sfgebel315

This is my favorite series and I feared the day it became a movie/show for this reason. It seems like it tries to slow the pace of the story so it can build the anticipation and intrigue that comes with world-building, but unlike Game of Thrones, the performances are not powerful enough to ensnare us. And unlike Legend of the Seeker or Shannara Chronicles, the action is not engaging enough and the script is not intense enough.

I could get on board with Moiraine, Lan, and Nynaeve. I think Rand holds great potential. But the rest of the cast: Egwene, Perrin, and my all-time favorite Matrim are boring! Mat is not at all as I imagined and there is no funny or snark. Egwene is not headstrong enough, she's too passive. And Perrin, it's like he's half asleep the whole time.

I don't know if it is the cast themselves, the script, the direction, or all of the above. What I do know is I am bored. I was not bored while reading. I know I'll keep watching because I want to see the other characters arrive and see if there is a chance of salvaging this.

I won't go into plot or risk spoilers, but who are we kidding. In shows it is all about the characters. They are what keep us watching. And these versions of these characters do not bring life to the story I grew up with.

So disappointed.

I gave it a five for the special effects of Moiraine's one power and the setting/scenery. As well as the casting of four of the characters, even if Lan's look is not what I would have expected.

I would give negative stars if I could.

First and foremost, this show doesn't seem to care about magic or witches or any of that stuff I loved when I first started watching the original show, or what made me turn to Supernatural, Vampire Diaries, and Witches of East End after Charmed got canceled. All this show cares about is creating empowered women and showing how women can fight any man. They don't need magic to do that and frankly don't seem to care about the magic, except in how it can help their cause. THEY'RE TAKING THE FUN OUT OF MAGIC AND I CANNOT WATCH ANYMORE!

I feel I gave it a fair chance. I watched it. I watched it with my oldest Charmed buddy just so I wouldn't have to suffer alone and so someone else could put me in my place if I was too harsh. Yet, she agrees with me completely. Eliminating the power of premonition means they were unable to see how bad their show was going to be.

I cannot even put into words a review of this show because it's not even worthy of that. It was a horrible show, not just by my Charmed-obsessed standards, but by any show standards. Ignore the magic for a second (which apparently is really easy for this show to do) and you still have a terrible show with three women who are as artificial as they come.

They use science to defeat a possession demon, the epic first major villain they fight looks like he was stolen from the Night King, Frost Giants, and Emma Frost. I hate Mel's forceful feminism, I find Macy's science solves everything to not be amusing and actually go against the magical show, and the only one that could have worked was Maggie but I dislike that she has telepathy. Also, I hate Harry and wish he was not even associated with the idea of whitelighters.

As I was watching the episode several commercials came on for the #seeher campaign. Everything makes sense now! This show is presented in partnership with #seeher, which is a group trying to increase the presence of females in the media by 20% by 2020. Now I understand why they thought to reboot Charmed because that gives them three female leads. Oh wait, should female leads in a show that sucks count? This is just more evidence that the show is trying too hard.

I am a woman. I loved the empowerment of women I got from shows like Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Alias, Firefly, and even Power Rangers had some tact. But they were subtle, they didn't shove it down my throat! I'm not stupid. I understand the issues, but if they think this is the best way to get the message across then I am worried for the movement.

I am so turned off by this show that I don't want to watch another second. I love magic. I love strong women who have magical powers. That's why I liked Charmed. But does that mean I want the focus to be the strong women, yes, but not because you're telling me it should be! They're strong because of how they handle their powers, their relationship to each other, and how many demons they face and defeat. This is a classic case of saying you're cool does not make you cool, it actually makes people want to avoid you because they think you're uncool. Claiming the show is women-empowerment does not make it so. The show has to earn the right and from what I've seen, I cannot wait for it to be canceled.

I am also convinced they did not even watch the original show. They must have seen a clip from a TNT rerun and thought oh, this would be a cool concept to reinvent. Then they decided that because it's a fantasy show with magic that means they can make anything up and they forgot that it's 2018 and by now there are rules of magic that most stories follow. I imagine some of you will feel I was too harsh on this show, while others might agree with me. Does Charmed hold a pedestal in my very soul, yes. Naturally, this show didn't stand a chance, but that is simply why I don't like it and have no intention of continuing to watch it. The reason I actually hate this show and find it horrible for the fact that in 2018 we should be able to do better, is because it seems to go against everything Charmed stood for (magic excluded) and claims it will do what Charmed didn't-show female-empowerment and bring awareness to the issues by using the media's influence. What's worse, is the way they do that is so forceful that they are predictable, aggravating, and the opposite of good role models.

I am not sure if I entirely believe the curse of the sequel. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is better than the first. The only reason I still love the first is simply because it is the first. In addition, I thought Hunger Games: Catching Fire was the best film in the entire series. Also, The Dark Knight is the best in Nolan's Batman trilogy. So there are instances where the sequels are better or at least equally as good. Unfortunately, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, is not one of those cases. It's good. It's action-packed. It's got comedic Chris Pratt scenes. Jeff Goldblum is in it, briefly. And it's got the dinosaurs! But it feels like it is a bridge film that needed to be made so we can get the third one. The first half of the film is our traditional island of extinct creatures that reek havoc, while the second half of the film is man foolishly bringing those dinosaurs to the city and we get our very own Godzilla AKA Indoraptor vs. Giant Mansion.

