rs403404

Well, if you ever watched an episode of this series and thought, I wonder what it would be like if they made this four times longer, gave it a much bigger budget, and half assed the story. Then this movie is for you.

I definitely wouldn't call myself a brony, but I've seen plenty of episodes and my daughter loves the show. This movie feels so much more hollow and isolated then the show. Ponyville is attacked by the Storm King (Live Schriber) with the help of his second in command Tempest (Emily Blunt). The six main characters flee and attempt to find allies that will help them defeat this foe.

We follow the six leads on this adventure, but their characters that are very distinguished and defined on the series are muted here. Rainbow Dash, Applejack, and Rarity all get one brief character moment and that's it. Pinky Pie and Twilight Sparkle have a fair bit to do and Fluttershy… well she gets nothing. You could cut her from the movie and have it bare no impact on the story. Actually, you can cut everyone but Pinky Pie and Twilight Sparkle and have the same story. The whole TV series is about friendship, but this movie opts to ignore most of the key friendships in the series.

Let's look at villains. In the series easily one of the best villains is Discord voiced wonderfully by John De Lancie essentially reprising Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation. We also got Nightmare Moon and the Changelings. All of which were far better villains than the bumbling Storm King. Discord is a very silly villain, but he still has menace. While Storm King was just silly but without the menace. How does a character like that build an army and invade with no warning? I get doing a new villain, but shouldn't this villain feel like more of a threat. As it is, he feels like a lesser threat than the six have already beaten dozens of times.

If you think this isn't a movie made for me. This is a movie made for fans. My 9 year old daughter who loves the series spent a fair bit of time after the movie complaining about how it took elements for the series and squandered them. She seems a heartbeat away from screaming betrayal. And if the movie can't satisfy non-fans or fans, then who was it possibly made for?

Denis Villeneuve

This is a name to look out for. Sicario and Enemy are two fascinating films. Further, in the last two years, he has managed to make two sci-fi classics.Think of films like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Planet of the Apes, 1954's Godzilla, and even Pixar's WALL-E, each in its own way held a mirror up to the human condition. In a similar vein, last year's Arrival delves into the potential breadth and depth of communication. Now we have Blade Runner 2049, a movie about what it means to be human. A movie smart enough to ask the questions and also smart enough to know these clear questions usually have no clear answers.

In the year 2049, humanity has found a new form of slavery. The ability to make lifelike people except with enhanced strength. These people will be called replicants. Sometimes replicants will go rogue and that's when a blade runner is called in. Blade runners hunt rogue replicants.

One of these blade runners is K (Ryan Gosling). He is tracking down replicants and finds himself diving down the rabbit hole left by the first movie. However, it's handled in a creative way giving you some surprise when you realize it's going that way. One of the characters is K's girlfriend who is a computer program. You might think that means she isn't real, but if she's not real does that mean the replicants aren't real either? She could be just as real as a replicant just without a body. These are just some of the ideas thrown out in the first act of the movie. Additionally, throughout this movie's over two and a half hour running time those ideas will not stop.

I won't dive into the story anymore, but it is really secondary here. That's not to say it's not engaging, because it is incredibly so, but the movie revolves more around the questions of what is humanity and what does it means to be human. Therein lies the heart of this film.

1982's Blade Runner created a fantastic world, but I found the story extraordinarily dull. Nevertheless, BR 2049 takes that world and explores it in all the logical ways it should. Ideas brought up in the original are fleshed out here. Further, as is often the case, asking the question is more powerful than answering it. This is what Ghost in the Shell missed earlier this year.

Blade Runner 2049 is one of those rare sequels I enjoy better than the original. I have no problem calling it one of the best sequels ever made.The question of whether or not it will be more respected than the original in 35 years will be an interesting one to see answered.

"Let Her Out" is a small budget movie. But you wouldn't know that by looking at it. This is perhaps one of the most visually impressive movies of the year. It's got a vivid color palette and camera use that is never boring. The makeup effects are realistic even when they're completely over the top. This movie has the look of a major studio production and millions and millions of dollars behind it.

The film starts showing us a hooker who is eventually raped. The intro of the movie is done with almost no dialogue and is told concisely. The intro ends and we are brought into the movie proper. It's 23 years later and we are introduced to Helen, the product of that rape. Or is she? Helen finds out she has a twin that died in utero and was absorbed by her body. It is implied that perhaps Helen wasn't the product of rape but perhaps the twin was. Anyways, the absorbed twin begins to take control of Helen body giving her blackouts.

If you're reading this and think it sounds silly, well this is a horror movie. Such silliness is more than welcome if it provides some solid scares and an interesting peak at what it means to be human. Perhaps, the twin isn't really taking control and maybe Helen's brain is using it as an excuse to attack those who have victimized her.

But that would be giving this story far too much credit. While I love this movie visually, its story has no depth besides, "bad twin gets out and does bad things!" any attempt to maybe use this bizarre situation to reflect upon the human condition is completely wasted. Part of it is how we have no real characters in this movie. They are just props that move the plot along. Even our main character, Helen just seems to be there to occasionally be taken over by her twin. All the other characters exist to be victims of these episodes. Even the ending turns into little more than a creature feature with the evil twin going on an apparent murder rampage.

The acting doesn't help at all. Some is serviceable and some is just downright bad. It's all rather disappointing. When so much good gets mixed with so much bad, it's tough to end up good overall. And that's where "Let Her Out" ends up. I almost want to recommend it as a visual spectacle, but in the end you'd have to watch the dreadful story. And that is something I cannot recommend.

Logan Lucky tells the story of Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum), a man down on his luck. He lost his job on a construction site because he has a limp he didn't report when he applied (and doesn't affect his job as a driver). He's divorced with a wife moving away who has full custody of his daughter. He has a brother, Clyde (Adam Driver), a bartender who lost his hand in one of the many wars. It's referred to locally as the Logan Curse. The Logans' simply seem unable to catch a break.

Perhaps, there's a chance for their luck to change. Jimmy reveals to Clyde a complex heist plan he's put together that could help their lives exponentially. The plan is so complex it even involves breaking Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) out of prison, getting his help, and getting him back in prison without anyone noticing he's gone.

