Scryptkeeper

“Project Hail Mary” is an excellent example of how a simplistic plot with minimal characters can go such a long way when written well. Although its pacing hits a few rough patches at points, its overall plot and composition are well crafted with a message of optimism that triumphantly stands out amidst a sea of nihilism seen so often in modern entries within the **** terms of its story, Ryan Gosling successfully walks the tightrope of presenting light comedy and heavy drama in equal quantity without one outshining the other to jarring degrees. Despite the plot being rooted in science, it never feels bogged down with too many high-brow details to make sense of. The alien concepts introduced (particularly the entity named “Rocky”) are creative enough to be fresh, tied with realism sufficiently to seem tangible, and disconnected from universal laws adequately to feel foreign. Additionally, within an adventure where humanity is at stake, the pressure presented feels substantial enough without the misstep of being distractingly **** visuals and stylistic shots are complimentary to the premise, and the music weaved throughout the film’s high and low points does not fail to elevate them further. As some have additionally pointed out, despite the movie bearing a PG-13 rating, it is exceedingly clean when compared to how morose and mired it could have been with current-day penchants for excessive language and needless crass innuendo.Altogether, what makes the film so approachable and engaging are the timeless, interwoven qualities of courage, self-sacrifice, and hope for a better tomorrow. While it never takes itself too seriously, it is elevated to a degree where it can engage with the audience on a mature level to plausibly set up a number of well-earned emotional payoffs. For those seeking a fun, out-of-this-world experience in terms of both aesthetic and narrative - or others looking for a refreshing take on the genre that is free of progressive messaging - this is definitely one for you.

On the topic of watching movies, there comes a time in everyone’s life when you find yourself wondering, “what is the meaning of it all?”. “How did we get here?” “Out of all the possible variables a piece of media could have brought to the table, why did it neglect to plop anything of substance on the plate?” Every one of these questions are valid starting positions from which to pick apart this wonderfully-imaginative entry in the Predator franchise: “Prey”. Concerning the plot - or lack thereof - the story sets out to tell an inspiring pre-colonial tale of heroism and bravery, but instead delivers a self-centered diatribe against the very fabric of common sense (all dressed in uninspiring cosplay attire an adolescent theater club would be embarrassed to own). While it pretends to employ a protagonist with flaws and shortcomings to overcome, what it casts is a heroine who fails when failure is inevitable and succeeds only when the dungeon boss needs to be slain. And though it purports to bring in an intimidating antagonist that is driven by the hunt and is defeated though cunning, it only managed to spawn a bumbling neanderthal competent in basic motor skills alone…bested through the fault of his own utter **** terms of potential, the premise of the scenario certainly had some. If not for the writers tripping over themselves at every turn in their attempt to force a message of empowerment (despite the primary recipient exhibiting superhuman acts whilst donned with plot armor whenever the need arises), they could have crafted a more scaled down narrative with poignant stakes. Instead, leaps of logic and chaotic contrivances allow for a narrative that barely manages to scratch the surface of developing its core characters (who are themselves lost in a cast of one-note cardboard cutouts). Visually speaking, the shot-framing and camerawork could make most amateur film projects look like works of cinematic genius by comparison. The persistent “shaky cam” effects call into question whether or not a number of scenes were recorded during an earthquake, and the overall presentation of others shatter the illusion that what is being presented is even a movie to begin **** terms of authenticity and immersion, the film’s endeavor to keep itself within any semblance of historical reality is scalped right from the outset. Apart from the aforementioned costuming issues, the dialogue (which is oddly English for a non-English timepiece) is comparable at moments to the utterances of a Los Angeles dudebro with a side of extra slang and modern terminology for good **** the opposite side of the spectrum, when it comes to the elements of fiction depicted, the concept of the mystical can-cure-anything herb does far more harm than it does good in its service to the plot. Need a quick fix for anything ranging from a cut to a concussion? It has you covered. Need a mechanic that instantly makes you invisible to your adversary? It does that too. Adding to the nonsensicality is the inevitable notion that this miracle plant dropped off the face of the planet, never to be heard from **** summary, “Prey” is itself a cautionary tale of what can happen to a movie when it becomes mired in haphazard quality and blinded by ambition to push a message with no thought to the ramifications of neglecting basic writing. On one hand, it is a welcoming invitation to a concept that could have crafted an interesting story, but in the other, it is a brutish, thorn-ridden club to bash the viewer. Even in isolation outside of the Predator franchise altogether, it is a laughable parody of a film that could make such works as “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians” seem like Shakespearean artistry if watched in succession. At the end of the day, some stories should never be written; and in the case of this piece of cultural vandalism, some should additionally be committed to the market stockade for an indefinite allowance of ridicule.

As the third entry in the franchise, “Predators” managed to perform equivalently to the original as the second installment did: offering up new scenery and the potential that comes with it, though ultimately falling short in terms of execution. And while this entry managed to present a more polished narrative and more engaging characters than what was seen in “Predator 2”, it also opened the door to compounding detriments that would see the IP fly off the rails further down the road.Concerning the plot, the film throws the viewer into the fray immediately out of the gate as the main male lead (who will remain to be called as such, as his name remains inconsequential until the final moment of the runtime) is air dropped into a foreign jungle alongside a number of other deliberately diverse characters. As sparks quickly begin to fly between all parties involved, especially between the male lead and his female counterpart (who also remains unnamed until the film’s conclusion), it is quickly discovered that the motley crew is not in Kansas anymore. Before the (literal) world-changing environment has a chance to sink in, a pack of plot-armored alien dogs temporarily assault the survivors before being seemingly called off, and the first character is finished off and used for a trap. Shortly after, an enemy camp is located along with the sighting of a captured Predator. Upon escaping this trap that the male lead allowed the group to fall into (minus one more member), it is revealed that not one, but three Predators are hunting them. One attempted trap (on the teams part) later, and a new character wearing Predator armor is introduced and leads the remaining characters into…yet another trap. After losing several more during the ensuing scuffle, the male lead attempts to strike a bargain with the captured Predator before returning to save the female lead from a (not so subtle) threat from within. This then sees the final battle ensue, where both the male and female leads must work in tandem if they hope to survive the final, most monstrous **** angles considered, “Predators” is a more relevant successor than the franchise’s second outing, though is still burdened with similar detriments. The film introduces far too many characters than it cares to spend time on developing, with the main two leads being the only recipients of decent writing; most of the others are one-note “killers” of differing flavors, only around to add more targets for the Predators to hunt. While the change in worlds is arguably more aesthetically complimentary than a modern city, its utility is largely squandered on trying to recreate the first movie with the additional caveat of “this time, it is a hunting preserve”. Had the film explored something more of substance, such as a prison planet (that would have explained the sudden presence of mutant Predators), the overall longevity of the story could have been lifted a few bars higher.Concerning the characters, Adrien Brody’s Royce (aka “male lead”) is a solid main character who makes mostly logical decisions based on his past experiences, and travels the arc of loner-turned-ally decently. Likewise, Alice Braga’s Isabella (the “female lead”) is treated to one of the film’s few backstories, and its reasonable writing goes a long way in assisting her relevancy and due chemistry alongside Royce. Most of the Predators are depicted in a better light than in the sequel, though the introduction of hybrids leaves much to be desired. This is not to say that the concept couldn’t have landed with more grace and plausibility; it just felt slapped on as another reason to have a new unexpected face-reveal. To mention one of the film’s few notable high points, it does manage to create a substantial final struggle. While the visuals are nothing to write home about, they do a reasonable job in grounding the story in the Predator universe. Likewise, the music and sound design are complimentary, if for no other reason than they don’t actively pull you out of the scenes. As a personal gripe, the amount of edgy swearing was also just as pointlessly detracting as it was in Predator 2; something that could have been thinned out to still be **** conclusion, “Predators” can best be described as another foul ball after the original. It introduced a noteworthy concept in taking the plot beyond the confines of Earth (which, by now, is very much aware of the presence of the Predators), though missed its mark by underusing its cast and overestimating the success of opening a Pandora’s Box by introducing hybrid variants. Make no mistake, if you enjoyed the sequel with as much as it deviated from the original, you will likely find this film to be acceptable. It is just another unfortunate instance of writing that seemed to be largely disinterested in creating a fleshed out story; a product that is simply Predator-relevant because it has Predators in it.

“Predator 2” is a clean cut example of an interesting concept becoming bogged down by a myriad of missteps; chiefly among them being a lack of purposeful vision. What started off as a welcome shift in environment and theme devolves gradually into something of a mismanaged slasher flick, which is unfortunate given the potential the initial premise had. Though it is speckled with some impressive action sequences and serviceable acting throughout, it is equally riddled with contrivances, nonsensicalities, and f-bombs galore.Concerning the plot, the film opens to a firefight between the police and a gang faction as an ongoing drug war is being waged. Soon following the arrival of Lt. Mike Harrigan, the members of the gang they pushed back fall victim to the Predator (who manages to escape the close-quarters bullet-hell unscathed). At a loss for the perpetrator of the massacre, Harrigan and his team are put further on the back foot when Federal agents insist that they stay in their lane and not investigate further. Not dissuaded, Mike persists in looking into the matter after the rival gang of the first attacks (and is then attacked) by the Predator, leading to another slaughter. Also, insert unnecessary explicit intercourse scene beforehand. Upon peering over the crime scene, Mike’s second in command (Danny) is himself picked off by the Pred, emboldening Mike even further. After attempting a meeting with the second gang’s leader, the soon-to-be late King Willy, Mike’s progress hits a standstill until the Predator strikes once more on a train; killing one member of the team, yet sparing another. The third act opens to Mike discovering the truth behind the Federal involvement, which leads into his first face-to-face skirmish with the Predator. After a long(winded) chase sequence, he happens upon the Predator’s lair wherein the two face off one final **** greatest distinction between the first film and the second is easily the effort (or lack thereof) that went into the human characters. While the first movie featured a number of multidimensional, fleshed out protagonists such as Dutch, Dillon, Billy, and Mac, this iteration’s only memorable character is Mike. The rest of his team are either completely one note, or only given a morsel of relevance after their passing.Another issue that cropped up, thanks largely to how the Predator scenes were framed, is the implausible amount of plot armor it receives. In the first film, the weight of a single bullet wound is expressed well in both tone and motivation (specifically Dutch’s line: “If it bleeds, we can kill it”); yet in this one, we are expected to believe that hundreds of bullets fired off in small rooms never met their mark on an unarmored target. While the scenes still look good for what they are, it just pulls off the mask of immersion bit by bit with each subsequent **** mentioned previously, the biggest detriment that the movie has (outside of personal gripes such as the flippant influx of language and the egregious scene of sensuality) is its waste of an intriguing premise. The detective angle the movie started with could have led to bigger and better payoffs as Mike and his department slowly realize the scale of the threat on their doorstep…but instead the creatives chose the path of “let’s just go mindless action/slasher, have the Predator conveniently teleport to wherever the team happens to be to strike next, and not worry about how little it actually makes sense and what is inevitably lost in the process”.Visually, the Predator and its effects still look as solid as they did in its first outing; there is no denying that. The soundtrack is reasonable considering the atmosphere, though elements like pacing do suffer as the runtime unfolds with more than a fair share of cuttable **** conclusion, “Predator 2” is decently middling. If you are a fan of the genre, then you likely won’t be disappointed by the diminishing effort that went into the story. There is a plethora of gunfights and instances where the Predator gets to showcase its expansive arsenal of lethalities, and Danny Glover’s performance as Mike is as solid as it comes (under the given circumstances). It is just a shame that the overall presentation became muddily likened to many forgettable B-movies of the time that were edgy for the sake of being edgy, rather than building something remarkable upon the impressive foundation the original “Predator” left behind.

Among the most recognizable sci-fi horror movies of all time, “Predator” stands to this day as one of the most acclaimed and referenced throughout all of pop-culture. By merit of its transformative genre, iconic practical effects (concerning the overall environment and the Predator suit itself), and unforgettable characters, the film that launched its own franchise has managed to remain timeless.Concerning the plot, the film opens - after a brief shot of an alien craft arrival - to a swift succession of scenes that see former military operative Dutch and his team of mercenaries tasked with the extraction of an important minister after he was shot down somewhere over the jungles of Central America. Upon arrival, an air of unease and doubt starts to creep in as it is revealed that another group, Green Berets, were likewise shot down…their skinned remains suggesting the presence of something more sinister than just the local guerrillas at work. After successfully routing the enemy camp, Dillon - Dutch’s former war ally turned CIA operative - is forced to reveal that the minister story was a coverup to enlist Dutch’s aid, and the group takes the lone survivor of the raid (Anna) as they begin to work their way out. One by one, each member is then brutally picked off by the unknown, otherworldly assailant until just Dutch and Anna remain. One of the most interesting facets of the overall composition of the film is in its tonal and structural shifts at the conclusion of each act. It presents itself as an action hero shoot-em-up just up until after the impressive battle at the camp, at which point the nefarious subtleties take center stage and the picture becomes full-on horror. Lastly, it changes one final time at the start of the third act wherein it becomes something of a hybrid of the two. Enhancing the shifts of tone are the characters, who are (for the most part) dynamic enough to be easy recognizable from each other both visually and narratively. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Dutch” is the most memorable thanks to his impressive screen presence and charisma, with his quotable dialogue going the extra mile to put him on top. Carl Weathers’ “Dillon” acted as a solid foil to most of the other members’ roguish tendencies, Sonny Landham’s “Billy” was a good compass for the team’s encroaching dread through his breaking stoicism, and Bill Duke’s “Mac” performed the perfect depiction of sheer terror amidst the looming threat of the unknown.Credit is also due for the overwhelming amount of effort taken to shoot the film on set in the jungle (with all of the misfortunes and hurdles that came with it), alongside the technology utilized to bring about the visual stealth mechanic and heat vision. Doubtless one of the highest points of the practical effects being the Predator’s suit itself, and Kevin Hall’s acting talents inside of it. The only brief point at which it is done a disservice, in my opinion, is in the final portion of the movie where the climactic face reveal is followed up with a mildly-hokey slugfest akin to the old monster movies (due to the limitations of the suit’s mobility) and holding just as much **** only other shortcomings concerning the plot and otherwise would include the opening scene that robs the Predator of its overall mystique right out of the gate, the underdevelopment of Anna’s role in terms of overall merit, and the appearance of a few sexual jokes that are more out of place and tonally detracting than they are serviceable to the character saying them (as they could have done anything else to make him memorable, such as him having (for example) a penchant for luck/coin-flipping, but went with that instead).Altogether, “Predator” is an exceedingly iconic film for its target audience. It manages to fit in less than two hours of runtime what modern movies struggle to contain in almost three: a compact script, compelling characters, a well-balanced story, and loads of fan-service that actually make narrative sense. While it does come with the entry fee of an “R” rating, if you are fine with a reasonably tame degree of violence and gore, this one is a must watch; as good as they come.

