Dragonsouls

The Only Living Boy in New York is a fantastic film. All-star cast. The writing is deep, complex, psychological, spiritual and very character driven which delves deep into the complexity of social relationships and romantic ones.

When I saw that Jeff Bridges starred in the film I immediately pressed the play button. I watch everything Jeff Bridges is in and he was absolutely brilliant in this one. He mentors a college graduate who is trying to split up a love affair between his father and his mistress in order to spare his mother any heartbreak. The story is about more than that though, it's an overall character study.

Bridges' character is written so well;- he sees himself in the young man. Both of them feel separated from society and they eventually form a strong bond. I thought the acting was superb, and it was not surprising considering the cast of actors and the direction by Marc Webb, who directed The Amazing Spiderman.

There's a lot of dialogue in this film, having to do with many subjects, not just love but all the things that drive us in our daily lives and what gives us a sense of purpose. I can't end this review without mentioning the fantastic urban cinematography. Beautiful shots of NYC are filmed in still image fashion and it added a nice atmosphere to the movie.

I just saw Godzilla Minus One in the theater. It's being praised as the best Godzilla film of all time, and It's currently rated at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm a huge Godzilla film fan and so I went to the theater after work.

This is a very different Godzilla film, and there is nothing like it. It's more of a drama than a campy action movie and it takes place in post-war Japan during the late 1940's. The Japanese Godzilla films are very different than the American ones. Godzilla is often depected as an anti-hero in the American films but the Japanese films tend to depict him as a scary force of nature. There's 2 sides to the Godzilla coin. But first and foremost, the Japanese Godzilla films are usually darker than the American ones.

Godzilla Minus One goes back to the original film's horror roots and the thematic focus leans towards the anti-war message just like that of the original film. Godzilla usually represents many things, and in this case, Godzilla represents a nuclear weapon in the flesh; a technology that the Japanese could not compete with at the time. I also detected an insinuation that Godzilla represented a prehistoric form of intelligence as well as the dark side of intelligence.

The film's tone is very dark. The main character is well acted by Ryunosuke Kamiki, who plays the role of a Japanese kamikaze pilot with PTSD who has suicidal tendencies. He was villified by his peers after bailing out of his suicide mission. It was heartbreaking to realize that so many kamikaze pilots were indoctrinated into taking part of sucide missions by the Japanese government.

He has a woman in his life but he can't open up to her because of his depression, among many other things. He feels like he failed his government but he also wants to live and find happiness and not give up in life. The characterization is deep, as you watch this man seek to find hope in an almost apocalyptic post World War 2 Japan.

Okay, lets continue to talk about Godzilla! You rarely see Godzilla in this film all too much until the end. I loved the direction here; I felt a JAWS vibe while watching this movie, because in that film, you only get glimpses of the shark until the end and you never knew when the shark would strike at any given moment.

This is the real Godzilla; the way it moves, in slow movements. The American Godzilla moves too quickly and is just too agile. Godzilla is supposed to move slowly. The classic TOHO theme song was played several times and it looked as if Godzilla was still a rubber prop even though the dinosaur was generated via CGI.

In summation, the movie hits the mark on all facets. The film relies on really great character development, amazing set design, a dramatic climax, and a high production level. It was nice to see a touch of Science Fiction in the film, just like all Godzilla films.

The CGI seemed like a blend between CGI and FX props combined in one. It was uncanny to see. It's also rare to care about the characters in a Godzilla movie but I did here. The acting was superb and I'd say this was my favorite Godzilla film since Shin Godzilla, which was the last TOHO Godzilla film that was released in 2016. I can't even compare this movie to the American Godzilla films because the Japanese ones are so different. That being said, I still enjoy the American ones for different reasons. I love the anti-hero Godzilla in the American films, but this Godzilla was a scary one. I'll rate this one an 8.5 out of 10.

(Spoiler free review) of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. I liked the premise of the film, which was loosely based on an ancient Greek artifact called the Antikythera mechanism, an ancient Greek astronomical calculator.

The Antikythera mechanism is generally referred to as the first known analogue computer. Its construction relied on theories of astronomy and mathematics developed by Greek astronomers during the second century BC.

