tyson-hunsaker

After a long time coming of not believing this would ever happen, I'm so happy to say I wanted to cry tears of joy based on how much I really enjoyed this film. While basic plot of the story is pretty much the same, it's an entirely different film in tone, atmosphere, scope, and depth. For it's crazy runtime, it flew by and I didn't want it to end.

Each character is given greater depth this time around, action scenes were off the charts awesome, musical score is on point, I really don't have many negatives about the film.

A few things didn't quite work for me as well as I wanted them to but it was a joy to watch and be so impressed by how epic and artistic this film actually ended up being. It felt like a genuinely mature piece of work that will stand the test of time. What a ride and I can't wait to watch it again.

"The Fighting Preacher" benefits from a slightly fresher style than other Mormon films of its kind and definitely shows more promising production value. Still, the performances are one-dimensional and the script is incredibly predictable.

It's a boring piece that feels just like the other propaganda stories of its kind and Mormon films still feel that its fair to predict "outsiders" as one-dimensional bullies that in order for them to become a decent person, they must convert to the religion.

I found the film to be generally poorly done considering the time it was released and felt that at this stage, there should be no excuses anymore to prevent Mormon cinema to reach a new standard. Unfortunately, the genre is trapped in a never ending "early saints" setting, determined to portray Mormons as perfectly kind hearted people being victimized by everyone in the country.

The main lead's performance is the only thing that grounds the film for me in some kind of reality. Unfortunately, everything else fails.

"The Rise of Skywalker" was a film many had mixed feelings about. Some hoped it would fix undesirable elements of the previous film. Others felt it could continue a daring and unexpected route for the franchise. Regardless of where you stand, it's hard to argue that Rise of Skywalker succeeded in no task that made many happy.

The film overall just feels bland and uninteresting. Filled with moments of confusion and disorientment, it's no wonder many left the film confused as to what they watched. The amount of plot holes in the film are enormous and too difficult to count. Performances from the entire cast feel like they're grasping onto what little the script gave them, and the entire film feels like an apology for hurt feelings from the last film. The film instead of moving forward, moves backwards, signifying the little significance the newest trilogy has. Yet, it has a way of insulting the original trilogy and even the prequels by dismissing established lore set up in the actual movies.

The return of the Emporer felt incredibly lazy and Rey becoming another type of "chosen one" to embody all the lives of the Jedi makes no sense. Arcs completed in The Last Jedi reverse themselves and each character's significance decreases as each scene progresses. There is definitely an element to space adventure since there is a quest with an objective but no scene's essence is connected to who or what that character is. No scene feels like a piece of a cohesive whole and nothing builds momentum throughout the story. What changes characters do make feel unwarranted and undeserved. What risks the filmmakers almost take, they back track to ensure not to do anything that will have any consequences.

Visual effects however are stunning and this film may have one of the best sound design I've heard all year. Several technical abilities are on full display here that cannot be ignored and several actors are enjoyable to watch on screen. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save a project that was flawed by design. What's the design? There isn't one. If anything this film makes it clear that Disney did not have their design/plan mapped out. It's apparent they listened too hard to the non-storytellers and their complaints and tried to hard to appease their audiences. Instead of focusing on a story with a beginning, middle, and end, they chose to do what they do best: make money.

I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. It's not a terrible movie but for what the expectations are, I think it's a failure despite real genuine talent in front of and behind the camera.

Dolittle is a complete mess of a movie. With no coherent plot or consistent theme, this film fails to be an entertaining comedy, adventure, or family film. It's painfully boring to sit through and the type of humor in the film is simply just insulting to its audience both young and old.

Nothing in the films quite works for me despite some serious talent behind and in front of the screen. Yet, this film feels like it should not have been made. Flawed at the script level, no amount of great performances or convincing visual effects (which it does not have) could have saved this film from being strange in all the wrong ways.

If there was more competence on display besides some solid cinematography and sound editing, the film may hold up but I wouldn't recommend this one to any family or child. There are better family films for young children to enjoy that have real narrative construction and sensible progression of story.

This version of "War and Peace" is by far the best and most faithful adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's magnificent novel but it was also made by people who understand the form of cinema. This is one of Russia's greatest works ever created and stands as an important artifact in the country's history and as a spot on book to film adaptation.

Every scene impressed me as I looked in awe at the massive production on display. Production design and art direction took my breath away and ever scene felt completely authentic and true to the emotional moment. The film is brilliantly cast with rock solid performances all across the board.

Cinematography left me speechless with just about every shot feeling like a meticulously crafted painting. There should be something as well for the editing too. Each cut just feels right for the scene and there are several instances of experimental blur focus, dissolves, and speed remapping that create emotinally visceral experiences the viewer can appreciate.

At a time during peak Cold War, The soviets seemed to want to "show up" Hollywood with perhaps the most ambitious film ever made. Hoping to defeat Hollywood's already established War and Peace adaption with Audrey Hepburn, the soviets set out to create the definitive adaption of their own literary master Leo Tolstoy. They succeeded immensely. The film is a marvelous example of a country's audacity to compete in the cinematic world while exuding the spirit and gumption of the country. It also serves as an example of how to compete while never tearing anyone down or villanizing your competition. How many times have U.S. films depicted Russians as the stereotypical villains to be destroyed by the patriotic and courageous American hero? Yet, instead of villainizing Americans in a modern piece, they craft a perfect adaption of their own perfect book and show the world what they can do by pure skill and grit.

Overall, this is a masterful film with hardly any misteps. It's long and a gargantuan task to complete the film but it is well worth it. It's epic and ambitious and even experimental. This film truly is a work of cinematic art and brilliance.

"Last Tango in Paris" was a Brando film that took a while to get to. It was also a film that felt like I couldn't give justice to without feeling mentally "ready" and mature to interpret and accept the film the way it might be intended. While the film had its incredible moments, I was ultimately disappointed with the experience.