Logan Lucky is a fun and quirky movie. It's filled with characters that could easily be cut from the film and bare no impact on the final product. Seth MacFarlane's Max Chilblain, Katherine Waterston's Sylvia Harrison, and Sebastian Stan's Dayton White could all be cut from the film and the story would play out exactly the same. Their inclusion in this film is baffling.

However, much of that is moot since when this movie works, it very entertaining. From the cast, the real highlight is Craig's Joe Bang. A man who appears rather simple and is very crass, yet proves through the movie that is he unusually intelligent. In many ways Tatum's Jimmy Logan has many of these qualities though not nearly as crass.

Although, I can spend the rest of the review praising the cast for all doing a great job (even the unnecessary ones), the real star of this film is Steven Soderbergh's direction. Returning to the chair after a very short lived retirement. He shows that his four year break has done nothing to dampen his eye for film.

This is that rare film that is equal parts style and substance. There's a clear story here about how we can create our own luck as long as we're willing to take the opportunities when they present themselves. Logan Lucky is hardly a flawless film by any means. It does have a tendency to meander, but never too far off. Two hours with the Logans are two hours you won't regret.

I typically find romantic comedies extraordinarily generic and boring. If I see the credit "based on a book by Nicholas Sparks", my brain translates it to "nap time". I don't hate a movie just because it's a romantic comedy, I just find most movies in that genre have about all the originality of your typical horror movie sequel. It's sometimes so bad, you have to wonder if they simply copied the scripts and changed names.

It's important to explain where I stand on these type of movies. So that way you have context and know that when I say I really liked The Big Sick, that means something.

The movie tells the story of Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani), a Pakistani born standup comic. His mother (Zenobia Shroff) is constantly finding a girl of Pakistani descent to "drop-by" when he is over for dinner with his family. At one of his stand-up shows he meets Emily (Zoe Kazan), an American girl. He loves Emily but is concerned revealing that he is with a non-Pakistani woman would banish him from his family. This leads to the end of the relationship. But when Emily becomes sick and is placed in a medically induced coma, Kumail finds himself constantly returning to the hospital to check on her despite the constant presence of her parents (Ray Romano and Holly Hunter) whom he's never met before and who know the full story of the couple and their breakup.

The movie is based on a true story, though I'm used to that term being very loose. How much is true or not is unknown, but it is also inconsequential to a film critic. All that matter is if this is a entertaining movie or not. And it is. The comedy can be hit or miss, but the charm is there. Most of it comes between the chemistry of the four leads, all of which seem to have genuine feelings for each other. While all the actors are great, it's Kumail Nanjiani's movie. He is the one character we follow throughout and he is the character that makes or breaks this movie. If this movie is any indication, Nanjiani should have a sound career ahead of him.

The film deals with cultural differences, breakups, and many general relationship issues in an adult way. Sure, it's a romantic comedy. Just not a standard cliché one. Events are handled in a mature and understandable way. This from a guy who's not into this genre at all; The Big Sick was a pretty good time at the theater.

"Kingsman: The Secret Service" was a story designed to bring back the days of not so serious spy movies...think James Bond movies before Daniel Craig. Sure, they could be serious and dramatic but there was still this sense of fun that was inescapable: villains with insane plans who control henchmen with superpowers. The hero gets the bad guys (and girls) in style then ultimately saves the day. In many ways, it was a success. "Kingsman: The Secret Service" was reminiscent of such Bond films like "Goldfinger". Both are very good movies with real emotion and stakes, and plenty of cringe- worthy moments.

Therefore, if The Secret Service can roughly be equated with the strongest Sean Connery James Bond movie, then The Golden Circle parallels a stronger Roger Moore Bond film. Sure, it's plenty of fun and not nearly as cringe-worthy, but it also feels more hollow. Consequently, events have less emotional impact on the heroes and, additionally, occur not to progress the story but to establish a cool scene.

"Kingsman: The Golden Circle" picks up from the previous film as we are reintroduced to Eggsy (the brash youth who became a Kingsman as played by Taron Egerton). He is quickly attacked and we are brought into one of the film's faux one shot fight scenes. It's filled with computer animation leaving me unsure if I should be impressed at all by the technicals of the shots or just looking at cleverly integrated CGI and real life. Either way it's impressive, though the speed comes dangerously close to headache inducing.

His attacker works for Poppy (Julianne Moore) who is the biggest drug dealer on the planet. Her sinister plan? To legalize all drugs in the United States. I guess the idea is to replicate the villain from the first movie, but it doesn't quite work. Valentine's plan was to fix global warming by killing almost everyone. He's trying to fix a problem by creating a much bigger problem. Here, Poppy poisoned her drugs and will only cure the afflicted if drugs are legalized. Valentine's endgame is unacceptable. Poppy is doing plenty of bad things, but her endgame potentially acceptable or, at least ambiguous.

This is just another example of how this movie copies from the original but loses quite a bit in translation. Matthew Vaughn has directed many other comic book adaptations, but seemed to always end up out on the sequel. He consistently does a great job so it is an inexplicable shame to lose him for the follow through. So, now he has a sequel to one of his own films under his belt and he manages to do well, while he simultaneously disappoints. "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" is easily Vaughn's worst movie. Fortunately for him, even his worst movie is still plenty fun.

Everyone was excited for this movie except me. People were sending me promotional art and movie trailers and, honestly, I didn't care. All the YouTube videos that popped up in my stream included an abundance of people talking about the trailers, I ignored them. Unless it was unavoidable, I didn't watch any of the trailers. Further, years ago, I tried to read the book, but found it unbearably redundant. The 1990 television movie left me unimpressed (outside of seeing a very young Seth Green and Tim Curry's Pennywise).

I dreaded this movie and all the hype just heightened my dread. Everyone seemed pumped for this movie while I was pretty certain it would suck. Honestly, I was wrong. 2017's "It" is a damn fine movie that is not only creepy, but actually did manage a genuine jump scare (I can't remember the last time that happened).

It tells the story of a town in Maine (Stephen King's favorite state to inflict horrors upon) haunted by an evil clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård). The clown feeds on fear thus targets children more than adults. It's never explained why, but it seems safe to assume that it's because children are easier to scare. Everyone is a target, but we mainly follow seven kids (Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, & Wyatt Oleff). These seven are all misfits for one reason or another and all have had issues with the town bully Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton). They soon start having similar visions of a creepy clown. It's how they chose to deal with this revelation that drives the movie.