The whole film was made just so we could get the last five minutes. Granted, you may not realize that until the film ends. I watched the whole film thinking it was a mediocre sequel, only to leave the theatre deciding it was an entertaining segue between introducing the "successful" theme park where current society could learn about a past world and the infamous end result that Goldblum's Dr. Malcolm has been talking about since the very first film. It is the idea of if you bring them back, you upset the balance, and eventually, the dinosaurs will rule again. There's the line: "God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs eat man--" and the last line is originally "Woman inherets the earth" but I think this film suggests the truth is "Dinosaurs take back the earth."

In this film, it has been three years since the Indominous Rex destroyed the theme park and now the volcano is going to destroy the island. Claire (Howard) and some of her colleagues, tech-guy/whinybutt Franklin (Justice Smith) and dinovet Zia (Daniella Pineda), are trying to raise enough money to save the dinosaurs from their inevitable second extinction. Enter Mr. Mills (Rafe Spall) and his boss, Hammond's co-creator, Lockwood (James Cromwell) who fund Claire's trip back to the island with Owen (Pratt) to rescue Blue the raptor and several "all the other dinosaurs"--but it's a TRAP! Turns out Mills just wants several species so he can sell them off and they needed Owen to get Blue. This films goes from another Jurassic Park film to an Endagered Animal Auction.

Imagine if you will, staring from the hidden confines of a military truck securly placed on a boat back at a brontosaurus staring back at you through smock and lava, crying out and then suddenly all you can see is their silhouette as they are covered in smoke and debris before falling down dead. It's a cry-worthy moment to watch nearly all of the dinosaurs die again. Most Jurassic Park films have dinosaurs trying to kill the humans, and succeeding, but the underlying message is they were extinct and we brought them back. There have been a few scenes (Sam Neill's character trying to heal the sick triceratops in Jurassic Park and Owen/Claire comforting the dying brontosaurus after the I-Rex mauled her) where we feel empathy for the dinosaurs. Not many, but a few. However, what I do love about this film is there are many more scenes where we feel empathy for them and we remember they are creatures/animals with the same thoughts and emotions as us. Yes, I know, I'm a big softy.

Though I understand why the film takes place in a mansion in California, it is still "too weird" to take seriously and truly be scared. I mean, imagine a large dionsaurs traipsing across the roof, crashing through hallways, and using it's nail to turn the latch on the balcony window and walk in...it's just too disjoining from the isolation of "we're all alone, trapped on an island with dinosaurs"--which is where half the scare-factor came into play in the first couple films.

Then again, part of why I might not have liked those scenes as much is simply because it brought back one of my childhood classic nightmares. The scene in question is where our child screamer Maisie (Lockwoods "granddaughter"), hides under her covers and the Indoraptor opens her window, walks through, and looms over her. When I was five I accidentally saw Jurassic Park, meaning my teenage cousin was babysitting and let me watch it, which my parents resented him for when I started screaming and having nightmares. I lived in a one-story house with a bedroom that faced the street, with a large window I could have climbed through easily. After watching the first film, I was convinced that the T-Rex was going to smash through my window and eat me out of my bed, and there was nothing my parents could do to change my mind, except for dad sleeping on the trundle next to me, in between me and the window--so the T-Rex would eat him first.

You've seen "Indoraptor" a few times and unless you've seen the film, you're likely guessing at what that is--it's this films new scary dinomonster. It's a mix of the velocirapter and the Indominous Rex (which was already part raptor)...however, while the I-Rex was playing and exploring her surroundings, I-Rap is having fun tricking humans before tearing them to pieces. Simply put, the dinomonster from the first Jurassic World was more T-Rex with the stomp and chomp, while this new dinomonster is more vicious, intelligent predator. Curtesy of Dr. Henry Wu (Wong) who is back as our very own Dr. Frankenstein, cursed with his god-complex and desire to create and control life.

The idea of life brings us to the wonderful Jeff Golblum and his character, Dr. Ian Malcolm, who makes a framing cameo in the film--only appearing in the very beginning and the very end, as our narrator and doomsday sayer. He provides our on-the-nose line of "it really is a jurassic world" and reminds us of the chaos theory and how "life finds a way", which then is the theme of the whole film, and is then our warning at the end of the film to foreshadow the third film in the trilogy. I think this also plays into the popular tagline of the film, "the park is gone". The use of the word "park" suggests amusement and play and not-taking-it-seriously. To say the "park is gone" suggests that there's no more play, this is real, this is dangerous, and you can't take it back.

I actually do hope the third film gets made, because even if I didn't like this film as much as the first one, I still love the concept of Jurassic Park, and I still am intrigued by the idea of what will inevitably come next after this film.

SPOILERS, DON'T READ ANY MORE UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM

OR DO NOT CARE

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

The ending where all the dinosaurs are going to die from poisonous gas if they are not set free echos the scene earlier where we watch all the dinosaurs die who were left on the island. It is just as heartbreaking and cry-worthy, but with a more bittersweet ending. They're set free and we're glad because we didn't want to watch them die, but now they're lose on California. Then again, it is very poetic how they are set free. The little clone girl becomes a mass murderer when she lets them out, but then again, since she's a clone too, it is fitting.

Learning that Maisie was actually a clone of Lockwood's daughter, and that he cloned the first human, actually made me enjoy the film even more. Lockwood wanting his daughter back and breaking the laws of humanity is why he and Hammond had a falling out, because it is suggested that Hammoned only wanted to clone dinosaurs to educate people, not as test subjects for human experimentation. I do like the implications that this now means we have the ability to create actual clones, because Maisie seems to be a success. On the other hand, I feel that is an entirely different story that does not truly fit with our Jurassic storyline.

I feel the only true reason we need Maisie to be a clone is so that the clone sets the other clones free, because she is the only one who can truly understand what they're going through. She was dead and brought back when she should not have been, and now all of California and probably America is going to pay the price.

