'll announce Quentin Tarantino to helm the live-action remake of 'The Little Mermaid' (1989).
The 'X-Men' franchise comes to a disappointing and forgettable end with another attempt at looking into the iconic "Phoenix" saga, which we saw was attempted back with 'X-Men: The Last Stand' (2006), and for many, it can't get as bad or worse than that. You will now look at "The Last Stand" as fondly as we look at 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' (2014), because "Dark Phoenix" is a bland, boring and as I said, forgettable entry into this once invincible franchise. A good and talented cast goes to waste with a flat screenplay, some horrible pacing and moments of unintentional hilarity. The movie starts off where we see Jean Grey as a child, for some reason, struggling to cope with adapting to her powers, everything around her is too loud and she seems to react by using her telepathy powers to lift any object and thrash them towards others where they could potentially be hurt or killed. Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) decides to take her in and possibly teach her how to concentrate and use her powers for better use instead of harm and death. We see that the group of "X-Men", including; Mystique (a rather bored looking Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (also bored Nicholas Hoult), Quicksilver (Evan Peters, actually trying), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Jean (Sophie Turner). Something goes wrong during their space mission (when does anything ever go right in a superhero movie space mission?) and it seems that Jean has encountered a strange power source which has made her more dangerous than before. The rest of the gang try to get a better understanding of this, but are unable to figure out what is wrong. It also seems that Xavier finally got the respect from the public he's always wanted, with the public always cheering for mutants to save the day and sort out many problems. Jessica Chastain is in this movie. Why? Not sure, she's in it, and she's wasted, that's all you need to know. Magneto (Michael Fassbender) returns as well, and even Fassbender's performance can't save himself from drowning in a dull movie. Not only written by Simon Kinberg (who also wrote "The Last Stand", but redeemed himself writing "Days of Future Past") takes his directorial feature film debut here. It's not a bad effort, the special effects look nice, and he seems to handle it okay, but one can't help but wonder if it was handled by someone with big-budget blockbuster experience and we would get a much better film. The film just feels extremely underwhelming, and the middle portion of it is frustratingly slow-paced and rather boring. It doesn't feel like a big finale or a big send-off. They should have left that to either 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' (2014) or 'Logan' (2017), this falls flat. It's the kind of film you'd put on in the background while doing some work, and it's the kind of film you'll forget you even saw. You'll look at your movie calendar in shock and say; "Oh, 'Shazam!' and 'Avengers: Endgame' were released the same year as this?", it's not worth wasting a rather short 1 hour and 52 minutes on, even the movie itself wants to be over and done with. There is no post-credits scene, just get up and leave, or don't see it at all.
'Holmes & Watson' is an annoying and uninspired comedy that completely misuses the reliable talents of Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly. The film focuses on how Dr. John Watson (Reilly) was once contemplating suicide, but stumbles across a clever and mysterious man named Sherlock Holmes (Ferrell), and the two guys seem to get along and hit it off and become a duo. We see that Holmes and Watson crack many cases and solve many crimes, until they one day let the evil Moriarty (Ralph Fiennes) escape making everyone believe that he is innocent. The film then ponders along with unfunny scenes followed by even more unfunny scenes, we see that the duo are invited to meet the Queen, and discover that there was a murder and that the Queen's life is in potential danger, so the duo get on the case to find out who the culprit could be. There is no clever moments in this film, I usually admire the sharply funny Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, whether they are together ('Step Brothers'), or when they're apart. The film, written and directed by Etan Cohen seems to restrain them from doing anything genuinely funny, and instead they are resorted to just screaming to the top of their lungs, talking and talking about unfunny things, or just making faces at each other without any worthy punchline. It's a largely misconceived comedy that badly tries to squeeze a laugh out of the audience without any use of subtlety and uses an Adam Sandler type approach. Sometimes less is more.
It's only April, but as of now, 'Avengers: Endgame' is my favorite movie of the year so far. It has taken the title of "best MCU film" away from 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014). Don't worry about spoilers, here's just a summary of the plot(?) and my thoughts on the film. The film pretty much takes place straight after 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018) where we see our remaining heroes dealing with the loss of half the universe's population after Thanos (Josh Brolin) completely wiped them out with the loaded infinity gauntlet with all six infinity stones. Tony Stark, aka "Iron Man" (Robert Downey Jr.) is adrift in space hoping for some good news, while the characters on earth; Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and even Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) of all people are trying to figure out how to take out the mad titan. The movie is very tonally different from 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018), in that, it's more somber, and builds up very slowly. The film, as you know, is 3 hours long, anyone who sat through; 'Schindler's List' (1993), 'Titanic' (1997), or even 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' (2003) will tell you this is no big deal. Luckily, this movie's pace is perfect, you're never bored watching it, especially if you've been emotionally invested in the Marvel Universe in the last decade (I guess this means this movie doesn't stand on its own being its one flaw). Once again, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, who have been my favorite directors behind this Cinematic Universe, they know how to balance another busy screenplay penned by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. The film is wildly tense, funny, gripping, and emotionally powerful. It's worthy every moment you wish to see. I really liked seeing these characters going on this big adventure, and now, it's going to be interesting to see where the MCU goes going forward. The cast, once again, commit 100% to their roles, and this film is going to live on for a lifetime. A worthy way to wrap everything up.
'Shazam!' is an easy movie to love, and that's because it is told through the eyes of young teenagers who aspire to be noble and powerful heroes, the spirit of this film is what keeps it alive. The story centers around a young, 14 year old boy named Billy Batson (Asher Angel) who is alone, and is searching for his mother ever since they were separated when he was just a young boy. He is then forced to bond with a new foster family after having a reputation for running away numerous times, but decides to finally settle in. His new family is big, many different siblings of various ages and personalities, the one he gets closest to is Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer), who is a big fan of superheroes and collects all kinds of special merchandise, even right down to the bullet that Superman himself deflected. Billy struggles at first with his new family and school, but is still motivated to find his mother. We also meet Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong), who, when he was a child, he encountered the wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) and was cast out as he could not resist evil, and was deemed not worthy to possess such great power. He manages to get himself back in and snatch the evil power, and the wizard must find someone truly worthy enough to defeat Sivana. That is where things get interesting for our young Billy, as he also comes across the mysterious temple and is told what he must do, when he says "Shazam!", he turns into a fully grown-up superhero (now played by Zachary Levi), but still has the mind of his own, young self. What really surprised me about this movie was how charming, heartwarming and funny it all is. Directed by David F. Sandberg ('Lights Out' and 'Annabelle: Creation'), the movie's tone is surprisingly light and much different than what he maybe used to. Despite maybe one or two moments when we constantly cut back and forth between Billy and Sivana, it can feel like two different movies, making it tonally uneven, but that's just a small percentage. The movie mainly works because of its youthful spirit. Teenagers always wanted to be a hero, and how Levi plays a 14 year old trapped in a 30 year old's body and his reaction to everything from super strength, to flying, really adds to the movie's joyful quality. The third act also, can get a little too cheesy at times, but maybe that's intentional, overall, this is pretty much 'Big' (1988) meets 'Superman' (1978), also, it does remind me of 'Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse' (2018) and that's a high compliment. It knows the concept is a little silly, it embraces its light spirit, and it has fun with the material, like how most kids have fun when they use some powerful piece of technology. Imagine if you were a kid, and you found out you could fly and have super strength. This movie is a joy to behold.
'Captain Marvel' pretty much is what you expect it to be. A puzzle piece made specifically for 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018) and the upcoming 'Avengers: Endgame' (2019). The film struggles to stand on its own, often reminding us as to why it's made, but forgetting about the title character herself. The film focuses on our title character, played by Oscar winner Brie Larson, and her being among the Kree forces. They are noble warriors, and she receives some extensive training with Yon-Rogg (Jude Law), as well as their main mission, which is to hunt down Skrulls, an evil alien-like race who can shape-shift into anyone, so you don't know who to trust. Carol (Larson) seems to be struggling to remember her past, we see her origins fragmented and get glimpses of who she was. There seems to be a trend of a strong and powerful, young female character who doesn't know where she came from, and gets glimpses of her past from time to time. If you remember Rey from 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' (2015), or Alita from the recent 'Alita: Battle Angel' (2019), then you've seen this kind of origin story before. An incident occurs which leaves her stranded on Earth, she tries to find out what happened with the Skrulls, and runs into Nick Fury (a de-aged Samuel L. Jackson), and he thinks the idea of shape-shifting aliens walking among the Earth as well as a group of noble warriors from other planets is insane, but he slowly warms up to the idea after having seen most of it for himself. The main villain here is Talos (Ben Mendelsohn), the leader of the Skrulls, and his journey to find Danvers and take her down. The film, directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (who also directed 'Mississippi Grind' also starring Mendelsohn), tries to be a mix of an intergalactic space adventure like 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (2014), while trying to be as grounded as 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014), but for some reason, neither of these aspects feel as if they contain any emotional weight to it. It feels very paint-by-numbers as if characters need to get to certain places so the movie can try to elevate. Larson, who is a talented actress, tries to show some quirks at times, but doesn't carry the same amount of charm or playful charisma. She does share some terrific chemistry with Jackson, and their playful banter helps lift the spirits of the film's tone. Not to mention that the pace falls apart once we get to the second act, and Danvers is reunited with a friend. The scene would have more impact if we saw her actually do these things as opposed to just flashing those little memories earlier on. It's a similar problem I had with 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (2014) where, one minute, Peter Quill is a young boy, then the next minute, he's a fully grown man... there was no development to him growing up, it's just here's your character then, here they are now. Except we don't see Danvers mostly in her early life, just told through very quick flashbacks. I applaud Marvel for trying to take a different spin on origin stories, but maybe this is something to require some improvement. Also, as I said above, this film's sole purpose is to be the filler in the "Avengers" sandwich, with "Infinity War" and "Endgame" (which will be released on April 26th) being the two buns on either side. The film lacks a sense of excitement, and Larson never gets a chance to shine as her character, it all just feels lifeless with a sense of thrills here and there.
