tjman09

Doctor Strange, Marvel Studios newest entry in the marvel cinematic universe, is here and it is really good. Doctor Strange may not be as well-rounded as this year’s Civil War, or some of the other Marvel gems, but it is a really good film on it’s own merit. Doctor Strange features mind bending visuals, entertaining thrills, and a fresh look at the Marvel cinematic universe (MCU). Doctor Strange is yet another strong entry in the ever impressive MCU, which makes it harder and harder to argue, that Marvel is the premiere film studio today. This movie described simply is like watching the avengers while on acid, and the special effects are perfect. In this film the characters dance between many different realities, and essentially within these realities everything can be manipulated by the mind. The special effects are amazing in this film, which is a true compliment, because many films this year struggled with overly digitized special effects. In this film, it’s obvious that there are special effects, but they look very realistic. The acting in this film is very good, as Benedict Cumberbatch brings his usual intense personality into his character. The action sequences are very well shot, and the film is subtly very funny. It’s admirable that Marvel refuses to step away from humor, because it’s become their true signature. One weak point about this film was that some of the characters were very flat, the villain especially so. Unfortunately, Mads Mikkelsen gives a great performance, but his character is yet another generic evil character, consumed by a bigger evil force, with little development as to why. That being said this film wasn’t all that original, but it didn’t feel recycled either. This is most likely because this film introduced viewers to the more cosmic side of the MCU. Much like Guardians of the Galaxy took viewers off earth, this film takes viewers out of normal reality. It’s impressive that Marvel can have so many characters in so many different atmospheres. In the end this film is yet another solid Marvel film. It’s not the best marvel film ever, but it’s a very entertaining, funny, well-acted, and creative film that is perfect for viewers of all ages. The film struggled a little with a cliched villain, some marvel cliches, and the occasional overly-expository dialogue. For those with children this film is perfect for them, and for those who love action or comic book film, give this film a look.

Hell or High Water is yet another limited release gem that shows that in today’s film climate, independent film is the quality standard bearer. While tentpole films are fun to see because they are events, films like Hell or High Water harken back to when filmmakers were more concerned with telling interesting stories, instead of making easy money. Hell or High Water is engrossing, tells its story with depth and smarts, and features really well-rounded characters. This film is truly a great film in almost all aspects, and will likely get a ton of recognition during oscar season. From the opening scene of this film, the film is gripping, using both intrigue and acting to its advantage. Much like many other great films, this film begins with a bang and holds the audience’s attention throughout. Chris Pine has proven that he’s a talented actor over the years, but this film is a major step up for him, that being said the show stealers are Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges. Foster has had amazing performances in the past, but this stands as one of his best, and Bridges plays a role that fits him like a glove, and he does it perfectly. The actors are notably great, but the film is gripping because the story it tells is interesting. The story doesn’t feel like a rip off of other films, and even more impressively tells it’s story with depth and smarts. Nothing in this film feels like it’s unrealistic or bombastic, every action in the film is well thought out and makes sense, that being said the film has a decent level of emotional depth. The impressive thing about Hell or High Water is that it’s not overly sentimental, but it’s the kind of film that still evokes an emotional response. Perhaps the biggest reason that the story is interesting, and emotionally gripping is because the characters are so well developed. From the onset all characters come from relatable places, and have plenty of layers. Above that the characters are funny and at some point they simply begin to feel like real people just being captured on film. That being said every character’s conflict hits even harder, because the characters feel so relatable. Finding something wrong with this film is extremely hard, and in a day and age with so many films coming out in conjunction that’s rare. Hell or High Water is well acted, gripping, funny, features great characters, shows an impressive amount of emotional depth, and never needlessly substitutes action for smarts. It seems safe to say that this film will get a lot of attention during Oscar season, especially for it’s screenplay. If you’re a fan of westerns, heist films, thrillers, or just in general like great films this film is a good choice.

In a year with a string of impressive horror films, Don’t Breathe is yet another good entry. Directed by Fede Alvarez (Evil Dead, 2013), this film shows that he has a talent for horror, and may be a rising presence in the genre. Don’t Breathe is hold-your-breath scary, and features a clever premise, despite a few small plot holes. It is worth mentioning that the title and posters seemed a little ambiguous as to the plot, but watching the film the title seems appropriate. The first thing to mention about this film is that it is full of twists and turns, but does take a relatively practical approach to it’s plot. The film’s story is very smartly constructed, as it is full of tension from the opening moments, right up to the end. The film’s biggest strength is its simplicity, as it makes the most of a very straightforward premise. That being said, the film is constructed in a way that obstacles are consistently thrown at the main characters in creative ways. Simply put the fact that the writers and directors were able to tell a story with such a clever yet simple premise makes it easy to follow. The impressive thing about this film is within a short period of time, the characters are well established and the premise, which is quite clever, is introduced. With all of the cliched horror films today, putting empty characters in cliched situations, it’s refreshing to see relatable characters put into a straightforward premise. However, as happens in all horror films, the characters find everything is not as they expected it, and quickly discover they’re in over their heads. The only problem with the film, is that it does cater to a few too many horror cliches and has a few glaring plot holes. While the obstacles in this film are creatively thrown at the main characters, a few of them don’t make sense, with a little thought. The story at times, neglects to explain how something happened, and relies on a few Deus ex Machinas. The irony is that many of the plot holes, end up helping the villain character, as he seems almost inhuman by the end of the film. In the end, Don’t Breathe does a brilliant job keeping the audience on the edge of their seats, with a combination of ingenuity and simplicity. The film offers a refreshing entry in the horror genre, which has seen a nice revival this year, from the typically cliched horror films we get. The film isn’t great, as it has a few too many plot holes, and cliches, but is still very entertaining. Horror buffs looking for a good film to get them into the Fall/Halloween season will likely enjoy this film.

Kubo and the Two Strings, the next installment from the stop-go animation studio Laika is here, and I think it’s an amazing film. I’ve stated for years that Laika could be the biggest competition for Pixar, and finally Laika has delivered a movie to prove me right. Kubo and the Two Strings is beautifully animated, conveys amazing amounts of emotional depth, and brings a true sense of magic. In the past I had been critical of some stop-go animation, but the works of Aardman and Laika have taken it to a premier level. This film’s animation is gorgeous, simply put the characters, the settings, the creatures, they all look amazing. It shouldn’t come as any surprise, Laika has consistently made beautiful films, but it’s always impressive when you consider the amount of time and effort that goes into animating a stop-go animation film. Above the animation the looks of the film is amazing, as the animators used color so well to give the film a look, and even more impressively the animators weren’t afraid to make it dark. That has been one of the best staples of Laika, it’s boldness to be willing to make an animated movie dark (but only to an extent.) The boldness to make the film look dark occasionally, really exemplifies the film’s impressive emotional depth. Much like Pixar, Laika seems to understand that the marshmallow fluff most studios give kids, are very one dimensional. While that fluff is in this film, there’s elements of light horror in this film as well. Any film that can juxtapose kiddy fluff with any kind of horror tones, deserves credit for their depth and understanding of mood. It also helps make this film feel all the more magical, as if the presence of a character can change the mood of an area, which is amazing. The entire film’s look and depth help create a truly magical film, one where imagination seems to be at full capacity for the writers and filmmakers. The film’s villain characters, voiced by Rooney Mara, are creepy and perfectly designed, and the main characters are very well developed as well. This film uses color amazingly, especially blue, which is a common color used in films today, but the use of it in this film both enhances the story and the mood beautifully. Above that the voice work is also incredible, especially the work of Matthew McConaughey and Charlize Theron. All in all, this film is amazing, it may possibly be the best film of the year so far, although it’s still early and Captain America: Civil War was pretty great as well. The story may have been a tad predictable in the end, but the magical look and feel of this animated film transcends a slightly predictable story. For those who love great movie and those who have imaginative young kids, see this in the theaters where the sense of magic can still be felt.

War Dogs seems like a film with a ton of potential, because of the people involved in it, but lacks the spark to make it anything other than okay. The problem seems to be that the crew wanted to tell a true story and make the audience laugh but didn’t fully understand, given the source material, how to do that. War Dogs is intermittently funny, but relies too much on clichés, and fails to pack any kind of a punch. If you’re trying to figure out what kind of a movie this is, picture The Big Short with a slightly lesser known crew. War Dogs did have a lot going for it, namely the talents of Miles Teller and Jonah Hill, as well as the direction of Todd Phillips (The Hangover Trilogy.) Above that the trailers for this film looked fairly funny, but note that almost all of the genuinely funny parts of the movie are contained in the trailer. That being said the film often tries to take a more dramatic approach, and fails to ever generate a hilarious moment. That being said both Miles Teller and Jonah Hill’s performances are great in this film. While Teller and Hill are great in this film it really feels too familiar, as if you’ve seen it before. That shouldn’t be the case with a film about two men in their twenties running guns in the Iraq War. That being said it ends up making it’s characters into cliches, and tells an overdone storyline about rags to riches idiots, and betrayal of best friends. It really is a shame because, as I mentioned before, this film could’ve been very original and interesting, but ends up being like most other films of today, more recycled than anything else. Above that the film fails, at what it ultimately wants to do, which is pack a punch. It seems self evident watching it, that the director and writers wanted to expose a scary problem in America, and at the same time generate a few laughs. In that sense it’s a lot like The Big Short, however War Dogs fails to ever do what it strives to do. Where The Big Short was informational, funny, and in the end terrifyingly honest, War Dogs is not. This movie may have a moment or two, but seems to miss it’s intended mark on both ends, in that it’s not as funny as it’d like to be nor is it as damning. In the end War Dogs feels like more of an average film, which is disappointing because it had the potential to do everything wanted to. If you expect a great comedy, it’s not really that, if you’re expecting a great look at true and terrifying events that led to two young immature men running guns for America, it’s not really that either. War Dogs is funny, well acted, and has a story to tell, but relies on cliches, stereotypes, and doesn’t offer very much thought provoking material. This is a good film if you want a few chuckles but it doesn’t supply a ton of laughs.

Sausage Party, Seth Rogen’s appropriately named Pixar-spoof/raunch fest, is here and it is actually pretty entertaining, if you’re a sarcastic adult who enjoys **** on everybody. Much like Deadpool did to the comic book genre earlier this year, Sausage Party takes aim at the animation genre, finally making an animation for adults. Sausage Party is as funny as it is clever, gleefully filled with profanity, but is also surprisingly thought provoking. Sausage Party never quite reaches the level of quality, of that which it pokes fun at, but does manage to do everything it set out to do. Watching this film it’s incredible the ensemble cast that Seth Rogen was able to gather for this film, featuring James Franco, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Edward Norton, Salma Hayek, and so many more. The plot of this film is actually a fairly entertaining one, but the real strength of the film is it’s humor. That isn’t surprising, considering the group behind it, but the film in essence jumps from one joke to another never leaving a dull moment. The main reason that the film is so funny is that the film is clever in how it pokes fun at the world of food. Another reason that the film is so funny is that instead of trying to be politically correct, the film almost revels in it’s ability to insult whoever it can. Animation has, over the years, proven to be a genre mostly directed at kids, besides a few exceptions (South Park, Family Guy, the Simpsons.) That being said the use of excessive profanity within that genre is so rare that it often elevates a raunchy animated comedy. Seeing a bunch of talking hot dogs, and buns that are animated to look like sexual images, and then swear non-stop ends up being one of the funnier elements of the film. It seems surprising that Pixar didn’t beat Sausage Party to this story though, because it could’ve been an even better Pixar film. By that I mean that the story of this film is actually quite clever and thought provoking, when you say to yourself, what food think if it could talk. The plot is not as focused as a Pixar film and the characters are not as emotionally involving, so Sausage Party feels more like a cheaper, raunchy Pixar film. However, this film does manage to attack a fairly thought provoking and deep storyline. In the end, Sausage Party is a really good and often entertaining spoof of the animation genre for adults above a certain age, and of a certain mindset. The film tries to remain clear of racism, simply by insulting every group of people, without prejudice, we’ll see if that method works. The film is clever, funny, thought provoking, and gleefully profane. It should be stated that not everybody will enjoy this movie, but that’s partially the point.