James Gunn’s “Superman” can be sufficiently described with two words: James Gunn. From the opening sequence to the final endcredit scene, every character facet and narrative subtext is wrapped up in the same lackadaisical flavor of tell-not-show which robs much of the plot of any semblance of true merit. Many of the logical inconsistencies are hand-waved off with little to no follow-up, entire chunks of backstory are left completely void, and the very concept of tonality is repetitiously **** throughout. While a degree of the acting can be described as “solid”, much of it is hard to appreciate for any serviceable length when the aforementioned grievances rear their heads at the drop of a hat.Concerning the plot, the film takes a bold approach in skipping its first act entirely, as the story opens right in the middle of the action with only a few lines of text to partially fill in the blank. Superman has already been established in the world for years, Lex is already bent on destroying him, and he and Lois are already in a relationship. After suffering defeat from one of Lex’s lackeys under the guise of another nations “hero” and being showed up by the “Justice Gang” when the city is temporarily threatened by a titanic monster, Superman is constantly put on the back foot despite his best efforts. Upon the revelation of his parent’s betrayal, all of humanity immediately and inexplicably turns on him which prompts him to fall into Lex’s clutches. After escaping said clutches and returning to Metropolis to save it from a dimensional rift, he must face down Lex’s associates Ultraman and Engineer while the Justice Gang’s Green Lantern and Hawkgirl must prevent a foreign **** greatest contributor to the nonsensicality of the above plot is how little amount of time is actually spent in making sure certain events, factions, and key characters are fleshed out in advance; something an actual first act might have gone a long way to remedy. For example, neither side of the foreign kerfuffle are truly represented and given nuance beyond “evil country (A) wants to invade innocent country (B); feel sorry for innocent country (B) because we tell you to”. Another major issue is power-scaling in terms of technology and the detriments that follow. To cite a few glaring instances, the movie expects you to believe that in the same world where Lex has (seemingly effortlessly) cracked the code on cloning, can decipher an alien language from a few spoken lines, and has created an entire pocket dimension to use as he sees fit…he also needs mutant monkeys to bot-farm for him rather than using a supercomputer, and has to rely on mobile cameras to combat Superman rather than incorporate multiple miniature cameras on his subordinate’s suit. This also calls into question why (between the showcasing of his technology and Mister Terrific’s alone) the world is not in a more futuristic setting in general.Concerning the characters, David Corenswet’s (Superman) is a juxtaposition of decent acting burdened by poor writing. While we are told and shown that he cares for humanity and wants to do the right thing despite being a punching bag through over half the runtime, we are also shown that he is willing to sit out a serious-yet-tonally-jarring monster battle that plays in the background…that he is additionally willing to spare another gigantic monster and even rescue a squirrel, but he is fine dropping a morally-gray character in a black hole without a second thought. Similarly, Nicholas Hoult’s (Lex Luther) is handled both in an intelligent (yet mind bogglingly moronic) manner, as he is implied to be smart enough to tackle the aforementioned works of genius, yet he is shown to be completely irrational when it comes to achieving his true goal. Rachel Brosnahan’s (Lois Lane) is serviceable, and Edi Gathegi’s (Mister Terrific) was by far the standout from the Justice Gang’s members due to his enhanced acting and narrative presence. In conclusion, James Gunn’s attempt at “Superman” was more in line with a film that could have been titled “The Justice Gang Rides Again”. It was a confusing mess written by James Gunn for James Gunn, that could never truly decide what it wanted to be thanks largely in part to James Gunn, combined with having an absent introduction and lack of cursory craftsmanship to its world. It was as if the creatives (or, solo creative in this instance) wanted to drop an “Avengers” caliber story at the inception of the cinematic universe without any regard to the building that needed to take place to earn such an endeavor. It is, for lack of a better description, yet another modern “turn-your-brain-off-and-it-will-be-great” experience that will inevitably sour to anyone who dares to dig beyond the surface; a film with enough concepts that could have soared had it been made with care, yet was doomed to fall under the ego and inability of one not-so-super man.

It has been said that the closer one is to the lore of any given reprisal, the more likely that individual will relish the consistencies and loath the detractions. With “Sonic 3” finally delving into the established lore from the franchise, it was inevitable that a lifelong fan of the series as I would be subjected to one of the reactions, and it was regrettably the latter. Its alterations to the story of (Sonic Adventure 2) notwithstanding, the film additionally fell from the reputation of its predecessors in terms of its ability to balance tonal consistency (something even the second installment was serviceable in). If not for a choice selection of genuinely good scenes, which were few and far between, this travesty of a “reimagination” would have scored even lower in my **** where did it all go wrong? Chiefly among the issues is the severe tonal whiplash that occurs with almost every change of scene, as attempting to blend an exceedingly serious narrative with juvenile punchlines and silly-for-the-sake-of-silly antics is a recipe for disaster. Make no mistake, the first two movies managed to make this vein of humor work, largely due to them being their own tales set in a universe as of yet attached to the flagship medium (that being the video games). However, in attempting to please “all audiences” by taking a mature story and plastering extremely adolescent graffiti all over it, it ultimately caters to only the blissfully-uninformed that are vaguely knowledgeable about “this thing is popular because…it’s popular”, who additionally find themselves unburdened by the care or want for any semblance of narrative cohesion.When observing the movie as a whole, it is almost as if the writers had a list of highlighted jokes they wanted to include set alongside another list of bulletpoints from the original game that was thought important enough to push into the plot, and they couldn’t reconcile sacrificing one or the other…so they gave us both…bookended back-to-back…nonstop. No moment of severity is ever given time to breathe, and no opportunity of character development is ever prioritized over making that same incident the victim of having to precede a tacky one-liner.Subsequently, another detriment this brings to the table is the self-sabotage of character potential, especially when contrasted with the original material. What makes matters worse is that this in turn opens up large holes of inconsistency between what is (assumably) expected on the part of the writer and what is actually experienced. For example, G.U.N. is (expected) to be taken seriously in several portions of the film, though this perception falls to the wayside every time they are shown to be pointlessly incompetent and made the butt of an umpteenth joke because…wouldn’t it be funny if they only had a handful of guards to defend an entire high-stakes facility? And unfortunately for fans of the source material, it gets much worse; because when it comes to the loss in character potential/quality, no one suffered more than Gerald Robotnik. In the original story, he was kept largely in the background for the majority of the plot; only coming to the forefront when the ploys of his deception reached fruition. There are no quips, no tottering-old-man antics: only pure anger and bitterness wrapped in a perspective package of tragedy. In contrast, within the movie, he is still alive and kicking seemingly only so a plethora of geriatric jests can be made, and so he can be made out to be an evil mastermind that only gets his way due to the logical shortcomings the script forces on those around him. Rather than having his portrayal as close to the original as possible, which would have certainly reaped the most benefits for both his character and the overall story as a whole, it seemed like they deliberately included him (rather than “insert new old guy here”) so that they could run with the selling point of “look, Jim Carrey gets to yuck it up as TWO Robotnik’s this time! Won’t that be fun?”. In conclusion, while there were a few moments of solid action and story beats, “Sonic 3” was unfortunately designed to be a checkbox movie in every definition of the concept. If you turn your brain off, set aside any expectation of logical consistency, and disregard every facet of the original story from which the film appropriated and butchered, there is a possibility that you will enjoy this entry. However, if you saw this film as an enthusiast of the game and wondered where Rouge and Amy disappeared to, why Gerald and G.U.N. were turned into giggle-coated piñatas, and lamented the complete removal of the Space Colony Ark and Biolizard, you are not alone. It is a regrettable outcome since the landing was largely stuck concerning Shadow’s (and to an extent, Maria’s) portrayal; but such was the risk in forcing needless changes on an existing story while blatantly ignoring what made it so beloved to begin with.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Shakespeare once penned the sage insight: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them”. As a recipient of the inverse of the lattermost statement, having regrettably granted “A Minecraft Movie” the best benefit of the doubt (despite the build up to release displaying more red flags than the country of China), I can confirm that the film is not for the faint of heart - nor the queasy of stomachs - nor still for any individual with a modicum of discretion where matters of decent storytelling are concerned. At best, the narrative resembles the result of incompetent thinkers scribbling down “cool” or “popular” concepts they may have heard of, attaching them to a dartboard, then throwing numerical darts to determine what the film will feature and in what order. Scenes will jump from place to place, often assisted by extreme coincidence, and in a manner facilitated and paved by the detriment of core Minecraft qualities. For example, the question of “are they in Creative Mode, or Survival?” can be easily inquired a number of times whenever enemies that were hostile previously (or in general) become inexplicably passive, or when a seemingly unlimited amount of resources are available for immediate use just in time for when the situation demands. Similarly, the implications around Steve’s numerous Elytra are muddled, as the realm in which they are solely acquired (the End) is never touched on. Arguably worst of all, in the place of a palpable threat such as the Ender Dragon, Wither, or running myth Herobrine, the film delivers a threat that could best be described as a talent show reject throwing a tantrum because…someone called out their lack of talent? So much for suspense.Perhaps the greatest blight comes in the form of the characters, whose constant lack of any tangible through-line or substance only drag down an already lackluster adventure. Jack Black’s ludicrous attempt at cosplaying Steve was an embarrassment, especially considering his rotund appearance. His mixture of obnoxious humor and cringe dialogue made the experience best whenever he was off-screen, and no amount of singing could suggest otherwise (sorry J.B. fans, no “Peaches” here). Meanwhile, Jason Momoa’s “Garrett” was the pinnacle of modern writing at its worst: taking the most masculine character in the room and turning what could have been a decent arc into the epitome of a spineless, self-serving punching bag until the plot decided otherwise. Emma Myres and Sebastian Hansen filled up more group roles as siblings Natalie and Henry, both of which presented little more than two heavily plot-armored, charmless kids going from Point A to Point B. Danielle Brooks’ “Dawn” rounded out the group as a…diverse woman of color whose role could have been relegated to a few lines with nothing of importance being missed. Lastly, Jennifer Coolidge guest stars as an insufferable divorcee who constantly talks about her divorce, because divorce is such an appropriately-comedic topic for a “kids movie”. On that note…“A Minecraft Movie” being assumably tailored to be a children’s film gives it no cause to be as sloppy and unpolished as it is. If the CGI Overworld wasn’t jarring enough alone, the integration between the live-action characters against the artificial canvass is even worse, with several scenes being painfully blatant. Had the characters transformed into Minecraft avatars stylized in tandem with the world around them, the result would have at least been more immersive. Tonality is all over the place, with hostile mobs presented as threatening early on, only to become a background gag a few scenes later. Then there is the problem of the copious amount of language and innuendo strewn throughout the run-time, each occurrence souring what should have been a family-friendly tone a step **** summery, the difference between ‘what could have been’ and ‘what actually was’ is staggering. Over a decade ago, the four-part YouTube sensation “Fallen Kingdom” proved that a streamlined, compelling, and stylistic story set within the confines of the Minecraft universe was certainly possible so long as dedicated work was actually put into the final product. Since then, countless fan imaginings of equal and greater merit have come and gone, and through each of them runs a common thread: respect for the source material. “A Minecraft Movie” took that source material and instead of crafting a mind-blowing adventure appealing to all fans of the storied franchise, it delivered a gut-punching desicration targeted solely at the easiest to please. Sadly, anyone looking for a diamond in the rough with this one will only take home a chest full of rotten flesh.