The film is about a race to retrieve this Dial of Destiny. A Nazi Physicist is obsessed with the artifact because he belived it could alter time. Indiana Jones tries to stop him, in order to stop him from taking advantage of such a powerful weapon.

It's a bit exaggerated of course, because in real history, the Antikythera mechanism merely calculated the dates of lunar and solar eclipses, and modeled the moon's subtle apparent motions through the sky. It was not a mechanism for Time Travel like insinuated in the film. The artifcat was romanticized in the film and the nazi scientists believe it has supernatural capabilities that can cause it to create fissures in timelines, allowing time travel.

The film was action heavy, like all of the Jones' films were, and it was pretty well choregraphed. I'm not an action film guy but some of the action scenes were done well. I loved the old 1960s NYC setting and the old cars. The production level was massive.

However, the film was way too long. Running time is 2:47 minutes and it dragged a bit during the middle of the film. James Mangold is a very good director but this film was a far cry from the old Stephen Spielberg ones. The Last Crusade was my favorite, as well as the Temple of Doom, but this lastest installment in the Indiana Jones Franchise was was just meh.... The definition of a "popcorn film."

I put this up with the three best in the entire franchise, but for different reasons. The original film was beautifully shot, scored, directed, but it was a mindless film.

The Rob Zombie remake was brilliantly shot, directed, and had some character based motives but it was mostly a brutal slasher film reliant on kill scenes and gore.

Then there is Halloween Ends;- dismissing gore over psychology and philosophy. This isn't a mindless slasher film, if anything, it is a psychological, Shakespearean tragedy. The acting was absolutely outstanding all around, by the entire cast. The score was brilliant, and not reliant on the old classic John Carpenter score.

I can't believe I did not miss the classic score in this movie. It was included, but very sparingly. Most of the music in the film was original and produced for this film only, and it was really dramatic.

The final result was a a story riding on a pitiful villain; one that you feel bad for....and I'm not talking about Michael Myers, but instead, one of the main characters in the movie that falls victim to his demons. The movie is a sad but beautiful metaphor about our inner struggles and what it takes to overcome them.

Michael Myers was both depicted as a symbol of evil and everyone's inner demon, but also the real, physical person, an old man, who ran out of steam and ultimately meets his fate.

Kudos to those involved in making this film, it was a passionate production and not just a cash cow.

The movie is a spoof on Monster films and so I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If you go in with expectations set high, then you might be disappointed. This is probably Rob Zombie's lowest budgeted film. However, it has that low budget charm is what makes it special.

The set design was spectacular, lots of homages to the old Universal Monster films... and even some of the camera work was directly inspired by the James Whale Frankenstein movies.

And so fans of those old Universal horror films will love this film. Stoner film? Definitely. This is a satirical comedy and not on the level of Rob's other films in terms of scope but then again, it's a different kind of movie. It supposed to look dated, like something out of a 1935 Hollywood lot.

Perhaps not the worst Predator film ever made, but far from the best. "Prey," is the newest film in the Predator franchise that is actually a prequel, set 300 years before the events that took place in the original film.

This movie was horribly directed. The alien is shown in the first 5 minutes of the film. NEVER show the monster in the first 5 minutes! The original film had a sense of mystery, just like the greatest horror films, including JAWS and the original ALIEN... the monster is gradually shown as the movie progresses. Not the case here. The action scenes and fights were badly choreographed too.

The biggest problem I had with this film is the Alien, it was entirely CGI...no rubber suit, no prosthetics at all! What a disappointment. The movie also lacked scope; there were no extras...only 3-5 people on the screen at the same time. The movie felt like a low-budget network television production. There was terrible character development, I could care less about any of the characters.

5/10 . The only thing I liked about the film is that it was somewhat thought provoking; in that the film insinuated that the Predator is the White Caucasian human. White Europeans essentially ate the native aboriginal Americans. And in this film, French migrants are depicted as such. .. alongside the alien , who proceeds with it's invasion. And at least they give the option to watch the film in dubbed Comanche. I don't recommend watching this film in English.

