robertrutledge

Boy, is it telling that the movie industry right now is in the gutter with this movie having reached so high up on the top movies list. I was hoping for a lot more. The movie centers around a pregnant woman who is exiled from a futuristic, dystopian Spain. She ultimately ends up lost at sea in a shipping container, where the grand majority of the movie takes place.

This feels like a hodge podge of A Quiet Place, Castaway, and maybe The Life of Pi. There is nothing new here. After reading the synopsis, I was hoping for something a little more Orwellian, perhaps along the lines of Snowpiercer. But nope. This movie fails to further explore the dystopian lore in which it takes place. As opposed to giving a further glimpse of what's going on in the outside world, we are stuck inside this container with this woman.

This brings us to the irrefutable fact that this movie's characters are flat-out boring. We are never properly introduced to them and aren't given a reason to want to root for them. Maybe they are relatable at best, but they certainly aren't interesting, let alone memorable.

I feel this could have been a much more interesting movie perhaps if the woman wasn't alone in the container. And yes, I realize that with her being pregnant and all it doesn't technically make her alone. But I couldn't help but think that her talking to her unborn child feels an awful lot like Tom Hanks talking to Wilson.

How many movies do we need where the protagonist is a pregnant woman who has to give birth under less-than-desirable circumstances? It felt fresh and novel with A Quiet Place, but here it just feels like an over-exploited trope.

I would recommend this movie maybe to fall asleep to, but I certainly won't be watching it again.

Damien Chazelle's Babylon is an intimate look at what Hollywood may have looked like in the late 1920's during the transition from the end of the silent film era to the advent of the "talkie," starting with Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer. The grand majority of the characters are fictional but are based on the lives of real-life personalities from this time period. The movie is a love letter to movies themselves and showcases how painstaking of a process it was making them during this period. A fun, diverse, unforgettable cast of both new and familiar faces plus a well-written plot makes this a fresh and exciting movie that achieves what it sets out to do.

The movie follows Manuel Torres (Diego Calva), a somewhat timid, well-mannered Mexican immigrant who starts out as a lackey of sorts for big-shot producers at MGM Studios. He falls in love with Nellie LaRoy (Margot Robbie), a beautiful, free-spirited aspiring actress from New Jersey. They both have larger-than-life aspirations of making it big in Hollywood and soon start climbing the ranks: LaRoy as an actress and Torres as a producer himself. They both eventually find out the hard way that they may be in over their heads in the corruption of the behind-the-scenes world of the movie-making industry.

Brad Pitt plays a much less interesting character named Jack Conrad, an actor who enjoyed great success during the silent film era but struggles to find his footing in the world of "talkies." Jack is your standard cookie-cutter Brad Pitt character: cocky, a sharp dresser, somewhat of a womanizer, but ultimately insecure deep down. While Brad Pitt is a good casting choice for this character, I am getting kind of tired of seeing him in this same role all the time. It is interesting to note he also starred in the movie Babbel, the multilinguistic masterpiece from Mexican director Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

That being said, Margot Robbie makes up for Brad Pitt's lackluster performance. While this movie has several similarities to Quintin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which both actors also starred in, Margot Robbie's character is much more fun and interesting in this movie. She feels very authentic in this role, and her depiction of Natalie LaRoy has a lot more depth than her depiction of Sharon Tate from a writing perspective. I feel Chazelle gives Robbie a lot more room to shine in this film than Tarantino does in his.

Another thing this movie really does an excellent job of when compared to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is minority portrayal. Tarantino heavily marginalizes minority populations in his movie and seems to glorify the whole notion of the white male protagonist. Chazelle flips this upside down and instead marginalizes the white male protagonist (Pitt) himself.

The cast diversity is really what makes this movie shine. Sexism and racism are major themes throughout the story. Chazelle tackles these sad but true aspects of Hollywood history head-on in a tasteful manner. For example, the character Sidney Palmer (Jovan Adepo), an African-American trumpet player who starts out as an orchestra musician, finds himself in a tight spot for not being "black enough" in comparison to his bandmates after getting the chance to have his likeness projected on the silver screen.

Speaking of which, the soundtrack is a banger. Justin Hurwitz deserves a special shoutout for his (mostly) era-accurate, Academy-Award-nominated score. It is everything one could want for a 1920s period piece and feels authentic but is still highly enjoyable. Hurwitz's use of the baritone saxophone in particular is delectable.

There seems to be one word that comes up time after time with this movie: "debauchery." The definition of which, as per Merriam-Webster, is "extreme indulgence in bodily pleasures and especially sexual pleasures: behavior involving sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. That is often considered immoral." Indeed, certain scenes of this movie are reminiscent of painter Hieronymus Bosch's famous oil painting The Garden of Earthly Delights. This is definitely NOT a movie for the kiddos, but I honestly found it rather tame as far as nudity and sex scenes go. These scenes give us an idea of where the modern-day rave may have gotten its beginnings and are the very heart and soul of the movie.

Overall, Babylon is a homerun. It is a brutally honest take on the phrase "Be careful what you wish for." Watching these characters try to build a tower to the stars out of their careers, only to have it come crashing down on them against the backdrop of a multicultural 1920s Hollywood makes for an exhilarating experience. In addition, it is wonderful to see a positive representation of the Mexican community for once, and the Spanish sprinkled in makes it more believable and is a nice change in a historically English-centered industry. This is historical fiction at its best.

As a hardcore Batman fan and casual TMNT fan, I decided to watch this animated film. I have not read any of the comics (yet). Keep in mind, this is definitely a movie targeted more toward kids than adults, although there is a decent amount of violence. This is a fun tale combining the best of the two franchises. However, the movie's predictability, its hit-or-miss comedy, and its somewhat uncreative science-fiction elements put a damper on things for me.

The four turtles are after Shredder, who has ventured to Gotham to team up with Ra's Al Ghul. Ra's has promised Shredder the Lazarus Pit in exchange for his help in stealing Wayne Enterprise's cloud seeder machine, which he hopes to use to wreak havoc on the city. After an initial misunderstanding and subsequent fight, the turtles team up with Batman, Batgirl, and Robin in hopes of bringing down the supervillain duo.

The thing I have always loved about the Batman franchise is its believability. The realism of the caped crusader and (the majority of) his rogues' gallery just lends itself to an immersive experience. Of course, in this instance, this doesn't apply. The whole "mutant" trope at play, while a necessary aspect of this crossover, feels very unrealistic and even at times forced. This movie would be a lot better if it didn't rely so heavily on supernatural serums.

I like how the writers pair each turtle to their ideal counterpart in the Batman universe, based upon characteristics and costume colors. It's interesting to watch these characters interact and build relationships throughout the movie. There is good chemistry between the characters of the two franchises, and everyone stays true to their own character in their respective universe.