“Sonic the Hedgehog” is a fast-paced action/adventure film that successfully brings the iconic blue blur to the live-action scene, and as of the making of this review, is currently the highlight of the (thus far) trilogy of Paramount films. Thanks in large part to its dedicated character chemistry, slick battle sequences, and solid story beats, this memorable interpretation of SEGA’s iconic mascot is a must-watch for both fans of the franchise and newcomers alike.Concerning the plot, the movie runs through Sonic’s backstory at a brisk pace, simultaneously setting up his world-traveling motive and secretive place within the quaint town of Green Hills. Upon inadvertently unleashing a large scale electric burst that attracts the attention of the government, Sonic soon finds himself in the sights of the eccentric genius, Dr. Robotnik, and loses access to his warp rings upon bumping into the town’s chief peace officer, Tom. After a tense first encounter with Robotnik and his lethal drones, both Sonic and Tom hit the road to recover the lost rings, during which the two gradually bond and form a strong friendship. The game of cat and mouse continues to escalate until all persons involved are in place for the climactic showdown to ensue, and it does not disappoint.Tonally speaking, the film manages to walk the fine line of balancing comedic and serious moments from start to finish; allowing each side of the coin to compliment the other. Most of the humor was interwoven into the dialogue and narrative in clever ways and rarely felt silly for the sake of being silly (which unfortunately becomes a staple of later installments). And while the story itself is nothing exceedingly special, it was a suitable scenario for a new universe setting outside of the series’ **** for the primary cast, the voice talent of Ben Schwartz brought Sonic to life in a way that nailed his carefree nature while avoiding some of the more cringy interpretations the character has seen through prior media. Jim Carrey’s first outing as Robotnik was by far his best, as he was able to masterfully convey both a wit-driven humor and palpable menace in equal measure; something that is sadly lost as the movies have continued. James Marsden’s “Tom” offered up a reasonably compelling secondary arch to play in par with Sonic’s, with his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter) adding just the right amount of presence to round out their characters. By far one of the most redeeming facets of the film is the CGI upgrade Sonic received after his first imagining (as seen in the trailer) was rightfully savaged by fans. It is a rare example, especially in modern years, of a company listening to feedback and being rewarded in turn. Concerning aesthetics, the music style and utility is spot on in most instances, and the visual elements of Sonic’s powers and Robotnik’s machines are an absolute treat. In conclusion, “Sonic the Hedgehog” (or “Sonic 1”) is an excellent videogame movie that taps into just enough nostalgia to compliment its own story and narrative without resembling itself to a soulless cash-grab that more than a few of its peers have typically gone the way of. At its core it is a family friendly adventure that manages to avoid sacrificing quality for “kiddy content” by carefully juxtaposing elements favored by younger and mature audiences rather than outright eliminating one or cramming both together in an exceedingly jarring manner.

“Five Nights at Freddy’s” is something of a foul ball in terms of how it manages to connect with its source material, though fails land within the expected parameters. While the base story is interesting enough in its own right, a number of tonal and performance inconsistencies hold it back from reaching its full potential. Concerning the plot, the movie opens up with a brief and frantic chase sequence that concludes with the demise of an unnamed security guard. The scenario then shifts to the perspective of Mike Schmidt as the troubles of his past leave him financially vulnerable to the self-serving advances of his aunt, whose attempts to take custody of his young sister Abby are nearing fruition. With little choice but to accept an uninviting job recently offered to him, Mike finds himself taking on the same role as the late security guard: monitoring the status of a run down and seemingly abandoned pizzeria. He soon crosses paths with officer Vanessa Shelly, whose unassuming interest in the restaurant takes a foreboding turn after Abby is forced to join him there. Upon discovering the truth behind the pizzeria’s famous animatronics and learning of the connection they share with his past, Mike is confronted with a sinister ultimatum: would he be willing to forfeit his sister if it meant being able to be with his lost brother again? Interestingly enough, some of the strongest points of the narrative (concerning the utility of Mike’s ongoing dreams) end up detracting from time actually spent at the pizzeria, which can be said of most of the character drama. While these sequences aren’t wholly unnecessary when considering the larger picture, they effectively deflate the tension that actually takes place. It doesn’t help either that the tone is **** every now and then when cartoonish antics are slapped on the otherwise imposing machines completely out of nowhere, especially after the film goes out of its way to showcase their jarring **** characters themselves are decently fleshed out with each hitting different levels of success. Josh Hutcherson’s (Mike) offered up a compelling arch as his divided motives of protecting his sister and learning what he can of his brother’s disappearance created several interesting conflicts. Piper Rubio’s (Abby) put out a fairly believable performance for a young actress, which can also be said for the other children seen within the dream sequences. And Elizabeth Lail’s (Vanessa) was hit and miss, as earlier scenes of her acting felt forced at times while latter portions of the film allowed for it to land **** far as the visuals are concerned, the aesthetics of the restaurant were serviceable. The animatronics themselves, which appeared to be primarily practical rather than CGI, matched the first game to a “T”. Sound design was efficient overall, which can also be said for the music at points. Sitting at a little under two hours, the runtime is merited, though the risk of dragging is still present.Altogether, “Five Nights at Freddy’s” is far from being a terrible video game adaptation, though its mixed focus and lack of commitment to its genre left a great deal to be desired. While numerous references and easter eggs (including a cameo by FNAF-enthusiast MatPat) will offer up some treats for long-running fans of the franchise, it is hard to ignore how much missed potential went by the wayside.

“Creature from the Black Lagoon”, one of Universal Studio’s most iconic horror films, stands up fairly well to its reputation. The 1954 classic captures the essence of its genre well enough, though at times to the detriment of its simple storyline. The underwater visuals are impressive for its time, and the actors do their best to elevate the level of terror in between the sudden attacks of the film’s namesake.Concerning the plot, the story unfolds after expeditionist Carl Maia discovers an enigmatic fossil along a riverbank in the Amazon. Upon returning with several colleagues (most notably David Reed, Mark Williams, and their mutual love interest Kay Lawrence), the party discovers that the camp Carl left behind had been savagely attacked, leaving no survivors. Eventually deducing that the remainder of the mysterious skeleton they sought could have drifted downstream, the group make haste for the “Black Lagoon” at its end. Upon exploring it unbeknownst of the Creature watching them, Kay is pursued by the monster as she decides to go for a brief swim after David and Mark return to their vessel. The encounter leaving them disturbed, David and the majority of the team decide to flee the lagoon to the dismay of Mark (who wants the Creature as a prize), though find their exit blocked by debris. After learning of a weakness to exploit against the monster, David and the remaining crew attempt to secure their escape while Mark engages in a fateful showdown. At the climax, Kay is inevitably captured by the Creature, and it is up to Mark to run to her **** only story points that throw a wrench into the otherwise streamlined and efficient plot is the somewhat random nature of the Creature as it switches between the roles of “observer” and “attacker”. In most instances, the brutal attacks and subsequent killings it inflicts upon the characters seem to only occur at the opportune moments in which a new hint is required to move the story forward. While it is serviceable in this effort and to the benefit of the horror aesthetic, some extra polish could have granted these sequences more **** for the characters, most hit around the same reasonable area of success in presenting their roles. Richard Carlson’s (David Reed) was satisfactory for a strong protagonist with the simple goal of scientific curiosity and a good likeminded parallel for Julie Adams’ (Kay Lawrence). Richard Denning’s (Mark Williams) was proficient at augmenting the tension through his growing obsession over the Creature, and the combination of Ricou Browning and Ben Chapman’s efforts to bring the “Gill-Man” to life in the water and on land (respectively) were well-handled. The monstrous suit they performed in was exceptional for its time: the only nitpick being that the eyes looked far more terrifying and successful in the submerged sequences (where the eyes appear to be vacant) than they did otherwise.Altogether, “Creature from the Black Lagoon” has earned its memorable place in cinema for over half of a century due to its timeless relevance alongside Universal’s other legendary monster films. By merit of its precise camerawork, genre’d soundscape, meticulous costume design, and serviceable character work, it is a solid film for any viewer seeking a nostalgic flashback to the early days of monster flicks.

“The Wild Robot” is an emotion-driven adventure that captivates the imagination from the first few frames through to its final seconds. The combination of its strong story, stunning animation, and memorable soundtrack create an experience that is not soon forgotten, especially in an era where each are becoming increasingly hard to find. Barring a few criticisms related to line composition and mild narrative contrivances, it is an incredible film suitable for all audiences.Concerning the plot, the story opens with ROZZUM unit 7134, an all-purpose service robot later nicknamed “Roz”, finding herself seemingly abandoned on a wilderness island. Run-ins with the local wildlife are met with hostility, and all efforts of acquiring a task or leaving via sending a signal to “return to factory” are dashed. After a subsequent chase scene that tragically ends with her accidentally crushing a nest, a new fate is forced upon her as she discovers a lone egg that survived. Upon rescuing it from the clutches of a fox, the egg hatches and the newly born chick immediately imprints on her. Though initially disinclined to have anything further to do with the runt later to be named “Brightbill”, she ultimately embraces the role as his mother after it is directed to her. As time goes on and she is assisted by Fink (the “more than meets the eye” fox she encountered previously), she begins to question her true purpose in contrast to her rigid programming. With the deadline of getting Brightbill ready to migrate by Fall hanging in the balance, the truth of his past resurfaces and drives the two apart. Despite having learned of her own origin at the hands of Universal Dynamics (an assumably world-spanning company), and having a base desire to return “to where she belongs”, Roz continues to aid in Brightbill’s tutelage all the way up until the fateful moment when it is all put to the test. To avoid spoiling the latter portion of the film, I won’t go any further. Needless to say, the emotional stakes only continue to build until the finale and they are worth keeping secret. The only overall critiques to the plot concern the film utilizing some contrived circumstances to move the events forward at points, such as when Roz learns of her past, though locations and set pieces involving these situations are at least foreshadowed.A point of praise to mention is the decision of including the theme of death, and handling it in a way that serves both the execution of the plot and the overall narrative while not being held back or pushed too far. Combined with the use of “showing, not telling” techniques and character mannerisms, the movie is able to create a number of powerful moments from them that otherwise couldn’t be pulled off in their absence. Outside of Roz and Brightbill’s storyline, other character influences play a big part in helping the film’s chemistry fall into place. A major role in this front comes from Fink, who develops in tandem to unfold his own story while complimenting theirs. Other characters such as Longneck (the leader of the migration), Pinktail (the mother possum who instructed Roz to look after Brightbill), and Paddler (the crotchety eccentric) each assisted in molding the above protagonists.A large amount of credit goes to the voice actors, and Lupita Nyong’o did an exceptional job bringing Roz to life by utilizing precise vocal queues to emote the ever-growing feelings the robot portrays. Pedro Pascal actually managed to sell his role as the endeering scoundrel, Fink, though a few sections of his delivery could have used polish and reconfiguration. Kit Connor granted Brightbill enough of a teen aesthetic to work without sounding annoying, and Bill Nighy landed a solid performance as Longneck. Matt Berry and Catherine O’Hara’s talents as Paddler and Pinktail were on point and defining, and Stephanie Hsu’s brief appearance in the role of Vontra (another robot variant created by Universal Dynamics) went the distance in shedding some light onto what little is known about the enigmatic **** mentioned previously, both the visuals and soundtrack are spectacular and highly complimentary to the story. The music in particular is very definitive, and the wise use of silence at critical moments make them all the more palpable. Clocking in at a little over an hour and forty minutes, the progression of the story never drags; containing little in the way of fluff to pad its **** conclusion, “The Wild Robot” is an exceptional mother-and-son movie that is serviceable to those looking for an action-packed adventure and appealing to others seeking a well-written fantasy animation.

“Am I Racist?” is an amusing documentary that features Matt Walsh on a largely whimsical journey to educate himself on the in’s and out’s of racial discrimination. As far as the comedic elements were concerned, the humor was witty and well-placed; serving as both an adept tool for moving the plot along and extra icing in terms of the overall presentation. The story (though intentionally hyperbolic in nature) was more coherent and streamlined than most $100,000,000+ movies that have fallen by the wayside in recent years, and the through-line message was spot on. For entertainment value alone, the film is worthy of a review. Moreover, it’s a thorough presentation for those looking to learn a thing or two about one of the greatest modern blights few are willing to address.

“Twisters” is something of a mixed bag concerning where it lands after the storm subsides. On one hand, you have a somewhat ambitious attempt at creating a new disaster film concept with a tolerable cast of mostly functional characters, though on the other, you have a plethora of recycled elements from the film’s “predecessor” cobbled into a story that runs as off-and-on as a flickering lightbulb. Concerning the plot, the story unfolds in a flashback sequence during main protagonist Kate Carter’s experiment in destabilizing a tornado with a team of close friends; an endeavor that goes horribly wrong, leaving her as the lone survivor of the group that engaged the storm. Years later after Kate’s embraced a meteorologist desk job, she is reunified with former acquaintance, Javi, who pleads for her to join him and his crew as they attempt to gather new data on tornados; eventually winning her over. Shortly after meeting his team, Kate is introduced to a rival group spearheaded by Tyler Owens, a charismatic daredevil who seemingly engages with storm chasing for the thrill of it. The two butt heads initially, and Kate’s first encounter with a minor tornado goes south after the trauma of her past sinks in. After her team and Tyler’s are blindsided by a strike after dark and Kate learns of the sinister (at least implied to be) motivations behind one of Javi’s financial backers, she returns home and reflects on the current situation. Goaded on by Tyler as the two start to warm to each other, Kate then makes another attempt at revisiting and revising her past research. Armed with the additional tools to combat a far stronger tornado, Kate and Tyler soon find themselves at the climax of the film as the most monstrous front develops en route to a nearby town, threatening to devastate it completely.Aside from the fresh concept of combatting a tornado (through the power of science), the movie utilizes a wide array of callback scenarios from the 1996 classic, “Twister”, for better or worse. While it’s likely not a big deal for viewers that haven’t seen the original film, as they are solid concepts, it turns the story into a 90% rehash for anyone who has seen it without truly adding much more to the narrative besides a fresh coat of **** far as the most highlighted characters are concerned, Daisy Edgar-Jones’s (Kate) was interesting in theory, as she was literally an amalgamation of the main leads of “Twister”, Jo and Bill. While not nearly as caustic as other lead female characters in current cinema (though her primary emotional scene was a bit over the top), she did suffer from an abhorrent amount of praise for the sake of praise, which in turn relegated any smart/positive decisions she would subsequently make as redundant echoes. Glen Powell’s (Tyler) easily stole the show through combination of his acting range and characterization, and despite not being properly represented at the climax, managed to hold the film’s haphazard pacing in place. Anthony Ramos’s (Javi) was a bit of a Swiss Army knife, as the film could never settle on his true motivations: cycling through the roles of past friend, possible love interest/rival, and potential villain at the drop of a hat. Beyond them, the majority of the rest of the cast fell into a borderline-bland gray area of not being annoying/unnecessary while not being unique enough to be memorable **** special effects and instrumental soundtrack are serviceable with the caveat that a few of the vocal songs felt very out of place. Clocking in at slightly over two hours, enough is going on to keep the progress of the film from dragging, but only just so. In conclusion, “Twisters” was certainly not a film that a clambering audience expected to receive; though it was not completely without its merits. As a follow-up to a predecessor story, it failed in bringing anything of substance to compliment the original story; though to its credit it didn’t aim to desecrate any of that film’s lore either. It is ultimately a generic, middle-of-the-road storm film through and through that delivers at a base level, but doesn’t offer much more incentive for a rewatch beyond any number of other films in the genre.