This movie is a hard R and has some very graphic imagery and lots of bad languages frequently said by children. It's not a children's movie at all, yet I also think it's not bad to take your children if you think they could handle the scary stuff. There's a strong message here about how fear can only get you if you let it. The young cast (all of whom are very talented) help the message connect with a potentially younger audience. The idea that something as terrifying as Pennywise only has as much power over you as you give to it is not a bad message for anyone but especially children.

If I'm forced to levy a complaint, it would be that the story, once again, gets redundant. That's it. Additionally, this movie proves that director Andy Muschietti is a name in horror worth keeping an eye on. Therefore, whether you're looking for a good scares or just a good movie, this is "It".

Cruise has a checkered history, with stories of: his bizarre marriage arrangements, his famous Oprah appearance, and, of course, his adherence to Scientology. Originally, Cruise was liked by the public, then fell out of the public's good graces, and now, due to his skill as an actor, is conditionally liked again. It seems only appropriate that Cruise could make you root for someone as dubious as Barry Seal.

"American Made" tells the true story of Seal, a TWA pilot who got an offer to work from Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson) for the CIA. He soon starts taking surveillance photos overseas when he stumbles onto a drug cartel. A little talk of money and he becomes a drug smuggler. When CIA learns of this, they decide to enlist him to transport guns to the contras. Pretty soon Seal has a thriving drug smuggling and gun running business.

Seal is very much the protagonist, but fails as a good guy. However, the movie doesn't pass any judgment on his actions, but instead tells the story of a man trying to provide for his family while his life spirals out of control. That's where Cruise comes into play. You may not like what Barry is doing. You may find his actions repugnant. But with Cruise in the role, and despite your better judgment, you sympathize with the character.

Like many movies based on a true story, facts are certainly jumbled up for effect. The director, Doug Liman, uses the narrative not to be critical of Barry Seal, but to be critical of the the CIA and the Reagan administration, which makes sense, since they were calling the shots. If Seal didn't takes the job, they would have found someone else and we'd have a movie about that guy.

This is all background however. Liman adds a lot of flair to the movie to create the time period and to make it less jarring when we cut to the copious amount of stock footage used in this movie. But this is very much a Tom Cruise vehicle. Despite your better judgment, you spend the movie cheering for his character.

"American Made" does drag as Barry gets his business going and things run as expected for a while, but, fortunately, it's short. Overall, the movie was an interesting character study of a man with no real moral compass doing whatever he can to make money. Sadly, this film demonstrates that one can go far in this world if you don't allow issues such as laws and ethics distract you. Barry Seal seems like abysmal person, but I did enjoy spending two hours with him.

I cannot think of a single major release to come out for which I didn't see a trailer; as a critic, trailers are an occupational hazard. Yet this movie, which was released in over 3000 theaters, flew completely under my radar. In hindsight, under my radar may have been where it should have stayed. American Assassin though not a terrible movie, isn't by any stretch of the imagination good.

It starts out with two young lovers on the beach (Dylan O'Brien and Charlotte Vega) who are soon to be engaged. Consequently, since this is an action movie, we know these two can look forward to a long happy life together (yes, that is sarcasm). Honestly, the moment feels so cliché that the girl should be wearing a bullseye on her bathing suit. Naturally, this scenario sets O'Brien's character (Mitch Rapp) down the path of revenge; he goes rogue; he does the job no one else can do; he gets his hands dirty; every other hackneyed cliché you can use to describe this type of character applies equally well. Eventually, he is captured by the CIA who, instead of putting him in a high security prison, recruit him, then they place him under the tutelage of the tough as nails, gruff Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton). He's a man who knows the dark side and won't put up with guff from kids who won't obey orders. Without question, Keaton's performance is the best part of the film. Nevertheless, his character is sadly enough, also, a cliché.

Predictably, there's an old student of Hurley's (Taylor Kitsch) who's gone "off the reservation" that Hurley's new student, Rapp, will have to takedown, giving the movie clichés #47 & 48. Collect them all!

A compelling character named Annika, who trains with Rapp under Hurley, seems to have quite a fascinating history, but, of course, the movie drops anything interesting. There's also a storyline where Rapp has to let go of his revenge and just focus on his mission. Does he overcome this obstacle? The movie doesn't say, but I would guess no, because that would require character development and character development is hard work.

Quite frankly, I'm bashing this movie way harder than I should be. It's not completely terrible and it certainly isn't ten worst movies of the year material. It's just so… what's the word? Oh yeah, cliché.

The ad campaign and the casting for this movie is spot on. Perhaps one of my favorite movie posters of the year is "The Hit-man's Bodyguard" spoof of "The Bodyguard". I wish I could say the actual movie provided that much enjoyment.

The setup is fairly simple. A captured hit-man (Samuel L Jackson) is given a deal to testify against an evil dictator (Gary Oldman). Unfortunately, Interpol has a mole and the agent (Elodie Yung) in charge of making sure the hit-man can testify calls the one person nearby who can help her and is out of the Interpol loop. Enter the disgraced bodyguard (Ryan Reynolds). Soon the hit-man and the bodyguard find themselves as a duo who must work together to ensure the hit- man reaches his court date

The ads sell this film as a comedy with action elements. Sadly, this is an action film with comedic elements. I say sadly because the action here is extremely generic. The comedy isn't great for the most part, but it has its moments provided largely by some strong soundtrack choices and a great chemistry between Reynolds and Jackson. Salma Hayek is fantastic here as the Hit-man's wife. A scene showing them meet is easily the best scene in the movie. Gary Oldman (perhaps my favorite all time actor) seems like he's in a different movie. He's reprising his villain from Air Force One where his villain from The Fifth Element would fit this movie's tone infinitely better. I would actually love to see this film in the hands of a more gifted comedy director. Perhaps Edgar Wright or the duo of Lord and Miller. Someone who could add more flavor.