First and obviously, Brando is phenomenal. Done.

Second, there are moments of pure erotic steam and emotional epicness but these moments don't seem to last as long as necessary and they don't feel incredibly significant to the overall film's theme and arc. It's difficult to pinpoint what the film was really trying to explore and say due to an imbalance in tone from scene to scene. One scene where the two leads talk to each other for a while really hit home but there were too many moments of confusing actions that made it difficult to understand who theses characters actually were.

Technically, I thought the editing was all over the place and the score often beats the audience over the head with one singular emotion without any nuance. Cinematography, for the most part, was mesmerizing but there were some blatant technical errors in sound recording and mixing.

The more I also learn about the director and the behind-the-scenes, the more the film doesn't sit right with me. It takes from an opinion of grand and mysterious eroticism to pathetic and nonsensical selfish filmmaking that did more harm than good. If only the best moments and performances of this film could be applied to a worthwhile script and director, this film could achieve a level of greatness that could never be replicated.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is a follow up to 2014's Maleficent and that film wasn't the best or the worst. This follow up lacks any kind of originality or heart or in fact, any story actually worth telling. The film is dead set on treading only familiar paths and creating characters that are neither compelling or worth worrying about. The cast are a bunch of fine actors but with an inexperienced director with no vision, the performances feel misguided and without motivation.

As a children's film, it doesn't work either. Any attempt to convey a positive message is squandered by a confused script and jumbled themes. It feels like, like many Disney projects, like an amusement ride with new decorations. Nothing screams that this film should've been make only to cash in on the mild success of its predecessor. It's not worth time or money to see and this level of mediocrity shouldn't be supported.

"Belle de jour" is a film focusing on main protagonist Severine who spends her afternoons as a high-class prostitute, shrouded in secrecy from her new and well-meaning husband and her friends.

From the beginning of the film, it's apparent that director Luis Bunuel chose to depct fantastical scenes and reality as seemless. Often, you never know you're watching a fantasy until it becomes more absurd and obvious. Other times, it's subtle and difficult to tell. This creates a special and unique rythmn to the scenes that sells the subjective perspective of the main character; we feel for the character and understand what she's thinking and why she makes the choices she does.

Perhaps what makes this such a great film is the honest and truthful depiction of one character's relationship with herself and her sexual fantasies. These fantasies are suppressed and she feels like she can't honestly communicate these fantasies with her husband so the only way to live these fantasies out is by spending her afternoons as a prostitute. The film dares to ask personal and sexual questions while providing no answers. This feels enough considering I've never seen these questions truly explored by any classic or contemporary film. It's a brave and honest film that inspires one to become comfortable with their own sexuality and view it as something important to acknowledge and come to terms with. In cultures and societies where discussion of sex is so taboo, I found this film to be refreshing and emotionally moving.

As far as the craftsmanship on display, I view the film virtually flawless. Performances are brilliant across the board, the film's well cut together, shot beautifully, and rendered with attention to detail and care for the subject matter. I would recommend this film to anyone who is willing to watch such a personal film and honestly acknowledge the value it has. It's compelling, deep, and beautifully done and there's a reason why it's considered one of the best erotic film of all time. Because it genuinely is.

"Joker" comes in with a packaging that neither interested me or convinced me it was a smart project. The idea of a Joker origin story movie centered only on him seemed like merely an experiment that wouldn't mean anything but a disposable two hours in the theater. I've never been so happy to be wrong.

From start to finish, "Joker" was captivating. Every scene an absolute treasure to behold. From the beginning, the story grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go. As the story progresses and depicts a character that is both fascinating and heartbreaking, we see his descent into madness that is chilling, yet completely justified.

Joaquin Phoenix turns in a performance for the ages. It may be one of the most honest and layered performances I've seen an actor give onto the screen and it's a role I think he was perfect for.

Technically, the film is brilliant. With a minor gripe with a song mixing decision that felt rough, I could see this film getting nominations for pretty much every technical award. Cinematography is rich and lush with surprisingly shallow depth of field, helping us isolate our focus to the character and his state of mind.

Another major highlight is the musical score which is haunting and penetrating. I couldn't imagine the music being any different because it always feels reflective of what's happening visually.

"Joker" is a phenomenal experience. It's a powerful and meaningful film with important things to say. I don't know how this fits into a possible universe or sequel but as a stand alone film, "Joker" is an incredible achievement and definitely one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

"Frequency" is a science fiction/drama that for the most part, flew under the radar of an already stacked year when the century turned. The story is constructed with two arguably main protagonists: Frank Sullivan, an all-American firefighter obsessed with baseball and John Sullivan, his son a lonely and cold detective. But the catch is, they communicate over Frank's old radio, 30 years apart. When they discover who the other really is, they work together to change some traumatic events, only to discover their actions have brought about even more dire consequences.

One of the film's best elements is interestingly enough, an element that dates the film in a decade before it came out. The musical score is reminiscent of first contact films like "Close Encounters" and "Contact." Yet, the score grounds the film in its inherent mysterious and science fiction quality.

When it comes to science fiction stories that deal with some kind of time travel ingredient, it can be easy to find minute and insignificant plot holes that bring the film's logical understanding to its knees. I've never had such problems unless they presented genuine logical fallacies. Fortunately, the script is devoid of such holes with the exception of one big one which we'll get into later.

What stands as the film's strongest asset is its relentless objective to stay solely focused on the main characters. This makes each scene not only have spot on pacing but genuine interest in the story's integral plot. The progression feels right for the character's arcs and doesn't feel shortsighted despite the genre's natural tendencies to lean on stereotypes for a character's arcs. In fact, the most meaningful moments of the film are the scenes that suggest an allegorical approach to both a father and son character being there for each other when they need each other the most. From the beginning, it's easy to feel attached to the main characters and wish their success.