Suicide Squad, the next entry in the ever bleak DC Cinematic Universe, is here and frankly I was disappointed. The hype for this film was big and expectations may have been admittedly very high, but this film fails on a level deeper than just a bad movie where a good movie was expected. Suicide Squad features a great cast, but falls flat in terms of story, and rushes through its already thin story. What’s so sad is that the formula for a really good movie was there and the filmmakers ignored it completely. With a film that has so many talented stars in it, and Jai Courtney, it’s not surprising that the expectations were very high for the film. Will Smith is not immune to bad decisions when it comes to his films, but he’s pretty good at rising above them and making films better all on his own. Jared Leto is pretty great in this film, he’ll undoubtedly be judged by comparisons to other Joker performances, but just on his own merit he was great. The entire cast did a good job, Smith, Leto, Viola Davis, and Margot Robbie were all excellent in their performances, but they were failed by a poorly crafted film. The biggest problem is the fact that the screenwriter and director seemed to not be on the same page, when it came to what this film was about, or more precisely who this film is about. To me, it’s about Rick Flag and the Enchantress. However, clearly somebody in the process missed that and felt that every character needed an appropriate amount of backstory, which they don’t. The result of this confusion is two cardinal sins, the first is that the audience is given a lot of needless scenes of backstory that we don’t need that waters down the story. The second and far more egregious is that the better story was very clearly sitting within this watered down, and crowded mess that we ended up with. Without spoilers this film rushes through introducing all of it’s characters and giving backstory, for almost every one of them. Frankly there are more subtle and effective ways to show us something than 5 minute flashbacks for every character. Above that we can’t care about the characters, besides Amanda Waller who you will grow to hate because Viola Davis gave an amazing performance, which really hurts the film because they were on to something. The painful thing is that if the filmmakers had looked at what they had, they may have noticed that certain alternative plot points would have been far more emotionally impactful, and they just missed them. It’s easy to see how some will enjoy this film, it’s not boring, or unenjoyable. This film just suffers from the same problem that Batman v. Superman did, the better film rests within the mess we were given. In the end Suicide Squad is rushed, crowded, features a weak villain, and feels like a poor man’s Guardians of the Galaxy. That being said kids may enjoy this film and comic book die hards like will too, simply for the spectacle.

Jason Bourne, the next entry in the Bourne Franchise is here, but it isn’t as good as the original Bourne movies. Matt Damon is back in this entry, and so is director Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum), which means the style and feel of the original films is there. Jason Bourne is entertaining, but is riddled with cliches, and feels like a somewhat irrelevant entry in the franchise. The problem for this film is that many of the biggest plot points are featured in other modern spy films, and at this point are somewhat overdone. Jason Bourne is action packed and offers fans of the originals more of what they love. The film is action packed, despite that some of the action has too much shaky cam, which is common within in this franchise, but annoying nonetheless. The acting in this film is one of the best parts of this movie, as Damon is great in his return to Bourne, however Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones are both also great in their roles, conveying complex people very well. The major problem with this film is that it’s riddled with cliches. If this film had been made 5 years ago, it would have been timely and groundbreaking, and while it’s still timely the subject matter is somewhat worn out. Jason Bourne latches on to the same theme as various other spy films today, which is how much can we infringe upon privacy for security. That isn’t to say Hollywood needs to abandon doing films about the ongoing privacy vs security argument that is plaguing our society today, but they need to make it original. If you need an example, Captain America: Winter Soldier was a far more entertaining and well-rounded version of the same film, that came out 2 years ago. Beyond being cliched and not really offering anything new to the privacy vs security argument, this film feels detached from the other Bourne films. By that I mean that the original 3 Bourne films had an overarching story, and they all felt as though they were necessary for that over arching story, this film isn’t part of that story. The story never really feels connected to the original films, and instead feels like an unnecessary cash grab. Above that the film refuses to offer anything new to the franchise, recycling the same cinematography and themes of other films. Jason Bourne is a fairly entertaining action/spy film, and it comes at a time when spy films are all the rage, because the public knows so much about the imperfections of the system. That being said this film piggybacks on other, better, films so as to continue Jason Bourne’s storyline. The film is action-packed, well-acted, and loaded, but is also unnecessary, recycled, and frankly lacks a fresh look problem. That being said fans of the original franchise likely will enjoy this film.

Lights Out, is quite possibly one of the most visually and mentally scary films in the last two years. The film is yet another in a string of horror movies that uses diseases as allegories for its premise, and this premise alone is genius. Lights Out is often unnerving and sometimes terrifying, dark in look and tone, without feeling recycled or derivative. The biggest strength of the film is that the story is constructed in a way that the audience is always wondering if something will happen. The most genius element of the film is the look of the creature that haunts this movie “Diana.” Diana is an all-black figure that lurks in the dark, and kills whoever threatens it. That being said throughout this film the audience has to fear that this character could pop out of any dark space at any given time. At 81 minutes, not a single second is calm or peaceful, because the mere sight of sight of this creature is unnerving. However, the writers and crew deserve credit for conceiving the idea of the film having a lot of darkness in it. We often say lighting is a storytelling device, but in today’s films it's become less true the more formulaic films get. In this film lighting is very much a storytelling device, and it is used perfectly. Every scene in this film contains, just the right amount of darkness and light, almost as if there are safe areas, and areas that characters should stay away from, and they’re often changing. The dark look and tone of this film, create a very unnerving atmosphere, because one of the most common fears is a fear of the dark, and more notably a fear of the unknown, which exists in the dark. The film really hit a note with me personally, because I have had nightmares in the past about all dark figures living in the dark, so the film felt that much more personal to me. That being said, the film really doesn’t feel all that derivative of other recent horror films. A few moments, and scenes did feel familiar (Diana as a child), but those were few and far between. Even those moments that are a little familiar, are constructed in a way that they are still very scary. The film does what The Babadook did a couple of years ago, and uses depression as an allegory for the creature in the film, which is turning into a very cool concept. The film is one of the few films within the system that uses lighting to tell the story, and does so in a way that is clever and terrifying at the same time. The film is admittedly dark, and relatively humorless, and not really for children, but that kinda goes without saying. For those horror buffs looking for a good scary movie, this may be your movie.

Star Trek: Beyond is here, and it is truly unlike any other Star Trek movie you’ve ever seen. Directed by Justin Lin, who directed four entries in the Fast and Furious franchise, the film continues on the more fast paced and slightly bombastic feel of the rebooted franchise. Star Trek: Beyond is often funny, fast paced and action packed, and features a cool new villain. The film is also co-written by Simon Pegg, and thus has a lot more moments of humor, sometimes resembling the Marvel mold more than Star Trek. Star Trek films have historically been inconsistent when it comes to humor, some like Star Trek: The Voyage Home or Star Trek (2009) have been very funny, and some like Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, forwent humor for seriousness. This film may just be the funniest Star Trek film yet, because it’s not quite as silly as some of the other films, but manages to have a lot of good quips. The film’s sense of humor is most likely a product of Simon Pegg co-writing the film, and that has proven to be a great decision. It should be stated that the humor does make Star Trek: Beyond feel slightly more like a summer blockbuster than a Star Trek film, and they are different. Star Trek Beyond is structured slightly more like an action film, as the pacing grows in tempo until the end of the film when it culminates in a big finale. This is more consistent with the pacing of the rebooted franchise, however the film never quite elevates like the previous two films did. The action sequences in this film are very good, which comes as no surprise given that Lin, who is experienced in shooting action sequences was in the helm. One surprise of this film was the villain character, Krall. The rebooted franchise of Star Trek movies has done an amazing job forming well-rounded villains. The villain in this film feels weak at the beginning, but as the film progresses his motives become more clear. Both Nero and Khan were good villains, and while Krall isn’t as well rounded he is a serviceable villain. That being said the other characters in the film aren’t very well developed, besides Captain Kirk, who is given some development. All-in-all this is probably the weakest of the rebooted franchise in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good movie, it is. Star Trek Beyond is very entertaining, fast paced, action-packed, funny, and has a very good villain. The film is a very good time at the theaters, and is fairly family friendly, for those who love summer blockbusters this is a perfect summer movie for you.

The female led Ghostbusters reboot is finally here, and I’ve got to say I think it’s a pretty good movie. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this film, mostly from internet hacks who were clinging to the sexist chant that “women aren’t funny.” Ghostbusters is clever and funny, features cool special effects, but is admittedly a little cliched. That being said this film is very good, and I would say don’t let the audience reviews online sway your opinion too much. For those who don’t know anything about the Ghostbusters reboot, it’s being made by the same people that made Bridesmaids. Bridesmaids is one of the funnier recent comedies, but i’ll go so far as to say I enjoyed Ghostbusters more. While Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are their reliable selves, the show stealers for me were Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Chris Hemsworth. All 3 brought an unexpected level of humor and screen presence, and almost every joke delivered by Leslie Jones had me laughing out loud. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon may have entered this film as almost exclusively SNL stars, but after this film I think you’ll see them in a lot more. The rebooted Ghostbusters, much like the original, uses a lot of special effects, in an attempt to mix big budget CGI with comedy. The original Ghostbusters, sort of broke ground by proving that comedy and big budget special effects could work together, nowadays it’s commonplace as every Marvel movie uses the same approach. That being said the effects in this movie, especially the sound design, were cool and looked good. I will say that some of the effects reminded me of Star Wars, but they aren’t the first and they won’t be the last to copy that movie. The only big problem I had with the movie was that it felt somewhat derivative. Many moments in the movie it felt like they were nodding to the original instead of trying to be different. That along with the reliance of Paul Fieg on the overly talkative humor, where characters refuse to ever let the audience figure a joke out for themselves, are really the only things that seemed weak in the film. That being said major fans of actions films should beware that the action sequences are nothing special, and some characters aren’t all that well developed. So in essence Ghostbusters is no masterpiece, it’s really not even a great movie, but it is pretty entertaining. The cast is great in the movie, many of the jokes worked, the effects were cool, the soundtrack was nostalgic fun, and the movie even featured cameos from the entire cast of the original, that are still with us. For those who feel weary because the online fan reviews and ratings have been bad, I fear many of those reviewers never saw the movie, and instead gave the movie a bad rating out of hatred that women are in a traditionally male movie. This is a fairly entertaining comedy, and regardless of what you’ve heard if you like comedies check this movie out.

Independence Day: Resurgence is here, and it would seem with the direction they went that Independence Day may have been better if it hadn’t had a sequel. The original film was admittedly dumb, and considering Roland Emmerich’s filmography I didn’t go in expecting this film to be thought provoking, but Independence Day: Resurgence lacks the impactful moments the first one had. Independence Day: Resurgence is full of cliches, features weak characters, and lacks the iconic moments of the original. It is sad to say but given the filmography of Roland Emmerich, the fact that this movie isn’t very good isn’t a surprise. The original Independence Day wasn’t very original, but it found a way to surpass it’s generic approach with entertaining acting and storytelling. However, Independence Day: Resurgence loses some of that charm, and ends up being even more generic. The story takes a radical departure from the realistic approach of the first one, and puts the audience in a super technologically advanced earth. The film is also hurt by the lack of charismatic leads, who have been replaced by young more dull actors. The problem is partially that the actors aren’t all that good, whether that’s a lack of direction or a lack of ability is up for debate. That being said the actors are only part of the problem, as even if they were great the characters are one dimensional. Another major problem is that the original film was a perfect example of dumb fun, where it was funny and frankly dumb, the sequel is just as dumb, if not more and half as funny. The end result is when a major character dies or anything happens in this film it’s hard to care. The lack of care for major moments resonates as the ultimate disappointment of Independence Day: Resurgence. Even if you hate Independence Day you can’t deny that when Bill Pullman delivers his speech, everybody watching gets a little emotional, and there are various other moments from that film that resonate. There are next to none of these moments in Independence Day: Resurgence. In the end Independence Day: Resurgence is boring because it’s not emotionally gripping, and just trugs along. Independence Day: Resurgence is in essence a sequel made purely for the profit, that departs from what made the first film so special. The sequel is inferior to the original in most aspects, and in some areas doesn’t even feel like a sequel to Independence Day. The characters are one dimensional, the story is generic and cliched, the dialogue is weak, the film is incredibly dumb, but admittedly the special effects are amazing. In the end if you like action and want a release where you can go and just shut your brain off, then this is for you, otherwise you may be disappointed.