As one of the most iconic disaster movies of all time, “Twister” offers up an exceptional blend of compact storytelling and eye popping visuals that few other entries in the genre have matched over the years. The 1996 cult-classic stands above many other storm movies by merit of its compelling characters, timeless soundtrack, and wealth of practical effects that add that extra layer of realism often missed in the uninspiring CGI mire of modern movies.Concerning the plot, the story opens with a brief recollection of chief protagonist Jo Harding’s childhood trauma at the mercy of a vicious tornado that claimed the life of her father; a weather phenomenon that arguably takes on the role of its own character throughout the film. Flash forward to the current day with the foreshadowing that a series of powerful storms are in development, the narrative introduces Jo’s estranged husband, Bill, as he reunites with her and her motley crew of storm chasers. Though concerned primarily with the divorce papers Jo has yet to fully sign, Bill is soon distracted with the revelation that “Dorothy”, a joint endeavor the two created to gather vital information on tornados, has been realized and is ready for testing. After a brief run-in with a rival chaser, Jonas Miller, who copied their concept allegedly for the sake of fame, Jo and Bill encounter their first series of tornados and fail to deploy “Dorothy” on either occasion. Upon visiting Jo’s aunt, Meg, to refuel and prepare for the next onslaught of storms later that day, it is revealed that Jo still loves Bill and the current escapades of the day have been a final ploy to rekindle their marriage. After a third tornado devastates their deployment plans and nearly kills the two, Jo’s growing desperation to make “Dorothy” work becomes evident. In the fallout of the fourth tornado that struck unexpectedly after nightfall, the town in which Meg resides was decimated and Bill’s plans with his new fiancé, Mellisa, were dashed. The story then builds into its climax as Jo and Bill confront the monstrous final tornado alone with the fate of “Dorothy” and their future together hanging by a **** far one of the greatest assets to the plot and overall enjoyability of the movie is the excellent chemistry between the actors involved. Helen Hunt’s performance as (Jo) went the extra mile to sell the pain and determination needed to legitimize the character’s desperate motivations moving forward, while Bill Paxton’s (Bill) managed to juxtapose an appropriate degree of humored wit and seriousness to make his character feel authentic and worthy of rooting for. Phillip Hoffman’s quirky role as (Dustin) was unforgettable, Lois Smith’s (Meg) was endearing and a good follow-up for both storylines throughout the film, and Cary Elwes’s (Jonas) added a decent amount of tension while acting as a foil to Bill in terms of instinct vs. fact. Though there are undeniable sections of silly and sometimes crass/cringe dialogue dotted throughout the movie (and a few moments that bring into question if Bill and Jo’s motives are solely altruistic), the inherent charm of the characters helps to relegate such incidents as being negligible in the long run.Another phenomenal attribute in the arsenal of “Twister” is the visual aesthetics and the breathtaking amount of work that went into fully rendering the series of tornados witnessed throughout the runtime and the action set pieces surrounding them. The blend of CGI and practical effects bring each scenario to life in a way that is equal parts amazing and terrifying to behold; keeping the viewer firmly and rationally grounded within the movie.Additionally, the incredible soundtrack interwoven in the background sets the mood with pinpoint precision throughout every encounter; augmented further by an array of palpable sound effects. In conclusion, while “Twister” isn’t one the greatest pieces of cinema ever created, it stands as one of the most memorable storm flicks ever conceived that has stood the test of time and paved the way for many more movies in its genre to follow. It is a perfectly-paced joyride that seizes your attention from the first second and doesn’t let go; truly delegating it as a must-watch experience that is easy to return to time and time again.

Disney’s 2017 reimagining of “Beauty and the Beast” is something of a masterpiece in one regard: that it manages to maintain the qualities of a lackluster and patently insulting funeral procession from start to finish. Even though the movie should have been a clear-cut homage to one of the entertainment studio’s greatest animated achievements, it bungled every attempt to liken itself to the original while not offering much creative originality to take its place. The musical sequences are hollow and poorly presented audio-wise, the characters are shallower than a splotch of oil in a frying pan, and the plot is so mangled with idiotic world building decisions that any sense of a plausibly coherent narrative is lost to the wind. What really undercuts the success of the story beyond the abysmal aesthetics is the lack of a strong, overarching moral like the original animated feature conveyed. The closest thing the film has to a “lesson to be learned” takes place when the Beast and Belle magically teleport to the location of her mother’s passing, and after hearing Maurice’s grief at the loss of his wife, the Beast apologizes to Belle for calling her father a thief when he did. Words cannot express how negative of a life lesson this is, especially to a young audience, that they can commit crimes and be absolved of responsibility just because something sad happened to them in the past. Concerning the characters as they were portrayed, Emma Watson’s take on (Belle) was lukewarm at best, though the script didn’t do her any favors in robbing Belle of her warm tenderness in exchange for more abrasive, self-affirming tendencies. Dan Stevens’ (Beast) was at the mercy of the CGI skin-suit tethered to him, which made any intimidation he might have brought to the table negligible and stitched an air of weakness into every conversation he undertook. Luke Evans’ (Gaston) was tolerable, though was again brought down several pegs by the scriptwriting and alterations made to his character, which was even worse in the case of Josh Gad’s (LeFou), who might as well have been an entirely different add-on since his performance transformed the original character’s humor into sheer annoyance. Among the assorted servants in the castle, only Ian McKellen’s (Cogsworth) managed to resonate decently well, with many of the other characters suffering more from their dodgy visual representation than the voice acting bringing them to life. In conclusion, the live action retelling of “Beauty and the Beast” was a complete and utter exhibition of self-sabotage on both ends of the spectrum; its pathetic attempt at being comparable to the original film was missed completely (being alike in name only), and it certainly couldn’t stand on its own merits as its own film due to the plethora of plot, character, and setting issues that could make an Elementary School script resemble the works of Shakespeare by comparison. Additionally being over-bloated by a runtime exceeding two hours, a very strong case could be made toward simply watching the 1991 classic: you will not only receive a far greater viewing experience, but you’ll also save forty minutes of your life to do something infinitely better than witness what happens when a timeless story undergoes a transformative curse that no amount of true love could remedy.

“Beauty and the Beast”, one of the hallmarks of Disney’s renaissance era, is an animated masterpiece that excels in utilizing complex characters and aesthetics while remaining simple at its core. Combined with an unforgettable lineup of songs (such as “Be Our Guest”, “Gaston”, and the movie’s namesake) and wrapped within a beautifully-drawn world, the film’s narrative has an excellent stage to unfold on within the streamlined duration of only eighty-seven minutes. Concerning the plot, the story opens up with a narration chronicling a fateful curse that enshrouded the castle of a selfish prince and all who lived there, setting the stage for the motivations of the film’s first main character. It then transitions to a musical sequence introducing both the second protagonist, a beautiful young woman named Belle, and her current source of conflict: the town’s brash “hero”, Gaston. After encouraging her father Maurice (the town’s resident “crackpot”) with his current invention, the story continues to follow his journey as he eventually loses himself within the nearby woods before happening upon the cursed castle; forced to intrude to wait out the inclement weather and ravenous wolves that pursued him. Shortly after discovering that the twisted bastion is home to many enchanted beings, he is confronted by their beastly master and thrown into the dungeon for his trespass. Back in town, Belle learns of this emergency shortly after turning down Gaston’s marriage proposal and rushes to save her father. Upon finding him and the intimidating Beast, she bargains for his life in exchange for her own, and the Beast agrees. The two understandably don’t see eye-to-eye, and Belle eventually breaks her accord and leaves after she visited the single place of the castle the Beast forbade her to go: witnessing the magical rose (the film’s visual hourglass for the curse) in the Beast’s possession. Quickly finding herself at the mercy of the same pack of wolves that hunted her father, the Beast swiftly steps in to protect her, driving them off at the price **** wound. It is at this point where Belle’s contempt for the Beast begins to soften, with his anger toward her diminishing in turn as the two gradually grow closer as the seasons change. Ultimately falling in love with her, the Beast freely releases Belle to see her father again despite suspecting that she will never return if given the choice. As Gaston’s sinister plans come to a head, the story soon reaches its climax with a battle to save the Beast and his servants from both the frenzied villagers led by Gaston and the curse itself becoming permanent.Easily one of the strongest points of the film is its use of meticulous development to simultaneously enrich the characters of each scene while setting up future story points to unfold. Several examples of which surround the character of Gaston and the actions he carries out to ensnare Belle: starting from his abrupt proposal and delusions of how an ideal marriage should work and culminating with his scheme to use the imprisonment of Maurice in an insane asylum as a ploy to “win” her hand. These situations not only push the plot forward, but allow Gaston to exhibit a more monstrous personality to feature as a foil to the Beast’s more gentlemanly mannerisms as the story nears its **** mentioned previously, the film also does an exceptional job of pacing itself within the confines of less than an hour and a half of runtime. No scene is wasted on needless exposition or lollygagging, and the musical numbers that are neatly woven in here and there are purposely meaningful to the narrative. If anything, a little more time would have been welcome if it was added in the right **** art style and early integration of 3D animation is stunning to behold, with the facial features in particular lending that extra modicum of depth to each character in compliment to the strong voice acting from the likes of Paige O’Hara, Robby Benson, Angela Lansbury, and Richard **** conclusion, Disney’s original version of “Beauty and the Beast” will always stand out as one of the company’s most iconic films for its timeless combination of unforgettable components. It is a shining example of how well a simple story and premise can juxtapose with more mature concepts at a level that can appeal to (and entertain) every range of viewer.

Due to a combination of plot, character, and narrative highs and lows, “No Time to Die” is a muddled film from start to finish. Though its primary draw may stem from its status as the final chapter of the Craig-era Bond films, it feels more like a long-winded and unnecessary epilogue to the previous film “Spectre” than a worthy final entry to cap off the series. Despite the assistance of some reasonably engaging action pieces and thematic music scores, at the end of the day it still struggles to raise itself above a par level of enjoyability.Concerning the plot, the story picks up right where the previous film left off with Bond and his now recently-married wife Madeleine Swann traveling to the location of the grave of Vesper, Bond’s first love. After an attempt on his life is made, Bond promptly breaks off ties with Swann through lingering suspicion that she may have betrayed him. After a time jump is made and a secret genetic bio weapon is stolen, Bond is tracked down by both his replacement 007 agent, Nomi, and later his former acquaintance Felix Leister of the CIA to look into locating the traitorous scientist linked to incident. Upon stumbling into a “secret” meeting of the entirety of the world spanning organization, Spectre, the bio weapon is deployed with lethal efficiency and Felix is killed shortly after his partner Ash betrays him for the sake of the movie’s true antagonist: Lyutsifer Safin. Safin, who was motivated to exact revenge on Spectre after one of its agents killed his family, then manipulated Swann into positioning herself in a situation where the Spectre boss (Blofeld) could be killed. After Bond and Swann begrudgingly reunite for the sake of communicating with Blofeld, Safin’s plan comes to fruition. Swann and her daughter are then kidnapped shortly after, and Bond and Nomi are tasked with infiltrating Safin’s island lair to rescue the two and put an end to threat the weapon poses (as Safin is apparently interested in utilizing it further). After the decisive climax wraps up, an extremely swift resolution finishes the film.Without a doubt, one of the biggest detriments to the movie storywise is its nonsensical attempt to bring closure to every loose end the series has cultivated when it didn’t have to. A striking example of this is the convenient manner in which Spectre, the massive threat built up (albeit sloppily) from the previous four films, is wiped out in an instant without the possibility of any contingency plan on their part. The other major issue being that this film wasn’t even needed after the ending the last film brought about; creating more of a funeral for Craig’s iteration of Bond than a suitable send-off. Had the plot been foreshadowed and built up from its previous entries, then this might have been a different story.Concerning the characters, Daniel Craig’s final outing as Bond was shaky. Though he incorporated some more of the humor seen previously in the role and took part in some engaging fight scenes, it was evident through his acting that he was phoning the part in. Lea Seydoux’s (Madeleine Swann) was consistent with her previous rendition of the character, being reasonably likable overall though with the detriment of having to navigate a new backstory. Rami Malek’s (Lyutsifer Safin) was decent for a Bond villain driven by revenge, though the plausibility of the character’s motivations fell through the floor in the final act (wherein it becomes difficult to determine what exactly he’s after. Is he in it for the money? Is he mentally deranged? Or is he following some level of self-important morality?) The updated roles of the MI6 characters M, Q, and Moneypenny depreciated even further from their position in the last film, with M almost resembling more of a villainous role than the actual villain. Lashana Lynch’s (Nomi) could have made for an interesting rival for Bond if not for the direct stabs the film takes at Bond through her role as the “new” 007, and Dali Benssalah’s (Primo) made for a reasonable (albeit forgettable) head henchman.Altogether, “No Time to Die” ultimately hits different beats depending on entry investment. If you’ve never seen the past films (or Bond in general) then it can be a decent popcorn action flick so long as you don’t think too hard on its measures (or lack thereof) of continuity, and the degree of the convenient contrivances that pop up throughout the extensive run time. However, if you are a fan of the Bond franchise, then you likely won’t come out of it with any higher satisfaction than what might have been felt at the conclusion of “Spectre”.