I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.

I cannot believe it has been 14 years since The Incredibles came out. The gap between sequels seems to be getting longer, but the director, Brad Bird, said he wanted to wait until he had the perfect story. There's even a clip before the film starts where actors, Craig T. Nelson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Holly Hunter tell us it will be "well worth the wait"--and they were right!

Though 14 years later, the film takes place minutes later. The first film ends with the Parr family having to fight the Miner who pops up out of the school parking lot, just after Violet gets a date with Tony. The sequel starts with that fight and we see how it backfires as the Parr family get arrested for destroying part of the city and because superheroes are still illegal. Enter our new characters, siblings Winston and Evelyn Deaver, who both want to help superheroes step back into the light, but they believe the way to do that is with Elastigirl. Therefore, our sequel twist is that Mr. Incredible becomes a stay-at-home dad having to babysit Jack-Jack and learning of his dozens of powers, teaching Dash "new math", and inserting his foot into his mouth when he tries to help Violet with her crush--all while Elastigirl is improving superhero relations.

Personally, I thought the movie was predictable but perfect. I loved it for its simplistic plot that was not hard to figure out. I knew right away who the "villain" was and what their motivation was; however, I did not know exactly how the climax would occur, so I was still very much engaged. Not to mention there was enough character development and funny scenes to space out the predictable plot arch.

Often times animated films are more for the adults who are taking the kids, then for the kids themselves. Most kids will not understand half the references, but will still enjoy the overall concept. At the same time, this film comes out when the kids who saw the first are now adults, possibly with kids of their own. Therefore, this film is a great blend of adult and child humor. I found it hilarious, and as a teacher, I particularly loved when Mr. Incredible stays up all night reading Dash's "new math" textbook so he can teach him new math, which was what it was called in the 60s (the time period this film alludes to) and is a shout out to our modern common core confusion.

What I really love about this film is that there is even more Frozone and Jack-Jack, which brings me to my all-time favorite scenes--learning of Jack-Jack's powers, particularly when Violet and Dash call Uncle Frozone over because their dad is going insane from sleep-deprivation and trying to keep up with Jack-Jack. I lost track of how many powers he has and all I will say on the matter is that the best scene in the whole film is when Jack-Jack fights the raccoon.

If you want a light-hearted comedy with some fun action sequences then this film is for you. If you loved the first one then you will love the second one. If you have not seen the first one, what's wrong with you?

Finally a medical drama that is along the lines of House with unlikable characters that are brutally honest and brilliant, acting that shows the caliber of the cast, and what it has that House didn't is a realistic view of American modern medicine. As someone who watched their mother battle cancer off and on for 14 years I really like how this show portrays quality/quantity, bottom-line mentality, and how the patient does not always come first if the paperwork doesn't pan out. It's horrible to think about, but heartbreakingly true. I too have an insurance that makes me hope and pray I never have to go to the hospital, but if I did, I'd wish for Dr. Conrad Hawkins and Nurse Nic Nevin.

This film is just the latest in a long line of films that are a way for storytellers to "redo" their stories. They write a book and then make a film that changes the story so they can look at it and go, "here's what I should have done" or "this is better visually". If you haven't read the book then don't worry, there's absolutely no reason you need to read it before seeing the film. There are only about three things they kept the same and it only takes them about one minute to go off bookI thought the avatar designs were fantastic and I understand how a movie like this could not have been made until now. However, the graphics alone are not enough to save this film.

I thought the avatar designs were fantastic and I understand how a movie like this could not have been made until now. However, the graphics alone are not enough to save this film.

The film starts with the basic world setup and then Wade enters the OASIS and that's when the book was thrown out the window (probably 2 minutes into the movie). They removed Wade being in school, which is not bad, except that his school leads him to the first key. So no school means the copper key challenge is altered. Instead, we get a car race where the winner gets the key and the clue to the next key. Yes, the car race scene is great. Godzilla, King Kong, and dozens of other film/video game references play obstacles the racers have to overcome to get to the finish line where Anorak awaits with the copper key and the clue to the jade key.

Though not in the book, I love the addition of the Delorean. What I did not like is that apparently, the first challenge is now to "drive backward" through the race so you can go under the obstacles and make it to the finish line. Since Parzival's driving a Delorean I was hoping for a reference to 88 mph, but alas, there was none.

They also sped up the storyline, which was easy to do when they cut out half the challenges. There's supposed to be six of them-three keys and three gates. They eliminated the gates all together and instead just made it three keys and the first person to collect all three can open the magical door that leads to the egg. But they didn't stop there. They changed every single challenge. There are pieces of the six, but only if you know where to look. For the most part, every single obstacle they have to overcome to get to the egg is brand new. It was like reading an entirely different book.

I did like how they added in a caretaker who is in charge of Halliday's journals which are like home movies people can watch in a "library". Since it is is a movie there are certain parts that require a visual conversion so that they work better on screen. I get that, but sadly, that is-I'm convinced-the reason there is no Flycsync. The first gate challenge is supposed to be a Flycsync of Wargames and the third gate challenge includes a Flycsync of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I was so looking forward to the Monty Python reference, but they removed it entirely. They also removed all references to Wargames. Perhaps it was a copyright issue, but more likely they thought it was too meta. Playing scenes from movies within a virtual reality within a movie was going to come off as boring. What were they going to do? Cut out of the virtual reality to give us clips of the films that they'd have to use graphics to update so they looked as polished as the OASIS? On the other hand, that didn't stop them from adding a brand new second key challenge that involves entering The Shining. We get the ax, the twin girls, the sea of blood, and the hotel. I do not understand why The Shining was added in. Why bring in that movie when you already had two great movies completely related to the actual storyline to use? Wargames is about a kid who plays a game that ends up being real stakes and Monty Python and the Holy Grail is about knights (like Parzival/Percival) who are searching for the Holy Grail A.K.A. Halliday's egg.