That is a large part of the problem with this movie. The direction by Patrick Hughes is downright lazy. Shots range from standard to just ugly. The cinematography by Jules O'Loughlin is perhaps the worst I've ever seen from a major studio. Shots are overexposed. Other shots that are out of focus. It's inundated with sloppy rookie mistakes and for some reason Hughes let it go to print that way. I guess turning the iris or focus dials to the correct setting would be too much work?

Jackson and Reynold are by far the best parts of the movie and are putting way more work into the film than many of the behind the scenes crew. I want to see this movie remade with a director and cinematopher that give a crap about making a good movie. As it is, Jackson and Reynolds almost make this movie worth recommending based on their interplay alone. Almost. The Hit-man's Bodyguard just misses the target.

The original Annabelle from a couple of years ago was a movie that literally made no impact on me whatsoever. It was bad, but not the worst movie of the year type of bad. It was essentially just a 2 hour period of my life that is gone and I'll never get back. I was dreading this second Annabelle movie. Watching a bad movie is one thing, returning to watch a sequel (or prequel in this case) to a bad movie feels like I'm just asking for punishment.

I have to say this movie isn't remotely as bad as I expected. I wouldn't go so far as to call it good, but it was at the very least a step up from the previous Annabelle. This film has some solid atmosphere, scenes that are very tense, and horrifying visuals. It also has quite a few moments of comedy that I assume are intentional. Additionally, the direction by David F. Sandberg is strong.

Notice, I have yet to praise the story. The script is by Gary Dauberman who also wrote the original Annabelle. It goes like this, the Mullins (Miranda Otto and Anthony LaPaglia) lose their daughter (Samara Lee) in a tragic accident. Cut to twelves years later and the Mullins have opened their home to six foster kids and their caretaker Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman) and that's where most the movie sits at for awhile. People are forbidden from entering the room of Mrs. Mullins and the daughter's old room. These rules go as well as you'd expect in a movie. Throughout we largely follow the children as jump scares happen to them and little else. It takes until the film is almost over to get to any real answers to the questions the audience had. Why does Mrs. Mullins isolate herself? How does this in any way relate to that creepy doll that hangs out in the house? Why is Mr. Mullins always such a downer? I know his daughter died, but that was twelve years ago. Surely life has gone on. These are massive plot points that the movie takes entirely too long to answer.

This leads to another problem with the film, and this is a big one. The demon that haunts the house seems to have no rules. One moment is will tear a person in half and the next it has trouble getting someone who's trapped in a barn. It can teleport anywhere at anytime and sometimes even seems to occupy more than one location at once, but for some reason can't quite seem to catch those nosy kids. It's a demon skilled at jump scares, but rarely seems to actually accomplish anything it's shooting for.

This movie is an excellent example of a poorly written movie handled by a skilled director. He can't quite make it good, but at times it almost seems like it had a ghost of a chance.

This is a deeply flawed movie. It is exposition heavy, frequently redundant, lacking any real characters (aside from the three leads), feels way too small for the epic story, uses elements of sci-fi and realism without any attempt to make the elements flow together, and has a tendency to meander and feel not as urgent as it should. Nevertheless, I still found quite a bit to enjoy.

The three leads pivotal to any Dark Tower incarnation are all entertaining. Idris Elba as the stoic last gunslinger, Roland, is serious and deadpan just as he should be. Despite that, his affection for young Jake Chambers still shines through. Tom Taylor as Jake Chambers proves to be a strong young actor capable of showing a wide range of emotions which is pivotal to the movie. Finally, Matthew McConaughy as the near omnipotent Randall Flag isn't as strong as James Sheridan was in the same role in "The Stand" over twenty years ago, but is still very effective.

The failures of the movie lie largely with storytelling and many could've easily been avoided. We follow Jake throughout most the movie, yet we also learn practically the entirety of Jake's story in flashbacks to scenes we saw in the beginning of the movie, giving us the same scenes twice.

There also is a real lack of urgency throughout the movie. Sure, Randall is killing children to use their psychic energy to destroy the titular Dark Tower. Additionally, the Dark Tower is what prevents the horrors of many of King's other novels from invading the world full force. Yet, no one really seems to care about the imminent destruction of the known universe except for Jake.

In many ways, the film feels like a missed opportunity. Rather than bring the novels to life, the filmmakers made the choice to do a new adventure with these characters. The entire universe rests on the shoulders of a brief fight between Roland and Randall that the film barely builds-up and thus feels rushed and hollow. Therefore, little or no time is spent to develop (providing the audience even less time to care about) these worlds.

Still, I enjoyed the movie despite these flaws. I have read the first two Dark Tower books, so while the sci-fi/fantasy elements felt out of place in the movie they didn't surprise me. The scenes showing us Roland's prowess with his gun and Randall's massive array of powers were impressive making their final confrontation an exciting and engaging event. However, this is not the epic companion piece to the massive eight book series that it should be. But overall, I had fun while watching it.

Christopher Nolan has proved himself to be one of the most talented filmmakers of his generation. However, like every filmmaker he has his quirks. "Dunkirk" is the first time Nolan has attempted a movie with real history behind it. It's rare to get a World War II movie that takes place before the US enters the war. Yet, somehow his quirks shined through here louder than ever before.

Nolan's war epic is filled with memorable characters played by actors who are regulars to his films like Tom Hardy as an air force pilot, Michael Caine in an uncredited voice cameo, and Cillian Murphy as a shellshocked soldier. The film keeps the names of characters fairly vague, perhaps because many of the characters don't have an exact real world counterpart. Rather each character is created from the experiences of real life people, which is a skilled technique to maintain the integrity of events while limiting the actual characters such that the movie doesn't feel bloated.

We also get a completely brilliant score by Hans Zimmer who once again knocks it out of the park. He is easily one of the best composers for movies ever. Zimmer always seems to know the exact note to hit to get you emotionally invested.

However, not every trait of Nolan's can be considered good. Sometimes he can make some of his weaknesses work to his advantage. Although I like good dialogue as much as the next person, he has a tendency to rely entirely too much on it to rather that using visuals. This worked in a film like "Inception" where he needed to convey a set of rules in a clear, concise way to the audience. However, it didn't work as well in The Dark Knight movies. And it definitely doesn't work in "Dunkirk"

And while Nolan has become a much better action director since "Batman Begins", his action scenes still have little to no lasting impact. "Dunkirk"'s action all lies within this "meh" area. You can get invested in the characters and that causes you to care what happens, but the actual action just seem to happen then ends with little or no fanfare.