Overall, this is a fun film for Batman and/or TMNT fans. It isn't anything extraordinary, but it doesn't set out to be so. Watching the turtles geek out about all of Batman's fancy gadgets is entertaining, even if it does get old fast. My biggest complaint is perhaps they could have made a more complex plot, but then again this movie is made for kids, so I'm probably asking too much. I would probably watch it again and I would love to see a sequel.

After being thoroughly impressed with the original, I decided to watch this sequel on Netflix. To my chagrin, it turned out to be far inferior to the first one. The sequel loses the appeal of the original. It tries too hard to be artistic at the cost of being pretentious and boring.

If memory serves me, the sequel picks up where the first one left off. John Krasinski's character is out of the picture at this point. In his place, we are given Cillian Murphy, who portrays a washed-up sole survivor of sorts who was a neighbor of the main family of the franchise before the arrival of the acoustic-sensitive alien monsters. Emily Blunt reprises her role as the mother and Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe reprise their roles as the deaf daughter and the son.

Cillian Murphy simply doesn't carry this movie like John Krasinski does the first one. In the words of Millecent Simmonds' character, "He is nothing like him." That's not to say he doesn't give a good performance here. His character is believable, just not very likable nor memorable.

Whereas the first film was groundbreaking in its approach to sound in general, the sequel seems to kind of just rehash what was already done and doesn't explore any new territory. It's the same shtick. You would think maybe the writers would add a new twist here, but they don't.

The cinematography falls short of what it sets out to accomplish. How many panning shots of people's feet do we really need? I'll admit the world-building was very well done. But at times the drawn-out shots of the barren landscapes tended to make the movie drag on and on.

Speaking of which, I feel like there isn't enough action in this movie. The dialogue in general is slow, boring, and drawn-out. It kind of reminded me of The Walking Dead (which I'm not a fan of) in this sense. This movie does nothing to add to the survival horror genre and the plot is predictable and at times confusing.

In conclusion, this is not a very enjoyable movie. It is slow, boring, and predictable. I had high hopes after seeing the first one and was disappointed. Still, it has its charms. Millicent Simmonds' character is interesting and admirable. The special effects are spot on. However, it simply fails to incorporate new elements to differentiate it from the first one. I will not be watching this again and I have lost interest in watching a third one.

Where to begin? This is a much better movie overall than the first one, which I honestly wasn't super impressed with. The overall pacing and story are much stronger. The animation is more innovative. The fun "street" culture aspects of the first film are still present, although slightly toned down. One of my favorite aspects is the fact that the villain, at face value, doesn't seem very menacing, which is a breath of fresh air in the superhero movie genre. However, the whole "multiverse" aspect feels canned, especially after watching Spiderman: No Way Home, which has a very similar premise to this movie.

Across the Spiderverse picks up where the first one leaves off. More importance is given to Gwen's narrative this time around. Gwen, amidst a turbulent relationship with her father, becomes a member of the Spider Society, which is an interdimensional secret society of Spider people led by futuristic Spider-man 2099, AKA Miguel. She then enters Miles' dimension, who is having problems with hiding his secret identity as Spiderman from his parents, to recruit him to join the Spider Society.

Without going too much into spoilers, I am pretty confused as to why the Spider Society exists and as to how the laws of space and time apply to it. Does it exist outside of space and time? Otherwise, how would Spider-man 2099 be there? Or did he travel back in time?

I am not a big fan of the whole concept of the Spider Society. Miles coming to the Spider Society for the first time feels almost like a rip off of Harry Potter when he first comes to Hogwarts. It's this whole notion of "you thought you were the only one, but there are actually a ton of others just like you." It almost feels like the antithesis of the Tigger Movie, where, as opposed to realizing his true family is Pooh and the gang, Tigger at long last finds his Tigger family.

What the heck are all these spider people doing to prevent the multiverse from collapsing? Hasn't Spider-man 2099 heard that too many cooks spoil the broth? I would think the fact that they are not in their own respective dimensions fighting crime would cause problems for the multiverse. Do we really expect these spider people to be able to balance being a hero in their own dimension, being a hero in other dimensions, their personal lives, and hanging out at this fancy schmancy Spider Society headquarters in their spare time? Where does the Spider Society's funding come from?

I'm really not a fan of the music chosen for this movie either. None of the songs feel meaningful. They use songs that are hip or maybe sound cool to kids at the cost of being ephemeral. The score could have been much stronger. This is the one area of the movie that was perhaps a step backward from the first one. Also, in a few scenes product placement is blatantly obvious, but we can let that slide.

It feels like they cram too many characters into this movie, just like in the first one. We are introduced to an Indian Spiderman and a punk rock Spiderman (Spiderpunk), neither of whom are explored very thoroughly. Au contraire, they both come off as rather flat. They serve more as eye candy than actual characters pertinent to the overarching plot, which is a real shame.

This is not to say I dislike the film. The animation is truly spectacular, although at times it feels as if you're watching a 3-D movie without the glasses. I understand this is the aesthetic they are going for to immerse us in a cinematic comic book world, but I find it annoying and distracting. The use of split-screen animation to portray multiple locations at once to recreate the experience of reading comics is a cool effect, although I feel they could have done more with this. As mentioned in the introduction, the main villain, The Spot, is a unique and refreshing antagonist (although they definitely borrowed the character design from Alan Moore's Watchmen).

There is also depth to this movie when it comes to portraying Miles and Gwen's relationships with their respective parents. These are the most heartwarming scenes of the movie. They really hit the nail on the head in capturing the teenage angst and sense of rebellion of the two young protagonists, who love their parents but want to protect them at the cost of having to lie to them about their powers. Although this is somewhat of a cliché by now in the superhero genre, here it comes across as sincere and authentic.

Overall, I wouldn't call this an amazing movie. Nor would I call it mediocre at best. It certainly has accomplished more than its predecessor, especially in terms of pacing and animation. It is to be applauded for breaking the mold of the stereotypical superhero movie. However, the whole interdimensional travel trope is too convenient and not very creative. But, in addition to the stunning visuals, this is a movie with heart. I certainly wouldn't mind watching it again.

Being a fan of other Studio Ghibli films, and after seeing such a high rating here on IMDB, I had high hopes for this movie. Isao Takahata's tale takes place during WW2 in rural Japan. Seita is a teenage boy trying to take care of his three-year-old (give or take) sister Setsuko after the two lose their house when US fighter jets firebomb their town. Unfortunately, Seita has little luck receiving the help he and his sister needs from his fellow countrymen.

Let me just start out by saying this is one of the most depressing movies I've seen in a while. Even the scenes with the titular fireflies do little to raise my hope for these two young protagonists. Everywhere the two turn, they are simply ignored, shunned, neglected, or rejected. I don't know if this movie is more of a criticism of the US for bombing Japan and killing thousands of innocent civilians or of Japan for failing to support and counsel each other in such a desperate time.