The grounding performance for the entire film definitely belongs to Jim Cavizel. Dennis Quaid pulls in a satisfactory performance and supporting roles add value to the story in as much as they advance the plot and serve as important catalysts for the main characters Noah Emmerich plays the same "buddy to the protagonist" role he seems to play in most of his films and Shawn Doyle does an excellent portrayal of a sneaky predator in the night with just enough "normal" in him to present a believable scenario of unsuspecting murders.

Technically, the film is shot pretty well for the most part and utilizes strong cinematographic techniques to capture tension within several memorable sequences. The sound design and mixdown remain consistent enough throughout the film and maximizes immersion to its potential.

The film's weakest moments are within scenes with dialogue that is on the nose and forced. These moments, combined with some forced delivery, make for some awkward scenes and moments that feel too artificial and strange. As mentioned before, the biggest plot hole creates a difficult moment to accept when John Sullivan gives his father explicit instructions on how to save his own life, when in reality, no one was around when Frank Sullivan would've walked to his death.

Despite these inherent flaws. The film is entertaining and well paced. The characters are interesting and the plot's progression further escalates and raises its own stakes at just the right times throughout the film. It's definitely worth a watch for a fun time that remains entertaining with continuous viewings as well as the first.

Stranger than Fiction proved to be an enjoyable ride with twists and turns I couldn't have predicted. It's always nice to watch a film and genuinely not know how it's going to end. The film employs a unique technique of self-awareness of the script itself; utilizing age-old storytelling tools found in Aristotle's Poetics to not only present the in-context narrative of Harold's journey, but as a form of social commentary by literally presenting a character that knows he's in a story. It's a unique concept and fun premise that sounds promising from the start. The danger comes into play when one considers the film's overall theme and purpose.

Right off the back, I will say this is one of Will Ferrell's most impressive performances. The scene when his inevitable death becomes apparent with Dustin Hoffman's literary teacher character is one that felt emotionally truthful and raw. All in all, Will Ferrell gives a surprisingly subdued performance that feels remarkably held back for what it could be. I was also impressed (but not surprised) by Emma Thompson's performance. I felt her portrayal as a self-destructive and haunted writer. Her performance felt truthful and honest.

When it comes to the script, some of the film's most memorable moments come from the human moments imbedded in the screenplay's strongest moments of dramatic tension. The confrontation between Harold and Karen presents a layered dilemma with more at stake than just what's presented on the surface. The sequences portraying Harold and Ana's gradually changing relationship develop their character's journeys well and demonstrate excellent understanding of sequence construction and composition and understanding of momentum throughout the story so the narrative is constantly moving forward. With all the strengths however, the script's issues can be readily seen through the various plot holes and unclear narrative world/rules in the construct of the story.

The story opens with a narrator that narrates Harold's life. When he finally becomes aware of this narrator's voice and commentary, it's unclear at first exactly what he's confused by. When we're introduced to Emma Thompson's character, it's very unclear who she is and what her purpose is since it's apparent she's the narrator. Starting off with a seemingly fantasy sequence of her imagining jumping off a building to her death made me think she was some kind of supernatural worker whose job it was to kill certain characters via useless narration. The entrance of her new assistant didn't help this unclear and confusing set up to a character that left me wondering when I would finally know who this character was.

Admittedly, the reveal of her being the author of a book of Harold's story (along with the reveal to him) was immensely satisfying. With that reveal however, more questions presented themselves like "When and how did her influence begin to control Harold's life?" "Has she influenced his entire life?" "Who is really in control of his life?" "At what points are his life out of her control or knowledge and why?" These questions kept pressing in the back of my mind throughout the picture and made it difficult to be completely invested in the world of the story. In a fantasy(ish)-style story like this, it's important to set up the rules of the fantasy clearly so we understand and can make the distinction between reality and fantasy. Having a clear understanding of the world of dreams in Inception help us get invested in the characters because we understand exactly what is at stake. Even if the reveal is throughout the design of the story, we understand the rules appropriate to that phase of the story. In this film, the inner-physics and mechanics of the story was unclear at several times that knowing would have enhanced the film's impact.

Due to a disorganized view of the story's rules, I had a hard time understanding what the movie was ultimately trying to convey. Perhaps a rough view of life's meaning and purpose. Perhaps the character arc of Harold learning to live life to the fullest (which is not what he was doing) in the beginning of the film. If that was the goal, for the protagonist to learn to live life in the most human way he can, perhaps another character/external force determining his fate is a contradictory narrative move. Perhaps a collaboration with the slightly anti-social writer and the character whose goal it was to become the master of his own destiny life would've helped bring each character's arc to a satisfying close and drive home the purpose stronger.

Still, I had a good time with the movie and it was enjoyable. There's a lot to love about the movie and does a great job and including the audience in the journey of the character while demonstrating excellent sequence ordering and momentum that help drive the film forward. It's very entertaining and while there are issues, it's hard to imagine anyone actually hating this movie. It's appeal feels universal and it's balance of drama and comedy are expert.

This review includes an analysis of the film and will contain spoilers.

"Perfect Blue" stands today as one of Japanese anime's most effective and interesting thrillers to date. Many have been inspired by the film's effective tone and influence on the thriller's potential narrative but few have achieved what "Perfect Blue" is capable of. It also stands as Satoshi Kon's most intriguing and technically masterful piece of work.

The story follows young Mima, a pop idol turned actress at the peak of her career. As she graciously enters the acting world and accept intimidating and morally questionable roles, she begins to lose her grasp on reality while being tormented by a potentially dangerous stalker. As the story progresses to depict Mima's deepening insanity, so too does the narrative become increasingly more unreliable. Each scene presents itself with new information that gives all previous scenes completely new meaning. Watching this film is indeed a process of learning and trashing what you've just learned, and then getting it back. While the narrative does become complex in its layers, the film never feels like it's out of reach. Thankfully, it never feels needlessly confusing or pretentious (although it comes close to riding that line). Instead, the film presents its material in a thoughtful and meticulous way that makes sense while also puzzling the audience. It's not too difficult to follow but must be watched carefully, as any great film should be.