Everyone is going to ask, "is this the best Batman film?" And people have asked me how it stacks up against the Nolan trilogy. Well, you can't compare one film to 3 films but in comparison to Batman Begins, I'll start by saying that The Batman is superior in many ways. It may lack the hero's journey element, but instead, focuses on philosophy and the duality of Batman.

The Batman is very psychological. The Riddler is even more manipulative and insane than the Joker in The Dark Knight. There's a lot of philosophy in it regarding trauma, pain, fear and how those dark emotions affect actions and behavior. My only wish is that we got more Paul Dano in this film. My favorite parts of the film were when Riddler and Batman would engage in psychoanalysis. Batman's villains were always darker versions of himself, and Riddler spends lots of time comparing himself to Batman, and almost seems to love him, in a weird, stalker-like way.

Pattinson's version of Batman was written very well but can barely be considered cool. Nobody would want to be this Batman. He trusts nobody, not even Alfred. He's closed off from his emotions and guarded. And I think Pattinson did a great job, making this Batman it's own, even though he wasn't the gruffest Batman like Bale's was and Affleck's. This Batman had the genius intelligence of Keaton's Batman but magnified by 10. Pattinson's Batman is the smartest Batman by far.

Catwoman was played brilliantly by Kravitz. She's such an amazing actor and I was so happy that she had her own character driven story arc in the movie, as did many other characters, from Alfred, to Carmine Falcone, who was played brilliantly by John Turturro. The Penguin as well as Alfred didn't have much screen time but I thought Colin Farrell put a ton of energy into the performance, as did Serkis, who had a very great, emotional scene in this film.

I would absolutely watch this film all over again the very same day despite being 3 hours long. Yes, it could've been 15-20 minutes shorter but I never had an issue remaining glued to the screen. I would even look forward to the rumored 4 hour cut. While this isn't a perfect film, due to the lack of the "hero's journey," element, a lack of action scenes, and the lack of emotion serving the plot, The Batman still manages to captivate for its complex character studies, and the amazing, visual, cinematic prowess of Matt Reeves.

I went in with low expectations which may have spared me more disappointment than not but the film was pretty fun. I was surprised by the level of acting in what is a popcorn film more than anything. Yeah, there's some technobabble and sci-fi in it, but very little. It's an action movie with some of the best CGI I've ever seen.

I was disappointed that there was no special FX in it. No rubber suits, or slime, or any of that. On the plus side, they don't show you the monsters until close to an hour into the film and when they do, they do it gradually, which is reminiscent of great horror films such as Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Alien. But this movie isn't even close to being as good as any of those films, it's more in line with movies like Transformers or Independence Day.

Spoiler review; if you haven't seen this film, turn away now. In a nutshell, this film was a mix of Jurassic Park meets Skynet. The team King Kong vs team Godzilla debate is liable to lean towards team Kong. This is a team Kong movie with Godzilla in it. I feel as if this movie is a movie geared for the fans and we finally got a first glimple of Mecha-Godzilla in modern CGI form since the rubber suit days.

The film is basically about a corporation that is tasked with the goal of achieving power over the Alpha Titan Godzilla. Apex Corp. Builds a robotic Godzilla, named Mecha-Godzilla, fueled with the soul and spirit derived from the genetic memories in the DNA of Ghidorah, the 3-headed Dragon. The goal of Apex Corp. Is the create a mind controlled Mecha-Godzilla, a clone, built in the image of Godzilla, but whose mind is in the control of the corporation, so that the corporate elite humans on planet Earth can maintain their grip and control on Earth.

Godzilla tries to prevent the creation of his clone and destroys an entire lab. Kong is released from his world by his Monarch. Corp. Monitors in order to stop Godzilla from his attacks, not realizing why Apex corp. Was up to. The result is two big fights, resulting in a win for both, each winning one round. Kong loses the first fight after almost drowning but after he finds a secret weapon in a fantastical hollow Earth setting, a place where Alpha Titans come from, a weapon that allows Kong to gain advantage over the alpha king Godzilla.