An emotional and yet funny journey between two comedy-driven men could not have been handled better than 'Stan & Ollie', a wonderful tribute to one of the most iconic duo acts in history. We see the comedy act, Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) doing their usual routine of performing in theater and their bond in friendship as they help each other get through many tours and what they get up to behind the scenes. Years later, the comedy act are still coming up with new funny material, while Stan is trying to get a movie developed and trying his best to have discussions with a producer on getting that movie off the ground, while Oliver is just trying to focus on more pleasant things. We see that the two never lose sight of what's important, their friendship and staying in character, even when they're not on stage. Just like in one scene, when they're checking into a hotel, and they decide to do a little skit in front of the hotel receptionist involving the bell, and never failing to make her laugh, because that's what they're good at doing. Complications arrive, of course, as it seems that both Laurel and Hardy seem to let their separate issues get in the way of their success. They never seem to want to give up, but so many signs out there are telling them that they may be passed their sell-by date. Director John S. Baird has crafted an appropriately funny and heartwarming tribute to the legendary comedy duo, it truly captures the spirit of the real Laurel and Hardy in a way I think Richard Attenborough almost succeeded with 'Chaplin' (1992). This was the movie that 'Chaplin' (1992) almost was... Both Coogan and Reilly give winning performances as the iconic duo, and they seem to - not only share terrific chemistry - but also have fun in their roles and seem very comfortable with the very well-written screenplay. Baird is clearly a fan of Laurel and Hardy and his admiration fully takes up the movie's storytelling. The only issue here is that there's not much conflict between our two lead characters, mild spoilers ahead; but towards the end of the second act, we see our two title characters have a heated debate, and things are quickly resolved towards half-way in the third act. Maybe this is because the real Laurel and Hardy didn't fight a lot in their time as friends, and maybe they were just that close. I am a little concerned that maybe Baird's admiration for these two may have led him to sugar-coat a few things, but then again, maybe this was the case. Overall, if you are a fan of the real Laurel and Hardy, this is definitely the movie for you, you'll laugh and you'll shed a tear. Everything - mostly - falls in the right place.
When I heard that Eli Roth would be tackling a family adventure story, it reminded me of that time when Martin Scorsese - known for gritty crime films - tackled 'Hugo' (2011), in that, you have an artist stepping out of their creative comfort zone in favor of doing something completely different. I think Scorsese succeeded greatly with 'Hugo' (2011), and Eli Roth only just about succeeds with 'The House with a Clock in its Walls'. Based on the novel by John Bellairs, the movie focuses on a young orphaned boy named Lewis Barnavelt (Owen Vaccaro) moving in with his Uncle Jonathan (Jack Black) and his neighbor Florence (Cate Blanchett). Jonathan and Florence are two very powerful wizards and the house they live in is full of dark magic. Lewis is still feeling sad that his parents have died in a car crash, this happened off-screen of course, and it seems like a tired cliche that the movie's opening and development of our main young character had parents who died in a car crash. Why don't these people learn how to drive? Or, if it wasn't their fault, why don't any of the safety equipment in their cars work? Seat belts, Airbags etc. anyway, he discovers that his uncle always lurks around the house every night to try and find something that's been frustrating him. It turns out, as he's told, that there is a ticking clock hidden inside the walls of the house, and that each tick is a sign that they are close to death at any literal second. They must find this clock before it's too late. Lewis also wants to learn some magic tricks since Jonathan is technically his family. The film is surprisingly good at capturing some good spirit and heart, even if the drama and comedy are a little uneven from time to time. I think it works best as an Eli Roth movie more than anything else, considering that he is known for his gory and sadistic horror films such as 'Hostel' (2005) to 'Knock Knock' (2015), Roth clearly shows that he can choose to switch genres as well. The performances from the cast are good, and the movie will probably entertain your children too, some of the story does get a little lost in focus and some of the whimsy can feel a little underwhelming, but overall, I enjoyed it enough, and am curious to see what Roth will do next.
I was surprised that I enjoyed 'Alita: Battle Angel' as much as I did. The movie is your typical futuristic/ruins movie with a cliched plot, characters and dialogue, but I did find myself engaged and caring, plus, the special effects are undeniably terrific. Directed by Robert Rodriguez ('Sin City'), and a screenplay adapted by James Cameron ('T2' and 'Titanic') it's based on the Japanese manga series by Yukito Kishiro and follows the story of its title character, Alita (Rosa Salazar) who was found abandoned and buried with just her head piece in the scraps, she was found by Dr, Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) who repairs her, and when she awakes, she has no memory of where she came from. Ido tries to help her remember as her brain remains intact and she does get constant flashes from time to time where she appeared to be among warriors. Ido warns Alita that the outside world can be dangerous, and she is also told about a slightly wealthier world located just above (this may remind you of 'Elysium'). Alita meets a kind young man named Hugo (Keean Johnson) who has taken an active interest in Alita and they regularly hang out and have fun in which she takes up a hobby in competing in a sport called "Motorball". Ido feels a great amount of concern for Alita, and warns her about the dangers in the world, as well as her discovering what Ido really does. There is a villain in this movie, Vector (Mahershala Ali) who is a little one-dimensional, just appearing on screen with a blank look on his face and carrying an intimidating presence. To keep it short, I admired this movie, it's not great, the pacing does get a little off somewhere in the middle, and the dialogue (mostly the romantic dialogue) is very cheesy, but I did find myself getting emotionally invested in the father/daughter relationship between Waltz's character and Alita, as well as the amazing action scenes (particularly the Motorball sequences) where state-of-the-art CGI is at the top. Clearly, this is a James Cameron project, if you could see this in either 3D, IMAX, or even 4D, it's an experience worth living. Don't go in for the story too much, but go for the ride.
Eli Roth's 'Knock Knock' can be enjoyed on a "so-bad-it's-good" level. This is the kind of film that has an interesting premise, but it does get lost in its own ludicrous and obnoxious execution. The film centers around a man named Evan (Keanu Reeves), who is happily married and has two young children. He works as an architect and during a father's day weekend, his family decide to hit the beach while he has the house all to himself to focus on his work. During that first rainy night, he hears a knock on his door, he answers it to see two estranged young girls, soaking in the rain, Genesis (Lorenza Izzo) and Bell (Ana De Armas) who claim to be heading to some party and are lost along the way. Being the good guy that he is, Evan decides to welcome them into his home and help them out with their situation. The girls seem to really like Evan and he shows them around while they wait. Little does he know that things start to get somewhat suspicious as he finds them in the shower and they try to seduce him, he tries to resist, but ultimately gives in. The next morning, he finds the two girls disrupting his peaceful weekend alone. They mess around and even begin to act with over-the-top results. It becomes clear to him that they were not who they claim they were. He tries to get rid of them, but they soon come back to play some sadistic games with Evan as their victim. As I said before, the movie does tell an interesting story, even for one made by typical gore master, Eli Roth. The gender politics story does contain some commentary about the reactionary differences between our characters as well as the punishment for what our main character has to face, even though he did nothing wrong. It still has that sadistic edge that Roth is known for. The main problem with the movie does fall in the sense that its interesting message gets lost in a campy and sometimes horribly acted result, even the lines of dialogue can be ridiculous. Keanu Reeves - at times - was channeling Nicolas Cage's performance, specifically, from 'The Wicker Man' (2006), the over-the-top shouting, as well as becoming a victim to women. You'll enjoy this movie on the same level as 'The Wicker Man' (2006) or maybe 'The Room' (2003), other than that, it tells a very known message, but maybe, it could have been handled by a more dramatically capable director.