To be honest, even taking into consideration that this movie is over thirty years old at the time of this writing, the animation really is nothing out of this world. While we can imagine the "fireflies" (little specks of light on the screen) were impressive back when this movie was released, perhaps akin to lightsabers for the very first audiences who saw Star Wars, in 2023, they feel like a cheap gimmick. Perhaps I was expecting a movie with more imaginative, fantasy-driven elements, such as the masterpiece Spirited Away by the impeccable Hayao Miyazaki. Instead, Grave of the Fireflies is unapollogetically realistic.

The plot simply isn't interesting. The movie starts "in media res" so we already know what's going to happen. Things just kind of seem to drag on in this rural setting which is constantly under attack. There are no significant plot twists or unexpected events. When it finally ended, I was left asking, "That was it?" It could hardly be called a memorable movie.

Overall, I would not recommend this movie to a friend. It is slow, boring, depressing, and forgettable. I know I make these comments at the risk of coming off as insensitive. But I honestly don't know what all the hype is about. This is not a fun, magical, heart-warming story, which is what I love so much about the majority of Miyazaki films. It is the opposite of all those things. While I might not go as far to say it is the worst Studio Gibhli film, it is definitely the one I like the least of the ones I have seen.

This is an incredible accomplishment in Latin American cinema. Luis Mandoki's Voces inocentes is a classic "coming-of-age" tale with a twist: It is set during a war. Everything about this movie, from the acting to the special effects, feels very real. It's so realistic it almost feels like a documentary. Kudos to the entire team that made this movie happen. The world needs more films like it.

The movie is set in El Salvador during the country's civil war (1979-1992) between the Salvadoran national military and the FMLN, a conglomerate of sorts of various guerrilla organizations. Protagonist Chava (Carlos Padilla) is an ordinary 11-year-old boy. His father (who we never get to meet) is lucky enough to have been able to escape to the US, leaving him as the "man of the house." Although the idea of such a young boy being referred to as a "man" may seem an exaggeration, it is not far from the truth, for the boy is, in effect, forced to grow up much sooner than he otherwise would have had he not been caught in the middle of such a devastating, horrific situation.

Chava is about to turn 12. When he turns 12, he will be eligible to serve in the army and thus will be at great risk of being involuntarily recruited. His uncle is a guerrilla who wants to take Chava away with him, but Chava does not want to leave home. Chava and his friends eventually end up getting caught up in the crossfire (literally) between the army and the guerrillas.

Watching this movie and knowing that it is based on a true story is heartbreaking. It makes me very thankful to have had the childhood I had. As a US citizen, it is disturbing to find out about my own government's monetary support of an army that recruited such young children. To say this is a humbling movie would be an understatement.

I usually tend to stay away from Netflix original movies. However, as a lifelong basketball fan, and after having seen Dan Deacon on the bill for the film's music, I figured I would give this one a chance. Add Adam Sandler to the mix, and "What the heck," I told myself. I can't say I regret watching it, but it kind of just feels like another sports movie. Add an oversaturation of "appearances" (if you could call them that) by NBA stars past and present to the mix, and it feels overly reliant on "fan service." Despite all this, Sandler's performance and character give the film personality and make it worthwhile.

The movie follows Stanley Sugerman (Adam Sandler), an NBA talent scout with a troubled past employed by the Philadelphia 76ers. He travels the world in search of the "missing piece" for the 76ers. He eventually ends up in Spain, where he discovers Bo Cruz (Juancho Hernangomez), a lanky, tattooed basketball player, at a pickup game at a park. Sugerman brings Cruz back with him to the US, where he struggles to convince his bosses that his new discovery is the next big thing. To make matters worse, Bo's own troubled past soon comes back to haunt him in his pursuit of making it to the NBA.

As stated earlier, this did not feel like a very original story. It is the story of an undiscovered athlete, who is then discovered by a mentor figure. The athlete is good, but not good enough. The athlete must go through rigorous training displayed to us in a montage where he is shown incrementally getting better at select exercises (see Disney's Hercules, Rocky, etc.).

Perhaps my biggest complaint of the movie is that Hernangomez does not make for a very likable or memorable protagonist. His character feels empty. Other than being a great basketball player and his relationship with his daughter, the audience really has no reason to root for him. The whole "separation-from-family" heartstrings the movie tries to pull on comes off as rather cliché.

However, Sandler's character and performance make up for this. An older, more mature Sandler plays the "washed-up" basketball trainer role to a T, coming off as an Obi-wan Kenobi of sorts to Hernangomez's Luke Skywalker. Sugerman knows how to push Cruz's buttons and isn't afraid to do so. The chemistry the two come to develop is endearing and humorous.

I feel the bilingual aspect of the movie (90% in English, 10% in Spanish, give or take) could have been played up more. Sugerman's attempts at speaking Spanish for the sake of comic relief are rather hit-or-miss. The film also could have done more to highlight the struggles in language barrier Bo faces upon his arrival in the US, as opposed to having made him able to understand English from the get go for convenience sake.

Overall, I don't dislike this movie. I love the "street ball" scenes. The writers do a great job demonstrating the extreme dedication to the sport required in order to make things happen as a professional. Some aspects of the film feel rather forced, though. Dan Deacon's score deserves a special shout-out, for his arpeggiating player pianos make for a whimsical, almost dream-like backdrop for such a graceful and timeless sport. Bottom line: if you like Adam Sandler and basketball, go for it. Otherwise, this might not be the best choice.

Weird Al holds a special place in my heart and in that of millions of others. Growing up, not only was going to see him perform the first "real" concert I went to (other than Beatles tribute bands), but the music video for his song "White and Nerdy" was also the very first YouTube video I watched, way back circa 2007 when the behemoth of a platform was still in its wee days. Hundreds of concerts and Lord-knows-how-many YouTube videos later, I sat down to watch this full-length movie. I do not regret it.

This movie serves as a fictionalized account of the Weird Al origin story. This is the story of the boy who, against all odds, picked up an accordion and started making up lyrics to other people's songs, becoming the man we all know and love today. The movie, just like the better part of the musician's repertoire, is a parody in and of itself. It over-exaggerates Weird Al's rise to fame and pokes fun at a lot of star rockstar clichés along the way.

I must admit, at first I was somewhat skeptical about the casting choice. Why did they pick the guy who played Harry Potter to be Weird Al? Watching the movie, it's pretty obvious he was cast because of his washboard abs to over-exaggerate Weird Al's status as a Hollywood sex symbol. Which he never was in the first place. That all being said, Daniel Radcliffe hits the role out of the park. Rainn Wilson, an actor whose time had seemingly come and gone, also deserves a shoutout for his fantastic betrayal of Weird Al's mentor, Dr. Demento.

The movie's pacing is admittedly, well, weird, and not necessarily in a good way. Al's college roommates become his bandmates, for convenience sake, and then kind of disappear from the movie altogether. The fictionalized origin story for one of his most famous songs (which wasn't even released during this time) feels just kind of thrown into the mix at the end. It honestly kind of ruins the movie, which up until that point had only showcased the musician's earliest hits from the early 1980s. A sequel or two portraying later phases of his career would have been preferable.