Finding Dory, the long awaited sequel to Finding Nemo is here and while it’s nowhere near as good as the original it’s a pretty solid follow up. It should be stated that a solid follow up by Pixar is still a great film, as they’ve shown that they have making amazing films down to a science. Finding Dory is funny, beautifully animated, and often touching. It should be stated up front, that Finding Nemo is a nearly flawless film, and that when comparing them, Finding Dory doesn’t quite live up, but on it’s own merit it is still a great film. One major reason that Finding Dory is so good is that it’s hilarious, and not just a few moments of humor, but hilarious throughout the entire film. Much like Finding Nemo the film gives voices to animals we see and throws their own wit into what those characters would say and do, much like the crabs and seagulls from the first film. It isn’t as consistently hilarious as Finding Nemo and never reaches the same range of pure hilarity and heart stopping moments, but it does have quite a few of both. Above the humor of the film another major element that worked so well for the film is the animation which is gorgeous. This is true for both the film and it’s short, both were gorgeously animated, so much so that it’s becoming more and more realistic. Animating people still seems to be a work in progress, and we may never get that right, but when it comes to animals, Pixar seems to have a firm grip on making them look flawless. The only problem I have with this film is the story, which is okay, but coming from such a talented studio that consistently focuses on story, the story had some liberties and plot holes that aren’t common from Pixar. That is the major area where Finding Nemo was so great and Finding Dory fell a little flat. However, Pixar’s greatest strength over the years has been it’s ability to make mass amounts of people feel something watching their films. This is an amazing accomplishment, because some people are easily invested in a film and get immersed easily, while some find it very hard to get immersed in films, but Pixar seems to know how to make everybody feel something watching their films. There are multiple moments in this film that do that, and convey as with many other Pixar greats an amazing amount of emotional depth. I typically say if a film can make somebody have a visceral reaction then it’s a great film, I wouldn’t say this film does that but it comes very close, which is impressive in it’s own right. For those who loved Finding Nemo I wholeheartedly believe you’ll love this film to, but restating the obvious don’t expect it to match Finding Nemo. This film is hilarious, beautifully animated, touching, well paced, and features great voice acting. The film isn’t as good as Finding Nemo, as it’s story isn’t quite as good and frankly was probably never going to be as good. That being said for all who love Pixar films, families especially, this is a great film to go see.

The Conjuring 2 is one of those extremely rare horror sequels that doesn’t fall victim to copying it’s predecessor. While The Conjuring 2 isn’t free of cliches and isn’t better than it’s predecessor, it’s a really solid horror film separate from the original. The Conjuring 2 is chilling without relying on jump scares, features really good character development, despite being a tad familiar. This film may prove that James Wan is the modern king of horror, because every horror film he does is solid. One thing to learn from this film is that while jump scares are a cheap way to get scares, they can be very effective when used sparingly. Many modern horror films rely solely on jump scares to scare the audience, but this film has a truly chilling tone, and many scenes are terrifying without jumping the audience. That being said there are jump scares littered throughout this film, but Wan is clever when he uses them, and is often effective when he uses them. I’m proud that most horror films don’t jump me, that being said multiple times watching this film I found myself jumped. One major reason this film succeeds is because of the character development, which really helps the audience care about the characters. Every single character in the film is well fleshed out, and given a moment of relatability. Even the ghosts in the film are generally scary and have a really good design. However, the film’s characters represent one of the film’s major problems, the fact that it’s based on true events. After seeing this film it would seem to say that the phrase “based on true events” was only included for dramatic effect. The story of the film is based on the actual events of the Enfield Poltergeist in England in the late 70’s but the problem is that half the film uses moments from that investigation and the other half feels like an exorcist rip off. It’s unfortunate because there’s a terrifying story, despite the evidence that it was a hoax, in the Enfield Poltergeist that gets lost in the shuffle. Simply put if the filmmakers hadn’t felt the need to match The Exorcist, the film’s ending may not have felt so different from the rest of the film. In the end for horror buffs, this may be the best horror film of the year, if nothing better comes along. For those who want to see a great horror film regardless of its faithfulness to the actual events this is a great film, but for those who want a faithful adaptation of the Enfield Poltergeist this film definitely takes some liberties. That being said this film is genuinely scary which is rare today, and above that is just a good film in general, so it’s most definitely worth seeing.

The film adaptations of video games have, up to this point, been bad but there was hope for the gamer community that Warcraft could break through, but it was, in my opinion a disappointment. The potential impact of this film was obvious, gamers who are hungry for high quality film adaptations of their favorite games, are still waiting for a film to prove that it can be done. Warcraft is cliched, poorly written, and not as entertaining or deep as it could and therefore should have been. I don’t want people thinking I hated this movie, because it did some things well and plenty of people have said they enjoyed it, I simply didn’t. The most painful thing about the movie was that it had a lot of good aspects, but as a whole the film felt a little weak. One major problem I had with this film was that it reminded me too much of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. Regardless of the agitation that statement will incur out of die hard fans, one prime example is the main antagonist of the film, the orcs, ride around on giant evil looking wolves, just like in Lord of the Rings. Above that the film as a whole looked too digitized, where in certain scenes, everything in the scene looked digitally created. The movie was directed by the immensely talented Duncan Jones, and to be honest the world he creates, is very intriguing. However, the script was a major weakness of this film, because inside this film is a cool story worth telling but it was overcrowded with weak characters and muddled storytelling. The film leaps around so much, trying very hard to tell a dense story, that it becomes very hard to follow, and almost impossible to care about any characters. From a technical standpoint it jumps around so much, that at times the film disregards explanation. The weak story, and rushed pacing make the film feel overcrowded, and hard to really enjoy. While some of the characters had very cool development, many of them flash through for momentary exposition and then disappear for 20 minutes. The orc villain is admittedly cool to look at, albeit a little one dimensional, but the overall evil force in the film is essentially an unexplained force. The film really never feels like it entertains or challenges like Jones’ other films (Moon and The Source Code), it just trudges forward. It isn’t a terrible film, and I’m guessing many will enjoy this film, if for no other reason than that it is a good 2 hour escape from reality. That being said for those who are looking for a entertaining, witty, original film this just isn’t really that, as it never allows itself to delve deeply into any scene. The film features a great amount of potential, which only serves to make the muddled end result even more depressing, as the film clearly could have been better. All-in-all I think kids will like this film, but for those who want a great film, this just isn’t quite that.

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping never looked all that appealing to me, but I must say it was surprisingly better than I expected. Seeing the trailers I thought the film was another in a wave of ultra dumb comedies, but up front, it’s really not. Popstar is a little formulaic, but is admittedly funny, and finds a way to even be witty. Even more impressive, although not all that surprising is that some of the songs in this movie are actually pretty catchy, albeit mock-ups. For those who love This is Spinal Tap and other films of that nature, this film is a little derivative. That being said, it’s not as if this is just a rehash of other better films, that entire genre does require modernizations every few years. Because this film is spoofing not only the musicians of today, but everybody in the entertainment world. That being said this film does list as another Judd Apatow film and does have some formulaic moments that appear in all of his films. The most notable “Appatowism” in this film is the overdone comedy trope of today, where the film lingers on jokes far longer than they should, under the illusion that lingering over a joke makes it funnier. It’s kinda like when a goofy kid makes a great joke everybody laughs, and then the kid gets confident and keeps pushing the joke until everybody around is just wishing he’d shut up and go away. That being said, the film doesn’t live off the annoying lingering joke, and succeeds at being genuinely funny, all the time. It’s not the funniest movie this year, and it may not even be hilarious, but the film is consistently littered with raunchy funny jokes, that often deliver. The film was marketed poorly, in my opinion, because it came across as an ultra dumb comedy, and in reality isn’t half as dumb as it comes across as. The film occasionally wanders into the dumb comedy area, but often finds it’s way back into the land of witty comedies, making it somewhat of a mixed bag. For instance, the songs are catchy, they are witty reflections of our pop stars, but they are also a little too on the nose, making them come across as a little dumb. That being said, underneath the thin exterior of a dumb comedy is a really witty reflection of our current music industry, and the pressures, idiocracy, immaturity, selfishness, and chaos commonly associated with it. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping is filled with cameos from famous musicians and comedy actors, some of which even lend their singing talents to the musical pieces. At times it feels like the entire music industry is in this film, as they play along on a mockumentary making fun of them. However, the film is never really mean spirited, or all that damning it just grooves along, spoofing everybody from the musicians to the fans. For those who like the lonely island, you’ll love this movie, and for those who are seeking a funny comedy, regardless of rating this is also a movie you’ll love, but there should be a note, this movie really isn’t for kids or the weak spined.

X-Men: Apocalypse, the follow up to X-Men: Days of Future Past, is finally here, and frankly i’m disappointed. The film suffers from a plethora of problems, and struggles to limp through which is shocking considering how great Days of Future Past was. X-Men: Apocalypse is entertaining, but suffers from terrible special effects and post production, and a very weak villain. The most sad thing about this film is that it had so much potential to be great, and just took a long walk off a short pier. The biggest advantage this film has going for it is it’s super talented cast, who show up and give it their all, despite a weak script. Lawrence, McAvoy, and Fassbender all make this film as entertaining as they can, and the action sequences are fun to watch. However, the script has serious problems, many of which are too hard to overcome. Put frankly the story isn’t well crafted at all, it’s choppily thrown together more resembling a set of disconnected scenes following each other not a story. The film’s biggest crux is it’s special effects and post production. This may sound odd, but they are, in some cases, so bad that they are distracting. The dialogue is one major problem, as clearly there was a lot of ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement) or dubbing, and it often doesn’t match the lips or doesn’t sound like the actor has the rest of the movie. Above that the special effects, whether practical or digital, looks bad. The CGI isn’t very good, the sets are noticeable and flat, Apocalypse’s makeup is obvious, not very good, and distracting. On that note Apocalypse, the titular character is one of the movie’s biggest weaknesses. Noted as one of the comic’s coolest villains with an unflinching belief in darwinism, the film’s villain more represents a shell of that. Oscar Isaac isn’t the problem, as he gives the performance his best effort, but the character has weak motivations at best, and isn’t all that menacing or memorable. A product of a lazily crafted script where the character that binds it all together has no real dimensions and is essentially a flat shell of a cooler idea. It’s ironic that Fox spent almost 200 million making Apocalypse, and spent just under 60 million on Deadpool, a far superior film. The best way to describe X-Men: Apocalypse is a mixed bag, because it’s not a terrible movie, but it’s not a very good movie either, it’s just mediocre. The film is obviously the product of a poorly crafted script, which is a shame, because it could have, and thus should have, been better.

When I first heard about Keanu, a feature film debut for the comedy duo Key & Peele I was very excited because I love the show. Key & Peele have consistently shown that they are clever comedians, and Keanu only serves as further proof of their talent. Keanu is often funny, mostly because of the infectious chemistry of it's leads, despite a few narrative weaknesses. Perhaps the most impressive thing about Keanu is the originality of the jokes, in a day and age where comedies are typically very lazily made. A lot of comedies today are like modern horror movies, they are extremely lazily made and not very good at what they are supposed to do. Keanu features some very clever jokes that are really funny, and border on being hilarious. Some of the jokes fall flat, and this isn’t the funniest comedy I’ve ever seen, but a lot of the jokes are funny, and original. The movie is at it’s best when the two main characters are on the screen, as their chemistry is electric. The biggest selling point of this film is Key & Peele, because those two comedians have proven to be hilarious, and are even better when they are together. The two main characters, played by Key & Peele, are the obvious focus of the film, as every other character in the film is clearly an afterthought. Given how the story progresses it’s easy to care about the two main characters, but all other characters lack the same depth, making the clear focus of the film Key & Peele, but sacrificing quality in the process. While the film is clever, somewhat original, and often funny it also has a few too many plot holes. Like most comedies today, the story of Keanu was written simply to tie a long list of jokes together, and because of that it feels weak. There are multiple moments where the cleverness that was infused in the jokes, is abandoned for the story. The film’s story is also not as original as the jokes, as the story feels at least a little like Taken. All-in-all the jokes are what matters in this film, as many, if not all, who see this movie will see it for the humor and not the story. The jokes are clever, fairly original, often funny, and don’t fall short very often. For those who like Key & Peele, this movie will not disappoint, and may even exceed expectations. If you like their style, or if you like funny movies, this movie is definitely for you.