Finally, Nolan seems to have tried some sort of artistic editing with this film. Time jumps occur inexplicably that break up the narrative and jolt the audience out of the experience. The movie is for the most part very linear in it's narrative which makes the random time jumps all the more baffling.

Still, this is a good movie. More on par with "Interstellar" as far as total quality than something like "Inception". It's not one of Nolan's best, but even a weak Nolan film is better than what most studios put out by a wide margin.

💩

Just by writing this review, I probably spent more time on The Emoji Movie than anyone involved with the script. I'm concerned that by calling this a garbage fire, I'll be doing an injustice to garbage fires. This movie sounded like an inane idea when announced, looked terrible in the trailers, nonetheless surprised me by being worse than I expected. If you can envision a place where creativity goes to die this is it. It represents all the worst elements of Sony as a studio and of Hollywood in general.

Remember "Inside Out" from a couple of years ago? Did you ever imagine what it would be like if that movie replaced all it's imagination with product placement? That's "The Emoji Movie" in a nutshell: "Inside Out" sans soul.

Our main character, Gene (T.J. Miller),is the son of two "meh" emojis (Steven Wright and Jennifer Coolidge) and he too is meant to be a "meh". Sadly,if this movie were "meh" it would be a vast improvement. He's not a very good "meh" and expresses pretty much every emotion except "meh". Because of this, the smiley in charge decides he should be deleted. To escape, he runs off into other phone apps. Remember all the interesting locations the character went through in "Inside Out", well here each of those locations is nothing more than a product placement. Gene and Hi-5 (James Corden), who gets caught up in the "adventure", go to Let's Dance, Candy Crush, Spotify, YouTube, all in an attempt to get to the cloud aka Dropbox. These side quests exist solely to sell products. Sony outpaces other studios in its use of product placement and cross promotion. Thus, "The Emoji Movie" serves as a vehicle for Sony Products and nothing more. Honestly, with all the advertisers featured in this movie it probably paid for itself before one film cell existed.

I would say the story is bland and predictable, but in truth it's borderline nonexistent. I wouldn't say it's predictable because that would require an interest in the story's future events when I had none. Literally, I could find nothing to praiseworthy about this movie. Even Patrick Stewart as the Poop emoji never had a chance. What was supposed to pass as humor fell flat. Even when journeying to the separate app, the film's lack of creativity overwhelms everything else. To date, "The Emoji Movie" is the frontrunner for worst movie of the year.

Remember when prequels were all the fad. "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was the first one to make a real impact. Since then we've had prequels to "The Exorcist", "Alien", "X-Men", "Silence of the Lambs", "Wizard of Oz", "The Thing", and even "Dumb and Dumber". Some are good, some not so much. However, they rarely outshine the original films that inspired them.

That's where "Planet of the Apes" stands alone. Not only is the prequel trilogy a collection of three outstanding movies. They are also without a doubt the three best movies of the franchise. Further, "War for the Planet of the Apes" (yes, this trilogy is plagued with clumsy titles) might be the best of the bunch.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" focuses largely on the human characters while "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" seemed to share screen time equally between human and apes characters. In "War for the Planet of the Apes", the apes are very much the center of the story. Not all the apes can speak yet, so much of this plays almost like a multimillion dollar silent movie. Yet, at no point does the story ever feel like it's missing something. I have no idea what the budget of this film was, but the apes that are nearly omnipresent for the 140 minutes screen time look completely real.

So far, all I've done is praise technical achievements. The story here is simple, Caesar (Andy Serkis) wants peace for the apes and wants to end the bloodshed between humans and apes. However, when a human Colonel (Woody Harrelson) attacks Caesar's family Caesar pursues the path of revenge and follows the footsteps of Koba (Toby Kebbell) from the previous movie. Despite the War in the title, this is all a very personal tale for Caesar and how his plight tells us if the apes are worthy of survival. In contrast we have the Colonel, whose plight is just as personal. Despite the fact that the Colonel is played very much as a villain, his reasons seem almost logical. He's fighting not just against the apes, but against fate. A fight he will do anything to win and his path will determine whether humanity is worthy of survival.

To say more would be to reveal too much and rob you of the experience of this movie. Because that's what this movie is, an experience that's meant to be seen not read. Needless to say the performances and the direction by Matt Reaves are all phenomenal here. This is probably one of the best trilogies ever and "War for the Planet of the Apes" is one of the best movies of the year.

Mr. Bay, you are a very skilled filmmaker. I remember enjoying The Rock quite a bit and the fact that you can consistently get the resources to make big action movies is something to be admired. I know you've been in the business of making movies since I was a teenager, so maybe it's not my place to judge you. However, I see you making the same mistakes over and over again. And they're all rather rookie mistakes. Here are three simple tips that could greatly improve your output.

Wide Shots are your Friends

You seem to love your upclose shots of people and things frequently employing Dutch angles and other various tricks. It makes a shot look cool, but it also fails to give the audience any clear idea of the environment around the characters or where characters are in relation to each other. This is especially crucial in action scenes. Please employ at least one wide shot for every change of scene no matter how minor.

2) Use Long Takes

This is sometimes criticized as a film school thing. In movies like Specter where the beginning was one long shot throughout a Day of the Dead celebration. It looked cool but was unnecessary. Then you also have the beginning of Serenity where a long shot is employed to introduce the crew of the ship while also giving the audience the sense of the ship. I'm not asking nearly that much of you, but it's rare when a character says two sentences on the same shot in this film. Almost every sentence has a cut before the next, even when it's the same character talking. This is unnecessary.

3) Edit Your Scenes Properly

You cut action scenes like actions scenes. So you're fine there on editing. However, you also cut character moments as action scenes. You cut exposition dumps as action scenes. When you literally cut everything as an action scene, the movie becomes exhausting to watch. Not only that, when you go to an action scene, it doesn't stand out because it's cut like every other scene in the movie. The audience becomes desensitized to it. So those cool moments you do have stand out so much less.