The movie has an overall positive message: "Be yourself and don't be afraid to be as weird as you want to be." However, it's hard to say if it actually lives up to that message. Apart from the way he dresses, Al is never really seen as embracing being weird. In this alternate reality, the accordion is over-glorified, similar to how the electric guitar at that time in our own reality was over-glorifiedd. This makes for a fun movie, but I feel like it could have better highlighted perhaps Al's childhood struggles fitting in with his classmates for being too weird. It also seems hypocritical for the movie to promote being weird when Daniel Radcliffe is completely shredded, thus submitting to unrealistic Western standards of how men are "supposed to look."

As a final complaint, there was something about the way the parody songs featured in the movie were edited that didn't quite sit right with me. I don't know if it was auto-tune or poor sound mixing, or perhaps even my TV setup, but it just sounded weird, and again, not in a good way. Then again, a lot of Weird Al songs have a kind of similar thing going on.

In conclusion, Weird: The Al Yankovic Story is a wild ride. It is definitely a must-see for his die-hard fans. More casual listeners may enjoy it too, but wouldn't understand many of the references. It is a movie to be approached with an open mind. Kudos to Weird Al and his team for such an original take on a movie genre that is quickly becoming as over-saturated as superhero movies.

Two men, Paul and Marcel, escape from prison. Paul (Lionel Barrymore) is a no-nonsense Parisian banker who has been in prison for 17 years for a crime falsely pinned on him by three fellow bankers in Paris. Marcel is a deranged scientist who has delusions of making the world a better place. Paul follows Marcel to his house where he introduces him to his wife, the somewhat eccentric Malita (Rafaela Ottiano), along with his bizarre invention that he claims will save the world: a shrinking machine. Marcel then dies of a heart attack and Malita and Paul move to Paris where Paul, disguised as an old woman, uses the shrinking machine to get revenge on the men who betrayed him.

I wasn't too crazy about this movie. It lies at a weird crossroads between science fiction, drama, and comedy. I'm not too keen on the science-fiction elements, which is what enticed me to watch it in the first place. Basically, when a person or animal is shrunk down to size, they are perpetually petrified until given mental commands by either Paul or Malita. This was probably due to the limited special effects available at the time. It also is never fully explained as to why or how the shrunken people or animals are merely puppets on a string without any real sort of agency, although at times it appears as if they do.

Speaking of special effects, the way the movie portrays shrunken people and animals is rather hit or miss here, and understandably so. I was very impressed by one scene in particular. However, in other scenes, it is very obvious that the technology has a long way to go. I imagine at the time the primitive (by today's standards, anyways) special effects were something viewers were willing to see past. This must have been an ambitious endeavor at the time.

The comedy elements, on the other hand, work more in the movie's favor. While I wouldn't go as far to call it "hilarious" (by any means), I'd be lying if I said I didn't let out a few chuckles at Lionel Barrymore's old-lady impression, which could be seen as a precursor to Mrs. Doubtfire.

Overall, I wasn't blown away by The Devil Doll, nor was I completely dissatisfied with it. I feel it could have been a much better movie had it gone in a different direction. For example, Marcel iatthe beginning of the movie claims that he had the solution to world hunger by shrinking the human population to a sixth of its size, thus, in theory, multiplying the world's food supply by six. But the character is soon killed off and this plot element is scrapped.

Even though the acting is strong, the comedy is mediocre at best. The plot is strong but flawed (not to mention just not very interesting), and the setting and special effects are good for the time but not by today's standards. Watching the movie in 2023, it admittedly has a sort of special nostalgic charm, as do many old black-and-white movies. Still, nothing makes it stand out. I will not be watching this one again.

Adam Driver has slowly become one of my favorite actors in recent years. There is something about his somewhat awkward persona and less-than-perfect facial features that is really refreshing to see. While he will forever be known for his role as Kylo Ren in the third Star Wars trilogy, he has proven himself an extremely versatile actor in his own right outside of the franchise. This movie is a testament to that.

The Report is the true story of Daniel Jones (Driver), a man employed by Senator Diane Feinstein (Annette Bening) to investigate what went on behind closed doors during the EIT (Enhanced Interrogation Technique) program created by the CIA in the aftermath of 9/11. Basically, the CIA hired two psychologist scumbags to implement new "interrogation techniques" (read: torture techniques) to apply to suspected Al Queda members to try and prevent future terrorist attacks from happening.

Daniel Jones sets out to prove that these torture tactics not only were inhumane but also that they simply weren't effective in obtaining information from prisoners. He is given clearance to generate a report on the issue after the tapes are destroyed by the CIA. However, he is obviously met with pushback from the CIA, who does not want his report to ever see the light of day. Also, he is not allowed to directly talk to active members of the CIA and has limited access to their classified documents.

From the little research I have done on the subject, the movie seems faithful to what really happened. The torture scenes are relatively mild compared to other movies out there, but realistic nonetheless. Special attention is given to the infamous waterboarding technique. While many U. S. citizens today would prefer to turn a blind-eye to this ugly chapter of U. S. history, this movie does a good job at exposing the truth.

The movie does a very good job of linear storytelling. I am not much of an expert on politics, but the feud between the CIA and the Senate on display here is easy to follow. Basically, the CIA is trying to protect itself from looking bad, while Senator Feinstein and Jones are trying to expose them for the atrocities they have committed under the guise of preventing another 9/11.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Adam Driver nails his performance as Jones. Annette Bening also does a very good job in her role as Senator Feinstein. The acting overall, while nothing Oscar-worthy, is very believable. The story is riveting. The movie perhaps could have dove further into the Jones' psyche. However, that may have taken away from the bigger storyline. This movie made me feel somewhat ashamed of being American. However, it is reassuring to know that there are people like Daniel Jones out there who won't stop until the truth is revealed.

Kobe Bryant's Muse is about what I expected. I must admit, I only developed an interest in the late legendary basketball player after his relatively recent untimely passing. He is indeed one of the greatest players to have ever played the game, and this movie does a good job of portraying some of the biggest obstacles he faced in his professional and personal life. I feel like I know more about his struggles on and off the court after watching this documentary.

The film's driving plot amidst the non-linear storytelling outlining Kobe's career and love for the game is his recovery from a torn Achilles tendon injury at the tail end of the 2012-2013 NBA regular season. The injury came to be the first of many that would ultimately lead to his retirement in 2016, the year after this film was released. This is an interesting although not entirely original approach. However, too much emphasis is placed on the injury, making the movie drag.

As stated by other reviewers, literally the only person interviewed is Kobe himself. This is a fresh approach to the sports documentary genre, although it would have been nice to have gotten other perspectives as well from people who watched Kobe grow. While he goes into great detail about his relationship with his wife Vanessa, his relationships with notable teammates (i.e. Shaq, Pau Gasol) and coaches (i.e. Phil Jackson) are left almost completely ignored.