Captain America: Civil War is in my opinion the best Marvel Studios film to date, I do not say that lightly. I loved Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers, but Civil War does everything that Marvel has needed to do for a while. Civil War is perfectly written, crafted with care and heart, and feature brilliant character development. All things considered Civil War is a feat, because it finally shows that Marvel is willing to take some risks, all the while remaining true to what has made their films so enjoyable. When looking at Civil War, in specific the story, it’s almost perfect. The story serves as a culmination of all the events that have occurred in the ever expanding marvel cinematic universe. The great thing about this film is it’s the first comic book film to intelligently address the issue of how do people respond to the seemingly endless carnage created by the main characters. Such a simple idea is perfectly applied create a thought provoking movie where every action has a repercussion. The brilliance of this film can’t be understated, because the politics within the film are fictional, but feel realistic, and are dominated by shades of grey. The film finds a way to be more brave than any of the previous marvel films by taking risks and attacking deep issues, but keeps the iconic sense of humor marvel has become known for. It should be noted that the film’s not dark or anything, but it does attack complex themes, and conveys a surprising amount of emotional depth for a summer blockbuster. When you consider the density of the story and the amount of characters featured it’s amazing that the film worked as well as it did. That brings me to what I consider the most impressive element of the entire film, the character development. It’s difficult to have a film with as many characters as this film has, and make every character feel well developed, but this film does that, more so it makes you feel for characters who are brawling with each other. The acting was one reason the characters feel so well developed as the actors brought small nuances that sold the characters that much more, and while Chris Evans is great in this film the real superstar is Robert Downey Jr., who brings so many emotions to his performance in this film. This is in my opinion the best portrayal of Iron Man since his original film, but the irony is that the show stealer is Spider-Man who marvel nailed. For those who enjoy films that are funny, touching, action-packed, or just good stories this film won’t disappoint. This film is what Batman v. Superman should have been, however is even more impressive because the film finds a way to juggle so many different tasks, and does it well. Captain America: Civil War is one of those great films that everybody can watch and enjoy for different reasons. If you like movies of this genre, check Civil War out because it’s one of the best in recent memory.

When Barbershop came out in 2002, I felt it was a great comedy, because it was hilarious, and it had a great message, so naturally a belated sequel excited me. The cast from the old film is gone, except for Ice Cube and Cedric the Entertainer, who are back. Barbershop: The Next Cut is funny, contains a heartwarming message, and features a lot more depth than many would expect from a comedy. It should be noted now, I do feel that the original Barbershop was a better all around film. Barbershop: The Next Cut as a comedy alone, isn’t hilarious but is quite funny, and will have a few good moments of laughter, but nothing truly hilarious. From the comedy perspective, one character helps keep these films funny, and that’s Cedric the Entertainer. Unfortunately, I watched the film comparing it to the original, and the original was clearly funnier, as the focus in “The Next Cut” was not on the comedy as much. The only problem with that is that in Barbershop the film was so funny, that when it switched to being serious, those moments resonated with the audience, where in this film they don’t resonate as much. The film does try to be serious quite often, which isn’t a surprise, and in fact is one of the best elements of the film. However you take the message, it’s a good message, and putting a message that we can all agree upon in a comedy makes it even better. The film does a really great job reflecting on the community structure of today, ironically though the message, while directed at poverty stricken places, isn’t limited exclusively to one of place or group of people, we all can learn from this movie. As happened with Barbershop in 2002, “The Next Cut” has an unexpected amount of emotional depth. It’s refreshing in the climate of modern comedies, where many of them are mechanical, that a comedy can show so much depth. The Next Cut, much like it’s predecessor is able to be both funny and serious, making the moments when it is serious even more powerful. It’s also nice to see a group with so much chemistry that they feel and look like a real community, so when they fight it feels real. In the end Barbershop: The Next Cut is a really good comedy film, that does exactly what comedy should do, makes you laugh and teaches you life lessons along the way. The film is both funny, and emotional, which is really refreshing when some comedies are neither. The only thing for those who love the original Barbershop is that “The Next Cut”, in my opinion, is not quite as good, but is extremely close. For anybody that wants a good relaxing time at the theater, this movie is a perfect choice.

With such a focus on originality today, many filmmakers feel pressured to go out and find the next big thing. Unfortunately, the POV first person camera may be the next big fad in Hollywood, and that’s not good. Hardcore Henry is very original, but has no real story, and contains a lot of nauseating camera work. The biggest problem, is us, we’ve encouraged things like this film to happen, and now we have it. Today’s critics seem to latch onto one critique more than any other, and that is the originality argument. Many people will tell you no film today is really original, but then a film like this comes along. Shot like a videogame this film is original in both look and narrative, however, the focus on creating this video game like look lead to a weak storyline. It seems sad that our generation just craves things that are original, so much so that when we get it, we don’t care about quality. The greatest flaw of the film is the narrative, or serious lack thereof. Many, if not all, characters are grossly underdeveloped, especially the villain who is goofy and weak. The story is more of a incoherent assembly of scenes, that does little more than further the confusion. It seems that from the outset, Hardcore Henry was always about the POV feel and look. It is ironic, because the film is plotless, and the action doesn’t really look good either. The gimmick of this film is for the audience to feel like they are in the shoes of the main character. The problem is the main character bobs and weaves so much the film is more on a nauseating set of fight scenes. On top of the terribly shaky action sequences, where very little is visible, the film is poorly edited, furthering the confusing story by jumping around randomly. On top of that, the way the characters and story are presented, time in the film is totally jumbled, and nothing seems to make sense until the end of the film, at which time it’s too late. In conclusion Hardcore Henry, is an all-out attack on it’s viewers senses, as they are put through a non stop set of nauseating action sequences. The film has no real story, and throws characters in and out of the film, creating a confusing mess of a story. So yes the film is original, but that doesn’t make it good or worth watching, because there’s a gross lack of craft in this film. I suggest you don’t watch this film because the only selling point is the new POV shooting style, which alone is not enough to make a good movie.

Disney’s live action adaptation of their animated classic, The Jungle Book, is a brilliant remake that gives a different take on the well known story. Watching The Jungle Book, it’s clear that Disney was trying to go for a more mature tone, while still honoring their animated film. The Jungle Book is visually stunning, features brilliant voice acting, and updates the Disney classic with a modern twist. It should be noted how impressive this film is when considering that the entire film was shot in a studio in Los Angeles. When you think of films that are groundbreaking in terms of special effects, you may think of Avatar or Star Wars, but possibly this movie may be one of the most groundbreaking. Considering that everything in this film, except the actor portraying Mowgli, is computer generated, and that the effects are seamless is extremely impressive. The Jungle Book may open a door for other films that originally seemed impossible may become possible. Most impressive is that the film looks gorgeous, regardless of the backstory, the film’s look is never dull, and always impressive. The casting department deserves a ton of credit for this film as well, because the voice cast was perfect. Perhaps the best casting was Bill Murray as Baloo, who could literally have played this character in his sleep. However, that’s not to take away from the other voice cast members. Idris Elba was perfect as Shere Khan, Ben Kingsley nailed the stern Bagheera, Scarlett Johansson’s voice lent itself perfectly to Kaa the snake, and even Christopher Walken as King Louie fit perfectly. It’s not everyday that a cast comes together so well, but every voice cast member fit their role perfectly. One major thing to note is that while the film honors the original film (which was quite silly) very well, the tone and look is quite different in the updated version. They still break into song occasionally, but the overall tone of the live action remake is darker overall, and more mature. That’s not to say that the film isn’t family friendly, it is, but the film isn’t as harmless as the original was, but the film isn’t afraid to scare the audience, and pulls no punches. This is simply because of the timing, in the 60’s animated films weren’t as dark as live action films today seem to have to be. Overall The Jungle Book is an exciting, gorgeous, solidly crafted, and more mature entry to the growing list of Disney classic remakes. The film juggles the new audience’s expectations with the classic elements of the original beautifully, and what it creates is truly amazing. The film isn’t perfect, but is a great entry to the Disney live action canon. Above those who love Disney, and Disney classics, this is just in general a great retelling of this story, and should be seen in theaters, where the visual effects are showcased at their best.

Batman v. Superman is finally here, and it’s now official that DC is trying to match Marvel, but lacks the skillfulness. Batman v. Superman is probably one of, if not the most, hyped films of the year, where 2 of the most iconic comic-book characters finally come together on the big screen. Batman v. Superman is action packed, crowded, and rushed making it a true mixed bag. For those who want to enjoy a great action film, and don’t care about some of the finer details, this will probably live up to expectations. As with it’s predecessor Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman handles the action sequences really well. The film’s special effects are also very good, and the character designs are very well done. It seems with this film most of the positives revolve around Ben Affleck and Batman, as he seems to be the main focus of the film. Batman’s characterization seems to be the not just a shining spot in the cloud of carnage that is this film, but possibly one of the best Batman characterizations ever. On that note Batman saves this film, because the rest of the film is in a word, a mess. The film tries to do too much, which seems odd since Marvel’s The Avengers was able to handle the same task perfectly. When looking at it Superman, Lois Lane, Wonder-Woman, Lex Luthor, and other various characters are underdeveloped simply because they aren’t given enough screen time. Not only are they not given enough screen time, but the writers rush through shoddy plot points simply to get back to Batman, as if they know the only thing they were getting right was Batman. The issue with that is if the focus is Batman, then they made the wrong film here, and the film comes across as a wasted opportunity. The problem is the objective of the film, which was to do too much, and therefore rush through the underdeveloped story. Looking at it they either should have done a Batman standalone film or a smaller version of this, which focuses on Batman and Superman, not Wonder-Woman, Lois Lane, Perry White, and countless other throwaway characters. This is where Marvel gets it right and DC still hasn’t figured it out. In the end Batman v. Superman is a decent popcorn flick, that contains amazing visuals and action sequences. The film isn’t really bad, it just isn’t great, when it really could have and therefore should have been. It should be said that while the film is rushed, crowded, paper-thin, and a little repetitive Ben Affleck and Zack Snyder did do a pretty good job getting Batman right, and that leaves potential for this franchise, but it’s hanging on a thread. In the end if you’re on the edge about seeing this film, it depends on what you want, if you want great action and visuals this is your film, if you want great story and characters, this is a weaker film.

With Pixar being owned by Disney, there seems to have been a nice amount of bleed over between the two, Pixar is more consistent with the quality of their films, but every once and awhile a movie of Pixar’s quality comes from Disney. We should remember that Disney was once, and in many ways still is the premiere animation company, but not that long ago they had been struggling to put out great films. Zootopia is smart, funny, and is mature in its storytelling and in its message. It’s very nice to see a movie directed at kids that has respect and treats kids as people who can understand complex themes, not mindless creatures that need simple cliched messages. In that respect Zootopia is more like a Pixar film, where Pixar has shown an understanding that complex messages can be the most emotionally powerful and while being complex can be presented in a simple, and straightforward way. Much like Inside Out taught us so much about using our emotions, especially sadness, Zootopia has a great message about fear and the treatment of entire groups of people because of that fear. It’s ironic, because the movie indirectly latches onto an issue that is relevant today, with an air of innocence and purity. On top of that at a deeper level, the film is witty, in that everything ties together and that the audience is forced to think as the movie progresses. The humor is witty as well, in particular the scene about the DMV which is so funny because it’s spot on. The witty humor and complex messages make this film enjoyable for everybody, not just kids. Every character in the film is given a great amount of thought and development, making it so that they all have moments to grow, and are extremely relatable. Unfortunately the film’s villain has good motivations, however at the end when they reveal who the villain is they come across as campy and over the top. The movie does a great job creating an inventive world where animals from all different habitats can coexist in one city. The film then proceeds to partially waste it’s inventive world on various scenes that are plucked straight out of other films, namely the Godfather. However, those scenes are only a small takeaway from the movie as a whole, because they don’t last very long and are admittedly clever. That along with the overall maturity the screenwriters used still makes the film a great accomplishment. Zootopia never really looked like a film that would be this good, but after seeing the amazing amount of craft and effort, it seems this may be one of the better animated films of the year. The film does what every animated film should do, it tells a solid story with a lot of emotional depth, and a message that can hopefully teach kids important lessons. The film is also funny, smart, beautifully animated, filled with great characters, and features great voice work. If you have kids, and they haven’t seen this film yet, it’s safe to say they’d enjoy it, but they may possibly take an important life lesson away from seeing it to.