Eventually, Kong and Godzilla eventually put their differences aside in order to combat the bigger threat; -Mecha-Godzilla. Mecha-Godzilla eventually cuts the strings of it's creator's control and rebels against it's corporate maker, in biblical fashion. Did I like it as much as the last film, "King of Monsters?" I did like the action and fights and it was very high tech, with space ships and DNA supercomputers. I think it was a very different film than the last one and hard to compare. Godzilla vs. Kong was one big visual feast, and sure to entertain the fans.

The King of Staten Island has some issues, mostly having to do with tonality. The film is classified as a comedy but it delves into some very serious human issues, and every so often the acting goes from serious to comedic. I think the humor was great in this film, I laughed numerous times but the humor should be introduced when it should and not moments after a street fight for example.

Thank goodness it barely happens in the film but it does from time to time and it feels like the film has two separate tones to it. Minor gripes aside, the script was fantastic. It's heartfelt and very human. I loved this film more because I was raised on Staten Island and still live here and that many moments of the film reminded me of when I was in my 20s, living a similar life to this movie's protagonist. Despite my bias, it's a film that everyone seems to be enjoying and I'm glad! I hope Pete Davidson gets the career he deserves. He's a natural. His humor is dry, and sneaky, and he's likely to be consdered the next Adam Sandler.

The Mandalorian is perfect storytelling and Star Wars at its finest since the original trilogy by George Lucas. It consists of a dramatic, yet simple plot, rich characterizations, beautiful cinematography, wonderful art direction, good comedy, excellent acting, and a perfect execution of the three-act formula.

The Mandalorian is created by the genius John Favreau, a man who produces quality of quantity and creates stories from his single, brilliant vision. He not only created a great Star Wars tale, for fans, but a great story that anyone can enjoy. Even my 67 year old mom loved this series, and she never watched anything Star Wars in her entire life. Kudos for Favreau for keeping Star Wars alive in epic fashion.

I think Star Wars stories about Jedi and Sith should always consist of a similar plot, which is; to tell a story that is centered around the prospect of whether or not a force sensitive person will rise or fall. However, the story needs to flesh out their characters or it will not end up as a climatic one.

The problem with the third trilogy is that we never got to see why our main characters suffered from their demons. We never got to see the traumas they went through, we only heard about them, and were rarely depicted on screen. We never saw Rey struggle as an orphaned child, feeling neglected, unworthy, and low. We never got to see Kylo Ren struggle as an overconfident young man, feeling disrespected, like we did Anakin do in the first 3 episodes. We were only told about the very things that gave Kylo and Rey their demons but we were never riding along the characters on their life long journey.

This is why this trilogy fails. It's because the characters were not fleshed out and too much screen time was wasted on other things beside character development. This already tried plot driven story about a hero's journey would be okay if we witnessed what caused all the character conflict, but we were only told about it and never got to feel it. The story in these 3 films was so conservative and unoriginal too. Kylo was basically another Anakin, Rey another Luke, and Luke another Obi-Wan. This trilogy was a rehash of the first trilogy and I will end this review by saying I miss you George Lucas!

While The Irishman may not be Scorcese's best film it does what many of his films haven't done since Raging Bull; emanating with emotional character drama. Characters die throughout and you may find yourself getting emotional about it. Scorcese does an excellent job at building tension, in his scenes and also as the film progresses from beginning to end. I found myself on the edge of my seat during the Hoffa and Provenzano conversations, and especially in the end, when a meeting was set up to quash a beef, between major characters.

At the end of the film we are left with a powerful character drama and study of The Irishman, which is almost used metaphorically as a term to represent the Criminal minded, or the "Wiseguy," who are often killed for merely insulting someone with lots of money, and lots of power. It is a film about what an overdeveloped sense of pride can do to a human being, often resulting in their demise, whether it'd be their career, job, or in the case of Gangsters, their lives.

While The Irishman may not have as many memorable scenes as Goodfellas, Casino, and Gangs of New York, it does what many of Scorcese's smaller films did, like Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, and that is tell a very emotional story. The Irishman, just like Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, are not only the titles of those movies but also representations of the same archetypes that have enthralled us in Scorcese's films.

The first words that came to mind when watching Doctor Sleep was that it was a great horror story that was turned into a Shining sequel. I say this because the the events from the Shining were not serving the plot of the story at all. It kinda felt as if Stephen King wanted to cash in on the success of the Shining and let it propel Doctor Sleep in the sales department.