Another plus that I will give the film is the Iron Giant addition. I loved that movie and his scenes were fantastic!

Some of the problems I had with the film are likely ones you might not care about. For example, there seems to be an emphasis on Citizen Kane with at least two "rosebud" references that I can remember. Though the film is a classic and I am all for a good "rosebud" reference, I thought this story was an ode to the 80s, so I'm not understanding why a 1940s film is being referenced. My other problem is completely personal. I have never been the biggest Superman fan for one simple reason: Glasses on and slicked back hair = disguise. I thought that was so stupid growing up and constantly argued with my dad about that.After Parzival wins the first key he becomes famous and Art3mis gives him the "Clark Kent disguise" so he can walk around in the OASIS unnoticed. Why? Because apparently in the movie his avatar is made public, while in the book, he's still able to walk around without people realizing who he is. Why not just dress him up as Spiderman or something?

You'll notice I said that Art3mis gave Parzival the disguise, and that's because they become allies immediately. They start working together immediately. He falls in love with her and tells her at the club within the first third of the film. I really have no problem with all of that. Avatars working with other avatars is fine. The problem comes halfway through the film-that is when I decided I did not like it and I actually started to get bored.

Though I found the message in the book cliche (see my book review for details), I still believed it was central to the storyline. I couldn't imagine the book any other way. Apparently, director Steven Spielberg and author/screenwriter Ernest Cline could. Apparently, what I thought was crucial was something they had no problem throwing out the window.Art3mis refuses to meet Parzival IRL. She makes a point about how he'll be disappointed and how they should never reveal who they truly are. Then when Ogdon Morrow comes to collect the High Five and bring them to the safety of his home, Art3mis still refuses to meet Parzival face-to-face until after the quest is complete. He does not meet her until the very last scene of the entire book.Cliche, yes, but I still thought it was a good way to end the book. It gives us the life-lesson about the pros/cons of virtual reality and how we can be whoever we want to be as our avatars.

However, in the movie, they meet about halfway through. After Sorrento blows up Wade's home, Art3mis's "guys" kidnap him and bring them to her "rebel base". She's leading up a rebellion against IOI, and there's some story about her father who was indentured to them and died while working off his debts. This leads to about half of the movie, or at the very least more than I would have expected, taking place in reality. All five are riding around in Aech's van, Wade/Parzival and Samantha/Art3mis have formed an alliance to stop the evil empire IOI.

I swear this whole film seemed more like an ode to Star Wars. Sorrento is the evil Emperor, Ogdon Morrow and James Halliday are Yoda and Obi-Wan. Art3mis is Princess Leia, Parzival is Han/Luke, and the Sixers are the Stormtroopers.During the final battle where all OASIS avatars rise up to battle IOI so the High Five can win the egg, Art3mis disguises herself as a Sixer and brings down the magical barrier Sorrento had put up to prevent anyone from entering the third challenge. That entire scene gave me flashbacks to Obi-Wan bringing down the gravitational shield in A New Hope so Han could fly the Falcon out of the Death Star.

I have no problem with Star Wars references, but I just expected so much more out of this film. Sure there were amusing parts and it is a good film, I guess. I guess they found the key challenges and gate challenges too "boring" for a film. I guess Flycsync is only cool to me. I guess the suspense of Parzival and Art3mis not meeting until the very end is not essential to the storyline, so I guess this movie is ok.

As a book adaptation, I would give it an F, possibly a D-. As a movie, I would give it a B. For a Steven Spielberg film I would have thought it would have been much better.

I loved the cast. I LOVE Luke EVANS! He he has a wonderful singing voice and was a fantastic actor. He was the perfect Gaston. Just as Gad was the perfect LeFou. He had the goofy sidekick part down, but also held his own when he sings "Gaston". McGregor was the perfect Lumiere, I thought Stevens was a wonderful Beast and actually found this voice and appearance more majestic than the animated one that just looked more monstrous.

I only have three complaints:

1. Belle does not read while she walks as much. She's supposed to have her nose in a book for the entire "Belle" song, and yet, she does not even have her nose in the book when they say the line "nose stuck in a book".

The reason this upset me so much is that this specific scene of Belle walking through town reading and being oblivious to everything around her was what made her my favorite character and made this one of my favorite stories. In the original Belle is reading as she maneuvers through the market and rather than stop reading she just raises her hand to hold up the inn sign so it blocks the water from hitting her. I felt like I was Belle, because I walked while reading ALL THE TIME. Seeing Belle do this made me feel less weird and I loved it. Therefore, having the newest version of Belle simply walk with the book at her side was very disappointing to me.

2. Gaston does not throw Belle's book in the mud. Instead he walks over her cabbages.

It's a critical change, in my mind. Belle is portrayed as weird because she reads, her head is always in the clouds and she's too intelligent for a woman. Gaston, the village hero represents their way of thinking, actually comments on this by saying "It's not right for a woman to read, she starts getting ideas and thinking". Then he throws her book in the mud. It is symbolic of the fact that the whole village disagrees with her love of books, and further proves why Gaston is not for her, especially with the juxtaposition of the Beast showing her his library. Books are a critical part of this story. Books are the reason the villagers think Belle odd. Books are the reason the Beast and Belle get along so well. Books are the reason Gaston is clearly wrong for her.