There's more, but those are the big ones. Follow these simple steps with ALL your movies and there will undoubtable be an improvement and maybe you can even get a Transformers film scored fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. At the very least, not as rotten as the past few. I know this is your last one, but let's face it you've said that before.

Kevin Feige has been doing a phenomenal job with the Marvel Cinematic Universe since the original "Iron Man" over nine years ago. All the movies have at the very least been serviceable and sometimes he even manages a real homerun like the Captain America series, "The Avengers", "Guardians of the Galaxy", and the aforementioned "Iron Man". The only Marvel superhero franchise that hit the same quality levels as the MCU is the original Spider-Man trilogy directed by Sam Raimi. Specifically the first two, though the third does have its strengths.

So, for years the very idea that Sony might loosen its grip on Marvel's most popular hero and allow him to enter the MCU seemed like a pipedream. In large part, the making of The Amazing Spider- Man franchise was a ploy to keep Marvel from regaining the Spider- Man rights back. Therefore, here we are. What masterpiece awaits us when the previous best superhero franchise joins forces with the current king of the superhero franchise? The answer is an entertaining teenage comedy with a superhero twist. It's not a great work of art by any means, but it was a fun experience. It does do two vital components: 1) it actually gives us a true to spirit version of Peter Parker, something missing in the Amazing series, and 2) it allows Michael Keaton to give us a mesmerizingly hammed up villain performance. Previous versions of the Vulture were boring, yet here he was probably the best part of the movie. This movie goes against the typical MCU mold of one-dimensional antagonist and gives us a compelling villain.

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" is a superhero coming of age movie, reminiscent of John Hughes films from the 80s (though not as good as the best of those--then again what is?). Spider-Man is constantly forced to choose between being a kid and being a superhero. Being a superhero has a cost all its own since his exploits are filled with growing pains. Practically every Spider-Man adventure ends in either failure or clumsy victory. This is honestly the movie that Sony seemed to try (and fail) at with "The Amazing Spider-Man".

This is the best Spider-Man movie since "Spider-Man 2"; however, when you look at the competition, that's an amazingly low bar to clear. As far as MCU movies in general, this is a middling effort. Honestly, probably not even quite as good as "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2". However, middling amongst the MCU is still fairly impressive overall. If you want to see a return to the Raimi era of Spider-Man, you'll be disappointed. But, if you're just looking for a fun movie, you'll leave contented.

Style over substance. It's a term thrown around when defending a film that has artistic merit in visuals but lack a strong story. The films of Michael Bay and Zack Snyder frequently get this defense. The reason why that defense fails is because those movies are actually style with no substance. Baby Driver is an example of a style over substance movie.

I can literally break down the entire plot for you in this review without fear of spoiling the movie. A young man (Ansel Elgort) finds himself indebted to a criminal (Kevin Spacey) and has to commit crimes to pay off the debt. Eventually he's clear but he quickly finds that getting out from under the criminal's control isn't that easy. Of course, the young man meets and falls for a girl (Lily James) who reciprocates and becomes involved in the chaos. Not only did I not spoil anything, it's the same plot as about fifty other movies.

That's where the style comes into play. Director Edgar Wright fills this world with characters that are more than just one-dimensional plot contrivances. The young man, called Baby, listens to music almost none-stop to drown out a hum in his hearing he got as a child. That music is the film's soundtrack and frequently leads to scenes playing out like music videos but it always feels natural. Flowing from story to music video seamlessly. That's style.

Added to this, is the fact that Wright also throws a lot of curveballs into the standard plot of the movie including some skillful bait and switch with the person who ends up as Baby's main antagonist. The cast all embody their characters. Elgort holds his own, but the supporting cast still shine. And when that support includes Spacey, Jon Hamm, Jon Bernthal, and Jamie Foxx it's easy to see why.

Despite this impressive star power bringing their sizable skills to play, the real talent that shines here is Edgar Wright's sharp script and clever direction. I wonder how much of this was brought over from his work on Ant-Man. I do find it interesting his first film after leaving a superhero heist film is a heist film.

And even though the film's origin may be an interesting tale, it ends up being a moot point. All the matters is the final product, and the final product is something really special that stands with some of Wright's best work (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Hot Fuzz). That is exceptionally fine company with which to stand.

Let's be perfectly frank here. Pixar is one of those companies that is known for making high quality children's film. "WALL-E", "The Incredibles", "Up", the Toy Story trilogy are all classics made by this studio. Cars is easily their least loved franchise. Yet it is the second franchise to get a full trilogy. So, why does Pixar spend time and energy producing these films that have little to no artistic merit. The answer is to sell toys. The Cars franchise has no reason to exist other than to sell the dozens of toy cars that are created with each movie's release.

So, now that we've established that Cars is nothing more than Pixar selling out, does that mean the movies necessarily suck? Star Wars and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are beloved franchises and both very clearly sold out. So selling out doesn't automatically equate to bad. The question perhaps should be, why isn't the Cars franchise as beloved as Star Wars or the MCU or even almost every other Pixar movie? That answer is nuanced. Well, it's more nuanced with Cars 1 and 3. Cars 2 does just flat out suck.

The original "Cars" was a very traditional fish-out-of-water movie that is almost a beat-for-beat remake of "Doc Hollywood". Perhaps Pixar was gambling that people wouldn't remember a middling Michael J Fox movie from the early 90s? "Cars 2" was a mistaken identity spy comedy probably drawing on films like "The Man Who Knew Too Little" and 1967's "Casino Royale". And Cars 3 is essentially the first half of "Rocky III" attached to the end of "Creed". This is almost certainly why the Cars franchise is nothing special. Essentially, it just lift ideas from other movies and replaces the human characters with cars and somehow expects that will be enough to thrill people. It doesn't.

Also, Mater is without a doubt the worst and perhaps one of the most unfunny comedic relief characters ever created. Thankfully, his role is reduced this time around, but not nearly enough for my taste.

That's not to say these movies are completely awful (except Cars 2). Cars 3 actually has a very strong first act and a third act that is solid enough. Unfortunately, the second act slowly gets more and more boring until it jumps back to life at the end. Both Cars and Cars 3 have a lot of charm and many young children will enjoy these movies for what they are. However, as long as they continue to never ever bring anything new to the table they will never be as good some of the best Pixar has to offer.