10 Cloverfield Lane had a few appealing features, but didn’t seem as though it was poised to be as good as it was. Seeing the trailer the film looked odd, as it was a sequel to a found-footage disaster movie that was set in one location amongst only 3 characters. 10 Cloverfield Lane is tensely confining, well-written, and takes the franchise in a totally different direction. That being said this film could have been great if it had not been part of the cloverfield franchise, however it also did well within that universe. The film is very tense, similar to last year’s Room, in that it’s very confining and isolated. The film benefits from good performances all around, but most notably that of John Goodman who plays the sympathetic yet deranged Howard. Goodman’s cold yet soft performance helps build tension as the character clearly controls the situation, but is unpredictable and often erratic. With a brilliantly dark and somewhat nightmarish tone, the film plays out like a human version of mice in a rigged maze. The story in the film is unpredictable and very well written, most likely due to the fact that “Whiplash” writer and director Damien Chazelle co-wrote the script. The story unfolds with one twist after another, with each twist bigger than the last, until the film builds into its climax perfectly. Another element that was very well done was the character development, as each character is well-rounded, and given a good arc. With a good story and great characters 10 Cloverfield Lane is a well-written sequel to Cloverfield, that even improves upon its predecessor. One thing to note, while it may seem obvious, 10 Cloverfield Lane is very different from Cloverfield. Where Cloverfield was a found-footage disaster film with a huge scope, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a very confined traditionally shot thriller about people trapped in a bunker. That being said fans of the original may not be as fond of 10 Cloverfield Lane, whereas some who disliked Cloverfield may enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane. However, they are very different films, with 10 Cloverfield Lane more focused on character development, and drama. In the end, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a well crafted thriller, that delivers, mostly due to great writing. The film is very tense, well-acted, well-written,unpredictable, and very different from its predecessor in size and scope. The end result is a great film that is in many ways better than the original Cloverfield, because of the effort and care of the people making it. For those that love tense thrillers, or just in general great films, this film will surely entertain.

The Witch is a good movie, but it also has a very narrow audience. For those that love slow, yet tense, horror films that are as bizarre as they are scary, this film is for you. The Witch is unnerving, super realistic, and wacky to a fault. I will say that the film’s writer and director Robert Eggers did an amazing job for a directorial debut, and he is undoubtedly a force to watch in the future. From the opening scene of the film to the very end the film is unnerving. The film is quite slow, but never really boring, because the filmmakers did a great job creating a very tense tone. The tone is essentially formed from three major elements of the movie, the bone-chilling music, the ominous cinematography (especially in the forest), and the always noticeable presence of darkness lurking. In this film the titular character isn’t in the film often, but their presence is felt. Combine that with the excruciating attention to detail, and the film takes on a sense of reality. The film is extremely realistic, and that is because Eggers took the time, and had the attention to detail to make the film as realistic as possible. While the dialogue may distract some, it is exactly how people used to talk in the colonial era. The lighting is usually dim, but is to is realistic as the film is literally made to look as if it’s being lit by candlelight or moonlight. The actors were on point, most likely due to great direction, and the sets were almost exactly what one would expect things to look like back then. That kind of dedication, deserves respect, but it also helps the audience get lost in the filmic world. However, the film is downright wacky, and in some ways that’s great, and in others it hurt the film a little. The film is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before, in an interview Eggers said his original pitch was “too weird, or too obscure” considering the film he made, I want to see that film because this one was wonderfully obscure and weird. However, the film was a little hard to follow, at times it felt as though too many things would happen in a short period filled with moments of confusion, which did help reinforce the insanity the characters were growing into, but made it harder to follow. It may not have helped the film, but as an observation, the film was devoid of humor. In the end, the film is original, unnerving, realistic, very well made, but does have an obscure feeling to it. The cinematography is beautiful, the filmmakers had an amazing attention to detail, and horror fans will most likely like the film. If you like the wacky, weird, obscure horror films that don’t rely on cliches and jump scares, check this film out.

Fans of Deadpool have waited at least 7 years for the “Merc with a Mouth” to get his own film, and finally we have it, but even better is after the wait it delivers. Ryan Reynolds is perfectly cast as Deadpool, and his dedication to getting the character right forms a true portrayal of a character that is very hard to get right, as we learned 7 years ago. Deadpool is hilarious, bitingly smart, and paced like the foul mouthed energizer bunny from hell. In an interview Reynolds said this film has been in production for 11 years, it would seem that the long wait helped the film, because by the time they finally made it, everybody involved wanted to get it right. Deadpool is genuinely hilarious film, by that I mean there are multiple times where everybody in the theater laugh hysterically. The film is even funnier for those that love, and know all about comic book films, because it makes snide comments about the studio and the genre all throughout. Fans of the character will appreciate the fact that Deadpool doesn’t pull any punches, it’s hilarious from the opening credits to the post credits scene. On top of that Reynolds comedic chops are perfectly complemented by the foul mouthed anti-hero. It shouldn’t come as any kind of a surprise that Deadpool is a metafilm, as the character’s trademarks are breaking the fourth wall, and poking fun at other comic book characters. The film manages to avoid being cliched, because of it’s metafilm approach and while not dodging all cliches it winks when it uses one. For those that have seen or genuinely obsess over comic book films, the film is littered with snide pokes at the genre, and a warning for those interested these pokes come early and often. The film is witty to a fault, and honors the character perfectly. From the hilarious opening of the film to the post credits scene the pacing of the film is frenetic. The film begins with a bang, and brilliantly tells it’s story in a non-linear format that keeps the film from ever feeling slow. It would have been nice if the low budget hadn’t been so noticeable, despite the fact that it gives Deadpool plenty of fodder. One thing that seemed poorly done was the Colossus character, because he’s featured in the other X-Men films as a completely different character in look and personality. In the end lovers of the deadpool character will love the film, because it’s faithful to everything the character embodies. The film is smart, funny, well-paced, and builds off Reynolds performance to make a genuinely entertaining film. The film has a few small flaws that are few and far between, but overall succeeds in respectfully bringing “The Merc with a Mouth” to the big screen. Note that this film is very mature, but when looking for a great film for an adult’s night out this film is perfect.

Kung Fu Panda is yet another solid entry in the Kung Fu Panda film series. It should be noted that while it’s subjective, my opinion is that Kung Fu Panda 3 is ever so slightly the weakest of the franchise, but that’s not a knock on the film. Kung Fu Panda 3 is often funny, beautifully animated, and features great characters. This is another great animated film for the entire family, that will surely delight people of all ages. The tone of Kung Fu Panda 3 is a somewhat silly one, much like the other Kung Fu Panda films, however it does a good job of balancing mature themes with silly humor. The film also does a good job of balancing both subtle and witty humor with more bombastic and silly humor. The humor is bolstered by the terrific voice acting of the entire cast, which is as per usual great. Many times throughout this film I found myself laughing hysterically. Another impressive element of the film is the amazing animation in this film. It may seem like every animated film features beautiful animation, but the animation in this film is truly amazing. Another impressive element of the animation is the action, which in an animated film may not seem like something to watch for, but the action sequences in Kung Fu Panda 3 are amazing. Many times watching this film the animation is so good it looks real, which is in it’s own right an amazing accomplishment. The film’s pacing is great, but what’s even better is the character development. With a story that isn’t the strongest, the characters keep the film entertaining. Besides the villain, a character who feels like a forced conflict thrown in just to give the film drama, all of the characters in this film have some kind of development. Many of the characters are relatable, which helps the audience care about them. With characters that the audience can relate to and root for, the consequences of the film feel even heavier. In Conclusion Kung Fu Panda 3 is a great fun film for the entire film with a little bit of something for everyone. The film is gorgeously animated, features well developed characters, great action sequences, good voice acting, and a terrific sense of humor. Despite the weak villain, occasionally silly tone, and some cliches the film is still very enjoyable. If you have some young kids take them to this film you’ll all enjoy it.

Hail, Caesar! as a film feels very much like an attempt by the Coen Brothers to make an old-fashioned Hollywood film, in a day and age where it is not accepted. For those who love the films of 1950’s Hollywood, and the general history of Hollywood this film is a great way to spend time. Hail, Caesar! is funny, well shot, but lacks the memorable stature of the previous Coen Brothers films. For those who love Coen Brother’s films this is not there best, but is still enjoyable. Not that it is all that surprising but this film has quite a few moments that are truly laugh-out-loud funny, but the humor is more subtle. It should be noted that the film is not as funny as The Big Lebowski, so those hoping for another Coen Brothers comedy classic it may not be that funny. Another small problem with the humor is that while the film is funny, many of the funnier jokes are in the trailer, and naturally the film lacks surprises. Another trademark of the Coen Brothers is there beautiful cinematography, thanks to cinematographer Roger Deakins. It seems ironic watching it because the film is set in 50’s Hollywood and the film reels they watch look like some of the cleanest film of today. The overall look of the film is mesmerizing, and may be honored a year from now for it’s cinematography. However, in many aspects the film falls short of the expectations that the Coen Brothers deserve today. While the film is a good and solid entry it has a few too many weaknesses. The villains of the film are a little weak, and because of the crowded story are never really fleshed out in a realistic way. On top of that the story is a little weak, often taking detours that aren’t necessary, and often feeling as though what we’re seeing isn’t all that important. The film also seems to gloss over the consequences of characters actions, and tries to just be funny, but not over the top just subtly funny, which doesn’t quite jive. In the end Hail, Caesar is a comedy for the thinking man who doesn’t like the modern comedies that are often dumb and overbearing. Hail, Caesar is a film that looks back at 50’s Hollywood lovingly, and for that reason is a great film for film buffs, especially those that love classic Hollywood. However, if you’re expecting a great comedy that is both subtle, and brilliant like The Big Lebowski, this isn’t quite that.

This is an animated movie that often gets overlooked and forgotten but should be remembered as a modern comedy classic. What is most overlooked, and surprising is the depth and narrative heft of the film. The Spongebob Movie is often hilarious, gleefully silly, and surprisingly deep. It may never get the accreditation it deserves, but the Spongebob Movie is a film that should be re-evaluated, and maybe it would gain recognition as a underlooked animated gem. The humor in the Spongebob Movie maybe directed at children, but it would take a joyless person who takes life way too seriously not to find the film funny. The jokes are inventive and come early and often. The film is a perfect manifestation of the TV show in filmic form, without feeling like a bloated episode. It’s also great, because in an age when animated TV Shows have begun to cater more to stoners than children, including the latter, this movie still has an appeal for everybody. The film is gleefully silly, which only makes the film that much funnier. Admittedly there are a few moments when the film oversteps the threshold of what is funny, and what is over-the-top, but for the most part the film maintains a fun tone. One of the single greatest strengths of is the villain, Dennis, who’s one of the funniest villains of all time. The sheer stupidity of some characters, matched with the deadpan seriousness of Dennis makes every scene he’s in, even more hilarious. Above the humor, The Spongebob Movie is also surprisingly deep, in both character development and the film’s message. While viewers may not think about these things while watching Spongebob, the film has a great message about growing up, and how the world can forget to be silly every once and awhile. The film is actually a really great portrait of today’s society, and how everybody feels the need to grow up so fast instead of embracing their inner child. This is a movie that can get overlooked by adults, because it’s silly and childish, but as a reflection of the society, the film is brilliant. The film is funny, and is a great film to sit back and watch with the family. For the best viewing experience one should embrace their inner child, which isn’t as bad as some would try to make it sound. In the end The Spongebob Movie should be considered a comedy classic, as it’s exponentially funnier than some of the best comedies today.

Dirty Grandpa is sad because it should have been better with the cast and premise, but in the end it falls flat of every expectation. Know this isn’t just a dumb comedy that is still a funny film, this film is rarely ever funny. Bad Grandpa is racist, so dumb it’s amazing, and not very funny. The worst part of this film is seeing the great Robert De Niro, who is one of the all-time greats, in such a terrible film. The script is so bad that it’s worth wondering what the screenwriter was going for. One of the biggest problems the film has is it’s racist and mean-spirited humor, which is instigated by De Niro’s character. On top of that their is no character development, so just about every character is a stereotype or a cliche, the worst of which is Aubrey Plaza’s character. It may seem odd to say, but the racism is just the tip of the iceberg with this film. The element that is truly mind boggling is how dumb Dirty Grandpa is, it is so dumb that the screenwriter had to have some kind of a purpose, it’s just not clear what that is. There is one character in the film Pam, played by Jason Mantzoukas, who brings the film down like a smelly kid at the playground. Every gag involving the Pam character is just plain stupid, so stupid it can’t be taken serious, and drags the film down. It’s the flat supporting characters that make the film so dumb, and even condescending because they clearly show that the writers think the audience can’t figure out a simple joke. On top of the sheer stupidity, and the racism Dirty Grandpa isn’t very funny, maybe except a 13 year old boy who is laughing more because he feels like he shouldn’t be watching the film than at the humor of the jokes. De Niro and Efron have little comedic chemistry, and they are the only characters to offer any genuine humor, the supporting characters just bumble around like idiots as the plotless film trucks along. From a story standpoint the film is bad in just about every aspect, except that it’s not too hard to follow. When you consider De Niro’s comedic talent, showcased in Meet the Parents and Analyze This, and Efron’s talent it’s a showcase of wasted talent. The film is plotless, racist, dumb, silly, poorly-acted, poorly-paced, cliched, and filled with flat characters. Dirty Grandpa’s biggest problem is most likely that it was lazily made, but watching it, it feels like the filmmakers had to know and went beyond not caring. If you wondering if you should see this in theaters, I wouldn’t if I were you.