So I'm sorry, as a girl who decided the castle in Beauty and the Beast was better than all the others because of the library, a girl who hated Gaston and actually cried when he threw a book in the mud, a girl who related to Belle because she too walked and read simultaneously…of course I am going to be critical of the book scenes.

3. Gaston leaves Maurice to die by wolves in the forest.

Gaston is the villain of the story, no question. However, I always interpreted him as an arrogant bully who was meant to be the foil character. He's more into physical strength than intelligence, and he's more into material things than emotional understanding. He prides himself on hunting trophies and wants Belle because she's the most beautiful girl in the village. Then at the end of the film he tries to kill the Beast, but we're to know that's because he is the symbolic character that represents all of the village and people who judge based on appearances alone. He wants Belle for her looks, and he tries to kill the Beast because of his looks. This film and this message fit perfectly with the idea of "Don't judge a book by it's cover". In this version he wants Belle so badly that he's willing to leave her father in the forest to die when he gets in his way. This takes Gaston's villainy to a whole new level

Aside from those three criticisms I loved this film. I loved how one of my favorite stories was brought to life. I cannot believe I was 1 when the first film came out and saw this one for my 27th birthday. watching this live-action version is how I celebrated my 27th birthday.

But as they say, it's a tale as old as time.

James Patterson's series about Rafe Katchadorian's middle school escapades comes to the big screen with "The Worst Years of My Life"–book one in the series. Rafe (Griffin Gluck) transfers to a new school where Principal Dwight (Andy Daly) has a list of rules that has turned student's metaphorical "prison" description into reality. Rafe, with the help of his best friend Leo, make it their mission to break every single one of the rules.

This is most definitely a tween movie for the age group that does not fit into full-fledge PG-13 films, but feel they're too old to be entertained by Disney/Pixar animation. Enter the mash-up of the two. We're given live-action that takes the 1985 classic, Real Genius, where students rebel against the authority figure in creative fashion, and combines it with the animated narration of the kid's show, Lizzie McGuire, with Rafe's imagination running wild and bringing his art to life.

So why did 26-year-old me see this film? A school that wants to extinguish creativity and forces the creative students to rebel to bring back the art. How could I resist? Admittedly I have no artistic talent with a sketchbook or paint, but I write, and I have a close friend who is the type of artist whose heart ached when she watched the principal throw the sketchbook in a bucket of acid. My heart ached too, but that's because I firmly believe art and creativity belong in all schools.

True, I was not the target audience, and those suffering through middle school or even high school are more likely to love this movie, but I still enjoyed it. The various pranks, each one more creative than the last, was awesome to watch. The obvious theme of "anything you can imagine is real" definitely hits home.

Even with all the pranks the film still has a very cookie-cutter, Disney Channel vibe with the age-appropriate humor and villains who spout ridiculous rhetoric and act more childish than those watching. At one point Rafe and Leo are trying to determine what rhymes with "suck" and we know what they want to say, but they can't for obvious reasons, but that turns into a dramatic pause that places too much attention on the censored language of the PG rating. While the school bully and mom's boyfriend are just obstacles for Rafe to overcome.

Everything is on-the-nose with Rafe's comebacks to the bully, the checklist for rules broken, the payback to Carl the bear of a stepfather, and everything falls into place. Rafe shoots to stardom for his pranks, gets the girl, the friends, and wins–not that we'd expect anything different from this type of movie where the kids are misunderstood and adults are out to get them.

However, I will admit that when I saw the film I was surprised by the more serious criticism of standardized testing and "teaching to the test rather than the student". As a teacher I have a mixed relationship with standardized testing. I understand the benefits, for students applying to college, schools needing funding, and states trying to determine how they'll measure comprehension. On the other hand, I also feel focusing so much energy on these tests is problematic for teachers trying to teach the students in a way that is engaging and beneficial. Especially when no two students are alike.

It's likely most of the "tween" crowd watching the film were too distracted by the antics to catch that message, but there is another surprise to the film that adds another dimension that is impossible to miss. One that the trailer fails to include in its desire to present this film as another classic school comedy. The film is funny, but definitely not as funny as it leads us to believe.

"Nerve" is where a high school senior who never crosses the line, Vee (Emma Roberts), succumbs to peer pressure–instigated by her best friend, Sydney (Emily Meade) and chooses to be a "player" rather than a "watcher" in this online interactive game, Nerve. In the game players are dared for cash, and the last two players standing battle it out for the jackpot. The watchers decide the dares, and a player either accepts or fails the game and loses all the money they've made.

I'm not saying this is an earth-shattering film, but I did find it entertaining and host to a very important message–no matter how obvious it is. Be careful what you post on social media, be careful what you do on the internet, and remember to look up from your screens and actually live life.

Though most of the dares are unrealistic and downright insane, it was action-packed and thrilling to watch. I'd give it a solid score since it didn't knock my socks off, but it didn't disappoint either.

Sadly, my biggest issue is that I could not understand how no one's phone battery died. You have to keep the game open and are contiguously videotaping/taking pictures to prove the dare is met; therefore, how does Vee or Ian's (Dave Franco) phone never die?

I know, I have a strange thought-process. Being as I have an Instagram (though I've never used it), Twitter, Facebook, a blog, and a smartphone by which I access all of these…and yet, I feel we overindulge in social media–go ahead, call me a hypocrite.

I applaud the movie for being an entertaining criticism. Sadly, I worry too many people got caught up in the actors or the interactive online dare game to really pay attention, even if the ending attempts to spell it out.

Much like any sequel, it's not as good, but it gives us another crack at the world we liked enough for there to be a sequel in the first place.