“Spectre” is something of a disappointing addition to the 007 cinematic franchise, as the film’s story and presentation are wrought with exceedingly noticeable shortcomings that are hard to remedy. While the overall presentation is far from being an unwatchable collection of nonsensical scenes and overbearing characters, the chemistry between said characters and the narrative depth of its story leave much to be desired; a frustrating sentiment since the spy flick had enough moving components going in its favor to be so much more.Concerning the plot, the film begins where the last film “Skyfall” left off with Bond on the trail of an unknown adversary; an exchange that ends with the MI6 agent causing a great measure of seemingly-avoidable collateral damage. After finding himself at odds with his new boss and placed under house arrest for the careless execution of his unsanctioned mission, Bond is forced to take more covert actions with the begrudging assistance of Q to fulfill the former M’s final request. After several more run-ins with the shadow organization calling themselves “Spectre”, Bond locates former adversary Mr. White to learn as much as he can about the society’s intentions. Meanwhile, MI6 is drawing out its own conflict with an intelligence merger that threatens to shelf its existence for the sake of a state-of-the-art information monitoring initiative: Nine Eyes. Upon being tasked to find White’s daughter (Madeleine Swann) just before White ends his own life, Bond tracks her down with minimal effort and ends up whisking her away from the clutches of harm just as Spectre plays its hand. After some more action and some nonsensically-hastened romance, the two find themselves up against the head of Spectre, Ernst Blofeld, who is more than just a little interested in taking out Bond for a personal (albeit petty) motivation of his own. Following a decent two-part climax that resolves both Bond’s and MI6’s troubles, Bond is restored to his former capacity and drives off into the proverbial sunset with Swann at his side. While the overreaching narrative was better fleshed out than the likes of “Quantum of Solace”, and the villain presented felt more formidable than the previous one seen in “Skyfall”, the underlying issue that prevents “Spectre” from elevating itself above normality is its supreme lack of polish in all aspects. For example, the head goon in Spectre that spends half the movie pursuing Bond is flatter than a board; seemingly only there because most past iterations of Bond also had an antagonist under the primary villain for him to lock horns with. Additionally, the lack of proper set-up sabotages the potency of the threat Bond faces, as both Spectre and Blofeld’s connection to him felt fabricated and rushed to make them relevant for this film. Had the previous three films given Blofeld and his puppeteering subtle buildup, then this likely would not have been a problem.Concerning the characters, Daniel Craig delivers a so-so performance in his fourth go around under the mantle of James Bond. Though he isn’t nearly as despondent as he was in the prior two films, his mannerisms and charisma still felt lacking and a bit stiff. Likewise, Christoph Waltz’s (Blofeld) felt underwhelming in the long run, though a poor motive and backstory didn’t do his acting any favors. Lea Seydoux’s (Madeleine Swann) was reasonably decent for this film’s “Bond girl”, but the rushed plot surrounding her and Bond cut her opportunities to nurture a plausible romance with him short. The MI6 group (Moneypenny, Q, and M) all stayed about the same in performance to their introductions in the last film, though M came off as being overly strict for the sake of plot necessity. Lastly, Dave Bautista’s (Mr. Hinx) was fairly entertaining action-wise as Spectre’s chief muscle, but his aforementioned lack of any character development likened his role to the same level as a disgruntled gorilla in a suit. In terms of action sequences and quality of music, the film doesn’t disappoint, which in turn helps to camouflage some measure of plot shortcomings. If nothing else, they help to make the nearly two and a half hour runtime **** conclusion, “Spectre” is a middling experience that is worthy of a watch from fans or newcomers alike, but not much beyond that. Had several more coats of polish and fine-tuning been applied to the narrative, this penultimate Craig/Bond film could have been a surprisingly entertaining addition to the franchise’s lengthy collection of titles. Unfortunately, what was ultimately presented was a ghost of the movie’s potential: nothing more, nothing less.

“Skyfall” is a plot-driven espionage film that is, in most regards, a solid chapter in the 007 franchise. Despite being a continuation in the Daniel Craig arch of the Bond movies, it resembles more of a soft reboot than another sequel which allowed for a more fresh experience after the events of “Quantum of Solace”. Though there are issues involving Craig’s depiction of the iconic MI6 agent that can easily sully the character for long-running fans of the series, the theme of this entry does a decent enough job of concealing it behind a mask of plausibility: more on that later. Character-work otherwise is decent, and with the boost of an exceptional soundtrack and third act, the experience lands reasonably well.Concerning the plot, the story starts off at a full sprint as Bond and fellow agent Eve are pursuing an enemy target with little success; a stalemate which concludes with their boss “M” ordering Eve to take a sniper shot that inadvertently knocks Bond out of the scenario. After meandering in downtime for several months (prompted on by a bitterness that his performance was called into question) Bond returns to MI6 and “M” after the MI6 headquarters was hacked internally and bombed from an unknown adversary. In order to get Bond back into the field and on the trail of their assailant, “M” fakes Bond’s exam results which themselves call into question if he still has his edge; a reoccurring theme of movie. Upon tracking down the tech-savvy ringleader, Raoul Silva, it is revealed that Silva was a predecessor of Bond’s who had survived the ingestion of a cyanide pill after having fallen into captivity. Spurred on by a deep-seated drive for revenge, Silva’s plans escalate against “M” which in turn leads Bond to lean into old-school spy-craft to keep her one step ahead as he in turn is forced to face the lingering shadow of his past. The smaller stakes (as opposed to the threats of war and orbital death-lasers seen in previous iterations) are refreshing in light of the overarching “old vs. new” theme present throughout the story. Though Bond is the recipient of several “relic of the past” jabs, he is allotted the opportunity to prove his critics wrong on several occasions, which were excellent high points to an otherwise dour series of events. Also of note is that the pacing is on point for a 143 minute runtime with little noticeable drag; thanks largely in part to the latter portion and climax of the film. Concerning the characters, Daniel Craig’s third outing as the legendary agent James Bond was fairly well executed for the given scenario, with the primary caveat being his down-and-out attitude. While it plays decently in the face of the “espionage is dated” message prompted by several other perspectives, it does call to question the sincerity of Bond’s loyalty if a single misplaced bullet could derail his willingness to serve his country. Judy Dench’s “M” on the other hand was tonally consistent with her past portrayals (always being firm, yet tender with Bond) and remained a positive draw in her final performance as the boss of MI6. Javier Bardem’s “Silva” was a strange addition to the long line of Bond villains, as he came off as more of a watered-down version of GoldenEye’s “Alec Trevelyan” with awkward mannerisms than the intimidating counterpart of Bond that the story necessitated. Lastly, Ben Whishaw’s stab at the beloved role of “Q” felt hit or miss, while Albert Finney’s “Kincade” and Naomie Harris’ “Eve” were more grounded and respectable by comparison. As mentioned previously, the soundtrack for this Bond outing was inspiring, with the traditional music video at the title sequence being among the best in the series. And as expected of the genre, the action scenes didn’t disappoint and delivered much needed adrenaline to Craig’s presentation. In conclusion, while “Skyfall” suffered from minor inconsistencies off and on, the movie as a whole was satisfying. If taken as a standalone spy film outside of the 007 universe, it succeeds in creating a dynamic story that emboldens the old adage that “sometimes the most tried and true methods are the best”. And while Craig has had his share of criticism for his take on the role, this particular entry of his is certainly worthy of a watch.

“Godzilla Minus One” is something of a rare instance wherein predetermined expectations were **** for the better, as the overall tone of the film was nowhere near what may have been expected coming from the long-lived Kaiju series. The gripping narrative combined with its well-cast and fully developed characters create a compelling story that blow many other iterations of the Godzilla franchise out of the water. Additionally, the compact length of the film, concise pacing, and excellent execution of its pivotal action set pieces create a polished experience that never drags and leaves the viewer wanting more. Concerning the plot, the movie opens up in the final days of World War II and follows the actions of kamikaze pilot Koichi Shikishima as he encounters an unknown monstrous terror upon fleeing a scheduled battle engagement out of fear. This same fear paralyses him from taking action when confronted with the adolescent form of the creature the locals call “Godzilla”, leading to the deaths of all but one of the mechanics posted at the island he stopped at. Upon returning home post-war to the ruins of his destroyed town, he encounters a woman named Noriko who herself took up the task of raising an infant, Akiko, who was orphaned by aerial raids that similarly claimed the lives of hers and Shikisama’s parents. After agreeing to let both of them stay at his house, Shikisama finds a lucrative position as a minesweeper to help support them, all the while wrestling with an ever-consuming survivor’s guilt that only intensifies after encountering a mature Godzilla once again. After tragedy strikes in the wake of the devastation wrought by the monster upon making landfall in Japan for the first time, Shikisama is faced with a final ultimatum that would shape the fate of his entire homeland: either lay down his life in an attempt to kill the scourge of his nightmares, or accept a willingness to live for the sake of those he found family and companionship **** the film keeps levity to an acceptable minimum, the weight of Shikisama’s journey is front and center to the conflicts he and the supporting characters face, which sets a degree of tension that carries over with each brief appearance of Godzilla. As the movie progresses, you begin to feel more and more connected with them; their fates becoming more palpable as the severity of the threat escalates. All of this builds into an extremely satisfying climax that, thanks to solid set-up and logical storytelling, leads to a powerful resolution in the final **** mentioned previously, a large amount of credit for this film’s successful composition comes from its characters. Kamiki Ryunosuke’s “Shikishima” was the heart at the center of the story; his post-war trauma and battle to recovery translated well through the actor’s line delivery, subtle mannerisms, and chemistry with those around him. One criticism could be made that he, alongside some other characters, overacted at high-tension moments. This is true, though it did not take away from the overarching gravity of those moments. Minami Hamabe’s “Noriko” also portrayed her role exceedingly well alongside Shikisama, with the budding-yet-troubled romance between the two creating a heartfelt catalyst for events to unfold late into the story. The three members of Shikisama’s minesweeping crew, “Yoji”, “Kenji”, and “Shiro” each progress along their own story archs which compliment each other and set up multiple payoffs toward the end of the film. Lastly, both the lone surviving mechanic “Sosaku”, and Shikisama’s initially-antagonistic neighbor “Sumiko” play transformative roles that reflect the progress of Shikisama’s own struggles.Presentation-wise, the graphics and effects are spectacular, especially considering how humbling the budget for the film was at around $15 Million. The music scores, though selective in number, are all powerful and efficient in their ability to aid in the emotive goals of the scenes they are placed in. Sound quality is top-notch, with each roar and explosion hitting home. Lastly, the set design was so incredibly realistic that you never could have guessed that an actor in a suit was tearing up anything but actual buildings. Needless to say, the lack of poor, over-embellished CGI is exceedingly **** conclusion, “Godzilla Minus One” was a colossal surprise in terms of both quality and format. The war-movie genre it embodied fit like a glove, and allowed its gripping narrative to build over time rather than to have been wasted on excessive monster scenes for the sake of having more action crowbarred in. This was, without a doubt, the best movie of the year at release; a film that is absolutely deserving of a watch whether you are a fan/familiar with the Godzilla franchise or not.

“Uncharted” can best be described as a lackluster adventure film that doomed itself into mediocrity by sitting on the fence between being an adaptation of the video game franchise, or just being its own thing. Incredibly poor casting choices for the majority of the characters compound the difficulty of finding it entertaining, and a lethargic and contrived storyline drives home the final nail. Concerning the plot, the movie mixes an “original” story with set pieces from the games in an awkward attempt to create an origin story for its main protagonist, Nathan Drake. While this might land decently for inattentive viewers not familiar with the source material or caring about the jumbled narrative, it creates a very confusing and irritating conundrum for those who know about Drake’s past adventures and cannot reason why familier scenarios are playing out supposedly years earlier than the first game. Ultimately, this leaves the viewer with little choice but to relegate the movie into its own universe, which in turn frames the film as an inferior counterfeit in all aspects by **** narrative in question follows Drake as he sets off on a journey to locate his long lost brother after having been found by a past associate of his, Victor Sullivan, and enlisted into locating a fabled treasure. After the two meet up with Sullivan’s “partner”, Chloe Frazer, the team has to contend with both a rival team chasing after the same fortune and wrestling with each other over trust issues that arise each time one of them stabs the other in the back. When the treasure is eventually discovered in a haphazard manner (the puzzle in question having two solutions that the plot conveniently sorts out), the climax creates a scenario that is equal parts inventive and logically ludicrous; but primarily underwhelming given the poor character development and portrayal of all the characters present. Needless to say, while the story isn’t wholly unwatchable, its habit of skipping around and dragging between action sequences kills any semblance of intrigue the film **** far the greatest detriment to movie, however, is its casting choices. Tom Holland’s portrayal of Nathan Drake came off clunky and unbelievable, thanks largely in part to his youthful and naive appearance. Even if he wasn’t compared to the characters’s video game counterpart, which is impossible not to do for anyone who has seen him, his mannerisms lack any semblance of the maturity that the role calls for. Likewise, Mark Wahlberg’s “Sully” was less of a rough-edged man of the world, and more resembling of a peddler of snake oil whose dignity was always kept at an utter minimum. While Sophia Ali’s rendition of Chloe and Antonio Banderas’s Santiago were both somewhat entertaining, both suffered removal by the time the final act came around: making their appearences in the film negligible in the long run. Lastly, Tati Gabrielle’s Braddock fell completely flat in terms of overall threat, which in turn made the final conflict she appeared in bland and **** conclusion, “Uncharted” might best be praised for being an excellent cure for insomnia, as it’s meandering and tasteless plot threads command little to no merit when placed side by side with films within the same genre. Worst still is the fact that it actively pillages from its own source material without commiting to either being something new outside of the franchise, or something that takes place within it. While it certainly isn’t a terrible film outright, its poor casting, middling plot composition, and tedious pacing leave much to be desired. Compared to the original trilogy of stories, or even taken as a stand alone tale, the only treasure its viewers will find is a pile of insubstantial Fool’s Gold.