Michael Bay in every film he’s done has shown that he bleeds red, white, and blue, so go into this film knowing it’s very patriotic. For those who want a war film that is patriotic, action-packed, and honors its heroes stop reading, because this is the film you want to see. For those looking for a great war film, 13 Hours is an action packed film, that offers little clarity on the complex subject, and is filled with cliches. My opinion is this film came way too early, and if this film had been made in 5 to 10 years, the story would have been more fleshed out. Michael Bay is a great director when it comes to framing and shooting action sequences, this film showcases that. The film is loaded with action and uses very effective practical effects, making every explosion feel and look real. For a war film, it has a pretty good sense of humor, which helps lighten up the mood at times, and the performances are spot on. As well the film does a great job honoring the heroes of that day, in essence, it’s a very patriotic film. However, for those looking for a film that was going to delve into the controversial story of what happened on September 11th, 2012, and give clarity, this film doesn’t do that. In fact, the storytelling in this film is quite weak. The first act of the plot focuses too much on irrelevant subplots that dilute the film, and glosses over crucial moments, like for instance why the fighter jets in Italy didn’t come for assistance. The film ends up being, even more, confusing because the filmmakers were too afraid to offend either political party that is eagerly watching the impact of this film. Another problem the film suffers, independent from the fear of political ramifications is the fact that the film is loaded with cliches. On top of that many of the characters, are either cliched stereotypes or underdeveloped. Even more disappointing is that the terrorist characters are weak, as the film doesn’t go in depth on who they are, or why they attack the consulate in the first place. So the true story of 6 brave heroes, becomes more of a shallow action/war film, and less a true story about these heroes. In the end, for those who want to see this movie because it’s a true story about 6 soldiers who courageously fought to protect American lives, in hostile Libya, this film won’t disappoint. For those who want a film that tells a story that is well-crafted and easy to follow, while delving into the ever complex details, this isn’t that. This film is still very patriotic, and it seems as though that’s the biggest reason to see this movie, not to politicize, but to honor heroes, both fallen and alive. It’s truly a discretionary call on whether or not to see this film.

The Big Short is one of those films that everybody could enjoy, and everybody should see. While the film is not perfect it is very funny, probably because the director is comedy specialist Adam McKay, and is also a somewhat important film because it’s very revealing. The Big Short is interesting and educational, features a great ensemble, but is subject to some distracting camerawork. For anybody interested in the 2008 Housing Market Crash this film is perfect. The film begins with narration that addresses the biggest problem the film will have, which is that the Housing Market Crash of 2008 was an extremely complicated issue, that is why so few saw it coming. The story is so complicated, because it requires some understanding of how the housing system worked at the time, which apparently most of the people running the system at the time didn’t even have, so the film ends up teaching the audience how the crash happened. That sounds boring, but the film does a brilliant job by doing it through hilarious cameos and lacing the overly informational pieces with humor. The film accomplishes the very hard task of making the mess understandable, and even teaching those interested enough about how it went wrong. When looking at it The Big Short clearly had a great script, with dialogue that just rolls, but in such a complicated movie the acting had to be good. Christian Bale is very good as the wacky Dr. Michael Burry, often embodying the odd personality he was tasked with, and even handling the task of showing a misunderstood genius. The other performer who was terrific was Steve Carell, who has consistently proved that he’s not just a great comedy actor. While Carell is known for films like The 40 Year Old Virgin, last years Foxcatcher and now The Big Short prove that he can give a performance with emotional depth, and a sense of humanity. The only thing that the film really doesn’t well is it’s camerawork, which in such a complicated story seems too distracting. The Filmmakers felt they needed to rely on Close-Ups, rack focuses, and shaky movement. To be clear the film only feels so shaky, because much of the film is shot handheld, and in close-ups, which will accentuate movement. It’s easy with a lot of soft focus, which this film plays with a lot, to be pulled out of the film, and thus it requires even more effort from the audience to follow what’s happening. To make an example it’s like if somebody pointed at something in a dark cave at night, and then pointed a flashlight in your face, as you looked for it. In the end, The Big Short is a funny, intelligent, well-acted, and interesting view of the few men able to make money when everybody else was losing money hand over fist. The entire ensemble of talented big name actors carry their own weight, and some even rise above expectations. To be honest everybody should watch this film, because it tells the ever important story of how ignorance caused a worldwide meltdown, and we’re apt to do it again if we don’t learn from our mistakes.

Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg have good comedic chemistry, if you need real proof look no further than The Other Guys, this isn’t quite as funny. If you’re hoping for something like The Other Guys, these two films share a few similarities but are ultimately very different films. Daddy’s Home has its stretches of good humor, but ultimately drags on, and offers nothing really new to the comedy genre. It should be clarified that the film has a good amount of humor, so if that’s the main concern Daddy’s Home should deliver. The comedic premise of this film is exactly the same as The Other Guys, in that Will Ferrell plays a bland man while Mark Wahlberg brings some chaos into his life. The film is fairly funny and proves that there’s still water in that well, for the moment. The film has a fun tone, that’s infectious, even the most serious people could find themselves smiling during stretches of the film. However, these stretches are too inconsistent. The film is only an hour and a half but feels more like a two-hour film. While many of the film’s gags work, many other gags feel like long stretches of awkwardness, that just drag on. To further that, while the film is funny, it’s never hilarious, or belly-aching funny. The film ultimately leaves a feeling of emptiness, because it tries to be funny, but ultimately fails for stretches, and drags on. Maybe the worst thing the film does is what it doesn’t do, which is offer any original concepts to the comedy genre. When you get so many talented people working together and you get jokes that are rehashes from previous films they did or rip-offs of Bridesmaids jokes, it’s disappointing. The film is dumb, in the sense of logic within the story, but also in terms of effort, as a film that only rehashes old jokes is just lazy. It seems unfortunate that the filmmakers couldn’t make a denser story to fill the framework of the film. In the end, if you’re looking for a comedy that has a good amount of laughs in it, that you can watch with the family, Daddy’s Home will get the job done. However, if you’re searching for the next great comedy, that offers new ideas to the somewhat cliched comedy genre, this isn’t it. In the end, Daddy’s Home is somewhat funny, features good chemistry from it’s two leads, and has some decent character development, but fails on the originality test.

The Revenant isn’t like most westerns that have very straightforward moral dilemmas and are fun tones, it is dark, and it is complicated. The Revenant is a movie with a lot of backstories that makes, it even more impressive than it already is, and it is impressive. The Revenant is brilliantly acted, features beautiful cinematography all the while showing deep narrative heft. The film is poised to receive major awards attention, and rightfully so. The first piece of backstory surrounding this film is fairly well known, and that is that Leonardo DiCaprio is still fighting for his first Oscar. After seeing this film, it seems safe to say that his performance is oscar worthy. DiCaprio carries the movie as long stretches of the film feature DiCaprio alone, acting in an isolated surrounding, which is even harder to do. DiCaprio often balances soft-hearted empathy and stone-cold revenge within small stretches, and every emotion is well accentuated. While the focus is on DiCaprio, because he’s the cornerstone of the film, Tom Hardy and Domhall Gleeson are also brilliant in this film as well. Another piece of backstory that may not be as well known is that Director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu and Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki decided to shoot the entire film with nothing but natural light. To go a little deeper, considering exposure and reciprocity this gave the filmmakers only a few hours to shoot per day in order to get a good exposure. Even more impressive is that the film is stunningly gorgeous, and by that I mean that the film looks professionally lit, despite the use of no lighting. This is Lubezki’s third consecutive cinematography masterpiece, and he’ll probably end up winning his third consecutive Oscar for cinematography. The other impressive aspect of the film is the story. Most westerns tell straightforward stories, with simple characters (good guy vs. bad guy), that’s not bad it’s just easier to follow. The Revenant mixes traditional western conventions such as the use sweeping panoramic vistas, and the typical setting, but has far more complicated and deeper characters. All of the characters in this film are relatable because their motivations are easy to follow, just not always pleasant. The end result of the realistic character development is that the story is far more realistic and thus thought provoking. In conclusion, The Revenant is brilliantly acted, and may be the film to finally get Leonardo DiCaprio his much awaited Oscar win. The film is beautifully shot and will, more than likely, win the Best Cinematography oscar. The story is uncompromising, and graphic when it needs to be. For those who love artistic films, this is right up your alley, and for those who love westerns, you’ll probably enjoy it too.

In the last few years, awareness about the problems retired football players are facing has risen. Just a few years ago a large group of retired football players sued the NFL because they all had concussion-related issues, Concussion is about the beginning of that. Concussion is well acted, tells a well-timed story, albeit it being a little generic. The best thing about this movie is Will Smith, especially his performance as Dr. Bennet Omalu. Will Smith anchors the film as Forensic Pathologist Bennet Omalu, and he flourishes in the role, even handling Omalu’s accent pretty well. The film features a talented ensemble including Alec Baldwin, Albert Brooks, and Gugu Mbatha Raw. The entire ensemble is great, even the actors only appearing for short periods, despite some weak characters. Perhaps the only caveat is that Smith and Raw’s romance feels more awkward than romantic at times, but it seems that was intentional. The film also does very well portraying a timely story, that will undoubtedly be relevant for years to come. The film brilliantly shows the story of one man against one of the biggest corporations in America and the cover-up of a major issue. That is not an overly original storytelling method, but the film definitely portrays the NFL as an “evil” organization. Much like Spotlight earlier this year, the film shows the scary true story of how when an organization gets too much power it can cover up terrible truths. The film does have some problems, namely, that is somewhat generic and slow. Concussion follows the sports drama formula and struggles pushing the story along. While the film is only 2 hours, it feels more like 2 and a half hours. Because the film tells a story that is still unfolding, it’s ending is a little anti-climactic. On top of that, the dialogue in the film isn’t very good, and the film has next to no humor. Concussion is a very entertaining sports drama featuring a great performance from Will Smith. The film’s story is interesting, because of it’s modern appeal, as well as the fact that it pulls no punches, and ambitiously accuses one of the most powerful corporations in america. However, the film struggles it feels long, is a little generic, and limps to the end. In the end, sports fans will more than likely enjoy the film, but beware the film has a lot of football criticisms littered through it.