Daniel (Jesse Eisenberg), Jack (Dave Franco), and Merritt (Woody Harrelson) are still in hiding from their ultimate trick. Henley (Isla Fisher) has left, stated to have been fed up with their year and counting of hiding. Dylan (Mark Ruffalo) has brought in a new female, Lula (Lizzy Caplan) so the Four Horsemen can resurface and pull off another ultimate magic show. However, a new player on the board usurps them and Dylan's cover with the FBI is blown. This disaster of a comeback was orchestrated by Walter Mabry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Merritt's "evil twin" Chase. Mabry wants the Horsemen to steal a computer chip thingamajig, but as we all know, that is only the surface of the plot.

Not going to lie, I actually like Caplan's Lula better than Fisher's Henley. There I said it. If a third film is made--as the ending suggests--I hope she stays with the rest of the cast.

That being said, "evil twin", really?

But I digress...Aside from Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Hunger Games: Catching Fire I'm not entirely sure how often a sequel equals or surpasses it's predecessor. Usually it doesn't, simply because it can't. Therefore, I'd ignore the criticism that is solely based on this being number two and focus more on the criticism about the film itself.

For the fact that I was having a bad day and needed a simplistic film with a good laugh, this was just the fix. However, I was surprised at how simplistic it was. The first film was well "WOW" is really the only word to describe it. We delved back into the world of magicians and trickery, and that mixed with the Leverage element of righting wrongs, made it a very entertaining film. Yet it was more thriller with the FBI agent trying to catch the "criminals". The magic was secondary.

The sequel places the magic first and foremost, which became too much. Too many tricks that we can't keep up with and can't believe. Part of the magic of magic is believability, but when the tricks are happening at lightening-speed and so frequently the audience has no choice but to sit back and just nod. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun to watch. But there are four magicians all playing tricks, mixed with the other plot twists, and really the film is just magic tricks in sequential order that without the film would fall apart.

What was even worse is that I figured out the ending right away. Not the very very end, but the ending with the "antagonists". It was like a Las Vegas welcome sign that was impossible to miss. I'm still trying to decide if that was intentional. If you see the film you'll see that they once again have three tricks leading to the finale, and with each trick the magician stresses how it's important for the audience to pay attention. So I did, which is why I figured it out so quickly. But like I said, perhaps that was intentional...though if it wasn't then the film loose significant points in my book.

I will say that once again we had plenty of comedy between the four horsemen. That was entertaining in and of itself.

Overall I would say the film is good. Good enough that I don't regret seeing it, good enough that I would likely see a third if it is made, but still just another sequel all the same.

I wanted to see this film the minute I saw the trailer. I have started really getting into war films and political films. Then Alan Rickman died and I really really wanted to see this film.

Eye in the Sky is about how complicated the chain of command is for making a single decision. Not that deciding to drop a bomb from a drone on to a house filled with terrorists should be an easy decision. However, it was eye-opening on just how complicated it is. From Steve (Aaron Paul) the American drone pilot waiting for the order to come from his commanding officer, A British woman named Colonel Powell (Helen Mirren), who is waiting for the order to come from Lt. General Benson (Alan Rickman), who is sitting in a room with the political officials in the American and British government. However, things get even more complicated when Steve notices a little girl selling bread could be a casualty. Now everyone is hesitating. Some hesitate because they fear for the girl's life, some hesitate because they fear the PR implications of killing the girl or fear the PR implications of not killing the terrorists, and some people do not want any part in this decision and keep passing the puck.

Several times I turned to see my mother mumbling on the edge of her seat just wanting them to make a decision. It only took me about a minute to realize this was not going to end well, which is not a spoiler as it's kind of a given with the subject matter. All the same, if I had to describe this film in one would I would say "Suspense". We just keep waiting and waiting and waiting, and then something little happens like the government using spies to buy the girl's bread to get her to go home, which does not go according to plan.

I think many walked into this film thinking it was going to be about criticizing drone strikes, but I do not actually think that's what this film is about. Sure it is about the extensive time, planning, and orders needed to fire a single drone. Sure you could argue that it's about spies and using video drones in the shape of flies and birds to get clear video of terrorists creating bomb vests and sitting around a pile of guns. Yet, I would have to say the ultimately, this film is just about the game of steps. You know, one step forward and three steps back. Going around in circles trying to find the center.

War should not be easy, but–naively so–I do wish stopping the bad guys was easier than it is. I do wish we weren't so concerned with the perception of an action, but in a world that is always watching that is never possible. I know the film is called "Eye in the Sky" and it is referring to the drone and the images used to put this strike in action; however, I think it's more about how everyone is watching. We're watching terrorists without being able to stop them. We're watching politicians with their own agendas who think they can logically make a military decision without thinking like a soldier. We're watching civilians who live in war zones and we're watching people who are torn between doing what they know is right and doing what they know they'll be able to explain to others later.

Was I a little more emotional in this movie because I knew it was the last time I was ever going to see Alan Rickman act? Sure. Yes, he was one of my all-time favorite actors, and no, it's not just because I'm a Potterhead. I liked his other films too. But it's more than that. This is an important subject no one wants to talk about, which is of course why we made a movie about it instead.

I think it was good, I feel like I learned something, but at the end of the day I still feel like I don't understand anything. Welcome to war and politics.

I saw this trailer months ago and from the minute I first saw it I knew I was going to see this film. I knew I was going to love this film. I knew I was going to buy this film so I could watch it over and over again. I can count on one hand the number of times I felt that way just about a trailer. I'm writing this post to tell you that I was right. It was awesome!