Doctor Sleep was a fantastic story, a tale of spiritual possession and psychic vampirism that Stephen King made into his own. It would have worked without the character of Danny Torrence, or the Overlook. The end of this film didn't have to take place inside the Overlook but it did, but it really didn't have to! I think the story would have been just as good without any connection to the Shining whatsoever.

I'm not really complaining here, I'm just wondering if the Shining was used to get more people to read/watch Doctor Sleep at a time when fewer people are reading novels and fewer people are going to the movies. Gripes aside, I thought this film was wonderfully acted and it was overall very creepy. It really did get spine chilling at times and it brought King's vision to the screen in epic fashion, in terms of visual art direction, but no, it does not even come close to what Kubrick did with the first movie even though Doctor Sleep does have some scenes in it that mimic Kubrick's style.

King fans and paranormal fans will love this story and Shining fans will as well, as long as you don't expect it to match Kubrick's masterpiece and take it for what it is.

Joaquin Phoenix gave the performance of a lifetime as Arthur Fleck, a man disregarded by society. It's more of a psychological character study than a comic book film. Todd Phillips did a great job directing, as did the cinematographers, turning New York City into an almost hellish landscape.

Joker is a dark psychodrama of nihilism and Joaquin Phoenix's disturbing performance as the iconic Clown Prince is the embodiment of pure anarchy. But never once did this movie feel like it was glorifying radical anarchism or anything like that. It's more of a cautionary tale, and critique of societal failings, shedding awareness to all the things that are misunderstood about the misunderstood.

9/10.

Dark Phoenix isn't called X-Men : Dark Phoenix because its not really an X-Men film but rather, a Jean Gray origin story. The villains in X-Men films tend to be their own dark feelings and their inner demons, and that is why I love X-Men. It's very relatable, these heroes really connected its readers back when I first started reading X-Men in the 1980s. And that is why X-Men was so successful.

While it may not be the most original X-Men story, it did tell the story for the new age. Children who are neglected by their parents will resonate. Children who feel alienated from peers, which seems to be much more common today as humanity grows more aware and less ignorant, while some people choose to remain distracted and follow a herd mentality. For some, they seem to go their own way and living out of the box is not easy because chances are that you will be alone; especially if you're Jean Gray, who is called the "girl that everyone abandons."

Acting in the film was spotty at times. usually during action scenes. There just wasn't any adrenaline in some of the performances but it varied from scene to scene. I loved Fassbander and McAvoy in every scene, they really bring out the chemistry that Xavier and Eric have as both the man of faith and the misanthrope.

One of the standouts in this film was Nicholas Hoult. I'll go as far as saying he stole almost everyone of the scenes centered on his character, The Beast. I also thought Jessica Chastain did a great job at playing a cold, heartless anti-villain that simply needed something from Jean Gray in order to resurrect her dying race. Dark Phoenix has plenty of drama over funny one liners and it is all supported by a heart pounding Hans Zimmer soundtrack.

All in all, I give Dark Phoenix an 8 out of 10. It's a very chatty film and shorter on action than most superhero films. Do not listen to public opinion on this one, it's a very dramatic film and a film that emphasizes dialogue and debate over action; debate whether not the X-Men powers are a good or a bad thing, and in Jean Gray's case her immense passion, which is only a good thing if she is loved and supported rather than being hated for simply being different.

It's 2:30AM and I just got home from the theater after watching a midnight showing of Godzilla: King of Monsters. If you don't want the film SPOILED, turn away now!!!

The movie is about the tug of war between the globalist military industrial complex and an organization called "Monarch," which is a top secret organization with highly advanced technology, unsanctioned and NOT controlled by any nation or government.

Monarch's technology is so advanced that they can use specific radioactive frequencies to awaken dormant viruses/ DNA, which are represented by Titans (The original Gods/monsters), and unleash them upon the world, which is reminiscent of old mythology, when Zeus would release serpentine Krakens in order to destroy and "reshape" humanity.