A great strength to the film is its method of building a releasing tension. "Perfect Blue" has a unique pattern throughout its run-time of building tension faster than releasing it so while we get moments of breaths and catharsis, we still feel kind of off. We know something isn't right and we're waiting for the ugly and deathly truth to be revealed. What makes this possible is the brilliantly editing and cutting done here. Ever shot's length and sequence is obviously there for a reason and the editing lends itself well to the film's brilliant pace and rhythm.

What enriches the experience of "Perfect Blue" is also the visual symbols and motifs present throughout the film. Colors play a crucial part in the story's interpretation (I personally feel). Key colors to look for here are white, red, and blue. White seems to wrap the film by beginning and ending the film with white, dreamy illusions that make one wonder, is this a dream? Red signifying oncoming death/violence and blue signifying a sexual undertone as well as loneliness. Red is crucial to the first murder scene of the screenwriter as he looks down in the elevator to see a boombox with a stark red floor just before his eyes are gouged out. Blue's meaning can be found during the lonely night time scenes with the busy but quiet nightscape of Tokyo. What's interesting is the rape scenes, particularly the first one that features noticeable shades of both blue and red.

Great filmmaking aside, I do think there are some places where the film doesn't work and those problems reside with key choices in the script. Particularly decisions made during the third act of the piece. As it's revealed that Rumi is the crazy one who's trying to kill Mima, I found myself scratching my head at this unwarranted turn of events. Many great plots and subplots contained great exposition, development, and payoff (three key scenes with Mima's fish) but this one should've been much better handled. Rumi's turn to insanity felt completely forced and out of left field that I just didn't buy it. What could've strengthened the story's third act could've been illusions or false premonitions of the stalker whom Mima killed just a couple scenes ago. Either way, the film's ending provides just enough openness for interpretation while still giving opportunity of some objective answers. Just depends on who you ask.

"Perfect Blue" is genuinely a great psychological thriller that shouldn't be missed. There's a lot to learn from this great film when it comes to pacing, editing, atmosphere, and the power of anti-plot narrative. Each viewing comes with new insights that change the complete interpretation of the film which makes it strangely re-watchable despite its strong adult content. Definitely give this one a few viewings before forming some strong interpretations and thoughts because it deserves it.

"Assassin's Creed" is an action/adventure film based on the video game by the same name. Although, liberty seems to have been taken to distance itself far away from the actual lore of said video games since only the basic premise, terminology, and feel remain intact.

Coming off of "Macbeth," Justin Kurzel directs this film with similar visual flare and style that feel stylized enough to make it incredibly interesting while not letting it feel bogged down by too much green screen or CGI. The film overall has a real feel to it and if practical effects were minimal, I was definitely fooled because the visual effects did look good.

Unfortunately, "Assassin's Creed" fails as a movie overall by not delivering a memorable experience with so much great cinematic potential. On the script front, it just fails as a coherent plot that moves from point A to point B. It's easy to become confused by this mess of a screenplay that I genuinley wonder what happened in the writers room. Not only do events feel unfitting for the overall theme and direction of the story, but character motivations and related dialogue are truly head-scratching. As the film progresses, I constantly was asking myself why each character was doing what they're doing and where it was leading. The general premise itself hooked me and I thought I was in for a real treat but as the 2nd act progresses, the film looses all clarity and vision and becomes a simple showcase of impressive acrobatics and stunts.

The film however doesn't fail on every front. With a talented cast of Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and Jeremy Irons, each role is well executed considering what content is there to be worked with. It's apparent everyone is giving it some real effort and they are entertaining to watch.

The film is also shot and scored nicely. I found the cinematography striking and composed beautifully. Excellent use of lighting gave the impression of real time action that had stakes. The musical score also felt not only entertaining but more original than most I've heard recently. Those technical aesthetics aside, action sequences lost their tension due to jarring cuts and poor editing choices. It seems that the saving graces of the film were slightly damaged in the cutting room.

Overall, "Assassin's Creed" wasn't just a disappointing film, it just didn't work. Enough talent helped make it watchable and pleasant to look at but at the end of the day, the script couldn't be saved and it became a wasted opportunity for a great film. Although it's not the worst movie ever made, I wouldn't recommend it.

"The Shining" is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece horror adaption of Stephen King's novel by the same name. The story follows Jack Torrence played by Jack Nicholson with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and his gifted son Danny (Danny Lloyd). Jack Torrence has accepted the job to be the caretaker of the Overlook is alone and isolated with his family up in the snowy mountains of Colorado. As the harsh winter settles, Jack slowly grows insane and dangerous and his family becomes terrified of his growing instability and hostility.

"The Shining" is notorious for departing far from King's original novel in characterization, tone, and narrative. While there is a departure from the novel, the essential story remains the same while both creative's approach vastly differs. Many have called "The Shining" has one of the greatest horror films ever made. For me, even when I watch it now it remains a chilling and terrifying film to this day.

One of the great strengths the film has is a constant terror of the real/unreal visions and hallucinations the characters experience as the Overlook Hotel comes to life. The sequence of events lined out in the script combined with Kubrick's meticulous technical abilities make for not just a frightening story but a surreal experience that feels more like an imaginative nightmare.

Kubrick's character of Jack Torrence feels less of a genuine character than King's character and more of an incarnation of evil as presented by the Overlook Hotel. Throughout the picture, the two separate entities seems to mesh and become on to the point where I believed everything that was being presented and yet, believed nothing. The film's attempt to confuse the audience and suggest multiple interpretations of the truth is perhaps the film's biggest departure from its source material. It also may be its strongest asset.

"The Shining" is a subjective experience and one of the most essential horror films ever made. It's worth the status it has achieved by now by its meticulous direction, precise shooting and cutting, and subjective interpretive content and delivery. Everyone should get around to seeing this film at least once but should really be seen several times. Much like other Kubrick films, it's an experience that changes over time and with each viewing.