Now I did admit earlier that I see all Ryan Gosling films, but let me be clear, that is not the only reason I saw this film. I saw this film because I also enjoy Russell Crowe, love buddy cop films, thought the plot/script looked hilarious, and I mean just watch the trailer😀

The Nice Guys is about muscle-man PI Jackson Healy (Crowe) who ends up working with a drunk P.I. Holland March (Gosling) to learn the truth behind the death of the famous porn star, Misty Mountains. The case is made more complicated by March's precocious daughter Holly (Angourie Rice) and the realization that the government is involved in a cover-up and it all comes down to finding a young girl, Amelia.

It's Lethal Weapon meets The Man From UNCLE meets Miami VIce meets That 70's Show meets its own unique style.

It is obvious that Crowe is the action and Gosling is the comedy, but that does not mean they switch roles every once in awhile. It is a screwball comedy about two guys that really don't know what they're doing, and yet, cannot seem to stop. They keep tripping over clues and colliding into bad guys until they finally figure it all out.

Admittedly there are some slow parts, I was hoping it would be consistently funny (like The Man From UNCLE remake), but it lagged in places. However, in terms of the comedy and overall enjoyment of the film I'd still give it an A (just perhaps on the lower end of the scale).

What makes this film so funny is that during the parts that didn't lag, it was non-stop/back-to- back/can't-catch-your-breath funny. It's all about the little things. Such as March's drunkenness falling down a hill and stumbling onto a dead body, or March chasing after a bad guy only to smack into a car door that pushes him into another car hood that makes him trip onto the bad guy. The police work is a gamble and the violence is more lucky shots.

For example: March and Healy are held at gunpoint by a "bad guy" (I'm avoiding spoilers), so March's daughter comes in and pours the coffee pot onto the "bad guy". Nothing happens, because Holly thought it would be hot coffee, but it had been sitting there for a while. Next the "bad guy" goes to take a step toward March and Healy only to trip on the cold coffee spill around their feet and fall, knocking themselves out.

Somehow everything works out in their favor. Even though it is completely ridiculous you can't help but love it, because the film makes no apologizes and gives fair warning that it is ridiculous. That's part of its charm.

Money Monster is about a financial talk show host becoming a hostage on national television. Kyle (Jack O'Connell) straps a bomb to Lee Gates's (George Clooney) chest and forces the producer Patty (Julia Roberts) to keep rolling. He wants to learn how a company could lose so much money (including his $60,000) without a better explanation than "computer glitch", and he's going to use the media's financial adviser to figure it out.

Let me start by saying I do not understand economics enough to know how well this movie did in portraying that, but what I can tell you is that I thought the cast was great. The three leads were very strong and worked well together. Then again, Clooney and Roberts have done at least three other films together (The Ocean's Eleven trilogy), but this O'Connell fellow–who I don't think I've seen in anything before–was also very strong. Strong acting mixed with a strong script tends to create a strong film.

The film is only 98 minutes and so it seems to be fairly fast-paced so that I was never bored. Even the supporting cast was funny with scenes like when Lee, Kyle, and the cameraman Larry are in the elevator and the camera is rolling on Kyle holding the gun and detonator with Lee wearing the bomb; and then Kyle asks Larry if he's alright. Larry's response is "I don't like elevators". It's a simple scene, but add several of those throughout and we get the bits of comedy needed to break the tension that continues to build as Lee/Kyle/Patty continue to figure out where the money went.

To be honest, my largest critique is that I think they should have ended the film a bit earlier, and cut out the final scene. I'm going to try to explain what I mean without spoiling too much. The film ends with a hospital scene, which I actually think they shouldn't have done. I will not tell you who lives and who dies, but I will tell you that Kyle finds Walt Camby (Dominic West) the CEO who "lost" the money, and he does get the answer he wanted. As soon as that happens the film cuts to people in a bar who've been watching and these guys go back to playing their foosball game. Then it cuts to the hospital scene.

In my opinion, as an avid moviegoer, reader, and storyteller I feel the film should have ended with the people playing foosball, because that shows how society just goes back to their lives like nothing has happened. Like they haven't just spent the day watching a celebrity with a bomb to his chest. They were all glued to the television when there was a potential crisis, but the minute the crisis is over they shrug their shoulders and wash their hands. They go back to not caring about the money, which is one of Kyle's main points. I think that would have been a stronger ending to show just how screwed up our system is and I feel it is unfortunately very realistic. Therefore, to me, the hospital scene at the end weakens that powerful message.

Other than that, I found the movie to be an overall success. It was suspenseful, had good acting, a consistent script, and an interesting plot. So I guess you have to ask yourself how important is the ending to you? And more importantly, understanding the balance between learning the truth and then actually doing something about it–which I think is the key to this film.

Here's what I think in a nutshell: eh. blah. sigh. It's alright. I think this for three reasons split below:

The Characters:

The new characters introduced were: Psylocke (Olivia Munn), Angel (Ben Hardy), Storm (Alexandra Shipp) NightCrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). That's a ton of new characters, but not really when you consider all but one were in the original trilogy. So really it's just seeing younger versions of old characters. I would have to say that if I had to pick one of them to be the best–AKA, left the best impression–it would have to be McPhee's NightCrawler, with Turner's Jean coming in second. I remember reading comments prior to seeing this film that said Munn had turned down the female lead in Deadpool because she didn't want to be a damsel, and she was excited about this film because she got to be kick-ass. Perhaps the kick-ass is in the deleted scenes? I think Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is more kick-ass, and she doesn't have any powers! To be frank, they took an extremely strong actress and gave her a strong mutant, but made her a mundane character. Turner's Jean Grey was good, but since I was never the biggest Jean Grey fan there wasn't much there for me. Sorry, but how Jean Grey ends makes me really hate her, and this film has a lot of references to The Phoenix, so I kept cringing and the voices in my head kept shouting "YOU'RE DOOMED!" So that pretty much ruined any chance of me getting real excited for this new Jean Grey. I also have to just say that Moira's (Rose Byrne) return is kind of pointless to me. I thought she was a useless character whose sole purpose was to bridge the gap between Apocalypse's return and the X-Men finding out about it. Otherwise she flies the ship. Oh, and of course, I can't forget that Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is back…again…as usual. I know, you can all hate me, but I just feel like he doesn't have to be in every single freaking X- Men film.