Quentin Tarantino, whether you like his films or not, deserves credit as one of the best directors of our age, because his films are so consistently great. Tarantino’s “Hateful 8” should be experienced as he intended, in 70mm film showings, because average theaters can’t quite do the film justice. The Hateful 8 is blood covered fun, with a story that is surprisingly unpredictable, and features truly beautiful cinematography. A note for anybody not aware, Tarantino’s films are extremely gory and feature strong language, so if you don’t like that kind of subject matter, this film isn’t for you. Tarantino’s is notorious for his use of gore and language, but he always finds a way to make it fun. The Hateful 8 is no exception as the film is both extremely gory, and often hilarious. One of the biggest reasons the film is so funny is Tarantino’s iconic, and witty dialogue. It is widely discussed that Tarantino is one of the best writers of dialogue and “The Hateful 8” is a great showcase of that. Before seeing the film, I was curious, because the film was advertised as a story of 8 people trapped in a cottage during a blizzard, while that is a part of the story, it is far larger than that. The best example is that entering the film Channing Tatum was confirmed to be in the film, and it seemed unclear what role he could have, however he has a pretty significant role in the film. In many ways the plot unfolds like a game of clue, and the story is unpredictable in what turns the plot will take next. The unpredictable plot helps save the almost 3 hour running time, which is a little too long. An example of why the run time is just a little too long, is a lot of the film focuses on the cinematography, which is why the 70mm film showings are truly worth the time to see. Most of the film is set in the gorgeous snow covered mountains of Wyoming, and the use of 70mm film gives the entire film a sleek and classical look. While the film could have been tightened up a little, if there wasn’t such a focus on the cinematography, the film would lose a little of the spectacle that makes it so special. In the end The Hateful 8 is a spectacle, that should be experienced the way it was intended to, in a 70mm film showing. The film is beautiful, funny, unpredictable, and extremely violent, but it all blends in a very clean way. Tarantino has once again made a great film, and considering his resume, it seems logical to say that he is one of the best modern directors. If you like Tarantino’s previous films, or films similar to Tarantino’s it would be a good idea to check out The Hateful 8.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is everything we could have wanted and more, and feels like a return to glory for the franchise that needed redemption the most. Going into the film, the hype was insane, but whether or not the film would live up to it was to be determined. The Force Awakens is surprisingly funny, filled with stunning visuals, and features a lot of surprises in an age when spoilers rule. Some may have issues with decisions of the writers, but the filmmakers deserve credit for their devotion to the story. The most surprising aspect of The Force Awakens was the sense of humor, something the original trilogy and prequels had struggled with in different ways. The actors have a great chemistry, which helps the humor, especially between Chewbacca and Han Solo. The humor is brilliant, because it blends with the tone of the film, is very subtle, and is littered throughout the entire film. However, humor is not a trademark of Star Wars, at least not like visual effects are. The entire look of the film is gorgeous, this is because of various things, but the most important was J.J. Abrams and Disney’s devotion to honoring the approach of the original films. The film was shot on film, while there’s some debate, my opinion is that film looks far better than digital, and the film accentuates my point. Another decision that helped the film was the use of practical effects, which always look more real than digitally created creatures. The perfect mixture of CGI and Practical, along with the use of film makes The Force Awakens beautiful, and stunning to look at. The last element that stuck out to me, was the plot. I refuse to give away any elements, as I agree with Disney that this film should be viewed knowing as little as possible, but I will say there are tons of surprises in the film. While the plot did recycle some elements from earlier films, it did feel original in a lot of ways as well, and the few cliched moments are forgivable in the grand scheme of things. The Force Awakens does the job many had hoped The Phantom Menace would do in 1999, and it does it well. It is truly subjective about what Star Wars film is your favorite, but for me The Force Awakens rivals that of the original, and even putting it in the same category is a compliment all it’s own. Considering the fanbase for this film, and it’s franchise it’s good to see that Star Wars has finally gotten back to the quality we all knew it could.

Adam Sandler’s straight-to-Netflix film, The Ridiculous 6, represents an even larger fall from grace for the once successful comedian. After seeing the trainwrecks that were Grown Ups 2, and That’s My Boy I figured Sandler couldn’t stoop any lower, I was wrong. The Ridiculous 6 is unfunny, terribly acted, overly silly, dumb, and truly terrible in almost all facets. It seems sad because Sandler is talented, but if he continues making films like this, he can’t maintain an audience. Adam Sandler has become increasingly lazy over the last few years, but this film goes beyond that. Ridiculous 6 features an odd type of humor, which is a combination of dumb, silly, and racist. The humor is so stupid, it rarely registers as funny, but often feels like awkward moments of randomness. The film features a ton of cameos, most of them are distracting and not funny, except Vanilla Ice as Mark Twain. The humor was not only dumb, but it was exceedingly silly too. The film’s acting is terrible, on every level. Sandler feels like he’s mailing in his performance, while Taylor Lautner takes a giant step backwards as an actor. While Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson, and Terry Crewes manage to not come across as distractingly bad, almost every performance is awful. What doesn’t help the acting is that the film has almost no story, terrible dialogue, and characters that are just racist stereotypes. It’s sad looking at it, because many talented actors appear in the film, but they are all totally wasted. The story of Ridiculous 6 is more a bunch of random situations sloppily put together, built entirely on logical fallacies. Since the story is terribly constructed it feels bloated, and the film drags on. In retrospect the film is really about a half-hour too long. On top of that the film’s villains are weak, and thus the film’s conflict feels fake, and forced. Really when looking at closely it all comes down to the fact, that the film was lazily constructed. In conclusion The Ridiculous 6 represents a new low for Adam Sandler, who continues to get lazier, and lazier. The film is dumb, silly, racist, boring, not funny, and features a story that is so poorly written a 4 year old could have produced a better story. Hopefully, Sandler feels a negative backlash and finally takes some pride in his work, because he clearly has none now.

Krampus is yet another Christmas horror-comedy that satirizes the american family, and the merriest time of the year. Beneath all of it’s scary creatures, and comedy oriented cast is a message about family, and the christmas spirit. Krampus is a funny, and often scary Christmas horror movie, despite its weak and somewhat confusing ending. In an age when Christmas time means something different to everybody, this movie is especially impressive because it appeals to all of those people. Krampus’ humor is one of the film’s biggest strengths as it opens with a hilarious black friday scene. The humor came as no surprise, considering the cast, but what was slightly surprising was that the comedy was more black-comedy, which blended beautifully with the horror tones. The film in many ways is a satire on our society in general, poking fun at how divided we are and our overall apathy towards the things that matter. Although the film has a pretty biting take on the american family, it has a somewhat positive outlook on it. The creatures in the film are a combination of gremlins, and a terrible holiday nightmare. The different types of creatives creatures the film uses is truly impressive and terrifying. The black comedy blends beautifully with the twisted variations on holiday toys and treats. Despite all of this the film does have it’s share of weaknesses. The most notable is the ending. The film has a good narrative flow, and pushes through until the last 10 minutes of the film. In the last 10 minutes, one characters turns a 180 and the plot becomes confusing. Without giving anything away, the film has multiple endings and by the end it’s tough to tell what happened. On top of the weak ending, many times the film feels like a gremlins rip off. On top of that the satire on the family falls a little flat, as many characters remain stereotypes. Krampus does deliver on the humor and the horror that it promises, and if that’s all you’re expecting then you won’t be disappointed. The film even gives a funny look at the american society, even if it’s a little thin. In the end Krampus is a fun take on Christmas horror, and horror comedy, so if you like either of those genres, check it out.

The Good Dinosaur is a good film from Pixar, that suffers from the heavy expectations of being a Pixar film. If this film had been made by any other studio it’s reviews may have been a little more positive, but considering the pedigree of Pixar this film falls slightly short. The Good Dinosaur is funny, gorgeously animated, but suffers from a slightly weaker story than has become expected of Pixar. That being said it’s still a very enjoyable film, that kids are sure to love. As with many other Pixar films, The Good Dinosaur does have a few of the studio’s cornerstones. The Good Dinosaur features a great sense of humor, and a fun overall tone. The film also has a lot of emotional depth, in that department The Good Dinosaur feels very much like a Pixar film. The reason that The Good Dinosaur has such a good emotional depth, is the character development of the main characters. In all of those ways The Good Dinosaur lives up to the expectations of Pixar. The animation in the film is gorgeous. While the script may be a little weaker than some other Pixar films, The Good Dinosaur may have very well broken ground in animation. The animation looks real, is meticulously polished, and flat out looks real. The score, large panoramic backdrops, and certain plot elements make The Good Dinosaur feel a homage of the classic Westerns. However, this becomes an issue as the film progresses. The main problem of the script is that it’s unfocused, which is surprising, because most Pixar films are extremely focused and groundbreaking narratives. At times The Good Dinosaur feels like a western, at times it feels like a comedy, but no one overall feel is kept, the film switches erratically. Another problem is that the pterodactyl characters are poorly developed and they drag the film down. They don’t have real motives, they just appear and act like a mix between stoners and storm chasers. In conclusion The Good Dinosaur is a good film from Pixar, but falls a little short of their normal standards. While the story is weak for Pixar’s standards the film is still very deep, and features glimmers of classic Pixar. Still kids will probably have a good time with this film, as it’s funny, beautiful, and emotional, just not the strongest thing Pixar has made.

In a world where the romantic film seems like such a hard thing to get right, Brooklyn is a great example that it can be done. The romantic film today has become a cliched mess, much like the horror genre, so much so that when one comes along that is genuinely great it’s worth pointing out. Brooklyn is well acted, often funny, and boasts a great story. This film may be best remembered in future years as being Saoirse Ronan’s breakout role as a leading actress. Lead and anchored by Ronan’s performance, the film fell on her shoulders and she carried the weight gracefully. Ronan’s performance helped make her character, Eilis, feel like a real person, who is scared and alone. As well as making her character feel real, Ronan also had great chemistry with her co-star, and love interest Emory Cohen. Their chemistry shines most though when the characters play off of each other. The way the two characters play off each other helps give the film a really good sense of humor. Especially the scene when Ronan meets Cohen’s family. All of this aside the plot may be the best part of the film. We as humans need conflict, and recently romantic films have struggled capturing a realistic sense of conflict. Most recent romantic films try to manufacture conflict through an estranged person, getting in the way of the main character, what this film does well is that it makes life get in the way of the main character. By this I mean that the conflict in this movie is derived from situations all people either have found themselves in, or can relate to making it more realistic. This approach combined with Ronan’s very visual acting style helps sell the conflict, and thus make the film all the more entertaining. Really what Brooklyn does so well is it strips down the romantic genre to a group of core elements and then built a story around it, making the film’s conflict more natural. By giving the film a simple, yet deep story with a natural conflict that most audience members can relate to Brooklyn succeeds as an original romance film. Lead by the brilliant acting of Saoirse Ronan the film is able to create realistic characters, and eve generate a few laughs. Brooklyn does a great job combining great acting, with realistic characters, in a natural story, that is funny but not sappy, to make a great overall film.

This is easily one of the best live action films of 2015. At the end of the year this movie will likely get a lot of Oscar attention, and it truly deserves it. Spotlight holds nothing back, features an ensemble of amazing performances, and tells a haunting true story. This story is recent enough that many people probably still remember, but old enough that many people will probably find it educational. Perhaps the film’s greatest strength is it’s story, which is incredibly dense with information. Not to spoil the film, but to give context the film is about a large scandal involving the Boston Catholic Priests in 2001. The story is so dense that it would have been easy to hold back information or gloss over plot elements, but somehow the filmmakers behind this film were able to fit it all into the film, in just over 2 hours. The film is unapologetically real, despite the occasional moments of theatricality, which all films have. The entire cast is magnificent in this film, lead by Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton. Both of which will probably receive Oscar nominations for back-to-back years. In a film that relies on a slow-burn approach, with a more emotional grip on the audience, the acting was paramount, and the entire cast delivered. It’s most impressive, because they are able to every moment and make it feel important through their portrayals. These performances also help to make the characters feel more real, and relatable. The performances support one other major strength of the film, which is the haunting tone of the film. The film is scary in an very real way, as the film showcases that even in large hubs with millions of people, massive secrets can be hidden. At a time with drones, and widespread public mistrust it makes the film even scarier. It’s the haunting story and tone that helps elevate the acting, to form a truly great film. In the end the film tells a relevant story that every american should know, without compromising its source material. Spotlight is a film so good that even the churches it condemned had to admit that it was great. The film will likely receive a lot of award recognition, and rightfully so, as it stands as one of the best movies of 2015. It’s a haunting film that tells a story so compelling and unbelievable it becomes a must see film.

Ryan Coogler’s Creed delivers on everything that a great boxing film should, and represents a full return to form for Rocky. Directed by superstar in the making Ryan Coogler, and starring powerful performances from Michael B. Jordan and Sylvester Stallone the film is amazing. Creed is exhilarating, beautifully acted, while honoring the previous Rocky films lovingly. The film may be a little too familiar at times, but at least approaches it’s overused plot lines with a different take. From the opening scene the film captures your attention, showing us a glimpse into who this character is “a fighter.” The film remains an exhilarating journey with this character, who is easy to connect with. As the film progresses, Coogler mixes old techniques like the famous Rocky slow motion sequences, with newer (less used) techniques like very intimate fight sequences, where the camera helps the viewer feel like they’re standing in the ring. The film will draw you in from the moment it starts, to the moment it ends. One reason the film is so exhilarating is the terrific acting of Michael B. Jordan, who leads this journey. Once again teaming up with director Ryan Coogler Jordan anchors the film, and in the process creates a relatable, and human main character. On this note, after seeing “Creed” and “Fruitvale Station” I would be willing to make the bold statement that I think Ryan Coogler is on his way to becoming the next Scorsese. All of this being said what may be even more satisfying is seeing Sylvester Stallone return to form as Rocky Balboa. Some may criticize the movie for not bringing a lot of original plot lines to the movie, they would be right. However, while not very original the film handles these plot lines from a different perspective. No longer are we watching the nobody rising up against the odds, now we see a man trying to get out of the larger than life shadows of a man he never knew. Those who love the Rocky films recognize the slow motion moments in almost every film, and the iconic way the boxing matches were choreographed. Creed departs from the overuse of slow motion and more adapts the fight choreography of Raging Bull, while still mixing the essence of the Rocky fight scenes. The way Coogler mixes old with new in many different ways helps make the whole film feel like the story it’s telling. Coogler captures the tone of the older Rocky films, while also making a film distinctly different. Michael B. Jordan and Sylvester Stallone deliver, and Creed ends up being exactly what fans hoped it would be. In the end if you have the time go see Creed, it’s a terrific 2 hours to spend.