From a cinematographic perspective, the movie offers an intimate portrait of the basketball legend. However, certain scenes of Kobe shooting baskets all alone that are supposed to be artistic and graceful come off as slightly boring. On the other hand, the editing, music, etc. Are all quite professional and in good taste.

Overall, while this film offers a glimpse into the factors that contributed to Kobe's passion for the game and incredible work ethic, I was hoping for more. In the context of his death, this movie could have explored much more. His achievements as an athlete and his overall legacy seen underplayed. But of course, none of the filmmakers at the time of this movie's production knew he would not be with us much longer. I would recommend this film to die-hard Kobe fans wanting to know more about the struggles he faced. I personally would not watch it again though.

David Leitch's Bullet Train feels like a Quentin Tarantino movie with some cultural appropriation thrown in the mix. I will do my best not to get too "woke'' here, but the movie unashamedly exploits Japanese culture despite starring a Caucasian, A-list actor (Brad Pitt). That aside, Bullet Train is quite an adrenaline rush. There is plenty of violence, as to be expected from a big-budget Hollywood action movie. However, Brad Pitt's character, a hippy-dippy, long-haired assassin on some kind of a weird self-help journey, is too comedy-driven for my personal taste. The movie would have been more memorable and in better taste had Andrew Koji's character (who is Japanese), been the main character.

The setting, a Japanese highspeed bullet train headed from Tokyo to Kyoto carrying five assassins in pursuit of a briefcase containing millions of dollars, feels very realistic. The acting is believable, even if certain scenes and details are quite far-fetched for either comedy's sake or for the advancement of the plot. Also, it seems a little too convenient that one of the main characters has an obsession with Thomas the Tank Engine when the movie takes place on a train.

This movie reminds me a little bit of another movie starring Brad Pitt, which is Babel, a much better movie than this one. The two are similar in that different events from around the world are portrayed that end up all being tied to each other. However, whereas Babel paints a realistic and authentic picture of different cultures, Bullet Train uses stereotypes as a crutch. From the main bad guy, the White Death (played by Michael Shannon), a Russian, playing "roulette" with his revolver, to the big-headed anime mascot in the train, there is no shortage of stereotypes on display. Also, as opposed to Babel, it is clear that Bullet Train was made with an English-speaking audience in mind, as the English language is the dominant (although not only) language spoken in this film.

I would be very curious to hear how Japanese people have received this movie. I don't think it goes as far as being disrespectful of their culture (other than casting Brad Pitt as the lead role), but I imagine they are tired of being portrayed in such a one-dimensional way to western audiences. Director Bong Joon-ho's movie Snowpiercer, which also takes place on a train, stars an American actor (Chris Evans), and co-stars Asian actors is a better demonstration of fraternity between the American and Korean people than is Bullet Train a demonstration of fraternity between the American and Japanese people. This movie wasn't even filmed in Japan.

Also, I won't get into spoilers, but it would have been nice to have seen the Mexican assassin's character, Wolf (played by Bad Bunny), further explored. They at least could have given him a non-anglicized name, "Lobo," which sounds a lot cooler anyway. But that would go against the archetypal names given to the characters throughout the film, I suppose.

Overall, I didn't necessarily dislike Bullet Train. There were several occasions where I indeed laughed out loud. The comedy is comparable to that of the James Franco and Seth Rogen movies. Joey King's character, Prince, is particularly interesting and gives the movie a unique vibe. She, along with Brian Tyree Henry's portrayal of character Lemon, may be the movie's saving grace. However, Brad Pitt's character is annoying and the movie shouldn't have starred him just because he's Brad Pitt. While I wouldn't be opposed to giving this movie a second watch, there are a number of things I would have done differently had I been in charge.

I had high hopes for this film, but after having watched it, I'm a little disappointed. Sure, it has its moments, but the plot doesn't do much for me. It feels like a run-of-the-mill action movie with not a whole lot of creativity put into it. It has a plethora of shooting and car chase scenes. Because Lord knows you can never have enough of those.

The movie, which takes place in LA during the 1980's, revolves around Sergeant Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), an aging Black police officer. He comes into work the day after his 50th birthday to find out he has been assigned a new partner: Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), a stereotypical disgruntled, suicidal, highly-skilled Vietnam War veteran, and the namesake of the movie.

Roger and Riggs start off on a rocky start, but throughout the film develop a closer bond. The beginning of the duo's partnership coincides with a prostitute's murder. The prostitute was the daughter of an old colleague of Roger's, who had been trying to get in touch with him about something urgent shortly before her death. Roger and Riggs soon find out the murder is a part of something much bigger.

This is not a bad movie. It's just not very original. Many of the scenes here are scenes I feel I've seen before in other action movies: the cop drug bust scene, the cops practicing at the firing range scene, the shooting at the club scene, etc. While I have nothing against him as an actor, Gary Busey seems almost like a too-obvious choice for a villain. His character is one-dimensional and his backstory is never explored. In fact, none of the characters are particularly interesting, especially Mel Gibson's portrayal of Martin Riggs, who is entertaining, perhaps, but not very original. However, I must admit Danny Glover's character makes for a likable and relatable protagonist.

I would personally not recommend this movie. While it may have been sleek and "cutting edge" back in the 80s it simply has not aged well.

This movie, based on the novel of the same name by Juan Rolfo, is rather underwhelming. It is a very disappointing rendition of a great book. It has not stood the test of time like the book has and is almost laughable by today's standards.

This is one of countless instances of the book upon which a movie is based being much better than its derivative work. Reading Pedro Páramo is a much more enriching and captivating experience than watching this movie. The acting is sub-par, the casting could be better, and it is overall just a very forgettable movie.

While I am not a huge fan, I have to admit it follows the book fairly closely, which I appreciate. The overarching timeline has been rearranged to make it much more linear, seeing as the book jumps around a lot between different sub-timelines. The setting and costumes are very realistic and believable. The cinematography overall isn't terrible, although there are a lot cliché camera shots implemented that were in style at the time.

My biggest complaint is that the protagonist is never displayed as being dead and buried underground in a coffin where he can overhear the voices of the other dead people buried in Comala, as happens in the book. This is what really makes the book unique and creepy yet intriguing. Yet it is completely absent from this cinematic rendition, making this just another old, mediocre Mexican movie.

Fire: Walk with Me is the prequel to the series Twin Peaks. I am writing this review assuming that if you're reading this, you have already seen at least the first two seasons of the series (seeing as the third season wasn't released until much later). I would not recommend watching this movie without having done so.

As you might imagine, the movie shows the events leading up to the death of Laura Palmer. This is a much more intimate and gritty look into her last days. That being said, I am not sure if this movie really needed to be made. I wouldn't go as far as to say that making this movie was uncalled for, but it almost seems like overkill. Everyone who's seen the show already knows what happened (happens?) to Laura.