The Villain I get that a person with powers who has a god complex is not an original villain. That being said, I still expected so much more. The first third of the film is slow as Apocalypse is going around collecting his followers. However, I feel like aside from Magneto, he just picks the first three mutants he finds. When he's actually supposed to pick the four most powerful mutants. Yes, Storm is powerful, but not in this film. In this film Apocalypse has two petulant teenagers, a man struggling with his past and present, and a woman whose sole purpose is to be another female character. On the plus side he does help Magneto see the extent of his powers–finding the metal in the Earth so that he could actually level cities–is pretty cool. Aside from that all he seems to do is change people's appearance. He's a stylist. Psylocke wears this coat with a ponytail, after Apocalypse she's wearing a swimsuit with her hair flowing behind her. Apocalypse turns Storm's hair white and Angel gets a haircut (and Apocalypse is apparently responsible for the Professor's baldness), so really Apocalypse is just a glorified barber. Everyone keeps saying how this guy is the most powerful mutant ever, but all I see him do is create portals and amplify other's powers, …so I think they didn't do him justice. I know, I sound mean, but when we've had so many villains, and when this film takes one of the most cliché villains–though it's cliché simply because it's a classic–I am going to be more critical of it. I think Apocalypse's most significant scene is actually his foreshadowing of Jean Grey's Phoenix. I cannot go into more details without spoilers of the film, but let's just say that it is blatantly obvious in the final showdown for anyone who saw X-Men: Last Stand. I mean it's like a freaking neon Las Vegas sign.

The Curse of the Prequel I saw this film with my mother, who forgot that technically this film and the two before it are really just prequels to the original trilogy. Therefore, most of the references to the original trilogy that take over about 1/3 of the film are overwhelming. The original trilogy is great, the prequel/first film is great, and the second and third in the prequel series start to fade. Sound familiar? I think this is better known as the Star Wars Curse. The film is burdened with wrapping up the prequel characters' stories, while introducing the characters that we all knew from the first trilogy. However, because this is X-Men and there are too many characters, it does not do a good job of either. Mystique is too minor a character for how major she was in the first two, and then there's Magneto and the Professor who are really just there to be the two pillars of the X-Men universe. The film's focal points are the teenage mutants who are the main characters in the original trilogy. Though this film's teenage hero prequel is not as disastrous as the Fantastic Four version, it's still just OK. I was also reading on IMDb.com that part of the goal is to possibly create another X-Men film using the "X-Men team" that is created at the end of this film. We're given the teenage X-Men: Cyclops, NightCrawler, Jean, and Storm. And as we can remember, Storm, Cyclops, and Jean are the X-Men in the first film from the late 90s. If that movie gets made I'm likely going to see it, but I am not sure if I'm looking forward to another set of X-Men films that are still technically a prequel.

I tried to stay vague, but clicked the spoiler box just in case as I don't want to get blacklisted ;)

The biggest problem with a Netflix account is learning about shows after they've ended. My most recent example is The Messengers, which I still don't understand why it was canceled. For me, The Messengers was like a biblical/supernatural version of Heroes.

We're given seven people who all mysteriously die when a meteor hits Earth, but they return moments later with new abilities. Vera can astral project, Raul is telepathic, Peter is super strong, Joshua has premonitions, Erin can heal, Koa can shape shift, and Rose can understand all languages. With that information alone I was interested. I love all things supernatural, and then when we find out the mystery is that they're angels sent back to earth to stop Lucifer from bringing fourth the apocalypse, I was hooked.

These seven characters from all backgrounds are forced to work together to stop the Four Horsemen from breaking the seven seals and bringing forth the Apocalypse, which is made more difficult with Lucifer continuously manipulating them, and each of them having their own personal conflict to distract them.

I especially enjoyed all the little things the show did, from giving each power a price, such as Erin's healing takes a toll on her body or Vera's astral projection only works in 6 minute increments. Power comes at a price and that adds a level of difficulty to their tasks. I also enjoyed the relationships. I know some people might dislike inevitable romances, but I found the relationship between Raul and Erin to be sweet, and the relationship between Peter and Nadia to be adorable. I was actually rooting for both couples, which doesn't happen often.

I'll admit that the first episode or two was slow going, but that's just because we're learning about the characters, the plot, and trying to figure out how everyone fits into this story. Once the show had done that it picked up real quick, with each episode involving them finding one of the four horsemen, while also trying to help whichever one of them was dealing with their personal crisis.

There were two major twists, one of which I did not see coming but loved. The minute it happened I was absolutely hooked, because suddenly everything made sense. I could see the hints leading me to it, and realized just how detailed the show was. Every conversation or episode hinted at future events and it was fun to go back and make the connections.

Therefore, my only real complaint with this show is that it got canceled after 13 episodes. I don't get it. I was hooked after 4 episodes. I'm actually not sure why I wasn't watching it when it aired. Unfortunately, since it got canceled it ends with a major cliffhanger, though this one I saw coming. However, I want to know how the Messengers deal with it, and now I guess I'll never know. The final episode comes across as the winter finale to be continued in two months, but then it's not.