It's a very spiritual film. The villain in the film is the 3-headed Dragon King Ghidorah, who unlike Godzilla and the other Titans, did not evolve on Earth. King Ghidorah is from space, and it is alien, and without Godzilla to keep it in check, King Ghidorah would completely wipe out humanity with its alien extra-terrestrial influence on the human spirit. King Ghidorah is often perched on Churches in this film.

The 3 headed dragon is clearly a representation of God, and the higher consciousness that sprung humanity from the caves, separating us from the animal mind (kingdom) and spurring us toward the advanced civilization we are becoming.But when higher consciousness and the resulting technology goes wrong, or off track, and when it destroys nature and pollutes Earth and its humans to death, Monarch steps in and releases Godzilla on the planet, a metaphor for a virus, awakened via specific radioactive frequencies that they call bio-sonar. Godzilla's purpose is to make sure King Ghidorah and his Titans, that are under his control, do not destroy Earth. Godzilla was mentioned as the very reason why the Earth is still spinning. He restores balance to our genetic template so that our beast side keeps us in tune with nature and reminds of nature's importance for our survival.

I believe that Godzilla is basically Jesus. It is a genetic template that is dormant, and comes back from the dead via technology in order to save us from our sins; if necessary and which is often necessary. They even call him that. One person looks at him and says "Jesus! Thank goodness he's on our side."

This film will make you take a closer look at everything we've been told in prehistoric myth and bring it all together in a new world, a future world, where religious concepts such as immaculate conception is seen in the form of stem cells, gene editing and embryonic gestation chambers. It's a film that requires at least 3 viewings to soak it all in.

In a sense, the story isn't exactly original. It is very reminiscent of Aronofsky's Mother, a film about the destruction and recreation of mankind, and the quest toward Utopia and perfection, and what has to be sacrificed in order to get there...the trial and errors of science, and trial and tribulations of the human spirit.

Like few movies, I Am Mother had strong characters, fantastic acting, voice acting, art direction, cinematography and a very ambiguous and satisfying climax. I could not believe this was Sputore's first directorial debut, what a great start to what I am sure will be a long career in the film business. He wrote/co-wrote the film as well, like most great directors do.

Just like Hellboy deserves personally and socially, the movie Hellboy felt like a movie that wasn't loved enough by producers/filmmakers. Sure Mike Mignola was involved but it wasn't his film. I though it lacked the things that made Hellboy relatable.

David Harbour put a lot of energy into this role, a whole lot of energy. He was fiery, passionate, funny, cool, creepy, and a bit relatable. He was a bit conflicted, and you felt his alienation from society, which bothered him, but the story wasn't centered around him too much, but rather, a simple but interesting plot.

Those who do not understand that the hero and villain signify might not enjoy this film. It's a film for Hellboy fans and fans of the paranormal in general. Theologians, mythology heads, occultists, you get the drift. If you are not into that stuff then there is no way you would enjoy this film, which is a bit esoteric for casuals.

It wasn't the most complicated plot, or a film that will make you cry, it was a funny, artistic campy action popcorn film and that is about it. I laughed, cheered, and loved Harbour in every scene. He is the coolest thing I've seen in a long time but it could have been a much more powerful film.

As a Hellboy fan, I wanted more but still felt somewhat satisfied in the end because the movie had some really memorable moments. It's an absolutely beautiful B movie, a B movie that I wished would have been an A movie.

Creed 2 is a story split in half. One half is a story about love, sacrifice and family life in the modern world, where husband and wife are often taken with career and are unable to raise children. I loved this part of the movie, the relationship subplot between Adonis and Bianca was well written and both Tessa Thompson and Michael Jordan performed best when they were together on screen.

The 2nd half of the story is the boxing part, which was terrible. It was written poorly, acted poorly, especially by Stallone. I though Sylvester Stallone was an absolute piece of iron in this film, no pun intended. Just like Ivan Drago called him in Rocky 4, Stallone was as stiff and as wooden as ever. His acting was just flat out lethargic and bad.

It was so predicatable....and in a sense, it was a remake of Rocky 4 and Rocky 3 mixed together. One of the most unoriginal Rocky movies ever. A complete cash cow in every sense of the word. I was hoping for some remorse from Drago, perhaps a showing of respect between him and Rocky, but there was none of that. The scene between Rocky and Ivan in the restaurant was cringe worthy.