This movie was a huge - and pleasant - surprise, 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse' isn't another live-action Spider-Man reboot from Sony, nor is it part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's well and truly its own story that focuses on the character of Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) and his pretty ordinary teenage life. Dealing with his father's moral ways because he's a cop, coping to get through school even though it's boring for him. Everything just gets routine for him, except for the one person he looks up to, his uncle Aaron Davis (Mahershala Ali) who gives him the right amount of confidence boost that he needs in his daily life. Miles also meets a young girl in his class, Gwen Stacey (Hailee Steinfeld), and she appreciates his wit and even odd - yet quirky - personality. One day, Miles stumbles across an incident that involves the evil Kingpin (Liev Schreiber) who has invented a device that can create portals from one universe crossing paths with another. A rift causes another Peter Parker (Jake Johnson) to slip through the vortex and enter the universe that Miles is in. Miles aspires to be just like Peter after he was also bitten by a radioactive spider, but Peter tells him that there is much to learn. It seems that Peter isn't the only one that crossed paths with Miles, as there are a handful of other "Spider-People" that somehow got lost into this universe too, from; Spider-Noir (Nicolas Cage), Spider-Gwen, Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn) and Spider-Ham (John Mulany). They all team up to try and come up with a plan to get each of them home back to their own universes. The movie certainly is a breath of fresh air into a character we have seen in the movies so many times before. This may just seem like Sony - once again - trying to cash-in on the character, but thanks to a script by Phil Lord ('The LEGO Movie') and Rodney Rothman, it has heart and very self-aware humor that keeps it afloat. It acknowledges its silliness and embraces that, it's overstuffed but also is aware of that too. Most importantly, it captures the spirit of the Spider-Man character and the world (or 'worlds') that he inhabits. Sony has been desperately trying to adapt a Miles Morales story for years and years, and this is the best introduction for him, especially for people who may not be familiar with his story. The animation is eye-popping as well, making it feel like a comic book leaping off the pages. Overall, this movie is fun, fast-paced, touching and wildly funny. If you love Spider-Man, this might just be the movie you've been looking for since 'Spider-Man 2' (2004).
While 'Aquaman' is creatively better than previous DCEU efforts, it still falls under the trap of having to introduce a rather obscure character into the mainstream movie world of today. The movie falls under the weight of endless exposition and countless scenes of characters travelling from one location to the other in order to retrieve some important piece of information. Jason Momoa plays Arthur Curry, and we see how his parents first met. His father, Thomas (Temuera Morrison) is a lighthouse keeper who, one day, stumbles across a strange woman who goes by Atlanna of Atlantis (Nicole Kidman), and they both fall in love. We see a montage of the two of them living happily with each other and even giving birth to their first child, a boy who they named Arthur and we also get to see him grow up. Unfortunately, that happiness was never meant to last as she is forced to leave her family to return to Atlantis leaving Arthur to be raised solely by his father. Growing up, we see that Arthur has the ability to talk to fish as he is a half Atlanta and human at the same time. It seems that things are not so peaceful underneath the surface as Ocean Master Orm (Patrick Wilson) who is the half-brother of Arthur, wages war against him because of his half-human side and blames him for the reason for their mother's exile, and he threatens to take the throne. Arthur is then visited by Mera (Amber Heard) who warns him about his brother's evil ways and Arthur is reluctant and uninterested. Though, he soon realizes that this is the only way to stop this war between the sea and land. Directed by James Wan ('Insidious' and 'Furious 7'), the movie does do a good job at taking this character and placing him into a subversive style of action and even self-aware comedy. The movie does acknowledge its silliness and embraces it rather well, and the cast do a terrific job at keeping your attention. The main issue lies within the screenplay where it is filled with lengthy exposition scenes. Characters do nothing but fully explain paragraphs of information to other characters to get a better understanding of something. We - as an audience - are not shown anything, we are just told again and again what some things are and everything is spelled out for us, as if these characters are reading Wikipedia articles. There is also the issue with the run-time along with the content of the film. Clocking in at 143 minutes, the movie is stuffed with so much material that one or two things could easily have been saved for the sequel. The action scenes are also extremely stylistic like it's a video game. Wan's camerawork has so much effort put into it, it almost serves as a distraction from all the exposition-heavy dialogue. As said before, 'Aquaman' is still a step in the right direction for the DCEU, but maybe Wan needs to tone down the heavy camerawork and maybe the writers should find a way to handle backstories without having a character stand in the foreground of the scene and spell it out for us.
It's really no surprise that, after having one movie take place entirely in the video game worlds, the people over at Disney decided to tackle the gigantic world of the internet in the next chapter that is 'Ralph Breaks the Internet', the sequel to the fantastic 'Wreck-It Ralph' (2012). The movie takes place six years after the events of the original (exactly the same time these movies were released) and we see that both Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) and Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) enjoying their daily friendship routine, hanging out at different game worlds while the arcade is closed, and then getting to work on their usual schedule in their own worlds. Then, things start to get more interesting when the head of the arcade places a Wi-Fi box into the system and the game characters start to become curious as to what the world of the internet contains. Meanwhile, Vanellope starts admitting that she is getting a little bored of her game stating that it's predictable and becoming a little boring for her. Ralph tries to make things more interesting by creating a new track during a gameplay, but this causes a bit of disruption and the game is put out of order. Vanellope and everyone that is a part of the Sugar Rush game then try to find shelter and living space in other games, and Ralph feels responsible for what he's done. He tries to make things right by ordering her a new part for the game via the internet. Ralph and Vanellope enter the internet world, and that's where their adventures begin. The animation - as usual - is stunning once we enter the web-world, and is the most expansive setting I've seen since the inside of the head from Pixar's 'Inside Out' (2015), filled with such creativity and sometimes the branding and product placement can be a little much for some people, but it's the internet after all, so there's that. The movie does do a good job at establishing the large internet world as well as solidifying the chemistry between its lead characters, not to mention trying to inject some timely social commentary, but the movie does feel a little disjointed from time to time as our two main characters spend the majority of the film apart from each other and are doing many different things. What made the first movie work so well is that, despite their differences, they wanted the same thing. Here, we get used to their similarities, and now they do different things. It can be a little bit hard to digest. The movie is a little overcrowded, and the runtime can feel a little ticking. Plus, there are too many scenes that feel as if they don't segue from different scenes from time to time. Certain scenes just happen and then it's over. Other than that, it's still funny and heartwarming and there is still many things to enjoy about it. Maybe this movie bit off a little more than it can chew.
Nothing happens in this movie. I do not think that should require a spoiler warning, this is one of the most uneventful films to be released in any franchise, and that is saying something. 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' is a movie that focuses so heavily on building a franchise for future sequels, that it forgets to tell its own story and let this particular chapter stand on its own. The movie opens with our antagonist/title character, Gellart Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) escaping prison and threatening the world with his crimes to get rid of all muggle-born wizards. The first action scene is darkly lit, features plenty of rain and lightning, so you are not able to properly see what is going on. We then return to meeting Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is banned from travelling across the globe, despite the fact that travelling is something he is fond of doing. The Ministry however, doesn't think he can correct any of his mistakes. He is reunited with Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol), but Tina (Katherine Waterston) appears to be missing. She is in Paris, where Credence (Ezra Miller) is still on the loose, and is about to cause trouble if he does not find what he wants, which is answers to where he comes from. Newt is then recruited by Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) to travel and find answers for his quest, even though he has been forbidden by the Ministry of Magic. The movie plods along for its 2 hour and 14 minute run-time to lead to nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yes, there is a plot-twist here and there, but all that gets found out literally minutes before the movie is over, until then, you have to sit through characters just wandering around endlessly looking for other characters, or other clues. There are no words to describe this movie other than just filler. The screenplay is written by a very talented J.K. Rowling, who is best known for writing those "Harry Potter" books, but unfortunately, books and screenplays are completely different forms of fictional writing, and she was definitely out of her comfort zone here, as is director David Yates who directed the last four "Harry Potter" films, as well as the previous "Fantastic Beasts" film in 2016. For some reason, they appeared to have been lost in building a franchise, they forgot how to tell an individual story. The cast still do a fine job, and Jude Law as a younger Dumbledore is a very inspired choice for the role, but ultimately, I'm just curious if the next chapter has a story to tell, or, are we just going to watch the characters do nothing but speak exposition for 2 hours?
What makes 'Bohemian Rhapsody' a well-made biopic is its unrestrained look at the personal life of its main character, what stops it from being a truly great biopic is its rather mellow and simple exploration of certain themes, especially since its supporting characters all feel the same just to make its central focus stand out that much more. Rami Malek portrays the musical legend Freddy Mercury in a very convincing and committed performance (one that I'm sure might even land him an Oscar nomination). He lives a very typical and peaceful life with his family and one day he goes to a college club where a band performs and he thinks he has what it takes. He meets the band members; Brian May (Gwilym Lee), Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) and John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello) and he shows them what he's capable of. He joins the band as their lead singer, and despite his Asian background and his teeth abnormality, his image is outweighed by his charisma and lead performance to wow the crowd. Freddie believes that he can take this band further by finding them an agent and signing a record contract and giving them the ability to record any song they wish. Their ambitions are always limited whether it's because the band itself constantly disagree on many things, or that their managers and record companies say that they can't release certain songs because of many concerns including the length and confusing names that may not catch on. They come across many obstacles in their early career, but manage to get their message spread across. The film also focuses on Mercury's sexuality, as he tells his girlfrend, Mary (Lucy Boynton) that he wants to marry her one day, but she figures out time after time that he is gay. Freddie tries to deny this but he can't seem to stop himself each time he comes across a man who appreciates him for who he is. Overall, this film is great if you are a fan of Queen and are interested in the story of how they became one of the most groundbreaking bands of all time. Despite some clunky direction and maybe even some historical inaccuracies, this movie works if you really care about it. Malek shines the most as the lead singer, and the film's final act - despite a very dragging second act - is definitely worth sitting through, it's craftsmanship is amazing and you will feel like you were just a part of history. The production design and cinematography alone make this worth watching on the big screen. 'Bohemian Rhapsody' the movie may not come close to the song of a similar name, but when it gets good, it's alive.