This movie is almost like when you go to watch a movie based on a book and the movie ruins the book for you because you can't ever again imagine what the book characters look like without seeing the actors in your mind's eye. I used to imagine what had happened to Laura the night she died, but now that it has been expressly shown to me, the way I imagined things feels invalidated.

My biggest gripe about this movie is how confusing it is. I know I can just go on YouTube and have some guy explain it to me. But I have other things to do with my time. I think I left this movie with more questions than answers. What was with the kids screaming on the bus? What's the significance of the green ring? What is the point of David Bowie's character? What about the blue rose?

Another complaint I have is that many of my favorite characters from the show are missing here (including the entire police force, Major Briggs, and the Hornes). The original actress cast as Donna Hayward is replaced here and she is sorely missed. The witty, corky humor from the show is completely absent, although I have to admit this is not necessarily a valid complaint. The movie doesn't set out to be funny like the series did. It has an overall darker tone than the show and has more mature themes (namely incest and teenage prostitution).

Another major complaint I have is the depiction of Laura's neighborhood. I don't know if I completely missed the scenes of it in the series, but here in the movie it just doesn't look very Twin Peaks-esque. It looks way too "white picket fence" suburban and seems very out of place in comparison to the rest of the settings.

There are a few things I really like about the movie. While some scenes are a bit drawn out, there are some really interesting things Lynch does with the cinematography. Apart from some of the more supernatural sequences, it feels very realistic. Sheryl Lee (Laura Palmer) and Ray Wise (Leland Palmer) both put on fantastic performances for characters that couldn't be played by anyone but them.

In summary, Fire: Walk with Me makes for an interesting addition to the Twin Peaks universe. However, I am not sure it was a necessary addition. It has more mature themes and content than the original series. All the light-hearted scenes that give the original Twin Peaks its charm are completely absent. It is not a bad movie, by any means, I was just hoping for something less confusing and more in line with the spirit of the series.

This is the first time I'm writing a review for an adult film.

I decided to watch this movie out of curiosity, and I feel I could have spent my time watching a better movie.

I know adult films aren't exactly supposed to have good writing, but I felt like the plot here was kind of pointless. Basically, this guy, the not very likable protagonist, Dr. Love, meets a "woman of the night," the titular Misty Beethoven, at an adult movie theater in Paris. She offers him her services. Then he "takes her under his wing" and has her move in with him to teach her to be as promiscuous as possible.

I don't necessarily find this movie extremely sexist or offensive, but definitely outdated (although I must admit, I dig the bushes). Dr. Love is somewhat of an alpha-male stereotype that has women dressed as maids sucking him off all the time. He's also shown repeatedly talking down to women, Misty in particular. It's perturbing how the adult films of the time didn't (and still don't) display women and female sexuality in general in a more positive light.

The movie does have its charms. The cinematography is quite interesting at times (especially if you're into extreme close-ups of genitals), and I love the weird, cheesy soundtrack. The sex scenes are okay but nothing special, especially by today's standards.

Overall, the story fails to deliver and the misogynistic undertones are quite obvious. Sure, there is the novelty factor and everything, but the acting is not very good and the jokes aren't that funny. It is quite a forgettable film.

I can't believe I made it to the end of this movie. It's a joke. It has just about every horror-movie cliché you can think of. There's the "disturbed" pre-teen girl with a troubled past who can see dead people. Her mother who just so happens to be a psychiatrist. A lady who is over-worked at her job as a health researcher and starts hearing voices. A "mysterious man" who claims he can talk to his dead daughter.

I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be a kids' movie, although mild language would leave me to believe it isn't. But I honestly don't understand why any adult would want to watch this awful movie. Worst of all is that there's no real overarching plot here. There are different subplots that never come together at the end. There's no provided explanation for the supernatural events that occur throughout. The acting is not very good either. I had no emotional attachment whatsoever to any of the characters.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs.

I came into this movie with high expectations. As a child growing up in the US during the 2000s, I witnessed firsthand the country-wide anti-Islam movement that proceeded 9/11. Here was a movie that sets out to demonstrate that not all Muslims are bad people. Which I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I feel the makers of this movie weren't very creative or original in telling this fictional story.

The protagonist, Khan (played by Shah Rukh Khan) is an Indian man of Muslim faith who has Asperger's syndrome. He has immigrated to San Francisco (pre-9/11) in hopes of a better life. After September 11, he and his family experience the backlash of the consequential anti-Muslim sentiments throughout the country. Khan sets out to meet the president and tell him he is not a terrorist.

Khan bears resemblance to the character Forrest Gump. In fact, many parts of this movie feel borrowed from the movie Forrest Gump. Khan travels a lot in his pursuit to meet the president. While Khan never accomplishes anything quite as farfetched as Forrest, the filmmakers are overly optimistic about what Khan is able to do, making him out to be an "unlikely hero" much like Forrest.

One of the things I really disagree with about this movie is the "black and white" classification of people. Khan's mom teaches him as a kid that there are "good people" and "bad people" in the world. This simply isn't true. Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things.

To take things a step further, this "black and white" dichotomy is reflected in race in this movie. White people in general are shown as racists. This is taken to the extreme in the cringeworthy scenes of Khan dealing with authority figures, where we as the audience are supposed to feel bad for Khan for being discriminated against and abused by white officials.

Black people and people of color in general, on the other hand, are shown as angels who have never done anything bad in their lives. I understand that Black people in the US have historically been marginalized by society. Khan's solidarity with the Black community at the end of the movie is symbolic of how the Muslim community also became marginalized after 9/11. However, the way Black people are displayed is very stereotypical and one-dimensional.

Khan's relationship with his wife Mandira (played by Kajol) feels forced. At no point is Mandira, a strong female character, explored. Her backstory is only ever briefly alluded to. She and Khan fall in love way too quickly. She just serves as Khan's "love at first sight" stereotypical romantic interest who worries about him because of his disability.

In conclusion, this movie fell way short of my expectations. It was way too long, not to mention overly optimistic and farfetched. It may be one of the most predictable movies I've ever seen. I saw the ending coming a mile away. It isn't fair in making white people out as villains to prove the point that not all Muslims are bad people. Perhaps really the only thing I like about this movie is the Bollywood-style music. As a white person, I don't know what it feels like to be a Muslim in the US in a post-9/11 world. But I feel this movie completely blows things out of proportion.

Ciro Guerra's The Embrace of the Serpent, a black and white movie based on actual events, tells the tale of two caucasian explorers and their respective expeditions to the Amazon region of Colombia: German ethnologist Theodor Koch-Grunberg (1872-1924) and American biologist Richard Evans Schultes (1915-2001). Other than geographical location, the two are both looking for a rare plant called yakruna, which is a miracle drug of sorts. Koch-Grunberg is in search of the plant to cure himself of a serious illness, while Evans Schultes, having read the former's travel diaries, is more interested in the plant for scientific reasons. Furthermore, they also are both accompanied by the same Ocaina (an Amazon Indigenous community) man, Karamakate. He's seen as a young man in the timeline with Koch-Grunberg and then as a much older man with Evans Schultes. The movie's language is about half Spanish, half Ocaina.