What might turn off viewers is perhaps the ruthlessly unreliable narrative that it transforms into. Right up to the very end shot of the photograph of Jack Torrence, it could prove too distant from definitive interpretation that some passive viewers may not be interested in the re-watch.

"Sausage Party" has a fantastic premise: Food items in the grocery store are excited to be purchased by humans who they believe to be gods. When they are chosen, they believe they go to food paradise and enjoy heaven but when they realize the truth, all hell breaks loose.

The premise alone is enough to watch the film with great anticipation. It's an adult-humor animated comedy not afraid to go all the way while also providing fascinating perspective commentary on society, politics, and religion. The film ultimately does say what it wants to say but by the end, I found myself spiting the film for how it said it.

First of all, the humor. This film has garnered a reputation for being a hard 'R' film for it's strong crude and sexual content and language. As the film progressed, I noticed that the language was so frequent that the humorous shock value had disappeared by the middle of Act II. For the sake of going "all the way," it's obvious that the writers wanted to take it even further which made the film less funny. In this case, over the top was a strong asset until it became so much that I just felt sick watching it. It didn't become humorous anymore and it just became obsence and vulgar for the sake of just vulgarity. At that point, I believe the target audience has changed from intelligent adults ready for some raunchy humor to teenagers trapped in adults bodies. Not to be rude myself but the film lost its intelligence and appealed to much more basic and rudimentary tastes of entertainment.

Second, the message. Along with the humor, there is such thing as over the top and while the premise promised an intriguing critique of previously listed themes, the script's dialogue, characterization, and overall delivery became quickly heavy handed and in your face. Not long after Act I was over that I realized the message of idiocrisy of religion and religious-based beliefs and ideas were being forced down my throat in an offensive and distasteful way.

Major complaints aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the animation style. Lots of work went into the aesthetics of the film and I think the animation is, by far, the movie's greatest strength. The cast also boasts some very talented actors and actresses that make talking hot dogs believable. What humor was present and landed well, I think not only goes to some saving graces in the script but in the talented people voicing the characters. In particular, Seth Rogen and Kirsten Wig did a great job as the story's leads.

Overall, I liked the talent and animation and several jokes landed really well. However, due to the inherent flaws in the script's vision and the humor getting ridiculously over the top and just gross, I can't and will not recommend this to anyone. It's obscene just because it's bored. If you're interested in animation films for adults, I would recommend high quality works that having something to say while retaining the intelligence and goodwill that the audience should demand.

Recommendations: Fantastic Planet (1973), Perfect Blue (1997), Akira (1988), Anomalisa (2015), etc.

"Apocalypse Now" has been hailed as not only one of the best war films ever made but as one of the greatest films ever created. The mighty status is definitely earned but on an individual level, must be discovered after several careful viewings. It's a film with much depth, substance, and meaning than one can divulge in one viewing. It's a profound piece of cinema that continues to stagger above the rest as a fiction with a lot to say.

Francis Ford Coppola and his incredible team achieved what could be the creative climax of his career. Based on the novella by Joseph Conrad (having read the book I believe inspired might be a more appropriate word), the story follows a U.S. military captain and chronicles his journey up the Vietnam and Cambodia river to find and terminate a rouge Colonel.

Technically, the film, both the theatrical and redux versions both show superior craftsmanship in not only telling a great story but in suggesting feelings and thoughts to the audience through meticulous editing, sound, music, and cinematography. Edited by the great Walter Murch, "Apocalypse Now" is cut together beautifully with tremendously enthralling pacing and tempo. Even with the redux version clocking in at over three hours, the film never feels dull or uninteresting. Each sequence presents something new to think about and ponder and adds to the previous sequence.

Of the few academy awards it won, cinematography contributed highly to the film's overall atmosphere and meaning. Providing nuance and complexity to the characters, this film is shot gorgeously with dreamlike contrast and surreal color. As the story progresses, we see how the filmmakers used the lighting of day to tell the story in the editing room. The beginning of the film reflects a lighter sunrise feel to the picture as the journey begins. Near the end, we gradually see less and move towards the sunset of the story. Until the very climax shot in the dark twilight of night. As the cinematographic aesthetics reflect the gradual change in character through the darkness, so too does the audience take the journey along until they no longer know how they feel or what they think.

Narratively speaking, the story's progression and sequences of events may be off-putting to some viewers. Some have complained that the film's direction is random and confusing which makes it difficult to understand the theme of the piece. I would say it's important to understand that "Apocalypse Now", much like "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, is allegorical. It's a symbolic and psychological journey into the darkness of the human heart. Each scene does indeed not only become easier to accept over several viewings, but the meaning behind each scene is there.

For any film-lover, "Apocalypse Now" is a must see. Each piece of the film provides a profound commentary on the human condition while also making anti-war statements which have always been relevant. It's a film for those who are ready to surrender and be completely affected by what the film has to say. It may not be for everyone but it sure is an experience that must be felt by everyone. In my opinion, "Apocalypse Now" is indeed one of the greatest films ever made and continues to impress me with each viewing.

"Avengers: Infinity War" comes at a time when I'm personally at superhero movie fatigue. With each addition to the MCU being the same fast food cinema of mediocre and enjoyable film consumption, I enjoyed "Avengers: Infinity War" and was pleasantly surprised at how much care and difference the film was given compared to the other members of its family.

The film is a culmination of an empire of superhero storytelling which gets seriously bogged down by its overcrowded palette of characters. The film essentially follows none of these heros but rather, to my pleasant surprise, mainly follow the antagonist and villain, Thanos, played by Josh Brolin. In many ways, he feels like the hero of the story due to how much attention the story gives him to convince the audience that this could be one of the best written villains in a superhero film every written. We understand this character to a depth that was honestly alarming and fascinating. Each scene builds on the next to carefully create a character we go from hating, to want to see him succeed.