'Bad Times at the El Royale' is fiendish and dark, not to mention a very sly movie that I'm sure many film-lovers will absolutely enjoy. But for me, there was a lack of spark, I admired the film's somewhat originality and its diverse range of characters. But overall, the film feels flat and rather underwhelming not to mention that I felt it takes too long to get to the point. The first characters we meet are Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges) a priest who checks into the hotel alongside another guest Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Ervo), a soul singer who is currently struggling in the industry to make the career she had hoped for. The hotel is currently placed right in the middle of California and Nevada with the structure split into two halves and contain two different themes. We meet Salesman Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm), who also checks into the hotel with its only employee Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman) and the last guest to arrive is Emily Summerspring (Dakota Johnson), they all book their rooms and we see the different stories each character experiences. The movie spends a lot of the time building on these different character arcs and showing us what they get up to. It's broken up into different chapters with each event affecting that of another character's. Every story is the same, but told from a different point of view, and everything seems to add up once we get a bigger picture of what's going on. I would mention that Chris Hemsworth is in this movie, but I cannot discuss what his role is without spoiling it too much, what I can say is; the movie does pick up slightly the moment his character comes to play. Writer and director Drew Goddard ('The Cabin in the Woods' and writer of 'The Martian') has structured a movie I'm sure he's waited to make for so long. He knows what characters he wants to see and he knows what story he wants to tell and how to tell it. I liked the puzzle piece style of storytelling that he was able to craft here, I guess what really placed this movie in the gutter for me was the lengthy run-time of 141 minutes as well as my overall indifference to any of the characters. It felt gimmicky from time to time, and I think that, had Goddard got straight to the point, I would have enjoyed myself a little bit more. I admire his ambition and craft, but was underwhelmed by the overly ambitious result.
There is another user reviewer on this site who I respect named 'BrianMcCritic' who, in his review said that director Damien Chazelle is "one of the best young filmmakers of our time", I have to second that. 'First Man' is, in a word, a masterpiece. A well made character study about an everyday man who makes the risky decision to fly to the moon and make history. We see Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) living a somewhat quiet life, dealing with the loss of his daughter and trying to reason with his wife, Janet (a superb Claire Foy) and the rest of his kids. He goes through many tough training techniques and tries to properly assess himself if he is going to fly a great distance into space and away from the earth. There are so many effective uses of point-of-view shots throughout when Armstrong is flying many distances and even when things get out of control, director Chazelle wants you - the audience member - to feel the uneasy tension, there is a fantastic sequence in the middle of the film when Armstrong and another astronaut find themselves in a malfunctioning situation, and you will feel a little spent from the extended amount of time we are seeing them try to get out of the dangerous task. Obviously, you know what our main character achieves towards the end of his story, he does land on the moon, Chazelle cleverly makes this moment slow, building up the tension and leaving room for all the emotions to sink in. It's quiet, no music and very little dialogue. You feel as if you are there with Armstrong experiencing history. No other words can be used to describe this fantastic scene, you just have to see it for yourself. As I said above, this is a character study movie about Armstrong himself, and the decision he makes and his family's reaction to it. Don't go in thinking it's going to be some "Star Trek" style space adventure. It's about a man... "The First Man" so we say, his story involves everything we need to know about him here. It's a fascinating piece of filmmaking and storytelling, and one of the best movies of the year.
'A Star is Born' is not the most original movie to be released in 2018, but it is one that has to be seen. What makes this movie work is the two lead characters, their chemistry, their stories when they're together, and what they do separately. Directed by and starring Bradley Cooper, who plays the famous star, Jackson Maine, and after a concert, and consuming dangerous amount of drugs which helps him concentrate on the things he needs to concentrate on, he goes to a small bar out of the town and meets a young and aspiring artist named Ally (Lady Gaga). He seems smitten by her, and is amazed at her ability to belt out some high vocals with her singing. He invites her to his tours and tries to get to know her, and she introduces him to some songs that she has written, and he thinks that she, and her songs, are worth something. Not only do both Jackson and Ally soar to new heights in their relationship, but he also encourages her to show herself onstage to a massive crowd, and the fans seem to love her. She gains huge hits on YouTube and becomes a sensation on social media. Jackson seems proud of what she's able to become, and the two start to form a life together and live happily. However, it seems that not everything is sunshine in their world, as it seems that the fame and success can drive one person to feel constantly excited, while the other remains jealous in some ways. The shining points of this film is how much of a joy it is to watch Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga work together, it's an odd couple, but they are so genuine as their characters, it's hard to keep your eyes off. The story revolves mainly towards tragedy and struggle. What I loved most about it is that Cooper doesn't try to change things by making it more challenging for modern cinema... it's refreshingly simple, and he goes through all the cliches but they feel organic. The characters you see on-screen is what makes this movie unique. You care for them, you feel bad for them, and Cooper brings out something in Lady Gaga that I think nobody would have expected. It's a film that may not be on everyone's radar, but you owe it to yourself to watch it. Plus, the music is great.
The main problem with this movie, 'Venom' is, like its main protagonist, it's at war with itself. Constantly schizophrenic and having no clue when it wants to be a horror movie, a comic-book action movie, or a dark comedy movie. Either way, none of these combinations of different genres work, and it becomes tonally jarring. Tom Hardy (a fantastic actor) takes on the role of Eddie Brock, a respected news reporter who lives happily in San Francisco with his girlfriend, Anne (Michelle Williams). He plans on marrying her, and their relationship is soaring new heights. Until one day, he tries his best to report on some suspicious lab activities hosted by Dr. Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed). Drake has harnessed some strange collection of symbiotes which have been discovered in space, and experiments with them on a different range of animal and even human hosts to see if it can improve their health in any way. We see many times that many humans seem to reject the substance, as certain symbiotes need to right host. One day, as you may have seen in almost every superhero film ever, Brock accidentally walks into the restricted sections of the lab, and finds himself exposed to the substance. He feels constantly sick, and not like himself. Before he knows it, he can hear a voice in his head telling him things like "Hungry!", and other forms of advice. This voice is Venom, and the two set up a deal-like relationship to get what they both want. As I've said above, the movie struggles to switch between genres, it doesn't pick the right moments to be scary, funny and action-packed. Hardy is also punished by a bad screenplay which, at one point, tells him to sit in a lobster tank like it's a bathtub. It sounds strange when taken out of context, but believe me when I tell you this. The main issue with this film is that, it feels like a superhero film made in 2003, but for some reason was released in 2018. It is very outdated with the formula and cliches it chooses to follow. The villain is boring and disposable and the action scenes are shot too close, the CGI looks unfinished and awful, and the editing is too quick you cannot see anything. It's underwhelming. NOTE: There are two extra credits scenes in the film, stay for the mid-credits scene, as I'm sure many Venom fans will want to be surprised watching, and then after that, get up and leave. DO NOT stay for the post-credits scene as it has nothing to do with this movie. I won't say what it is, but just look it up after you've left the cinema. Overall, 'Venom' is outdated and flat.
Many critics and general movie-going audiences have compared Disney's 'Christopher Robin' to Steven Spielberg's 'Hook' (1991), the idea that the concept is about a certain main character, that we're used to seeing as a child, is now all grown up and goes on more adventures despite their maturing in age. In this film, Ewan McGregor plays the title character, who, after his childhood days of playing with friends including; Winnie the Pooh (voiced by Jim Cummings) and co. he heads off to London where we see him meet a kind and beautiful woman named Evelyn (Hayley Atwell), gets married, and has a daughter with her. His job is constantly keeping him busy from spending time with his family. He stays in London for the sake of his job, while his wife and daughter go away for the weekend. A lonely Pooh seems unable to find his friends and wanders along the Hundred Acre Wood, which seems to embody a dull, foggy and almost de-saturated look to it. He stumbles along and finds himself in London where a now grown-up Christopher Robin finds him. Shocked and confused as to how Pooh got there, Robin tries everything he can to get Pooh back without anyone else seeing them, and trying his best to concentrate on work. It's a stressful juggle. I enjoyed this movie for its warm heart and sentimentality. The actors and voice actors do an incredible job to showcase their loneliness and common chemistry. McGregor is likeable and sympathetic as a grown man, struggling to balance his family and work life, while at the same time, forgetting to remember what it was like to be a child. There were times where the movie's pace does drag, considering it is under 2 hours long, and there were also moments where it would fall emotionally flat. I expected more of an emotional punch, but there were moments that felt forced. Director Marc Forster does do a good job to show how much he knows these characters, and respects the material created by A.A. Milne. McGregor and Atwell are wonderful to watch, and don't get the credit they deserve, I just think the movie should have been more lively, instead of plodding around. Your children may be frustrated at the slow pace, but hopefully, the colorful characters should hold their attention. It's a fine and well made movie... that's all.