“Quantum of Solace” suffers a number setbacks that land it reasonably between being middling and fairly-enjoyable, so long as some mental cognition is switched off. While it contains several action sequences that land well enough and decent character development across the board, it lacks any degree of polish and gravitas to allow it to stand out from an ocean of other run-of-the-mill action flicks by comparison. As being a continuation of a story, rather than a new adventure (as per the norm of the franchise to this point), the “sequel curse” effected a myriad of points that made it’s predecessor “Casino Royale” a much more enjoyable film by comparison, including and not limited to: a compelling narrative, an intimidating villain, and character interactions that incentivized investment. Unfortunately, as this film is lacking in all of those departments, it ultimately ends up dragging down the positive elements that are brought to the table to create an unfulfilling, middle ground experience.Concerning the plot, the story picks up where it left off with Bond desperately trying to nail down the mystery organization that perpetrated the loss of his love, Vesper. After a close call in an interrogation that nearly took the life of his boss, “M”, he finds himself quickly in between a rock and a hard place when he is swept into the dealings of Dominic Greene…an entrepreneur and head of an environmental group. After saving the life of a purported victim of Dominic’s, Camille, Bond is quickly suspended from duty after his killing of suspects (a running theme in this film) lands him in hot water with the upper echelons of power. Undaunted, Bond refuses to return before his mission is complete, which leads to a MI6 employee losing her life after a connection is made between them, and a returning character from the last film, Rene Mathis, losing his in turn. Pushing onward with Camille, whose past also connects her to an affiliate of Greene’s, the two rush into a somewhat fulfilling climatic ending with the environmentalist after his true scheme is coincidentally brought to light.Perhaps the greatest detriment to the momentum of the story is the awkward positioning the film places Bond in, with one step moving forward and two steps moving back; locked in place by the events of the last movie and the baggage of Bond’s previous iteration as acted by Pierce Brosnan. This is highlighted at the midpoint of the film wherein Bond sleeps with a woman named Fields, whose only role is to attempt to bring Bond back after he is recalled, and is promptly killed thereafter. “M” uncharacteristically blasts Bond for this, claiming it to be the result of his romantic infatuations, despite the fact that Daniel Craig’s Bond was far less reckless in these mannerisms than seen throughout Brosnan’s era. This in turn creates a form of tension-for-the-sake-of-tension between these two characters, and is especially undermining to Bond’s role in this film, as the narrative requires him to be invested in Vesper’s recent loss.Overall, Craig’s Bond did enough in the film to hit a gray area of decency, which was a letdown from his first outing. Judy Dench’s “M” suffered a bit from her unmerited criticisms of Bond, but wasn’t wholly insufferable. Olga Kurylnko’s Camilla was decent overall, and Giancarlo’s brief reprisal of Mathis was actually a standout. Mathieu Amalric’s Dominic Greene, on the other hand, was laughably unopposing when compared to many of Bond’s past rivals primarily through his lack of presentation and underwhelming **** in all, while “Quantum of Solace” struggles to stagger into the realm of enjoyability, it can still be watched and taken at face value for what it is; a sequel film that forwards the overall story. If viewed without a critical lens, it still entertains: just not as much as it could have had more attention and care been given to the characters as they were established.

“Casino Royal” is a return-to-form, suspense-driven Bond film that delves deeper into the series’ inherent spy-craft roots more so than a number of previous entries, albeit with a touch less of tech and gadgets. The transition between the last version of Bond, played by Pierce Brosnan, and the latest iteration acted by Daniel Craig, is a bit jarring; though not to the detriment of the character. Craig’s more serious and business-before-pleasure take on the iconic MI6 agent lends itself well to the increase in espionage presented throughout the film, which in turn allows for the more grounded storyline to flow seamlessly. This, combined with a solid cast, an exceptional line of music scores including a breathtaking intro, and a number of action sequences that hit all the right beats make the film a must see for fans of the franchise and newcomers alikeConcerning the plot, the movie centers around a new 00 agent, James Bond, as he attempts to shut down a terrorism-funding scheme. Right out the gate, the film wastes no time is displaying Bond’s brutality against his opponents, though with the caveat that he is still prone to making logical mistakes; a point he is reminded of by his boss “M”, and one that goes on to haunt the character. After identifying a connection to the ringleader, a man who goes by the name of Le Chiffre, Bond utilizes a brief romantic fling to obtain information on one of his underlings. Upon neutralizing the target and preventing another from destroying a state-of-the-art plane, thus derailing Le Chiffre’s initial plot to obtain the money he needs to keep his head, he and a woman named Vesper Lynd are sent into a high-stakes gambling scenario that would be seeing a number of wealthy contenders all playing for an enormous prize. With the pressure on Bond to win to prevent the proceeds from directly funding terrorism, the uphill battle and subsequent climaxes see more than just his wit and resolve tested as Le Chiffre pulls out all the stops to secure victory at any **** unfortunate setback to mention is the awkward pacing of the storyline due to its over-commitment on a series of surprises within the final act. Admittedly, this is primarily an issue for the first watch of the film, as subsequent viewings (being aware of the ending) will likely run better with the subterfuge cleared; but it still creates an unnecessary hurdle that could have been prevented with a few changes to the plot. This is unfortunate, too, as the wealth of set-up for the “true” ending is easy to overlook and wasted without the knowledge of what is actually taking **** mentioned earlier, one major boon to the story is its focus on creating suspenseful situations, such as the pivotal card game, that play to both the strengths and weaknesses of Bond’s character. Since the relationships he forms with other characters, Vesper in particular, carry throughout the film in plot-relevant ways, the investments to those relationships feel all the more palpable when compared to a number of shallower past “romances” the character has had in previous entries (such as Dr. Christmas Jones from “The World is Not Enough”).Concerning the most notable characters, Daniel Craig’s performance as Bond in this film was a masterclass from start to finish for all the aforementioned reasons. Eva Green’s Vesper was one of the best “Bond Girls” to date through merit of her juxtaposing warm vulnerability and matter-of-fact banter that never reaches the obnoxious level of snark that certain modern female roles employ. Mads Mikkelsen’s Le Chiffre was a well-rounded antagonist that felt competent and formidable throughout, especially in the torture sequence late into the runtime, and Judi Dench’s “M” managed to improve upon her role even further from the last several outings of the character. All in all, “Casino Royale” is a perfect introductory film for anyone looking to jump into the franchise for the first time, and a solid watch for those already familiar with it. Though it loses a degree of playfulness in trade for a more gritty atmosphere, it delivers in spades on the action and intrigue that have always been with the series.

“Die Another Day” is a middle-of-the-road Bond film that delivers a solid overall experience despite drifting at times into a realm of cartoonish logic for its major plot points. Boasting of a cast that hits a decent amount of beats, and highlighted by imaginative action sequences that land reasonably well overall, the movie had the potential to be a substantial entry in the franchise if it had only taken the time to smooth its edges. While the narrative is easier to follow than its predecessor, “The World is Not Enough”, it stumbles over including a few reiterations of past story threads (such as a backstabbing, femme fatale) that are easy to see coming, which thereby spoils several sequences of set-up. Concerning the plot, the film creates more of a revenge-based angle for James Bond to pursue after he is captured behind enemy lines in North Korea due to an unknown traitor. Upon his escape, he sets to tracking down the war criminal, Zao, who has had his hands involved in numerous past underhanded dealings. After locating him shortly after crossing paths with a mysterious and alluring woman named Jinx, Bond is unable to secure Zao or any information leading to his true target save for a connection between a diamond in Zao’s possession and a tech-based philanthropist, Gustav Graves. After looking in on Graves and becoming romantically invested in his secretary, Miranda Frost, Bond learns of Gustav’s “gift” to humanity; a sun-absorbing satellite code-named “Project: Icarus”. Several plot-twists later, and it is up to Bond to prevent the true mastermind from using the satellite and its death-laser from paving the road for North Korea’s march on the South. While the pacing of the events was fluid and the rising action and climax felt entertaining to watch unfold, the aforementioned copied story beats sabotaged the stakes overall. That is to say that, while using a suspected “Bond Girl” as a double agent is clever, the identity of that double agent is immediately recognizable once the viewer picks up on the subterfuge. Another element weighing down the investment of the stakes is the cartoonishly-outlandish nature of the super-weapon: Icarus. Though it is an interesting concept on the drawing board, the plausibility of such a device is well outside of the realm of the typical Bond universe, and likewise would have been better placed in a spin-off or spoof espionage series, such as “Spy Kids” or “Austen Powers”. And on the same note of outlandish tech that removes any precedent of the film being grounded in reality, look no further than the invisible car. As for the cast, Pierce Brosnan’s final bow as Bond was decent, though not comparable to past performances in titles such as “Goldeneye” and “Tomorrow Never Dies”. Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike as Jinx and Miranda (respectively) played well into the “Bond Girl” role, with the former being more believable and well-written than the latter. Toby Stephens as Graves and Rick Yune as Zao were fun to watch for what they were, with Graves’ character interestingly mirroring the iconic animated super-villain Syndrome from Pixar’s “The Incredibles”; suggesting (to this reviewer) that Syndrome might have been patterned after Graves and expanded upon. John Cleese’s “Q” was also entertaining, though not quite to the level that the character’s former actor, the late Desmond Llewelyn, brought. All in all, had the filmmakers crossed every “t” and dotted every “i” in terms of the overall writing composition, “Die Another Day” could have easily stood out and have been a highlight within the long-running franchise. This is not to say that it still can’t be watched and enjoyed even with its layers of on-and-off nonsensical reality, so long as common sense and reasonable intuition are left at the door. In many ways like “The World is Not Enough”, the failed potential of greatness is the greatest crime overall.

“The World is Not Enough” is a run-of-the-mill Bond entry that lands squarely within the territory of a middling presentation. While there are a number of facets that keep the film from sliding too far from grace, such as its’ solid casting and engaging music scores, there also are quite a few hindrances that keep it from becoming anything noteworthy when compared to its predecessors (including a muddled plot line, the waste of character potential, and a complete lack of tonal consistency). Though the film can likely be enjoyed as background entertainment if taken at face value for the niche and campy product that it is, those attempting to rationalize the movie on a more comprehensive level will likely have their work cut out for themselves. Concerning the story, T.W.I.N.E. sets its stage by placing James Bond within a terrorist strike that wounds the iconic agent right out of the gate. Following the death of a prominent oil tycoon, Bond is swiftly introduced thereafter to the tycoon’s daughter, Elektra King, and tasked with keeping her safe after prior attempts to do so ended poorly. After another attempt is made on her life and intel is gathered from King and a past “associate”, Valentin Zukovsky, Bond heads after the primary suspect of the incidents; a man by the name of Renard. After confronting him and surviving the destruction of the facility alongside nuclear physicist Dr. Christmas Jones, the two set out to prevent Renard from using the Plutonium he obtained. After a major plot twist turns a certain character against Bond and places his boss, M’s, life on the line, the climax sees his endurance and wit put to the test as the clock ticks down to the destruction of Istanbul and the inevitable fallout of all the major oil pipelines connected to it. Though simplistic at first glance, the film itself doesn’t go out of its way to pave the road of the plot for its viewers. Unfortunately, for the sake of the pivotal twist two-thirds into the run time, certain details such as the identity of the true antagonist and their admittedly underwhelming motives are left unspoken until the big reveal. While this could have worked had more attention to detail and nuance been granted to the core story elements that preceded it, as it stands upon the first time watching the film, the events and suspense that follow the twist felt rushed, unearned, and lacking in gravitas. As for the characters, Pierce Brosnan’s Bond worked well within his usual guise, though fell victim this time around to the same tonal inconsistencies that plagued the rest of the film; more on that later. Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards’ Elektra King and Dr. Jones (respectively) both lended well to the “Bond Girl” staple, despite a decisive lack of backstory, especially on Jones’ part. In that same light, Robert Carlyle’s performance as Renard was also undercut by the mismanaged plot he was given, though this didn’t wholly stifle his ability to make the character intimidating when he had the chance. Alternatively, Desmond Llewelyn’s “Q” was a breath of fresh air, and in as much as this was the final time he would play the role of the quirky gadget designer, his brief appearances in the film concluded his place within the franchise on a high note. Another negative point to include here is the film’s waste of certain characters that could have added more layers to the plot if given a chance. This would include both the assassin that ends herself after getting caught at the beginning of the film, and a subordinate of Renard that is seemingly brought into the limelight for a significant purpose, only to be promptly offed shortly thereafter. Perhaps the greatest thorn in the side to this particular outing of Bond’s, however, is the aforementioned tonal inconsistencies that riddled the film with little to no break. On one hand, there are sequences of action and dialogue that feel as solid and palpable as to be expected from the franchise; all of which setting a serious tone. Yet on the other hand, there are goofy and ludicrous scenes depicting haphazard and nonsensical combat and gadgets (such as the outlandish ball-suit) that introduce comedic beats strong enough to suggest a lighthearted atmosphere; killing any tension that might have been built up. Though previous Bond films have been no stranger to mingling in a spot of humor here and there, the degree in which this movie employs it likens it more to a modern superhero film than an espionage-driven set piece, which in turn makes it hard to take seriously. All in all, while there are elements to be enjoyed in “The World is Not Enough”, the combination of its disonant plot threads, squandered potential and chaotic tone make it a challenge to get invested in beyond a casual watch to kill time.