Thanos is definitely the best aspect of this film and him itself gives the film a massive advantage over its many flaws and criticisms. In keeping in line with the film's writing, since much attention is given to Thanos, we are given a disappointing inbalance in hero characters that share the screen. None of which really developed arcs or changes we see in the film. Despite the overall disappointing characterization, stakes are higher than they ever have been. This again goes back to the phenomenal protagonistic villain and well orchestrated action sequences.

Additional complaints about the script include truly head-scratching plot holes and questions like, "How did he get there?' 'Why didn't she just do that?" Many of these questions, that appear throughout the film genuinely matter since they took me out of the film and made me question things I should not have been worrying about. Better care definitely could've been taken into creating a more cohesive and consistent plot that makes more logical sense that it deserves.

Visual effects on this film is fantastic and nothing else really needs to be said on this front. CGI's detail and scope is something to be studied by aspiring visual effects artists. General look definitely reflects the talented directors, the Russo Brothers. They prove once again that they understand what makes a film exciting and enjoyable to watch.

Despite my issues with "Avengers: Infinity War" it honestly was such a surprise and enjoyable film to watch. It felt refreshing despite its darker and heavier tone and will be much more remembered than the past 10 additions to the MCU. This finally felt like an epic story rather than an inconsequential episode to the fast food cinematic machine that the MCU has become. This one is definitely worthy of the praise and massive revenue its received.

"Deadpool 2" is an overall successful attempt at bringing the humor, satire, and playful atmosphere of the first film, while at the same time, does a sloppy and incoherent job. With a new director and all too familiar approach, "Deadpool 2" did something that its sole job was to not follow in similar films of the superhero fashion and be simply ordinary. Perhaps that's why the film is severely disappointing despite it being a genuinely good time at the movies.

As expected, Ryan Reynolds nails the character of Deadpool/Wade Wilson. He brings the familiar character back onto the screen while enforcing the theory that maybe only he should play this role. He's hilarious throughout and proves to be the comedic lifeblood of the film. With him around, more comic relief is frankly unnecessary. Josh Brolin creates an interesting antagonist as Cable whose back story and depth feel much more entertaining the the first film's generic villain.

Both strong performances and quirky additional characters however, don't save "Deadpool 2" from failing on the screenwriting front. The story is messy not because of its "busyness" but its unfocused theme and message. The film promises a particular theme and emotional tug for its protagonist but is later abandoned and sometimes forgotten altogether. The plot even betrays this path of journey and change for the character and then returns to the third act to try and put those pieces back together. This made the film feel unfocused and not nearly as cared for as its predecessor.

Many major plot points as well prove to be unbearably cliched predictable. Drawing obvious inspiration (and maybe a little stealing) from The Terminator anthology and a few other science fiction stories, "Deadpool 2" doesn't feel nearly as fresh or original as it really could've been. Perhaps the film's greatest downfall is these fundamental script problems that keep it from becoming something more than just a sequence to make a sequel.

Criticisms aside, the humor (especially a the end) had me not only laughing but unexpectedly busting my stomach. Some jokes landed perfectly and created some of the biggest laughs I've experienced in a movie theater in a long time. At the same time, many jokes fell completely on their faces which really makes the film a hit and miss at the same time.

The general progression and tempo of the film is fantastic. "Deadpool 2" moves at a brisk pace and slows down at all the necessary places. Where emotion is the heart of the scene, the filmmakers allow us to feel what emotion is available to draw from. When action sequences kick in, they're thrilling and exciting with hardly any dull moments. Both qualities coupled with constant flakes of Deadpool humor make those sequences enjoyable compounded by more enjoyment.

Technically, there are several places in the film with honestly horrendous CGI despite its larger budget. One character in particular was not cared for at all and was painful to watch. I was honestly surprised to see how awful it was and see minimal criticism on this despite the budget it received. Still in the realm of visual aesthetics, the film overall has a better, more cinematic look than the first which feels right. It feels very much in the genre which contributes to a more engaging experience.

Overall, "Deadpool 2" is not nearly as good as it should be. It's disappointing and its script is incredibly messy. However, it's a good and funny time at the theaters and should satisfy the majority of the movie going audience and especially its intended audience.

"Black Swan" is a brilliant combination of Darren Aronofsky's gift for psychological thriller and influences from "The Red Shoes" and "Perfect Blue." These combined with prestige editing, breathtaking cinematography, and haunting direction make for an unforgettable and strongly rewatchable psychological thriller.

Nina, played wonderfully by Natalie Portman is a gifted ballerina who lands the role of the Black Swan in a take on Swan lake directed by a tough and driven director and coach. As her work in the role progresses, she gradually embraces the role of Black Swan and simultaneously begins to see the darker and more dangerous side to herself. The viewer, along with the character, goes insane and loses their grasp on reality and what's imaginary.

Perhaps the biggest strength "Black Swan" has going for it is its ability display a variety of meanings within its scenes. It's not uncommon to divulge different meanings and interpretations from different viewers and that makes it fun to discuss and re-watch. From the beginning inferences to the ending's climax, I pull different interpretations from that of friends I have.

The film beautifully blends its tones and has wonderfully smooth pacing throughout. No wonder "Black Swan" was nominated for best film editing. Not for one moment was I bored or anxious. Instead, I found myself riveted from beginning to end.

If I have any negative criticism for "Black Swan" it would be length and duration. It's quite rare for me to want a larger run time but as the film ended, I thought to myself, "Not only do I want more, but I think more would have taken the film to greater heights." In several scenes in Act I and II, further development of where Nina comes from and her relationships with other dancers could've have better impacted some already solid payoff in Act III.

Criticism aside, this is an incredible piece and my personal favorite Darren Aronofsky film. It's riveting, beautiful, and haunting with something profound to say.