The best movie of 2018, so far. 'Mission: Impossible - Fallout' is filled with more great stunt work from its lead, Tom Cruise, solid direction from Christopher McQuarrie, and some fantastic work from its supporting cast including; Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) heads to Berlin to intercept three plutonium cores before the Apostles get there and sell them to John Lark. However, things turn around for the worst as Luther (Ving Rhames) is taken hostage, and Hunt chooses to save Luther's life leading the plutonium to be taken. Ethan is then sent to Paris, where he is joined alongside agent August Walker (Henry Cavill), where they try to take back the plutonium. When things still don't go according to plan, as they cannot find the right enemy, they're given more tasks to try and track down the culprit. What makes this movie exciting is both the stunt and camerawork. The action fills the movie with a sense of gravitas and you can feel every sense of danger, not just for the characters, but for the actors too. The hand-to-hand fight scenes are practical, brutal and intense. No CGI gimmicks, no flashy choreography, just plain and simple work by a group of actors. It feels raw and intense. This is a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat almost the entire time. You will not believe your eyes when you see this picture.
'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' reminds us many times why the first movie didn't work. Despite the fact that the songs (from ABBA) are better incorporated to the film's story, ironically, the best parts of the film is where the character's don't sing. We see that Sophie (a plucky Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open up a hotel in honor of her mother's memory. Slight spoiler alert (even though it is very early in the film), but yes, Donna (Meryl Streep) has passed away. We're never given an explanation as to how she died, just that, she is no longer with our main characters, and that's a way to kick-start the movie's plot. We do get constant flashbacks to Donna's younger days (where she is played by a likeable Lily James), and how she traveled across different islands and met many handsome men who she spends some romantic times with. The singing done by James, as well as her on-screen male love interests, is done well, and as I said above, the songs are better incorporated to the film's story... but I found myself more invested when they would just sit an talk. I know that might be a bore for some, but I felt that the characters were really progressing just through dialogue alone. The movie constantly cuts back and forth between past and present, developing Donna's character even more, and how she met her three exes. Unfortunately, this made me feel that the overall storytelling of the film was very uneven. Time and time again, we're being forced to get emotionally invested in these two different timelines, when they're cutting back and forth to different situations, so there is no time to care. I found myself getting utterly frustrated with the bland archetype character that Andy Garcia was playing. What's the purpose of his role? Just to be utterly handsome and flirt with Donna's two best friends, that's it. All in all, this maybe a "feel-good" film, but I found myself feeling the exact opposite. A waste of emotional investment despite some strong work from a talented cast.
(Now that the World Cup craze is over, UK audiences can now catch up with the world's mightiest - albeit small - superhero) 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' is a fun, silly, more contained adventure than what we have seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It feels more like a side-quest and/or spin-off film, at least compared to other solo movies from; 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014) to 'Black Panther' (2018). The movie very much takes place after the events of 'Captain America: Civil War' (2016) where Scott Lang (a very likeable and charming Paul Rudd) is under house arrest, with an ankle bracelet provided by the government so they can keep a close eye on him. He tries to be a good father to his daughter, but his actions in Berlin, where he helped "The Captain" break more than 100 laws can make living a quiet life, not that quiet. Meanwhile, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lily) are speculating about creating a piece of technology to safely transport them to the Quantum Realm, where they are hoping to find Hope's mother, Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), after she shrunk herself almost 30 years ago, and was presumed dead. But, they are not giving up. To keep it short, this is mostly a fun superhero flick. It is definitely the perfect "antidote" for MCU fans after 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018) being too "dour", "depressing" and just "dark". This will - without a doubt - put a smile on your face, and you can sit back and relax and just watch the crazy action scenes involving a lot of surprising creativity with people and objects growing and shrinking. Lily taking on the mantle of The Wasp and teaming up with Scott's Ant-Man definitely works, Rudd and Lily's chemistry adds a lot to this film. The action, especially one chase scene, is exhilarating and a joy to watch. The biggest downside to this film is its villains (yes, there's more than one). Considering we had Killmonger in 'Black Panther' (2018) and the great Thanos in 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018), Marvel was stepping up their villain game, something they had trouble with in the past. The villains here are rather forgettable. One of them, in particular, seems unnecessary to the entire story, but what can you do? All in all, this is Marvel, once again, going back to their fun roots. 'Black Panther' (2018) took things too seriously, and 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018) set us on a dark path. The creative action, and the humor-filled chemistry between Rudd and Lily will definitely make this one worth-watching.
'Incredibles 2' is a worthy sequel to the brilliant 'The Incredibles' (2004) by writer and director Brad Bird. After waiting fourteen years, we get a sequel that is just as fast, busier, action-heavy, and even poignant, more so than the original. What keeps it from being as equally brilliant as its predecessor is that, even though the movie is only one minute longer than the first, there are times where the movie does feel as if its treading along rather deliberately, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there are repetitive scenes every now and then. The story very much picks up where the first one left us, where the Underminer (John Ratzenberger) is threatening to take over the city, and it's up to Bob (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) and Helen (Holly Hunter) and the rest of the Parr family, aka "The Incredibles" to stop him, along with help from Lucius Best, aka "Frozone" (Samuel L. Jackson). The heroes do cause some damage along the way, and the government tells them that superheroes are, once again, illegal. It's another one of those movies where the heroes must learn the errors of their ways, despite doing it for the good intentions. However, the Parrs and Frozone are recruited by a man named Winston Deaver (Bob Odenkirk) who wants to legalize and put a good name on superheroes, as he believes that there are still good in them. The mission, he says, must be taken care of by Elastigirl alone. Leaving Bob to take care of the kids until she completes her mission. It seems that the biggest threat they must challenge is taking on a sneaky villain with the power of some form of hypnosis named "Screenslaver", Helen tries everything she can to find this villain and stop them before more people become victims to its powers. Meanwhile, Bob is trying his best to; help Dash (Huck Milner) with his Maths homework, understand why Violet (Sarah Vowell) gets so frustrated all the time, and trying his best to look after Jack Jack, unaware that he has some unique and special powers that could be dangerous. The sequel tells another good story, though maybe too similar to the original, but we see the same family dynamic, the same struggle to save the world, and at times, the movie does get surprisingly dark. Brad Bird delivers his best to make this sequel just as fun, and just as important as the first. It's not a bad Pixar sequel like 'Cars 2' (2011), or a mediocre one like 'Monsters University' (2013), it's actually extremely close to 'Toy Story 2' (1999). Pixar manages to keep reminding us why they're the best entertainment company in the business.
'Tag' was funny, at times, but then it got more and more over-the-top as the runtime carried on. The film, supposedly inspired by true events, follows the story **** of friends - since childhood - who play an annual game of "tag" every May. However, their one friend, played by Jeremy Renner, remains unbeaten, as for the some thirty years, he has not been tagged, and has always outrun these guys. The film stars; Ed Helms, Jeremy Renner, John Hamm, Jake Johnson and a whole all-star lead cast. They're surprisingly funny with the material they're given, but I couldn't find myself coming up with a reason as to why I should care about these characters. It's fascinating that this is all "inspired" by a true story, as it would take some proper commitment to constantly keep motivated to play tag for years and years every 11 months. The movie started out fine, but then just got too ridiculous, there is also some forced subplot revolving around a former high-school lover that the two main guys fell in love with, that just gets brought up out of nowhere and doesn't really have a proper conclusion. Just added as an attempt to make the characters interesting. Just like that time in 'Jurassic World' (2015) when the two kids talk about how their parents are getting divorced, but it's never mentioned again. If you want to develop character, have it affect their entire journey rather than use it in one or two scenes and leave us to fill in the gaps. 'Tag' is a good time, but overall, kind of forgettable.
'Jurassic World' (2015) was a movie I mildly enjoyed just for the thrills and the action, despite its bland main characters, a villain who was a cartoon character, and the many dumb moments that occurred, for the most part, I was willing to forgive it because at least it was fun. 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' on the other hand, isn't just dumb, it's actually poorly written, unevenly paced, uses visual nostalgia nods that feel forced rather than organic, and our two main characters, for some reason, don't feel the same as they did from the previous movie. Not that it matters too much since they are bland, which pains me to say that, since they are played by usually talented actors. We see Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is given a task by Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) to head back to Isla Nublar (where the Jurassic World incident occurred three years previously) to retrieve some of the creatures, as he promises her that they will put them in a new home island where they can be safe. They also suggest that she recruits Owen (Chris Pratt) as he raised and trained Blue, the one raptor who always followed his command as we saw in the previous movie. As they arrive on the island, they encounter many dangerous and near-death experiences to which they all manage to escape. However, if you know anything - or too much - about volcanic eruptions, and the consequences it follows, you will be questioning if the filmmakers have done their research. The entire second-half of the movie is where the film really drags itself to the ground. Without giving away too much, let's just say that the villain does reveal themselves, they host an auction of sorts to sell different creatures to the military, and there is another plot twist revolving a supporting character that is so incredibly far-fetched and stupid, I cannot even begin to tell you without spoiling it. You can have fun with this film, but I think it's very clear that 'Jurassic Park' (1993) should not have been a franchise to begin with. John Hammond (who was played by Richard Attenborough) wanted to test out the park before it opened, too many people were harmed and killed in the process, so he decided to close the door on his dreams. Why they opened Jurassic World around 20 years later, I don't know. There is pretty much no more reasons for these sequels to carry on. 'Jurassic World' (2015) would warrant its existence if it was a reboot.