“Tomorrow Never Dies” is a serviceable entry in the 007 franchise that excels in setting up an interesting scenario for James Bond to navigate; placing him in the crosshairs of a looming world war in opposition to an influencial madman. Though it stumbles a bit with a number of contrivances, the presentation as a whole draws in a fair measure of intrigue due largely in part to the on screen chemistry between the actors and the concise pacing of the story. Concerning the plot, the film introduces a curious angle wherein the main antagonist, Elliot Carver, weaponizes his news organization to spread misdirection and fallacies in the hopes of sparking a war between China and the Western world. With time running short before both sides are at each other’s throats, Bond is tasked with gleaning information from Carver’s wife; coincidentally an old flame of his. After her demise at the hands of Carver’s henchmen, however, Bond must swiftly alter his plans to accommodate this film’s “Bond Girl” Wai Lin, an agent of similar status within the Chinese government who crops up whenever the story decides that she should. After the two eventually team up to take down Carver and his lackeys aboard his formidable stealth ship, a final act occurs that is satisfactory overall. The greatest strength to the story overall is its palatable narrative and smooth pacing, as Bond’s romantic flings are kept to a reasonable minimum with some logical merit within the story. The greatest weaknesses, however, are the aforementioned contrivances that riddle the plot. These primarily include the character of Wai Lin showing up inexplicably multiple times with no direct through line, and a lack of consistency with Bond’s car’s armor and performance, alongside it happening to contain some abstract gadgets that would have stopped the agent cold in their absence. Though they didn’t destroy the tone completely, they were distracting nonetheless and begged further questions that could have been avoided with better writing. As for the characters, Pierce Brosnan’s James Bond brought an enjoyable level of wit and humor alongside his debonair mannerisms that fit the role like a glove. Furthermore, this meshed well when placed against the eccentric and megalomaniacal tendencies of Jonathan Pryce’s Elliot Carver, who managed to hold up an intimidating (albeit stereotypical) villainous presence whose greatest downfall stemmed from his penchant for monologueing. Michelle Yeoh’s Wai Lin was fun and competent in equal measure, though could have used a dose of polish to fully flesh out her role within plot, which goes the same for the head goon - Stamper - whose Schwarzenegger-esque performance was only undercut by his lack of backstory. As always, gadget maker “Q” was a treat in his brief appearance, and Bond’s boss “M” was serviceable in her balance of intellect and responsibility for her position without appearing overreaching. In conclusion, “Tomorrow Never Dies” is a solid entry within the franchise that lends enough plausibility for its streamlined plot and dynamic action sequences to work well alongside each other. Though a tolerable degree of suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy the film for what it is, it doesn’t detract too much from the experience being fulfilling for fans of series and newcomers alike.

“Goldeneye” is a fast-paced action/espionage flick that sees the renowned agent James Bond engaging in his next venture to protect England from powers that would seek its destruction. In the aftermath of the Cold War, a new threat emerges from the husk of the Soviet Union that puts Bond’s quick wit and adaptability to the test when placed alongside old and new allies alike. Though the film as a whole can be admittedly difficult to get into for viewers outside of the “007” fanbase - more on that later - it still delivers a compelling story that manages to be a solid watch should a number of elements be overlooked. Concerning the plot, the film starts off with a bang as Bond performs a dynamic bungee jump from atop an enemy dam; teaming up with ally agent Alec Trevelyan soon after to clear out the Soviet facility. When fortunes turn for the worse and Alec is struck down, Bond fulfills the mission and manages to escape. Some time later, after the mysterious destruction of a Soviet lab, Bond is sent to rescue the lone survivor of the incident, Natalya Simonova, before she can be silenced by its perpetrators. Upon coming face to face with a malevolent ghost from his past, the one responsible for orchestrating the plot against himself and England, James is eventually forced into teaming up with Natalya to neutralize the puppeteer once and for all. This ultimately sets the stage for a satisfying final sequence that is easily the high point of the film. Unfortunately, a number of contrivances manage to slow the narrative down, but not to the point of breaking the plot. A few examples of which include the exceedingly happenstance utility of a certain exploding pen, and Bond’s use of a Tank to race and halt an enemy train. As for the characters, most of the cast were likable overall. Pierce Brosnan’s James Bond contained all of the traits that followers of the franchise would come to expect. Sean Bean’s Trevelyan was acted out excellently for what his role entailed, Judi Dench’s “M” performed well in simultaneously reigning in and supporting Bond, and Izabella Scorupco’s Natalya lended an air of plot relevance to the “Bond Girl” role that was only undercut a bit by the degree of plot armor she wore throughout the run time. The characters of CIA agent Jack Wade and Soviet General Ourumov also added a welcome polish to the film, alongside the brief but enjoyable appearance of gadget facilitator “Q”. The same could not be said for the likes of femme fatale Xenia Onatopp, however, whose character role was so sensually obnoxious and distracting that it made Bond’s romantic ventures throughout the film tonally tolerable by comparison. Aesthetically speaking, the film draws in quite a number of accolades by means of its memorable soundtrack and dynamic stunts, though the latter of the two adds difficulty in appealing to viewers not accustomed to the traits of the franchise. To put it mildly, a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief must be applied throughout Bond’s escapades to enjoy them for what they are; cool concepts that are fun to behold but defy the laws of reality. The most glaring example of which being the means of escape he employs at the Soviet facility, which saw him casually skydive into a free-falling, unoccupied plane no worse for wares. In conclusion, “Goldeneye” is the perfect example of a film that delivers on its franchise’s expectations. As it is a curious blend of serious and non-serious narratives, it can reasonably be described as “Mission Impossible” meets “Fast and Furious”: a marginally-campy spy joyride that treats fans of the genre with a full-course meal, though is certainly not for everyone.

“Red Eye” is an engaging thriller that chronicles the psychological dilemma of a young woman who must choose between saving her father from imminent peril, or protecting a government official mixed in the crosshairs of a terrorist agenda. Throughout the film, the overarching tone is tense enough to promote a sense of ongoing dread without becoming too mentally exhausting. In addition, the subdued pacing allowed for a multitude of interconnected plot lines to be set up and fully fleshed out, thereby granting each member of the tight cast of characters a valid role within the story. Concerning the plot, the story follows Lisa Reisert as she gradually becomes caught in the machinations of a diabolical terrorist: Jack Rippner. Trapped on a late-night flight with the clock ticking, Lisa is tasked with delivering a phone call to the hotel she manages in order to switch the rooms of a prominent Homeland Security figurehead. With her father’s life on the line should she decline, and each failed attempt to circumvent the situation thwarted by Rippner, the tension continues to build until Lisa must finally decide to confront her tormentor or submit to his will. The final act does an exceptional job in following her decision to its logical conclusion - albeit with a number of interesting twists - and the film ends on a satisfying note for all the set-up that was put in motion since the starting scenes of the film. Where the presentation easily shines the most is in it’s meticulous detailing of all the characters involved, with every individual the story makes a point of highlighting later going on to play a significant role. This does wonders in keeping the runtime concise and the primary focus where it should be without running the risk of admitting random filler for the sake of filler. There is also something to be said about the choice in casting for the leads: with Rachel McAdams’ acting bringing life and urgency to the role of Lisa, as Cillian Murphy - perhaps most well known for playing Scarecrow in “Batman Begins” - adds all the sinister undertones needed to make Rippner a formidable foe. The somewhat minimalistic soundtrack spikes in intensity at just the right moments to elevate the atmospheric fear Rippner brings to the table, which mirrors well with the numerous close shots from the camerawork and positioning of the characters in the seemingly-claustrophobic environment of the plane; all of which selling the tension and soft-horror vibes that the narrative called for. As mentioned previously, the surgical amount of precision that went into crafting the character interactions and legitimate foreshadowing was impressive; leading to a favorable amount of rewatchability. In conclusion, “Red Eye” is a must-see for any fan of suspense-driven genres. As a film less than an hour and a half in length, it thankfully wastes no time on needless fluff or loose ends; instead presenting it’s audience with a gripping narrative that rewards every ounce of investment given.

Concerning the plot, the narrative as a whole is simple and concise, with the film only running for about an hour and a half. It can best be summarized as a hero’s journey for the titular plumber Mario as he finds himself swept into a magical land and separated from his brother, Luigi, in the process. After joining Princess Peach on a mission to protect her kingdom from the clutches of the tyrant, Bowser, Mario’s own quest to rescue and reunite with his brother sees his resolve and fortitude tested time and again. Though the movie doesn’t hold back on slapstick situations that constantly put him on the back foot, his determination to always get back up no matter the odds carries him all the way into the finale; where it ultimately falls to him to save the Mushroom Kingdom. One factor that helps this basic plot to unfold well and feel like a grand adventure is the respect taken to ensure elements are properly set up. For example, the strong bond between the brothers is reinforced several times early in the film both before and during their separation to drive home the point that Mario will never give up on Luigi, no matter how many insults and bruises he has to endure. Another point is that the narrative never drags with needless, indulgent filler for the sake of dropping Easter Eggs not pertinent to the plot. In fact, the multitude of novel references placed into the film are positioned as such to seamlessly accommodate the world building and environment; thereby succeeding in appealing to fans while also expanding upon the experience. As for the key characters, most were represented exceedingly well. As mentioned previously, Mario’s commitment and loyalty to his younger brother is out at the forefront of his motivations. This, combined with his tenacity to always go another round create a sympathetic main character that everyone wants to cheer for: making his triumphs all the more enjoyable. Likewise, Luigi’s depiction as a timid follower struggling to find his courage lended itself well to the scenario’s he found himself in; setting up an inner conflict that was rewarding to watch unfold. As for Princess Peach, there is a bit more nuance in fully understanding her role. At first glance, her actions early in the film seem to paint her as an overconfident warrior-princess who can be the best at everything she puts her mind to just because the plot needs her to be; though that cursory form of analyses doesn’t hold up for long. Her mildly bitter first encounter with Mario is laced with enough touches of sympathy to allow for a more genuine reflection of her true intentions, and her rigidity overall declines rapidly soon after as she maintains the role of a team player that is not immune to making mistakes. That is all to say, she never outshines Mario. Bowser, on the other hand, comes close to stealing the show due to his equal measures of goofy, romantic inclinations and hair-trigger rage; an iconic juxtaposition he is known well for within the series. Additionally, there is never a point where his feelings for Peach undercut the threat he poses when crossed. This leads to him ultimately being a villain that is both enjoyable and humorous, though also worthy of testing the protagonist’s strength when the time comes to throw down the gauntlet. Lastly, Donkey Kong made for a decent addition overall, though Seth Rogan could have done more to bring his presence to the screen. Compared to the outstanding job Chris Pratt did for Mario, Jack Black did for Bowser, and Anya Taylor-Joy did for Peach, it left much to be desired. The quality of the animation and soundtrack was phenomenal from start to finish, and it was evident how much time was taken to properly bring the unique facets of the Mario universe to the silver screen. As an additional point of praise, Illumination withheld placing any of it’s oft-seen Minion’s humor into the film. Though comedy is mostly subjective, and many young audiences enjoy that form of levity, it would have been completely out of place and the film would have likely suffered for it. Instead, the humor feels more in line with how it is handled in the Mario spin-off games, which made the overall presentation feel more authentic. In summary, the movie best succeeds in its appeal to all applicable audiences. Adults who grew up with the earliest Mario titles will savor and appreciate the nostalgic elements that were carefully woven into the film, while children and other audience members not familiar with the Mario Bros. franchise will still enjoy the experience for what it is.

“The Incredibles” is a clever play on the classic Super-Hero story that excels in appealling to the entire family. While the colorful animations and action-packed sequences will capture the eye of younger viewers, the multilayered storytelling and down-to-earth portrayal of the characters will easily welcome a mature audience as well. In a film that could have simply leaned toward established tropes or a base interpretation of the Hero’s Journey for it’s content, Pixar instead crafted a memorable and unique spin on the genre that still impresses to this day.

“Adventures in Babysitting” is an awkwardly amusing movie centering around the many mishaps and pitfalls that occur when a single session of the movie’s namesake spirals out of control. Though simple in principle, this narrative is ultimately the film’s greatest make-or-break point, as it can be challenging to rectify at times what couldn’t be described as anything less than a series of exceedingly unfortunate and coincidental events. As a feel-good flick that doesn’t take itself seriously in this slightest, it still has an inherent degree of charm, however; especially for those who have a taste for the 80’s aesthetic. At the end of the day, if enough suspension of disbelief can be granted, it is a solid watch for a more mature audience.