"A Quiet Place" is directed and co-written by John Krasinski and stars himself with Emily Blunt and two talented young rising talents. The story depicts a family trying to survive a post-apocalyptic earth where mysterious creatures prey on anything that makes a sound. Serving up genuine scares, nailing tonal challenges and successfully navigating the emotional beats of the script, "A Quiet Place" was astounding from start to finish.

Not any horror film in recent memory has managed to do what "A Quiet Place" did on my second viewing; scare the crap out of me and bring me to tears in the same hour and a half. "A Quiet Place" doesn't feel like a typical horror film focused soley on frightening the audience. The film is focused on the family and parenthood. It examines the roles of mother and father and depicts a contained and paranoid space where anything can happen. It's a film with a message that stays with you and compels you to think and ponder what kind of a parent you are/what you could be.

Sound plays an integral role in the film's overall story and tone. The lack of sound overall exploits the filmmaker's minimalist approach to the story. This further creates tension and gives meaning to the phrase "less is more." By hearing only what certain characters can hear and what they choose to omit, I felt drawn further into the experience and invested myself in every decision they made.

"A Quiet Place" is a strong addition to the horror genre and opens its doors to younger audiences with less blood and gore and more unseen scares. Due the film's important message and nature, I think this was the right choice. It's easily accessible and relateable while still managing to awe and mystify. It's highly recommended and stands as one of the best modern horror films I've ever seen.

"License to Wed" presents a by the numbers romantic comedy about a couple who endure a gruelingly awkward preparation process in preparation for their marriage by an off the wall reverend played by Robin Williams. Lead by Williams as well as Mandy Moore and John Krasinski, this film should have an easy time understanding what exactly it is and how to have fun with the audience. Interestingly though, the film begins quite promising with some genuine laughs as the characters are introduced and the plot is presented. However, the story spirals into one terribly executed gag after another until somewhere around the middle, it becomes frankly unwatchable.

Wasting Robin William's talent might be the most serious offense the film takes. Considering how impossible that seems but even he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself after the second scene. Each charismatic actor are not only underutilized in their roles, but are given such unbelievable situations to work in everyone ends up looking bad. With every line of unbelievable dialogue and awkwardly outrageous coming plot point, it becomes quickly apparent there's no escaping the dark pit this film falls into.

Every possible complaint given to the film originates in the film's script and direction. Both of which are often the most valuable factors in a film's quality and can turn the most talented actors into unlikeable screen presence. Despite the failure of the writing and direction, "License to Wed" is guilty of other technical incompetencies.

The film's poorly constructed together with some obvious editing choices that make you wonder if this would've made a better Hallmark movie. Sound design and recording are not anything to be seriously concerned about but each cut seems to feel so splashed together it wouldn't be a surprise if the final cut was the first rough cut. Other aesthetic choices feel boring and generic which only decreases any potential the movie has for feeling remotely fresh.

All in all, "License to Wed" is not only poorly done, but an incredibly unwatchable, unfunny, and unintelligent comedy that tries so hard to be uncomfortable and weird that it succeeds to the detriment of the film. It's painfully unpleasant to watch and definitely not something anyone should waste their money or time with.

"The Greatest Showman" is a flashy and beautifully looking spectacle intended to showcase a real life based story on P.T. Barnum, the original creator of the circus. While not remaining true to the real story and drawing real inspiration from true events, the film boasts spectacular aesthetics and emotionally stirring musical numbers, the movie ultimately falls short of truly dazzling but simply satisfies.

Every rumor about outstanding music and dance numbers are, off the bat, justified. In most musicals, at least one number can be pointed out which felt inferior to the rest of the score and couldn't quite escape the fast-forward button. This is not the case with "The Greatest Showman." Every number and song is one to listen and jam out to in the car and each piece is performed wonderfully by its charming cast and solid direction.

The driving force of "The Greatest Showman" is indeed its cast and their unbelievable devotion to the film. Every performance exudes enthusiasm and charisma which gives the sloppy script and weak story more life than it deserves. Hugh Jackman and Zac Effron are standouts in particular with Michelle Williams coming in strong as always. Zendaya, as usual, didn't impress however and felt unemotional and unconvincing altogether.

As mentioned prior, the aesthetics of "The Greatest Showman" are beautiful and astounding. Dripping colorful and lively cinematography, each shot contains wonderful pieces of excellent production design, costumes, and hair and makeup attention. The combination of these important elements help convincingly sell this movie and further immerse the viewer in a more classic feeling musical than what modern audiences are used to.

As mentioned above as well, the film suffers from a weak script with messy narrative structure and distracting editing choices than hurt the film's flow and narrative. Unfortunately, the film's script tends to unevenly tackle 3 or more completely separate themes or focuses for the film. As each act is introduced with a new theme that neither contradicts or compliments the previous theme, so its impact near the end can leave the audience feeling cheated as we wonder "Why did they tell this story in the first place?" At the end, we feel satisfied with the high moral values the filmmakers chose to leave the audience with and it warms our hearts. As we think deeper however, we realize maybe we've been tricked as we think of the possibly relevant line of dialogue found in the film "Does it bother you that what you're selling is all fake?"

Despite the apparent flaws in its written foundation, "The Greatest Showman" manages to entertain and satisfy audiences of all ages. This is a good film to show to younger audiences while older audiences will enjoy a trip to the theater with their family. The wonderful music and grand spectacle of the film outweighs the negatives and "The Greatest Showman" is indeed a solid film worth checking out.

"Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi" comes from writer and director Rian Johnson and continues the story of Rey, Finn, and Luke Skywalker in their quest to find answers and fight off the first order helmed by antagonist Kylo Ren. Building upon its predecessor, this film takes the story and characters in very new and different directions that may challenge the viewer's expectation on how a Star Wars film should be handled. Divisive to its core, this newest installments is one of the boldest and most memorable sci-fi/action films in recent memory.