It's hard to talk about 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' without addressing the controversial production drama that surrounded it. But, when a movie ends up being the way "Solo" is, you can't help but feel that something went wrong behind the scenes. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller ('21 Jump Street' and 'The LEGO Movie') were originally set to direct this film, and have so for five months, then they were thrown off the project even though they shot pretty much the majority of the film. Ron Howard ('Apollo 13' and 'A Beautiful Mind') steps in very late into the game and manages to shoot, edit and finalize the movie all while Disney refuses to push back the release date to the typical December time slot that we saw the other three 'Star Wars' films being released to. What is the result? A pretty fun, but forgettable 'Star Wars' adventure that doesn't hold a single memorable scene, quote, or supporting character. It's not "bad", so to say, but, given this franchise's attempt to make things right, this could have been better. Alden Ehrenreich ('Hail, Caesar!') takes on the iconic role of a younger Han Solo after Harrison Ford. We see his rebellious and cocky beginnings, and his first love with a girl named Qi'Ra (Emilia Clarke), but they end up getting separated on Corellia, and a distressed Han is motivated to try and come back for her. He goes on many missions where we see him as a soldier, underneath the command of Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson) who puts Han through many tests. Han also meets a Wookiee who we all know is Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) and they learn to team-up with each other as the duo we know and love from the original trilogy. Later on, Han also meets a charming gambler, Lando Calrissian (a spot-on performance by Donald Glover), and they have their differences, but learn to get along as Han is introduced to the iconic Millennium Falcon. All of these characters end up going on some wild adventures, but for some reason, this adventure isn't as good as the recent ones we saw. Not as heart-pounding or fun like in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' (2015), or tense and gritty like 'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story' (2016), or visually amazing like in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' (2017). Much like in other mainstream Hollywood blockbusters we see today, I never once felt that these characters were in danger, just like how I felt when I saw 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' (2017). The stakes are never raised in the way you'd want them to. It's not fair that other film critics are saying that this movie "adds nothing new" to the 'Star Wars' franchise, as it is about the young days of an iconic character from the original trilogy. It should have at least been fun and memorable, but for some reason, the whole movie felt very telegraphed. The love-interest character, Qi'Ra, is also very bland. Despite Clarke's committed performance, there is nothing interesting about her, nor is there anything interesting about the chemistry she has with Han. The reason Han's relationship with Leia worked was because of their constant personality clashes and quirky humor which backed it up. Here, Han and Qi'Ra are a very stale and routine movie couple. The cast do an admirable job to make this movie work, but the screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan (who also wrote; "The Empire Strikes Back", "Return of the Jedi" and "The Force Awakens") and his son, Jonathan Kasdan, could have done with a bit more spice and spontaneity. This is not a bad 'Star Wars' movie (that title still belongs to "Attack of the Clones"), but, as I said before, it's rather forgettable.
'Deadpool 2' is more vulgar, just as violent, just as crazy and more funnier than its surprisingly well-made predecessor from 2016. We see Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) coping with life as a mercenary and a loving boyfriend to Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). Things never go according to plan for our anti-hero, Wade, as there seems to be a kid, who goes by the name "Firefist" (Julian Dennison) causing some havoc with his strange and dangerous mutant powers. That is where a time-travelling mutant named Cable (Josh Brolin, enjoying to mess with many superheroes from "Avengers" to this) comes in and threatens to kill this kid. The plot is basically 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (1991), which - as you can imagine - Deadpool does make a slight reference to. Wade then decides to recruit a team, as you saw in one of the latest trailers, he forms a group he calls the "X-Force" which includes; Domino (Zazie Beetz), Zeitgeist (Bill Skarsgard), Bedlam (Terry Crews) and many others. Without saying too much, the scene with the "X-Force" is one of the funniest scenes in this movie, I can't explain why, but it's a scene I will never forget. The sequel - with David Leitch as the director - is definitely much bigger, but it never loses the heart of what made the first movie do so well. Nor does it lose track of Deadpool as a comic book character. 'Deadpool 2' deserves to be mentioned among the list of sequels that surpass their predecessors. The action scenes are terrific, the humor is offensive, the story goes surprisingly deeper, and the characters just keep coming. Overall, this is a really fun movie, with some really fun moments. Josh Brolin once again steals the show just like he did in 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018), Zazie Beetz does a good job as Domino, Julian Dennison plays well as a troubled kid, and Ryan Reynolds just carries this movie so effortlessly.
Marvel Studios celebrates its 10th anniversary with possibly their biggest and most ambitious film yet, 'Avengers: Infinity War'. A movie jam-packed with more than 60 main characters facing just one (albeit very powerful) villain, Thanos (Josh Brolin). You pretty much know the story, and it's very simple... Thanos is after six infinity stones (some of which we have seen in previous MCU films), and the Avengers, the Guardians, and other heroes do everything they can to stop him and protect those stones. What makes this movie work is that we see different characters meeting those they haven't met before, and the constant personality clashes do make for great comedy (something I've been very critical about in previous MCU films, mostly from 'Guardians of the Galaxy' and its sequel). The plot keeps you on the edge of your seat as you feel the tension that is about to rise and the danger feels almost too real for this universe. We also see some characters in their best form, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that this is mostly Thanos' story. The backstory and development we get from this character is so easy to understand and you find yourself - at times - wanting to root for him, yes, I just said that. Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo - who made two fantastic "Captain America" sequels - they manage to juggle and balance so many of these characters so well, and a very busy screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely still somehow manage to let the quiet moments sink in, while attempting to throw some of the biggest action set-pieces ever. It might actually be better than 'Captain America: Civil War' (2016). What I loved most about this movie is also the way it is shot. Without going into too much spoiler-filled detail, very early on in the film, a character, inside a building, feels some shaking as if there's an earthquake approaching. He steps outside and sees a crowd of people running towards one direction while he walks down the opposite direction. The camera stays behind him at shoulder-length. Some people trip and fall as they run, and he helps them up and asks them if they're okay and tells them to get to safety, the camera hasn't cut... we are still right behind him. He turns to a corner, and sees a particular device bigger than any landmark or **** which is assumed to contain enough power to wipe out the population. The camera tilts up as he looks up in awe and fear. The reason I praise the camerawork, especially in this scene, is because most action movies (like the previous "Avengers" movies), would always cut to a wide shot **** device hovering over a city as if we - the audience - are giants looking down on this device. This particular camerawork is better because we get a sense of the scale of the danger, because it makes us feel small and vulnerable. The Russo brothers were wise to use this technique, and it's a technique I don't think gets enough praise. We saw it with 'Jurassic Park' (1993) right to 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' (2015) where the camera remains on ground level, but for some reason, other generic action films feel like they should make us big. All in all, if you're a Marvel fan, of course you're going to see this film. Fandango has already reported that pre-ticket sales suggest this film will crush several box-office records. Thanos is definitely the best part of the film, Marvel has sorted out their villain problem, and what makes Thanos so great is mostly down to Brolin's intimidating, yet, heartfelt performance. This is not a movie a Marvel fan will want to miss.
'Ready Player One' is the most entertaining, most fun, and most visually stunning movies in 2018, and I loved every minute of it. Directed by Steven Spielberg - at 71 years old - he shows that he hasn't lost any of that old magic. He returns to thrilling sci-fi adventures where a group of young kids explore a world of wonder and endless possibilities. The year is 2045, and like most recent Hollywood blockbusters, the future is doomed. We meet a young boy named Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), he says his name is like that because his deceased father thought it would be like a cool superhero name like "Peter Parker" and "Bruce Banner" (and the references don't stop there). Due to society being so stricken and misery populating the world, he often escapes into the virtual reality world known as "The Oasis". The VR goggles enter him into his Avatar named "Parzival", and the world of the Oasis is absolutely crafted in such a stunning way, you feel immersed and almost lost in its universe. The great mind behind the virtual world of the Oasis is James Halliday (Mark Rylance), who developed this feature over a decade before, to stop people from focusing too much on the harsh and economically struck reality, and escape to a world where they can feel free to be whatever they want. However, since Halliday died a few years back, he posted a video stating that he has left an Easter Egg somewhere deep within the Oasis, and that there are three keys to collect, in order to retrieve the egg. It's a race, and everyone begins to compete. And it is there that we meet our main antagonist of the film, Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) who wants the egg for himself so that the Oasis can belong to him. And he will stop at nothing to make sure that he gets there first. Spielberg adapts this novel from Ernest Cline and uses many of the pop-culture references well... from "Back to the Future", "King Kong" to "The Iron Giant", they're all in there for a reason. Not to add to our nostalgic enjoyment. This is Steven Spielberg's most exciting adventure since 'Minority Report' (2002), it's fast, always moving, and you're never bored watching it. I felt like a child again watching this movie as it's been so long since Spielberg has made a blockbuster movie. Yes, I absolutely loved 'Lincoln' (2012) as well as 'Bridge of Spies' (2015), but 'Ready Player One' is what Spielberg used to be, and he should continue to make more films like this. I can't wait to see it again.