Michael B Jordan is a pretty good actor and overall, he was excellent in this. He stole every scene. I loved Tessa but she lacked energy during the fight scenes. She hardly seemed scared for her husband as he took a beating.

I can't give this film more than a 6. I admit, I was never bored during watching despite the horrible writing. There were some good, human, heartfelt moments, including at the end. I doubt I would watch this film again though, unlike Rocky 4, which was a film I've seen over a dozen times.

If I were to sum this film up it would be funny, charming, pretty and unoriginal. Every stereotype about African Americans in the 1960s is reversed and removed from the black character and placed on the white character. It's a rehash of a dark part of American history, shown via the adventure of two people on the opposite ends of the social spectrum.

What really disappointed me however was the acting by Viggo Mortensen. His New York City accent was borderline terrible. I'm from NYC and I am Italian American. It was unnatural. People do not force their accents like that here. His performance reminded me of Travolta's accent in Saturday Night Fever. Way over the top and forced.

Gripes aside, the two main characters have decent chemistry and their growing bond over the course of the film feels genuine and felt. The cinematography and set designs were spectacular as well. It's not the most dramatic film though. I can't give Green Book more than a 6/10. Worth a watch but very forgettable.

This isn't comedy. It's crass, trash writing laden with gratuitous cursing and perverted profane one liners. Not funny at all. I did not laugh once at this waste of a film. I shut if off at the 45 minute mark, it's the dumbest film I've ever seen.

An analysis of the film...and a review-; (SPOILERS AHEAD)

This reminds me of They Live. The main character in that film was the "one who can see." He went a little crazy...

"She opened the door because she liked the feeling of being outside the door." Jim Morrison! Do you concur? When that guy opened the window and holds the woman's eyes open and asks "Do you see it?" In the scene, there is the sunlight blaring through the window, shining on her face, in her eyes. It kills her. The light is the truth, and maybe it is also emotion. Reminds me of vampires...the light kills them...vampires have higher senses than humans, just like Vulcans in Trek, but the light is overbearing. Many people shut down and rather not feel and rather not see the light clearly in order to avoid the pain, sadly. "To become vampire is to heighten all of one's senses." -Dracula, AKA "Little Dragon." The vampire is the failed god/goddess. Fallen angel.

Apathy seems to save rather than kill. Ignorance is bliss. I have my days when I shut down but overall I am a truth seeker. I haven spent a majority of my life deciding to take the blindfold off and not hide behind comforting lies. I seek unpleasant truths. We gotta fly from the bird cage. This film is an absolute masterpiece in my opinion. I can't stop thinking...

What saves the sighted people is the birds. Nature...the ability to see the beauty of Earth and not be distracted from seeing it. The natural world is where it is safe to take the blindfold off. Masterpiece of a film, 10/10.

Aquaman sets a new benchmark and standard for Superhero films on an aesthetic level. The art direction in this film was absolutely mind blowing! The costumes, sets, locales, CGI, was unlike anything seen outside of Game of Thrones. This film was not only immensely epic in scope but it works on a dramatic level, which was something I often wondered about before arriving at the theater. It did not disappoint.

This is why I read pulp fiction and love Superhero films. This is not Deadpool. It's deeply spiritual and emotional and most importantly, relatable. Lots of social commentary in this film regarding real world issues, having to do with the destruction of the environment and pollution of the planet. And even Arthur, as super as he is, is very relatable in this film, written as a rather reclusive, depressed, underachiever archetype that all people will relate too. The DC motto was regarding their heroes was always that it's not about DNA or blood, but what people do that makes them heroes and nothing more. Aquaman is the poster boy for the alien hybrid, or fallen angel, whose Earth blood balances out his alien blood, making him more suitable for the throne than full blooded Atlanteans, who are can be too ruthless at times.

This is supposedly an origin film but I had wished for more flashbacks. Perhaps another ten minutes of young Arthur could have fleshed out his relationship with Vulko, who I absolutely loved. William Dafoe played an excellent, even headed mentor to young Arthur Curry. Fans of Aquaman will be very happy and fans of stories like King Arthur will absolutely adore the neo myth of the Aquaman universe!