To my pleasant surprise, this film takes every turn unexpectedly with the most unpredictable plot of the whole year. Constantly being surprised, I found myself wondering if anyone was actually right in their predictions about what decisions these characters would make. The script and its execution felt fresh and thoroughly engrossing from start to finish. Every scene did offer new journeys to take with the characters and offered new themes to reflect.

Technically, the film is beautiful shot and well put together. Visual effects are top notch with little to no complaints. Sound design and mixing felt like a step down compared to "The Force Awakens" but it's difficult to beat that immersive sound design present in that film anyway.

The biggest flaw present in the story are bigger subplots regarding Finn and a new character "Rose." Their separate journey disrupted the natural flow of Rey and Kylo Ren's stronger narrative and felt considerably less engaging comparatively. Looking back after a second viewing, the weaknesses of those subplots present in the first and second act seem to do more damage than good. Despite said pacing issues, the film goes from oddly mediocre to downright fantastic during its second half which saves the film as a whole.

Generally, fans will most likely enjoy the movie for its excitement, characters, and unpredictable plot. The entire film builds to a beautiful payoff and stellar third act, even if the road to get there feels difficult muscle through. It's packed rich detail and influence from past films and definitely deserves additional viewings and further pondering as opposed to knee-jerk reactions. Highly recommended!

For the entirety of this review, I'll refer to this film as "Star Wars" instead of the sub-name with episodes and all. "Star Wars" is perhaps George Lucas' greatest film and most significant contribution to the art of cinema. The film focuses on young Luke Skywalker as he acquaints himself with outside forces of the galaxy, a civil war, the force, and the adventure of a lifetime. "Star Wars" continues to hold its ground as one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time and remains just as entertaining as ever before.

Building on heavy influence from Akira Kurosawa's samurai films, particularly "The Hidden Fortress" George Lucas crafts an interesting western in space told from the perspective of the two lowest characters: C-3PO and R2-D2. Two droids that become entangled in a galactic civil war between the empire and the rebel alliance. As their journey progresses, new and interesting characters are introduced (like our protagonist, Luke Skywalker) with iconic movie icons like Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinnes).

For viewers that haven't seen any of the original films, the visual and special effects may feel outdated but what remains fresh after all these years is its incredible story and fascinating world. "Star Wars" and its core story remind us that foundational storytelling and classic character arcs are what stay with us for decades upon decades. We seem to relate to Luke's grounded situation with dreaming of something bigger than himself. Reaching out beyond his farm home life to something extraordinary. We grow immersed with him in learning of the force and the wise teachings of Obi-Wan Kenobi which appeals to the natural spiritual sides of us all. Above all, we root for him as the underdog during the riveting space dog fight even when he's up against Darth Vader himself.

Everyone delivers solid performances but the standouts go to Harrison Ford and James Earl Jones. Harrison Ford's cocky and charismatic "Han Solo" is still arguably his most remembered role after all these years. James Earl Jones gives the voice to Darth Vader that makes him strong, powerful, and extremely intimidating. There's a good reason Darth Vader remains the most iconic movie villain of all time.

"Star Wars" however, gains its stature from its high quality technical abilities it introduced. Visual and special effects were far ahead of its time and the editing and rhythm of the cuts make the entire film flow as a whole. The flow with editing can also find influence from the older westerns and Kurosawa's samurai films. John William's score still represents the peak of epic music composing. You know it's a good score when this score is the standout in a career of breathtaking music for film.

The film, in all its glory, does have its downsides and slight weaknesses. Due to no fault of its own, the film can easily be overshadowed by the rest of the movies in its own franchise due to technical advancements in visual effects. Comparatively, the original can feel not as visually stimulating or engaging as the others. The story takes its time to set up characters and subplots for world building in a more subtle approach than many modern audiences would be comfortable with. That might not be a weakness in the film itself, but rather a weakness the the viewer themselves.

Another complaint might be the lack of attachment to some characters. Several key characters are indeed hard to attach to and might feel cold and distant. This might weaken the film's impact and subsequently, the intense climax which relies for intensity on its technique rather than characters. A solid blend of both approaches might've helped the film's emotional impact to the point of meeting its sequel: "Empire Strikes Back."

"Star Wars" still remains one of the greatest movies ever made and is essential for everyone to see in their life at least once. Its influence continues to extend the science fiction world of film, television, and video games to this day.

"Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" marks a milestone for writer/directer Martin McDonagh and is an idea piece on a mother's struggle with her town after posting billboards containing a call to action in regards to her murdered daughter. With outstanding screen writing and near perfect editing, this powerhouse of a film is easily one of the best all year and is driven with force and intensity by its lead, Frances McDormand.

What begins as a narrow and focused drama, gradually escalates to a film with big themes and ideas, relevant social commentary, and much more subplots than anticipated. "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" is packed with questions and a few answers about anger, revenge, violence, and kindness. The story shows people in a realistic light I've never quite seen before. We're presented with characters and their genuine emotions. Nothing feels sugarcoated of fluffed but it never lacks emotional impact either.

The movie balances its seemingly contradictory tones beautifully by crafting a dark comedy that feels heavy due to strong subject matter, while at the same time, utilizing comedic moments that feel completely natural to the character's motivations. It's obvious great care was taken into this script and the method in which it's constructed.

One of the most talked about elements to this film are the strong performances; particularly by Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell. Rightfully so, this is some of their best (if not their best) work these eyes have beheld and they steal the show in every film they're in. That's not take away from Woody Harrelson and Lucas Hedges, as well as the entire cast who give memorable performances and paint shockingly believable characters that we feel we know personally.

If there is anything that might turn audiences away from this film, it might be its harsh subject matter despite none of it every being depicted as well as its language and execution with the material. Personally, this has a strong impact and I wouldn't have changed anything about it. It's a highly recommended film with a lot to ponder at the end and is definitely a contender for best movie of the year. Definitely don't miss this one.