Although this movie strays somewhat from reality, I found it to be quite educational. It highlights the negative effects whites have had on the Amazon region, with a focus on colonization, the rubber boom, and religion. While I was well aware of the forced Christianization of Indigenous communities across the Americas by the Spanish, the rubber boom is a much more obscure historical phenomenon, although equally as fascinating. The movie has piqued my interest to learn more.

The driving force in this movie is the relationships Karamakate (who is the film's real protagonist) builds with the white men. His way of thinking and his worldview in general are quite different than theirs. He has an extreme sense of pride in his people and is constantly criticizing the white men for the atrocities their fellow whites have committed against his land and his people.

Another fascinating theme touched upon by Guerra is that of propagation of the Spanish language and consequential subjugation of Indigenous languages. This goes hand and hand with the forced Christianization of Indigenous peoples. This movie is very critical of Spanish conquistadors and Spaniards in general, and rightfully so.

The cinematography here is breathtaking. The film is shot extremely artistically and in a way that portrays Indigenous people in a positive light. The dark and mysterious Amazon River almost feels like its own character, as does the starry nighttime sky. Particularly heart-warming in the film are the scenes where Karamakate is shown laughing at his white companion. Too often, Indigenous people are displayed in movies and on TV as people who never smile. But here, we see that they are humans who have a sense of humor, just like the rest of us.

This is the second movie from the director I've seen, the first being Birds of Passage. The films complement each other quite well, though not to say that they are very similar to each other. While Birds of Passage is a very colorful, borderline "gangster" film, Embrace of the Serpent takes on much more personal and spiritual themes and is in black and white. They are both fantastic films, although Embrace of the Serpent has a unique charm to it in the way it captures the spirit of the Amazon, making it particularly endearing.

My biggest complaint about this film is that at times it seems somewhat slow or drawn out. There isn't a whole lot of action in this film. Also, while this movie doesn't set out to highlight the survival challenges the men faced (such as in the way Cast Away or The Life of Pi do), I feel Guerra could have done a better job of showcasing the hardships the two men must have faced, or at least he could have given us more background on them. I suppose that isn't the story he was wanting to tell. He does a great job of avoiding stereotypes about the Amazon (no piranhas here) and displaying the Amazon rainforest in a way in which it isn't normally seen in pop culture.

Overall, The Embrace of the Serpent is a beautiful movie. The concept is brilliant and well executed. The cinematography is gorgeous and the story is captivating. I would have loved to have seen this in the theaters. Where the movie really shines is in showcasing Indigenous people in an honest, non-stereotypical way. I would love to see more movies like this focused on Indigenous peoples from other parts of the world as well.

I can't believe I wasted two hours of my life watching this movie. It is by the far the worst I have seen this year. I don't understand what all the hype is about. Basically, Benedict Cumberbatch plays a chain-smoking, banjo-playing, hard-ass rancher living in the middle of rural Montana named Phil Burbank. He lives with his brother George (Jesse Playmons), a typical run-of-the-mill southern gentleman type (even though they live in Montana).

George falls in love with a woman named Rose (played by Kirsten Dunst), a former silent film pianist who runs a restaurant on the ranch with her rather effeminate teenage son, Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee). The two get married. This makes Phil upset, so he takes his anger out on Peter. Throughout the movie, Phil reminisces about the deceased "Bronco Henry," his friend and mentor who he claims was one of the greatest "riders" to live.

The mood is very much "slow burn," which I guess is its appeal to many people. This is one of those movies with lots of drawn-out silences for no reason other than to build tension (which there is plenty of). The story is rather dull, and the only two remotely interesting characters are Phil and Peter.

I must admit the cinematography of the arid western landscape is pretty stunning at times. But then, especially toward the end, there are unnecessary closeups added for "artistic effect." I also feel the director relies too heavily on vague imagery (closeups of rope, combs, anything with fringes). The music is quite tasteful, but hardly anything memorable. Benedict Cumberbatch gives a fantastic performance, as always, and everyone else's acting is believable as well. I just wish the story were more interesting.

This was a real snoozer for me. I had to look up the ending because it was too confusing for me as a millennial having never set foot on a ranch in my entire life. I've given it one more star now that it actually makes sense, but I'd prefer never to have to sit through this one again. I guess it should come as no surprise that this has been so highly praised by critics. What they regard as "artistic" is typically just plain boring.

This film is one of the more interesting Japanese animated films I've seen recently, though not necessarily in either a good or bad way. The setting and overall tone is very much along in line with the likes of Ghost in the Shell or Akira. It takes place in a dark, dystopian Japan far into the future.

The film follows a secret agent of sorts. He is recruited for a mission pertaining to a peace accord in Tokyo between Earth and a different realm. He is partnered with a humanoid female agent from the different realm. Their job is to safely escort an important ambassador (who turns out to be a perverted old man) to the peace accord so that the two realms can negotiate a treaty. However, there are beings from the other realm not too keen on making peace who set out to prevent the old man from making it to the accord. Adventure ensues.

This movie contains mild amounts of nudity and violence, so it is NSFW by all accounts, although nothing too outrageous is shown. Despite the dark atmosphere, it manages not to take itself too seriously. The perverted old man, while a cliché in Japanese anime and manga, is a likable enough character.

However, both the male and female leads are rather boring characters. Their inevitable romance feels cliché and forced. There really is no build-up for their relationship. The whole Romeo-and-Juliet "forbidden love" component here kind of falls flat. It has been done way too many times and comes off as uninspired and unoriginal.

That all being said, this movie does have some pretty badass animation, which is its saving grace. If you are watching this movie for a great storyline, you will more than likely walk away disappointed. If you are into dark, gory Japanese manga and animation, this may be right up your alley. I wouldn't write this film off, but I wouldn't necessarily want to watch it again. It wasn't particularly memorable either.

Disney's Encanto is a colorful and visually-stunning musical extravaganza celebrating family and Colombian culture. It is quite family-friendly, although that is not to say adults won't enjoy it as well. However, as a warning, this movie is practically a musical, so if copious amounts of synchronized song and dance isn't your thing, you probably won't enjoy this. That being said, the musical numbers are, for the most part, enjoyable, although at times somewhat cheesy and overly radio-friendly. Perhaps my biggest complaint about Encanto is that the songs don't accurately reflect the rich Colombian musical heritage. It would have been nice had traditional genres such as cumbia or vallenato been better represented in the musical numbers. Instead, most of the songs have somewhat of a cliché pop-rock a la Andrew Lloyd Webber feel to them. The lyrics, for the most part, are creative, but not exactly anything too memorable.