James Wan, I am officially a fan. I am not sure how this could be the same director as those horror films. If you love long take action scenes, beautiful wide angles, and action choreography then brace yourselves. So many films today feature chaotic action with no sense of wow factor. This film felt like a roller coaster ride that I wanted to jump back into immediately after it ended.

I can't end this review without talking about the art direction again...it is Oscar worthy. This film was like one big Romanesque painting. The makeup, costumes, the design of the Atlantean ships and technology, all looked absolutely gorgeous and this film is clearly a product of passionate filmmaking. Of course, all of this is nothing without a good emotional story with characters you care about and it truly was a touching story. Some of the comedic stuff felt out of place but never ruined tension. It got better and better as it went on and the 3rd act was very tense! Aquaman was always my 2nd favorite superhero film and is no longer underrated thanks to James Wan, who did it!

(This is both a review and an analysis of the film. Major spoilers ahead)

What I appreciated about this film is the character Laurie Strode above everything else. She was written brilliantly in this movie as an reclusive depressed woman with PTSD that she never fully recovered from ever since she survived being killed by Michael Myers 40 years ago. Secondly, is the treatment of the other star of the film, Michael Myers.

Michael Myers was sort of given a mythological spin in this film. On the surface, the character Michael Myers is depicted as a deranged nutjob and a human that bleeds like the rest of us, despite having the ability to take bullets and crush skulls with his bare hands. But in this film Michael Myers is a sort of force of nature as well as a human character.

Just when you begin to wonder about the motives of his killing sprees you are given answers from the victims themselves. Almost everyone that is killed by Michael Myers represents a person that loses their innocence or falls victim to dark emotions such as lust, greed, obsession, and fear. Take Laurie Strode, a poster woman for the one who is traumatized by her dark past. She secludes herself from the world, always prepares for the worst and tells her daughter that the world is cruel and harsh and you have to eat or be eaten.

Her quest to kill Michael Myers and her prayers for his escape so that she can find a chance to kill him is very symbolic of her quest to move on from her trauma. A traumatized person needs to sort of let go of he darkness eating at her soul by facing her fears and not running from them. After many years, she confronts her daughter and apologizes. She visits her granddaughter after any years and overcomes her agoraphobia. Laurie Strode is surviving and is a survivor of Micheal Myers (darkness and dark emotions)

Many of the victims in this film have darkness inside them. There is an obsessed doctor, that very obsession led to his demise, and he was killed by Michael Myers shortly after becoming consumed by his obsessions in the form of committing murder himself in order to achieve his lifelong goal. Another victim in this film was an unattractive young man who is constantly rejected by women he is attracted to. He drinks because of this and is soon killed by Michael Myers shortly after being rejected by a girl. Then there are the reporters, hungry for a story, and instigating their way to that goal of obtaining it. That greed and lust inside them led to their death at the hands of Michael Myers. Last but not least, the sexually starved libertine baby sitter and her boyfriend, driven by lust for sex, and unaware of its consequences. Shorty after having sex, she and he are killed by Michael Myers.

Before I end this analysis I will review the film for its acting, and directing now that I covered the surprisingly deep script. Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and the actor who played the doctor was okay but most of the victims lacked something though. They just weren't afraid enough despite being face to face with menacing Michael Myers. I thought the acting by victims in the original Rob Zombie Halloween was way better. I also thought the stuntman that played Michael Myers in the original Rob Zombie film was way better than the one in this film. Yeah he was brutal but he didn't bash through any walls or bust down any doors in this move like he did in the Rob Zombie movies. Michael Myers was a bit stiff in this film. I also thought the quick cuts were way too quick and the film had way too many jump scares. The nostalgic inclusions felt like a spoof at times too.

Last but not least...the beautiful synthwave soundtrack by John Carpenter. He blended the classic score very well with his remixed notes of organ and other strings. I'd rate this film as one of the top 3 Halloween films, hands down. Halloween fans will definitely love it and perhaps even the non-fans.