I'm not going to praise 'Black Panther' for its diverse cast and social relevance (since that's not how movies should be reviewed), I'm giving it high praise because it was very well directed, solidly acted, strongly structured and entertaining. This is how any comic book movie should be made, in fact, it's how most good or great comic book movies like; 'Spider-Man 2' (2004), 'The Dark Knight' (2008), 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014) and 'Logan' (2017) were made. Under the direction of Ryan Coogler ('Fruitvale Station' and 'Creed'), this movie draws on deep themes, is filled with emotion, and has some of the most well-developed characters in the Marvel Universe. This movie depends more on substance than it does on style. The movie takes place not long after the events of 'Captain America: Civil War' (2016) and we see T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) preparing to return to his home, Wakanda, after the civilians mourn the death of their former King, T'Chaka (John Kani), it is now T'Challa's place to take the throne and be the rightful king. We get a very well detailed glimpse into the somewhat advanced world of Wakanda and the culture. Despite it being a fictional location, Coogler, along with his usual collaborators of production designers and cinematographers, make Wakanda feel real. You feel like this is an actual location filled with people who have a belief system. Our main villain is Eric Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) who has an agenda against Wakanda, and what they do with the rarest metal on earth, the vibranium (same metal used for Black Panther's costume and Captain America's Shield). He gets help from Klaue (Andy Serkis) to steal an artifact and travel to Wakanda and take what he thinks was stolen from him. 'Black Panther' is one of Marvel's best films alongside; 'Iron Man' (2008), 'The Avengers' (2012), 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014) and 'Captain America: Civil War' (2016). Ryan Coogler does an impressive job to develop the Black Panther's story well and show his arc and what he learns. Boseman once again, proves he is this character, and shares some terrific chemistry with Lupita Nyong'o and Letitla Wright who play his love interest and sister respectively. Also, a lot of the supporting cast do a fantastic job at contributing to the movie. Not one of them feel as if they were wasted. Some of the final battle scenes do suffer from an overabundance of CGI which does make the film - or those scenes in particular - feel incomplete and animated. But, the engaging story and emotionally investing characters are enough to make this worth the Marvel formula. Also, thankfully, the humor is kept extremely minimal. It's not one-joke-a-minute like 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' (2017), where when a dramatic moment happens, it's cut off by comedy. Here, Ryan Coogler allows all of the emotional and deep moments to sink in and stick with you. Also, Killmonger is one of the best MCU villains since Obidiah Stane and Loki, simply because he has an agenda, and there is a good amount of screen-time devoted to developing his character and his reasons for what he does. Coogler has made one of the most interesting entries in the MCU, and right now, 'Avengers: Infinity War' (2018) is even more exciting than ever.
Another disposable action thriller where Liam Neeson plays an everyday man whose told that his family is in danger, and that he must carry out a dangerous task that he reluctantly agrees to only to ensure the safety of his family. In 'The Commuter', he plays Michael MacCauley, an insurance salesman who pretty much is being let go from his company. Feeling discouraged by what has happened, he takes his usual trip on the same train to a long journey, until he meets a woman who claims that she is an expert on body-language and overall human behavior, and she tells him some secrets about what's on the train, and what he's going to do. This leads to Michael receiving a phone-call, and he is told to carry out some dangerous tasks, or his family get killed (what a surprise!). The film ponders along trying to reveal a secret about one of the passenger's identities, and how integral they are to the plot. Most of the characters we come across are intentionally one-dimensional, yes, but everything the plot builds up to is basically trying to surpass expectations and predictability. Neeson does a good job here, as well as the supporting cast. But, the odd direction and uncomfortable editing style make this film a very difficult experience. There is a moment where Neeson's character is just sat opposite his employer at his desk, and, for some reason, we get unnecessary and extreme close-up shots of Neeson's face, even though the conversation they were having did not require such an editing skill. They didn't even start talking about his future at the company, and even then, it wouldn't require such intense camera shots. 'The Commuter' is mainly forgettable and typically formulaic. If you enjoy this kind of film, by all means, see it. Neeson hasn't lost it as an "Expendables"-style action man, but all of these films could not be more uninspired if they tried. At least, try to tell a good story, with believable characters.
'Molly's Game' is a solidly structured movie about a woman's journey from hardship, to success, to failure, to... whatever you might want to consider her overall outcome of this story. Jessica Chastain is marvelous as our leading lady who, after being emotionally strained by her rough-raising father (Kevin Costner), she decides to become an assistant for a man who holds games like a little casino. Molly realizes that this is something she can excel in, and takes this business further, to benefit herself financially. Aaron Sorkin ('The Social Network') may not make movies for everybody, his dialogue-heavy style may prove unrewarding for some viewers, but the fast-pace and straight-to-the-point style narrative make this movie more entertaining than it has any right to be. Idris Elba is fantastically cast as her lawyer, who is also a "tough cookie", but he, as well as her strict father, just want what is best for her. Overall, this is one of the best movies out there, it is sharp, straight, fast, and well-made. If this movie doesn't get you interested in the subject matter, then I guess it's not for you, but I definitely enjoyed it, and stayed glued to the screen.
My new favorite movie of 2017, 'The Disaster Artist' is a movie about friendship, and ambition, the ambition of a passionate actor/filmmaker failing miserably... but also succeeding in the long run. We see a young Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) struggling in acting class back in 1998, he gets nervous to recite his lines in front of large groups of people, and feels as if this may not be the right path for him. It is there that he meets a strange, long-haired, weird accent, and odd fashion sense of a man named Tommy Wiseau (James Franco), who doesn't mind over-acting and trying to give his best in front of these people. Greg is fascinated by Tommy's confidence and ambition, so he wants to hang out with him, and maybe get some advice. Tommy agrees, and they both form an unstoppable friendship together, always watching James Dean, and making the abrupt decision to travel to Los Angeles to fully realize their acting dreams. Tommy and Greg try everything they can to audition for roles, but the casting agents don't see any potential in any of their charisma, or lack there-of. Greg ends up meeting a girl at a club named Amber (Alison Brie), and Tommy sees that this will cause a bit of friction in their friendship, as he needs Greg to focus 100% on their dreams. After nothing but rejections from all over, Tommy is feeling emotionally drenched about it, and is ready to give up. However, Greg comes up with the idea that they should just make their own movie to show up everyone. That is where 'The Room' (2003) was made. The movie, directed by James Franco, and based off Greg Sestero's book "The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room", does a great job at making Tommy Wiseau seem sympathetic, since there have been many parodies of portraying Wiseau and making him seem like an idiot, this is not a satirical take on the character. The comedy is very minimal, and the drama is genuine. 'The Room' (2003) is one of the worst movies ever made, and I rated it 0/10, but as a comedy, it is a 10. To discover the amount of crazy ambition and stress that went into making that movie is fascinating. 'The Disaster Artist' is my favorite movie of 2017 about the making of one of the worst films ever, it's well acted, well told, and very interesting. If you've seen 'The Room' (2003), you have to see this.
I admired the production values behind 'The Greatest Showman' and I admired the committed performances from the cast. The big issue with this movie is that, it goes through every predictable cliche, and the message of the film does feel as if it is beating you over the head with it. A very charismatic Hugh Jackman plays P.T. Barnum, who grew up with a somewhat hard childhood, where the only bright spot was that he once met the love of his life named Charity (Michelle Williams), but her parents never thought that he was good enough for her. After getting a loan from the bank, and after working in jobs that had no secure future, Barnum decided to open up his own theater, which quickly became a circus after he hired a group of people who are considered "different" to be his acts. Many audiences from the local town end up seeing these acts and love the entertainment that is shown, even if they think those part of the act are not normal enough for their society. Zac Efron is Barnum's trusted assistant, Phillip Carlyle, who develops a somewhat rushed infatuation with acrobat, Anne Wheeler (Zendaya), but his parents disapprove of their relationship, and I'm sure you can guess why. I only disapprove of it because there was no development there, they just look at each other once, and that's it, they're in love. Again, I admire this movie for all the good intentions that it was made for. I'm sure certain groups like the LGBT community will respond very well to this film and its message, and they should. They deserve a film like this, though, I feel that there are better alternatives where a similar message is told, just with a touch more subtlety. Jackman carries this movie effortlessly, and proves that he has charisma and charm to pull this off. It's clearly the film he's always wanted to make, and he should be proud of the result. The musical numbers are catchy, too, the singing is great, and so is all the production values behind it. It's just the predictable story and head-banging message that let it down.