The storyline revolves around Mirabel Madrigal (Stephanie Beatriz), a young lady who lives in a large magical house with her extended family in a small town high up in the Andes. Ever since the grandma (María Cecilia Botero) settled down there long ago after being displaced from her home and losing her husband Antonio, all of her descendants have been blessed with magic powers. Everyone except Mirabel, that is. Thus, much of the movie revolves around Mirabel's identity crisis and her resentful relationship with her grandmother.

The house's life force is a magic candle that is perpetually lit. Without the candle, the house loses its magic and falls apart. One day, despite having no magic abilities, Mirabel has a vision that the candle starts going out and cracks start appearing in the floors and the walls. She warns her grandma, who pays her no heed. It is up to Mirabel to save the house and her family and finally prove to them her worth.

Mirabel as a protagonist is a rejection of the typical Disney princess role (an archetype bestowed upon the character of her older sister Isabela). She has curly hair and wears glasses, and is at times somewhat socially awkward. No love interest makes or breaks her. This is a huge step forward for Disney. The company has received much criticism over their portrayal of female characters in movies such as Cinderella, Snow White, or Sleeping Beauty, where the female lead is only "complete" upon being united with their "Prince Charming." Mirabel, on the other hand, is a great female protagonist because of her imperfections and her independence.

Having spent a considerable amount of time myself in Colombia, I appreciated the filmmakers' attention to detail. The architecture of the house is quite believable and even the food is reflective of typical Colombian cuisine. The underlying theme of displacement is a very strong sentiment to millions of people in Colombia and other Latin American countries, and Disney does a good job tastefully portraying such a traumatic and difficult experience. The town where the movie takes place is fictitious, although it appears to be a representation of different "pueblos mágicos" (magical towns) scattered throughout the country. I personally had an amazing experience in Colombia and, in my opinion, Encanto does a great job (for the most part) paying homage to the country.

To wrap things up, Encanto is an enjoyable movie, although I may have done things a little differently. It seems as if there were too many characters to explore in such a short runtime. As my friend pointed out, Mirabel's sisters' character developments literally happen within the span of their respective songs and seem rather abrupt. Something else I'm a little confused about is how Mirabel had the vision of the house falling apart in the first place if she apparently has no magic abilities. I won't give away the ending, but it feels overly "Disney." The humor is rather hit or miss. The use of Spanish is kind of forced. I would have preferred them to have implemented more Spanish for authenticity's sake (incorporating subtitles) since so few people in Colombia speak English. Still, the story is original and feels fresh. The visuals are stunning. The musical numbers are fun, although at times a bit exaggerated. I wouldn't mind watching this again.

Injustice tells the story of a heartbroken, merciless Superman (Justin Hartley) waging war on war itself after Joker (Kevin Pollak) blows up Metropolis, taking with it the lives of Lois Lane and her unborn child with Superman. Batman (Anson Mount) decides the Joker can still be redeemed and has him locked away in Arkham Asylum. However, Superman isn't so forgiving, and shortly after invades the asylum to execute Joker himself. The movie centers around this polarity of Batman and Superman's world views. It's a "civil war" of sorts within the Justice League that sees old friends become bitter enemies.

Injustice starts out great. Superman and Batman have very different world views, neither of which are necessarily right or wrong. However, so much more could have been done with such an enticing premise. There are some strong real-world political themes at play, including brief references to the Israel-Palestine conflict and the world's nuclear arms race. At one point, Superman sets out to destroy all guns in the world, an ambitious (although short-sighted) endeavor that alludes to the controversial real-world issue of gun control. However, I feel like the film could have done more with these real-life issues. Instead, the main antagonist of the movie turns out to be a very fictional, very boring (not to mention cliché) opponent. I was extremely disappointed that such great potential was essentially thrown down the drain in the second half of the movie.

This film attempts to combine the "best of both worlds" of the Batman and Superman franchises, similar to Zack Snyder's 2016 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I'm not going to lie, I'm a sucker for superhero "crossover" stories (more so in the DC universe than Marvel). However, this one wasn't done very creatively. Superman ends up teaming up with a Batman villain (whose name I won't say) in what feels like an unnecessary extension or even spin-off of one of the live-action Batman movies released in recent years. This is the turning point of the movie. From that point on, it's all downhill (and not in a good way). This team up honestly ruins the movie for me, and although the idea may have been good on paper, I felt it was completely unnecessary and poorly executed.

Some of my other gripes are over-dramatic killings, hit-and-miss attempts at comedy, and some gleaming plot-holes (which I shall discuss in that order). I get it, this isn't a movie for the kiddos, but the whole "blood splatter on camera lens" effect gets old quickly. None of the parts that were supposed to be funny really made me laugh, although Green Arrow (Reid Scott) and Harley Quinn's (Gillian Jacobs) relationship is somewhat comical (pun intended?). As for the plot holes, while they are not entirely obvious, they are indisputably there. There are also elements of the plot that are just too convenient for the writers, which I won't go into.

Overall, I was disappointed with this latest effort from the DC animation studios. They took a great idea and ruined it. Extremely fictitious elements are what give superhero movies in general a bad wrap, and this is a prime example of just that. Despite the fact that this is an animated film, I feel the writers could have been more creative by making the plot more rooted in reality. The animation and voice acting in general are good, though nothing too special, although I couldn't help but think at times that Superman could have been cast better. I won't be giving this one another watch.

Manos sucias ("Dirty Hands" in English) tells the story of two men from Buenaventura, Colombia and their descent into the dangerous world of drug trafficking. The two men must transport a massive amount of cocaine to Panama in a speedboat without getting caught. This isn't Narcos; this is a sobering depiction of the day-to-day risks real-life drug traffickers face and the trade's negative impact on Colombian society as a whole. While it is somewhat slow-paced in my opinion, it successfully tackles a serious problem to this day on the western coast of Colombia and throughout the country.

What stood out to me about Manos sucias is the creativity of these low-resource Colombians. The cocaine is transported in a submarine of sorts latched onto the boat. Attached to the submarine on the surface of the water is a pipe that looks like an unsuspicious floating piece of junk. Whenever the authorities come, the men simply unlatch the submarine from the boat, and later reattach it when the authorities leave by locating the pipe.

I would recommend this film to anyone looking for a more realistic take on the world of drug trafficking in Colombia. As can be seen in this film, it is not as glorious or glamorous as it's made out to be by many other movies or TV shows. I am not sure if this film has helped or hurt the image of the city of Buenaventura, but it has definitely opened my eyes to some of the problems it is currently facing. Truth be told, it is one of the more dangerous cities in Colombia, perhaps in all of Latin America, due to ongoing gang violence and guerilla/paramilitary activity, which of course is all intimately tied to the illegal drug trade. My biggest complaints are that at times the movie drags along, and it ends rather upruptly. I would love to see more movies like this pertaining to real-world problems that most people prefer to simply ignore, and I applaud director Josef Kubota Wladyka for making such a tasteful, insightful film about such a serious and sensitive subject. Not to undermine the actors, who all did a great job as well in spite of not being professional actors, which makes it feel all that much more authentic.