Mockingjay Part 2 serves as an entertaining, and somewhat satisfying finale of the strung out franchise. To be clear, the film is entertaining, and fans of the previous films will surely be happy, but just know the franchise clearly peaked with Catching Fire. The Franchise has since bloated it’s final film for no other good reason, than to make extra money. All-in-all Mockingjay Part 2 is action packed, often entertaining, but falls victim to a somewhat weak script. Mockingjay Part 2 gives us what Mockingjay Part 1 didn’t, more action. Mockingjay Part 2 reverts back to the formula that made Catching Fire so great, while continuing the story of Mockingjay Part 1. By that I mean that the film gives fans a good mix of entertaining action sequences mixed with romance. However, at this point the romantic triangle feels so forced it’s more of a distraction, than a sub-plot. The action helps make the film entertaining, but what really makes the film is Jennifer Lawrence’s commitment to anchoring the films. At the this point Lawrence has made Katniss Everdeen an extension of herself, to the point that she embodies the character. The grim tone, mixed with the meandering story make Mockingjay Part 2 entertaining from start to finish. However, the film does contain some major weaknesses, especially in it’s script. While the story is full of twists and turns, it’s still a little to bloated, as it would have been better if the studio had just made Mockingjay into 1 movie. The dialogue, is inconsistent and often too on-the-nose, with characters delivering out of place exposition. While the story has a very good plot twist near the end of the film, it doesn’t handle it well, as the story just jumps all over the place in the end. The film also offered very little new substance to the franchise, in the end it would have been a great finale to a singular film. Through all of it’s issues, Mockingjay Part 2 helps the franchise come to a satisfying end. Mockingjay Part 2 improves on what Mockingjay Part 1 did, and is probably the better film, but still isn’t as good as Catching Fire. The film is thoroughly entertaining, and is full of action despite it’s script’s weaknesses. In the end Mockingjay Part 2 is a good way to spend 2 hours, and is a good ending for the Hunger Games franchise.

The Hunting Ground is a really good documentary, that reveals an epidemic in America, one that is still argued about and ignored. The film is often powerful, often real, and often beyond belief. The Hunting Ground is good, but not great because it tells a crucial and relevant story, it handles its subject matter respectfully and powerfully, but it contains a few plot lines that feel detached from the story being told. That being said the film is still worth watching, especially if you’re about to enter college, or have children about to enter college. The Hunting Ground tells the important story of how college’s around the country are participating in an unbelieveable **** culture in order to keep their images clean. The film begins with, and mostly follows Andrea Pino and Annie Clark on their journey to fight **** culture. The film is powerful, and at times scary because it often shows examples of this, that only help to showcase its message, and put the audience in perspective of what we allow to happen right under our noses. The film uses many interviews, which are at times hard to watch, but are also important for understanding the problem director, Kirby ****, is trying to show. The film’s tone is one that is tense, and unsettling, sometimes even feeling like a horror film with its use of music. The film also uses humor to help show the ignorance of our culture, for instance there is a moment in the film when a large group of college men gather together chanting “no means yes, yes means anal!” Many colleges will probably detest this film, as right or wrong the film portrays colleges as the main antagonist, however there is factual basis for why they do this. The film does have a few flaws, such as it’s bias being more obvious or present than it should be. By that I mean the film would have been more powerful, and more engrossing if the audience were shown that the colleges have a reason for being the way they are, they aren’t evil organizations. Also some of the interviews, as powerful and relevant as they may be, feel detached from the story of Andrea and Annie, which makes the story seem a little too unfocused. Because of this I also found myself occasionally wondering where the film was going, and when it would end. In the end Kirby’s reasons for having these flaws is understandable, as he’s trying to cover a topic too large for one film, especially a film that is only an hour and a half. The stories and interviews in this film are powerful, and the film ambitiously attacks a cultural epidemic that does need to be changed. **** message comes at a time when society is even more unstable, and changing hopefully lots of people see movies like this and are inspired to act.

Spectre, possibly Daniel Craig’s final Bond film maintains the approach of departing from the older tone of Bond, while also lovingly referencing them. The film came at an inopportune time, as it has a similar plot to recent films such as “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.” Spectre is entertaining, action packed, but a little too formulaic. In the end though the film is a good time at the theaters. Spectre maintains the tone and feel of Skyfall, also directed by Sam Mendes, but lacks the finesse of Skyfall. Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christoph Waltz are all good in their respective roles, and help make the film more entertaining. The film also does a good job remaining serious, yet funny much like Skyfall, but despite good acting, humor, and tone the biggest strength of the film is that it is action packed. The film is a little too long, but the action sequences are entertaining to watch, and fairly well shot. The best action sequences are those between Daniel Craig and Dave Bautista, mostly because Bautista embodies the silent powerful henchmen. The film does suffer from many weaknesses though, and is nowhere near as good as Skyfall. The biggest problem with the film is the plot. The plot is a little too formulaic, as many plot points are straight out of other bond films, or other recent films, and thus become a little too predictable. The character development is bad, as they are given little development, and some characters are only in the film for minutes. The story is thinned out a little too much, and the villain is a little weak, despite Waltz’s performance. It would have been refreshing to see Spectre be as carefully crafted as Skyfall. In the end Spectre’s tone, acting, and action are good, but the plot of the film is very weak. The film will likely satisfy Bond fans, and some casual fans, but is a little formulaic, and a little predictable. At the same time the film is not the best Bond film ever, and is probably the weakest of the Daniel Craig filmography.

Hearts and Minds is a powerful documentary directed by Peter Davis, that exemplifies what a documentary can and should be. Rightfully so Hearts and Minds won the Oscar for Best Documentary, and remains a powerful, yet unsettling viewing experience. Hearts and Minds exemplifies a great documentary, because it tells an important and relevant real story, it remains as objective in it’s presentation as possible, and it never holds back. All of this being said the film really features so much disturbing imagery, only so many people can willingly watch it, and more than likely many more will avoid it. The scope of the film is quite large, in terms of time, as it really covers about a ten to fifteen year period. The scope combined with the impact of the Vietnam War, make the story the documentary is telling all the more relevant, and important. When looking at real events in United States history that show an evolution, and are “film” worthy the Vietnam War is on the top of that list. Even more impressive is Davis method of telling his story, as there was probably a story to be told about the war exclusively, but Davis chose to show how the war affected the country. This made the scope larger, and the story even more relevant. Davis did a great job of showing the Country’s borderline unflinching faith in its government, and that by the end of the war, the attitudes of almost everybody had changed, in some way. With so many different views, and such a complex issue, it would have been easy for Davis to focus on one side, but he went out of his way to show almost all viewpoints, and even portray them in a way where the audience can empathize with most of them. This makes his presentation all the more powerful, as the audience is almost forced to feel conflicted. Davis used this tactic to show the polarizing aspects of war, as well as “thinking revolution” that the country underwent with Vietnam. To fully understand the “Thinking Revolution” Davis had to show the atrocities of war, so that the audience, whenever they may watch it would fully understand why there was a thinking revolution. The film never really holds back, it shows every different viewpoint, as well as what happened in the war, however disturbing it may be. Throughout the film the audience is subjected to terrible imagery, that is even scarier because it’s real, and uncensored. Watching this an audience member could finally realize how glorified films are, as none of them capture the nauseating imagery this film is full of. In the end the message seems anti-war, as it never presents that message, but it also bombards the audience with mostly negative imagery. In the end Hearts and Minds is a powerful, albeit disturbing experience, not meant for the weak-stomached or weak-willed. The film brilliantly shows an evolution of multiple societies, as well as the polarizing and negative aspects of the Vietnam War. The film should be commended for showing various different viewpoints and rarely treating any viewpoint with irreverence. Hearts and Minds, truly is a disturbing yet necessary experience.

Burnt, Bradley Cooper’s newest endeavor is a movie I believe his fans will enjoy, but not much more than that. After seeing last year’s “Chef” directed by Jon Favreau I realized that food related films can be great, they can show that cooking is an artform, and make you hungry at the same time. Burnt, however, borrows too many elements from the superior “Chef”, lacks good character development, and is sporadically paced. The one saving grace of the film was the great performances by it’s main cast. Watching Chef I was completely engrossed is a movie about food, that also had a story behind it. The difference between Chef and Burnt, is the fact that Burnt deals with the world of petite dishes, and psychotic chefs, not as much about the food. The film resembles last year’s Whiplash, with a psycho leading a group of talented pupils, Ratatouille, and Chef, but fails to reach their level of excellence. Throughout the film, characters come and go, most of which have next to no development. Bradley Cooper’s character has some development, and so does Sienna Miller’s but beyond that they are all flat and one dimensional. The acting, however, is excellent, for instance I struggled to even tell who Sienna Miller was until about halfway through the film, she totally transformed. Cooper as per usual was a reliable main cast member, but the film fell flat way too much. That may be the film’s biggest problem, is that it failed to elevate way too often. For a two hour film, it often felt like two and half, dragging very seriously at times. The film had next to no humor, the food wasn’t very appetizing, and it all felt a little too familiar. The story is cliched, the conflict doesn’t always make sense, and the climax falls a little short. In the end Bradley Cooper fans will likely enjoy Burnt, but besides that it lacks any real appeal. The acting is good, dare I say maybe even Oscar worthy, but way too many things go wrong for the film to elevate and be great, or even good. It may be a good idea to spend your money at another film.

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back is arguably the best Star Wars film ever made, and one of the best films ever made. The film immortalized the already iconic characters that George Lucas created in Star Wars, while making a very dense and entertaining film. The Empire Strikes Back is so great because of the improvements made to Darth Vader, the ambitious tonal change, and the fact that it still contains one of the best twists ever. With enough analysis the most impressive thing about The Empire Strikes Back is how hard it is to find flaws in the film. Darth Vader still stands, and probably always will stand as one of the best villains ever brought to the screen, second on my list only to The Dark Knight’s Joker. However, in Vader’s first appearance Vader is slightly inconsistent in that he’s a temperamental villain often yelling, which isn’t nearly as scary as a villain who remains calm. I would contest that the best villains act like they are always in control, whether they are not, it is in The Empire Strikes Back that Vader develops into this villain, while also systematically murdering his failing accomplices. It could be argued that Vader’s development helped the tonal change that Empire Strikes Back brought. It’s another testament to the villain, when they are so chilling that the tone of the film seemingly dives with them. As Vader develops into the more controlled, systematic villain the tone of the film dives into a darker world. With Star Wars being considered, at least partially, a kids film it seems extremely ambitious of Lucas and Kershner to make a film directed at kids dark, something many filmmakers are unwilling to do today. The dark tone helps accentuate the character development as the characters hit their all time lows, and the film’s tone represents that the world isn’t always nice. The story for Empire Strikes Back, being the middle film in the trilogy, had the most freedom, and used it accordingly. The story of Empire Strikes back is arguably, the strongest in the series, as the film was one of the earliest to say the bad guy can win, in a giant blockbuster, another very ambitious move. However, the best element of the story is the unpredictable turns it makes, in particular it’s iconic twist. The twist remains one of the most famous of all time, for a reason, and the film benefits from it. In the end Empire Strikes Back has the best story in the trilogy, the best character development, is very ambitious, and immortalizes it’s iconic villain. On top of all of that it has been copied numerous times over the years, and remains one of the best films ever made. Empire Strikes Back still stands as the embodiment of what makes Star Wars so great.