'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' throws so much at you than any other "Star Wars" movie, that you walk out feeling both confused and exhausted... but, it isn't short of its fair share of thrills. The movie pretty much begins where 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' (2015) left off, Rey (Daisy Ridley) has finally found Luke Skywalker (a powerhouse Mark Hamill), and is ready to take her training. Gone are the days of her being a desert scavenger on the planet Jakku, and she has become what she never thought she could be. The Resistance is back with Leia (the late Carrie Fisher), Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega), as they try to escape the First Order after the destruction of Starkiller Base, and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) is not wasting any time as he is being constantly tested by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis). Now, I already know that just by explaining the plot, it already sounds similar to 'Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back' (1980), but no... it isn't. There are similarities for sure, and similarities to another "Star Wars" film which I won't mention, but you'll know when you see it. Director Rian Johnson ('Brick' and 'Looper') was adamant about how this is a more "different" Star Wars movie, and he is right. Aesthetically, this is one of the most stunning "Star Wars" movies I've seen, there is a lot of uses of the color red here. Not to mention that Johnson does break some rules (if I can say that) regarding the "Star Wars" lore and mythology, but at the same time, he also shows us how powerful something like the Force can be, and we may not have realized that. There is one scene however, which turns away from all that. Without spoiling too much, let's just say that there is a small plot where two characters have to travel to a particular planet to find something, and while on that planet, it feels like a completely different movie (maybe this was Rian Johnson's intention). The scene does go on for a bit too long, and ultimately, I could do without it. For 2 hours and 32 minutes, cutting out that scene would shave at least 20 minutes. The main reason why I would prefer "The Force Awakens" more is because that movie's plot was minimal and simplistic, despite it being infamously similar to 1977's "A New Hope". But it had great character development, and fast-paced action, and the story never lost focus. Here, just with that one scene, it did lose just a touch of focus, but Rian Johnson isn't afraid to throw so much at you. This movie tells a brilliant story regarding where our main characters go, and what fate lies ahead of them. There are also so many plot-twists in this movie, breaking the narrative code and taking as many risks as possible, this might just be the most complex entry in this iconic franchise. Obviously, I really enjoyed this movie, and cannot wait to see it some more. It is a fantastic follow-up to a very entertaining "The Force Awakens", and is sure to open more doors for the upcoming "Episode IX", Rian Johnson clearly has a unique vision for this franchise and its characters that no other director - not even George Lucas or J.J. Abrams - would dare to take. Johnson took some risks, and for the most part, it paid off, which makes his upcoming "Star Wars" trilogy all the more anticipated.
'Justice League' is one of the better DCEU films to be released, it is action-packed, exciting, fast-paced and fun. Ever since the death of Superman, the world has been wondering how they can cope without their "god like" hero. Batman (another solid performance from Ben Affleck) tries to get a team together when he uses his sources to find them, and have them join to defeat evil and protect the world. Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is game for this as it is revealed that the evil they must face is Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), a "god-like" enemy who will unleash ultimate power, and can be hard to defeat. It doesn't take long for Barry Allen/"The Flash" (Ezra Miller) to enthusiastically join, but Arthur Curry/"Aquaman" (Jason Momoa) and Victor Stone/"Cyborg" (Ray Fisher) have other plans, or is lacking motivation because of what they have become. The movie does a good job at being a fun superhero adventure, without skimping on the deep moments to develop our characters. What stops it from being amazing is its short run-time. It was rumored that this film was supposed to be 2h 40m long, but was stripped down to just 2 hours. There are aspects of this movie which felt rushed, and some things do get glossed over to the point where I felt some discussions could have been easily brought up, but were probably left on the cutting room floor, amidst all the reshoots and editing complications. 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' (2016) I felt had an unfocused narrative and unclear character motivations, though, the dark and grim tone worked for that story. This movie corrects what last year's "BvS" did wrong. Every character here is used to their very best, and certain big reveals are definitely very surprising and worth the wait. This is definitely as good as any other superhero ensemble movie, the chemistry between our heroes is developed somewhat well (as I mentioned it was - at times - rushed), and how they team up to use their powers against their enemy ended up being a solidly entertaining third act. Overall, this is the DCEU stepping in the right direction, after 'Wonder Woman' (2017) and now this, it seems that the DCEU filmmakers have finally found a formula that is working. Keep it simple, add some levity when needed, showcase the characters teaming up well, and don't rely too much on referencing past DC films, or foreshadow upcoming ones. Keep these films standing on their own. This is another good comic book movie we've had in 2017.
I think it's fair to say that, of all the franchises in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the "Thor" franchise, to put it short, is passable. While 'Thor' (2011) was a better-than-your-average introduction to the God of Thunder, many did feel that it didn't spend enough time showing him as such, instead they had to make him human in order for us to get to know him. I liked the spectacle, the emotion and the effort for it... it was an entertaining film, but nothing special. 'Thor: The Dark World' (2013) did have bigger action sequences, and more funny chemistry between the brothers Thor and Loki, but the comedy and final act dragged it down, and became forgettable and uninspired, but I still had some fun with it. So, it's easy to understand that with the third movie about the mighty God of Thunder, Marvel needed this one to be good. And, luckily, with director Taika Waititi ('What We Do in the Shadows'), it seems this franchise has been brought some life. 'Thor: Ragnarok' is easily the best chapter in this saga. It's vibrant, entertaining, action-packed, sometimes dark, and, to many's surprise, very funny. I know the word "funny" is odd, since the story of "Ragnarok" is meant to be dark and apocalyptic, but the humor does hit when it needs to. We see that Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been imprisoned, still searching for those Infinity Stones, but as he returns to Asgard, he discovers that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the God of Mischief, has been ruling the kingdom and Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is nowhere to be seen. They discover that Asgard is in danger when they meet Hela (Cate Blanchett), the Goddess of Death, and sister of Thor and Loki (wasn't she supposed to be Loki's daughter? Then again, Ego was never meant to be Peter Quill's father...), who wants to rule Asgard and banish those who wrong her. Thor ends up on Sakaar where he meets Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), and he is told that he must fight in the arena in order to get to where he needs. His opponent happens to be the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), which is seen as not much of a challenge for him. Thor tries to reason with the Hulk and manages to persuade him to help fight Hela before all of Asgard is in ruins. What makes this movie work is that it seems Chris Hemsworth has more fun in the role of Thor than in previous films. Thor has always been seen as the more "boring" Avenger simply because he is an all powerful god who holds a hammer. There's nothing more about him to make him sympathetic, only when he is rid of those powers, does he become interesting. Taika Waititi has a unique vision on the characters of Thor and the Hulk, they really get a chance to shine in this movie than previous ones. They are more interesting here, than before. Plus, the comedy is used effectively. Unlike in 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' (2017) where the humor stretches beyond the first act, and the characters joke, even when they're in danger... here, Waititi only uses the humor when its needed. During the final battle, no spoilers, there is little-to-no joking around, especially when the whole world could end. Plus, the replacing of Kat Dennings with the charismatic Jeff Goldblum is also inspired... he is great as the Grandmaster, and I cannot wait to see more of him, if Marvel decides to put him in more upcoming films. Overall, this is a fantastic "Thor" movie, and it works because it ticks the boxes that the other two films forgot to tick. Hemsworth really shines as the God of Thunder, and the supporting cast all do a terrific job in their respective roles. It's funny... but not too funny. It's a blast.
'Forrest Gump' at times, can be seen as overly sentimental, and often too sweet in its storytelling. The movie focuses on one man's journey throughout many of the most iconic moments in American history. Forrest (Tom Hanks) sits on a bench with a box of chocolates on his lap, waiting for somebody, as he waits, some strangers, waiting for other people or transport, sit alongside him. He proceeds to tell them stories, whether they wish to hear it or not, about how he managed to get to where he currently is in life. We see a young Forrest living quietly with his mother (Sally Field), as she tries her best to raise him, since his father is nowhere around. He does his best at school, despite some of the other kids often making fun of how simply "stupid" he is. He wears leg braces as he wasn't fully able to properly function his legs. Growing up, Forrest befriends a girl named Jenny (Robin Wright), who has been kind to him, despite his lack of knowledge. There seems to be some kind of spark between the two of them, but they often go their separate ways after school. We see that Forrest joins the army and meets a man named Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise) who often struggles to keep his patience with Forrest. Forrest ends up becoming an iconic ping pong player, often playing really fast, and he meets President Kennedy, John Lennon etc. all with the power of special effects to make it look as if Hanks' character actually met these people. 'Forrest Gump', directed by Robert Zemeckis (who also directed 'Back to the Future'), is a powerful movie, and tells a story of a kind man and how he remained humble throughout, what looked like, a difficult journey. The acting is solid, the story is engaging, and it is a movie with a warm heart. Maybe too warm for some, but all in all, this is a story that needs to be shared to everyone.