Creation through destruction is the theme to "Alien: Covenant". The eighth Alien movie and almost certainly the best the franchise has offered since James Cameron's "Aliens" in 1986. Sadly, that's not to say "Alien: Covenant" is anywhere nearly as good as the first two entries in the series; it's just better than anything that's come since. In other words, this is not a huge accomplishment. The franchise has plummeted from the coma inducing boredom of "Alien 3" all the way to the complete crap-pile called "Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem". The movie series has been so horrendous that the severely flawed "Prometheus" felt like a huge leap in the right direction.

That's not to say I hate "Prometheus". It's a wonderfully directed, beautifully shot movie with incredibly stupid story elements. "Alien: Covenant" drops the numerous dumb story elements from "Prometheus" and replaces them with one of the most obviously telegraphed twist endings ever. I'm not going to reveal it, but if you don't see it coming, then you're not paying attention.

With the exception of that twist, this is an intense well constructed movie that does a great job of bridging "Prometheus" with the rest of the franchise.

The cast this time around is solid providing us with characters we can become invested in rather than the caricatures in the previous film. Katherine Waterston and Danny McBride standout with Michael Fassbender again stealing the show reprising his role as David and also playing a new character, Walter.

The atmosphere of this film manages to be both beautiful and horrifying and include some majestic landscapes and a Pompeii inspired graveyard. All of which is used to great effect. The landscapes provide contrast to the horrors hidden within, while the graveyard is a place of safety… or is it?

The beauty of the scenery all plays into the previously mentioned theme, I.e. in order to create, you must destroy. The creation of this paradise is a source of devastation and destruction. It's quite frankly a wonderful movie weighed down by the choice to include such an obvious twist. This movie could've been in the same league as the first two entries in the series. Unfortunately with its current ending, it's like listening to the John Lennon part of Double Fantasy, then suddenly being assaulted by the Yoko Ono portion. It was just too good; they just had to crap it up.

Still, this movie is visually stunning and incredibly intense until then. I have to recommend it. Just prepare yourself for a disappointing ending to this exciting ride.

What are you doing Universal?

Perhaps that's not the right question. You're making your Dark Universe franchise which is your answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe except instead of superheroes you have monsters. That's cool and given the history of monster movies of the past, it makes as much sense as any cinematic universe. Your goal was to start this universe with 2014's "Dracula Untold", but you changed your minds when that movie was (rightfully) poorly received. So, now you're going to try to start this franchise off with this new version of "The Mummy". Hell, you even got Tom Cruise to star and Russell Crowe to co-star as Henry Jekyll, undoubtedly being set up for his own solo movie.

However, the kicker here is that "The Mummy" is actually a worse movie than "Dracula Untold". "Dracula Untold" was a generic action movie with a Gothic setting and tone. Was it the right way to treat a Dracula movie? Of course not, but at least it was cohesive and had a clear point to it's existence. I cannot say the same for "The Mummy".

"The Mummy" begins in England, where a secret tomb is discovered and we see news broadcasts telling us all this speculation about what this tomb could be. Then, the movie begins again giving us the origin of this film's titular mummy Ahmanet, played by Sofia Boutella. Then the movie begins for a third and final time showing us Nick Morton (Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) looking for artifacts in Iraq. You might think such a location would be a setup for a commentary on war but you'd be wrong. The Iraq setting only provides some incredibly poorly cobbled together action. For some unfathomable reason, the heroes find an ancient Egyptian tomb...in Iraq. To the filmmaker's credit, they do at least think to bring up the question; they just neglect to answer it. If this movie's goal was to make "Kong: Skull Island" appear to be a deeply intellectual thinkpiece by comparison, then mission accomplished.

Say what you will about 1999's "The Mummy", at least it was a fun movie despite it's many flaws. 2017's "The Mummy" spends time pretending to be horror and other times pretending to be action. David Koepp and Christopher McQuarrie are listed as screenwriters for this garbage fire, which is baffling considering the talent they've shown in the past. I am less impressed with director Alex Kurtzman who is primarily known as a writer for such films as "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", ""Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", and "The Legend of Zorro". My opinion of him is very simple, without some sort of hand to guide him like JJ Abrams, his work ends up being rubbish. "The Mummy" has done nothing to dissuade this opinion. What's worse, Universal hired him to work on other stories in their Dark Universe. So, my original question still holds merit. Not in that I am unsure what Universal is doing, but I don't think they have any idea how to successfully reach their goal.

So, what are you doing Universal?

"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" was a surprise. Disney had been trying ride-based movies for a few years and they were all awful. Then suddenly here came one that was fun and featured a character that would for better or worse define the rest of Johnny Depp's career. The movie was a critical and financial hit.

Unfortunately 14 years and 4 sequels later, all the charm and sense of adventure that made the original so much fun is nothing more than a faded memory. Part of the problem is the popularity of Jack Sparrow (Depp). Each movie exposes some untold backstory in order to make him relevant to the plot. Unfortunately, Captain Jack Sparrow is just overblown comic relief. Yet, his past seems to constantly dig up enemies who are after him. Now instead of seeing humor in Sparrow's role in the story, I just wonder why so many trust this loose cannon with such pivotal items.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales" is a decently put together film. The effects are fantastic which is par for the course with this franchise. The problems here lie with the characters and the story. Since Jack is too goofy, other characters have to drive the plot. This time those characters are Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), son of Orlando Bloom's Will Turner, who is a character about as engaging as paint drying. The other key character is Carina Smyth (played wonderfully by Kaya Scodelario). These two enlist Jack Sparrow as they search for the Trident of Poseidon. The villain this time is Captain Salazer played by Javier Bardem. Remember how he intimated James Bond in Skyfall and terrified everyone he crossed paths with in No Country for Old Men. Well get ready to hear him gurgle unintelligible lines. If the filmmakers went out of there way to make Bardem suck as a villain, they succeeded. Further, Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa is tacked on to the story and at the end they attempt to give him a reason to be there meant presumably to maximize some emotional impact that fails miserably.

Part of the problem with this entire series is that it fails to do any character development and in its place inserts so many plot points such that if the audience wishes to follow the story properly they should keep notes. But, who wants to keep notes on characters who fail to evolve in any way. By way of contrast, The Fast and the Furious characters appear deep, intricate, and thoughtful. In conclusion, this pirate ship sunk long ago.