“The Incredibles 2” is a decent sequel film that plays more of a side-kick roll to its predecessor when compared side by side. The overall presentation has difficulty landing, which can be attributed to a combination of muddled plot-lines, middling character development, and a scattered focus throughout the majority of the run time. While the narrative still succeeds in providing a reasonable level of entertainment, the film can best be described as a lukewarm experience when compared to the Parr family’s first outing. Concerning the plot, the story’s focus feels like a game of “red-light, green-light” due in part to the awkward pacing between static scenes and moments of relevance. While it attempts to follow Helen Parr’s campaign to bring back Super’s after the family falls on hard times, it also tries to balance time with her husband Bob “Mr. Incredible” and their kids as they deal with awkwardly mundane, everyday issues. Unfortunately, this lack of cohesive focus in the overarching narrative makes the film feel more long and drawn out than it should be; dwelling on side-stories and rehashed character development that was covered reasonably in the first movie. Though the plot throws in a number of new faces, such as the mildly-eccentric Deavor’s and a small group of outcast Super’s, most are glossed over and exist solely for the sake of the scene they appear in. The big twist concerning the main antagonist is clever, albeit somewhat predictable, and offered a villainous master plan that was mixed parts ambitious and ludicrous; particularly the latter in how it was carried out. This led to a climax that felt forced and underwhelming, and was only salvageable by merit of the action sequences highlighting the entire family working together. As for the characters, the original cast feels about the same as they were depicted in the first film, with a few caveats. Bob still does his best to protect his family, though he is also presented as being uncharacteristically conceited through the first half of film when Helen is chosen for the big P.R. project instead of him. Violet is also more abrasive in general, though it didn’t help matters that she was given the same arc that she already overcame in the first film. While Helen received a little more polish overall thanks to her larger presence in the spotlight, there were moments where her ego felt a bit more grating than was necessary. Similarly, Jack-Jack’s increase in screen time is only justified by the random shenanigans his powers create, which the film utilizes primarily for comedy and plot contrivance. Lastly, though antagonists Underminer and Screenslaver brought a balance of levity and tension, both seemed underutilized in the long run. For example, even though Screenslaver’s backstory is the sole purpose in turning them into the main threat like with Syndrome, there are levels of nuance surrounding the details of the mentioned past events which cheapen the strength of the argument. The most definitive point against the film, however, is its writing which often felt rushed and unfinished. While the first movie also had a number of events taking place simultaneously like this one, the overall focus was grounded and far easier to connect with. Cause and effect were key. In this movie, the family needs the P.R. gig because they can’t afford to move again, which only works because Helen is coincidentally chosen for it. This is already flawed from the first film, since the family was well-off financially thanks to Bob’s new “job”. Additionally, though it made logical sense for Bob to be disqualified from the P.R. project, no reason was given for why Frozone wasn’t selected. Finally, and most egregiously, is the family not knowing Jack-Jack had powers despite being able to clearly see them at the end of the first film. Since several key plot points have to occur from the family not knowing about them, this makes the story fall apart if the events that should have taken place are accounted for. Altogether, despite the aforementioned negatives, “The Incredibles 2” isn’t a bad movie. A good amount of the humor lands, most of the action sequences are enjoyable, and the story is fairly engaging if no critical lens is applied and is taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, however, the film ultimately had the potential for greater praise if only some more care had been given to its overall construction.

“Moneyball” is a “based on” sports flick that endeavors to bring the Oakland A’s 2002 season to the silver screen, via the perspective of its general manager Billy Beane. While the story manages to convey the injustice of high-budget teams owning the game by proxy of their wealth, the story’s execution of Beane as a character compounded with a number of awkward thematic choices put the film several runs behind. Concerning the plot, the narrative follows Billy around as he struggles to fight against a system that is perpetually rigged against him and the team he manages: one in which the “best” players go to the teams with the deepest pockets. After stumbling upon Peter Brand, a Baseball enthusiast who judges a player’s worth solely upon their statistics, Beane concocts a plan to create a winning team made up of unwanted and undervalued players that have been overlooked for any number of reasons. Ultimately, Billy and Peter fail to bring the A’s the victory they were hoping for, but the film closes with a reminder that the strategy they employed would later go on to revolutionize the game and bring a World Series championship to another team that later used it. While this works for the overall story the film is trying to convey, there were a few points of focus that failed to connect in terms of the bigger picture. For example, the movie uses up a considerable amount of screen time covering the A’s iconic twentieth-in-a-row victory that established a new historical record. This victory is immediately undercut by Billy, however, who laments that it wouldn’t matter how many games they won should they still lose the World Series. The film subsequently follows this up by showing the game that lost them the season for all but a few seconds. In essence, the writers glossed over the point in the journey that should have been the emotional climax for a game that the main character himself disregarded as being insignificant. In terms of the characters, most are average and enjoyable. Peter maintains an optimistic perspective through much of the film, the misfit players who were given screen time were fun to watch more often than not, and Billy’s daughter brought a positive atmosphere into the scenes she took part in. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Billy. His actor’s portrayal depicts him as an insufferable, brooding idealist in the beginning of the film and he maintains this persona through to the end. Additionally, his penchant for throwing frequent tantrums, and subsequently the nearest object in the room, likened him more to petty child than a struggling and sympathetic adult. Lastly, the overall contempt and disregard he showed toward others that stood in the way of his vision was nothing short of grating. An example of this would be his actions around the A’s downtrodden coach, Art, who’s bid for a decent contract and vote of confidence are ignored and upon who’s lap the controversial group of players are dropped with no warning; effectively setting him up to fail should the experiment fall through. Though the film tries to paint Beane as a sympathetic victim through his failures in the past to perform as a player, it disregards following up on the point that he still made the decision to become one regardless of the scouting error that gave him the choice. Had his presentation been toned down a few notches, this might have been less noticeable and more forgivable in the long run. In conclusion, “Moneyball” is the middling result of a solid concept with poor execution. Sitting at over two hours in runtime with a number of scenarios that could have been reworked or integrated elsewhere, the pacing felt patted out rather than concise. Though it can doubtlessly still be watched as a “feel good” film to scratch that baseball itch, it remains a big swing and a miss from what it had the potential to be.

Right out of the gate, “Bumblebee” sets the stage for an exciting action-driven experience by visiting the Transformers’ home planet and displaying their civil war first-hand. Throughout the run time of the film, the strife between the two factions is ingrained into narrative, which is both a relief and a departure from the human-centric focus of the prior films. Though the plot stumbled at points and could have streamlined its focus by pruning unnecessary scenes in favor of developing some of its side characters, the film overall is a cohesive thrillride from start to finish. Concerning the plot, the story focuses on the titular character of “Bumblebee” as he struggles to adjust to a life on Earth amidst carrying out a directive he himself has forgotten; all the while avoiding conflict with the looming threat of the military and the Decepticon forces. Joining him in this endeavor is Charlie, a budding mechanic with her own demons to conquer stemming from the loss of her father. For the most part, both of these characters play off of each other well, though not every scene in which they were together was necessary. For example, a filler scene in which they were conversing in a forest could have been trimmed and reincorporated into another scene and nothing would have been missed. Issues of that nature aside, the film does a good job at slowly building the conflict with the aforementioned antagonists through a natural progression of events. The tension between Charlie and her family is likewise fulfilled with a logical arch, eventually resolving itself with a surprising conclusion that felt unexpectedly wholesome. In terms of the characters, “Bumblebee” is depicted as a clunky alien who must adapt to his surroundings in order to survive. This led to a number of scenes that were equal parts humorous and awkward, though built into the journey of him rediscovering his voice and his role in a conflict larger than himself. Charlie, on the other hand, adopted a more brooding and stiff persona that made it difficult to enjoy her role; though not to the detriment of being unable to sympathize with her conflicts. There was a genuine growth between her and her family in the latter portion of the film that created a good balance with what preceded it, all of which culminates in a satisfying conclusion for her role. The two primary Decepticon’s that hunt Bumblebee were also quite compelling and dynamic with the only oversight in their development being that the movie strangely never identifies them by name. The greatest crime in characterization, however, comes from the acquaintance of Charlie that constantly followed her around and has an unexplained crush on her. This was frustratingly never fleshed out, as was the character himself, leaving his purpose in the story to be questionable at best. Even a simple line connecting him with the diving events of her past would have remedied this. As far as the aesthetics were concerned, the transformation sequences were immersive and found a logical footing within the choreography of the fight sequences. That is to say, that the shift between humanoid and vehicle forms in combat felt deliberate with each combatant utilizing them to gain a distinct advantage whenever they occurred. The tone throughout the film retained a serious edge despite the goofy antics Bumblebee displayed early on, which was a notable improvement over the crass-heavy overtones of the film trilogy preceding it. Additionally, the suspension of disbelief never felt off the charts aside from Charlie’s plot-armor against explosions; something that should have been polished to be more believable. In conclusion, what made this film a good watch was its deliberate shift in focus on the series’ namesake over the trivial happenings of random humans. While these side stories still existed, they never overthrew the primary narrative of the conflict between the Autobot’s and Decepticon’s; serving more as background elements than ramblings for the sake of ramblings. Though more fine-tuning could have been applied here and there, the overall execution was solid.

An innovative take on the disaster genre, “Hours” is a heart-gripping story that follows the endeavors of a father attempting to keep his newly born daughter alive in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Throughout its runtime, every second is noticeable as he succumbs gradually to a demise that is seemingly inescapable. Though desperate in nature, it is within his struggle that the film finds a wonderful balance between futility and hope. The minimalistic approach kept the plot grounded in an environment that at times felt like post-apocalyptic horror; something the film capitalized on to enhance the survival elements once the abandoned hospital setting was properly introduced. Even though the plot wrapped up only forty-eight hours after the hurricane concluded, not a single minute was wasted with unnecessary filler. If anything, the story should have lasted several scenes longer. This would have added some polish to one of the film’s few shortcomings and gone further to provide some extra context surrounding the conclusion. In terms of characterization, an interesting arch is applied to the father as he must weigh the sudden loss of his wife against his will to keep their daughter alive. This continues to escalate as the situation spirals out of control and he is faced with the grim aftermath of the storm; forcing the scales toward reality as he must ultimately resolve to move forward. The mechanic of the draining battery was particularly clever in this light, as it subtly increased both the tension of the narrative and the measures that needed to be taken to ensure that enough power was maintained with each manual interaction. Some flashbacks were also provided to enhance the chemistry between the main character and his wife, but they felt regrettably unnecessary largely due to the awkward timing of their placement. Concerning the supporting cast, it was a breath of fresh air to witness some characters that felt very human in their depiction of selflessness, namely the unnamed cook and nurse. In contrast, the film also utilized several looters to depict the flip side of reality, serving primarily as hurdles for the main character to confront and overcome. In conclusion, what allowed “Hours” to shine was the unique perspective it applied to a historical event. While the story could have followed a large group of characters struggling to survive the catastrophe as it struck, it chose to lend the focus to an individual as he fought for the survival of someone other than himself. The slow pacing, sparse-yet-powerful music, and concise acting all contribute to a larger than life experience that sets in early and lasts until the final minute is up.

“The Lost City” is an interesting take on the classic treasure hunting story, as it presents itself as more of a freewheeling jaunt than a suspense-driven tomb crawler. While some moments of expected peril still persist, the film as a whole goes out of its way to assume a more subdued approach that fits with the characters and narrative. The plot overall is concise and imaginative, though the climactic moments could have been stronger had a more serious outlook been utilized: an example of this would be the direction that was taken for the main antagonist. While their repercussions are negligible and vague, a more fitting demise that could have stemmed from their blind arrogance and drive for notoriety would have been more memorable. The humor throughout the film acts as a good counterweight for the somber tones introduced off and on in the main character’s arch, and it lands decently overall. Minus a few gratuitous moments that could have been cut, most of the comedic output meshes well with the action and storyline. One point of dissonance that unfortunately cropped up several times involved the poor build up and execution of moments dealing with the fate of a reoccurring side character. Twice, when two different supporting characters seemingly met their end, the story presented the scenes so abruptly that they felt jarring in contrast to what came before and after - A few wisecracks one moment and a visceral gunshot immediately after - While both of these scenes could have stood out positively and led to satisfying conclusions, they ultimately felt bizarly rushed. In summery, “The Lost City” mostly achieves what it sets out to accomplish. It’s a lighthearted adventure that stumbles at times, but holds its viewer’s focus through clever plot, fun characters, and a heartwarming through-line of timeless love. While not the shiniest of cinematic gems, it remains a solid experience for anyone looking for a new adventure.

Short: “Stealth” is an unfortunate victim of directionless plot and underdeveloped characters; a production that could have been quite promising had a couple more layers of polish been applied. While the investments I made as a viewer were occasionally paid off, more fundamental expectations were undermined and shot down at moments where the story should have soared. Though the film is far from unwatchable, it is regrettably very forgettable.

Often overlooked in the long history of Disney’s animations, “Atlantis” presents a meticulously-crafted interpretation of its namesake. Overall, its depiction of the fall of the ancient city and its subsequent rediscovery is engaging and well executed; unfolding at a swift pace that sets the plot in motion while avoiding excess drag and needless filler. Many of the characters are colorful in their presentation and breathe life into the story through a combination of intelligent dialogue and fine tuned visual aesthetics. Moreover, the rich, hand-drawn art manages to capture their vibrant personalities alongside the wonder and mystique of the world settings around them: from the bustling streets of the early 1900’s to the foreign atmosphere of the lost empire itself. Though the film takes on a more serious undertone by presenting death and humanity’s darker tendencies in a number of its action segments, it also respects and utilizes the traits of honor, sacrifice, and a genuine element of innocence to stave off an entirely nihilistic outlook. That is to say that while “Atlantis” is a poignant departure from the more kid-friendly and blindly optimistic films that dominate the genre, it contains enough wit-driven humor and slapstick antics to still appeal to younger audiences. In summary, if you are looking to embark on an adventure that may have slipped under the radar, or are interested in taking a closer look at a renaissance animation, you may just discover a diamond in the rough.