Thank you DC and Warner Bros. for finally getting the message. Thank you for finally figuring out that the reason Marvel Studios movies work isn't because they have a fun soundtrack or because they do a bunch of cameos, but because they actually make decent movies that are true to the spirit of their heroes. Thank you for finally making a live- action Wonder Woman movie. And last, but certainly not least, thank you for making a female led superhero movie that doesn't suck.

As you might've been able to guess, "Wonder Woman" is an astonishingly good movie. After the disasters of "Batman v Superman" and "Suicide Squad", it seemed like the studio had no idea how to run a successful superhero franchise. This was particularly sad since Warner Bros. essentially invented the genre with 1978's "Superman". However, "Wonder Woman" dodged all the problems that made "Batman v Superman" and "Suicide Squad" so abysmally bad.

"Wonder Woman" gives us a true to comic book version of the character without any shame. It's dark sure, but it also has levity. It embraces Greek mythologies and a hidden island of warrior women completely. It even manages to mix two of her origins into the movie seamlessly.

Director Patty Jenkins and screenwriter Allan Feinberg must be given the most credit. Many might be tempted to handle the silly aspects of Wonder Woman's story with a wink to the audience. But instead they treat it with all the gravity needed to give the world a Wonder Woman that is both strong and human.

Part of that also comes down to the performance of Gal Gadot. Although sometimes her line delivery leaves a bit to be desired, she carries herself as a hero. The whole cast here should be commended. Chris Pine's Steve Trevor is a good man in a world where sometimes good men must make hard decisions. David Thewlis and Robin Wright also provide strong roles that essentially just push the plot forward, but it feels natural here.

I actually find myself wondering if "Wonder Woman" is actually as good as I thought or if my expectations for the DCEU are so rock bottom that the movie appears all that much better when compared to other entrants. No matter what, the fact that Wonder Woman finally presents a strong female superhero and is, at the very least, a decent movie makes it worthy to check out.

The question we now have to ask, is Wonder Woman the course correction the DCEU desperately needed, or was it just a fluke? With Justice League is just around the corner, we'll know the answer soon.

The story of King Arthur is one that has been told and retold many times over with many different incarnations. From Le Morte D'Arthur to The Once and Future King to Mists of Avalon. It's a tale everyone knows and everyone likes to reinvent. This is not one of those incarnations. Sure, the main character is Arthur Pendragon (Charlie Hunnam), son of King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana). Arthur proves his heritage by pulling the sword Excalibur from a stone. That about where the similarities end. A couple of characters share names with characters from the legend. A round table does pop up. But that's it.

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" borrows its story from many other classic sources while seemingly ignoring all it can from Arthurian lore. A bit where Arthur appears to grow up in fighting pits hearkens to Conan. A squid woman advises the main villain and looks like a clone of The Little Mermaid's Ursula (minus the personality). Arthur's rescue as an infant is a direct reference to the story of Moses. The most prominent story is that of Hamlet, with an Uncle (Jude Law) killing Arthur's father to take the crown. I guess they felt it would be too obvious to also have the uncle marry Uther's wife.

I might've been able to forgive the massive liberties that make the story unrecognizable if the characters were likable in any way. They're not. Quite often, Arthur comes off as an obnoxious douche. Yes, Arthur who frequently displays humility in other works is at many times insufferably arrogant here.

Guy Ritchie does manage the usual flourishes for which he's known. Sometimes they fail; as an example, an early montage that feels like Ritchie couldn't decide at which speed to play the video. Sometimes they almost work; for instance, an action sequence late in the movie that comes off like a slow-mo Zack Snyder style scene tuned up to maximum impact. The best scene is midway through act two in which the construct is reminiscent of a heist scene wherein Ritchie uses music, dialogue, and editing to build a moment that is fairly decent. Unfortunately, that scene is drowned out by the piles of crap surrounding it.

The filmmakers have filled their world with truly annoying characters that are forced into an Arthurian shell, and, unfortunately, they are not the first to employ the aura of Camelot to sell tickets. Subsequently, Hollywood has vaults of movies which examine various aspects of this legend, almost all of which are better than this. This movie couldn't complete the quest.

"Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" is another entry in a continuing trend of disappointing superhero movies. I'm starting to feel like a scratched record. "Doctor Strange" was a very good movie, but disappointing in how it missed its inherent potential. "Logan" was a very good movie, but disappointing how it missed its inherent potential. "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" is very good but...you catch my drift.

Each movie takes a different path to accomplish its misfire. "Doctor Strange" never went as dark as it should have. "Logan" perhaps went too dark and failed to develop the core relationship of the film. "Guardians Vol. 2" is filled with a cast of mesmerizing returning characters, but this time in an inconsistent story that has a tendency to lurch around with either too little or too much buildup.

The most prominent story problem is the lack of a coherent antagonist for the first half of the film. The closest we get is a Ravenger named Taserface whose name is enough to throw Rocket into fits of laughter making him seem less antagonist and more comic relief.

That's not to say this film lack a good villain. On the contrary, Ronan from Guardians Vol. 1 pales in comparison (making it one of the very few aspects wherein Vol. 2 tops Vol. 1). It's only that the movie takes it's own sweet time establishing the villain, which leaves the audience wondering what are the Guardians guarding. It's cumbersome to invest in a movie with little to no stakes. Eventually, when all is revealed, the movie almost seems to lunge over the finish line like a runner trying to come from behind.

Despite all this, the movie is still a solid enough piece of entertainment, largely due to the interpersonal chemistry between the heroes. They are the reason this film works. It's not even that the story is bad. More that the story spends too much time establishing itself and not nearly enough letting the audience appreciate where the story has gone.

If you're a fan of the original movie, then you're pretty much guaranteed an enjoyable experience. The returning cast is just as delightfully watchable as they were before. The new cast are all welcome additions, even Sylvester Stallone whose appearance might only be foreshadowing of a spin off or sequel. Music is employed with the same effervescence as the Vol. 1 (Groot dancing to ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky" stands out). James Gunn's direction of action is as entertaining as ever. In general, this movie is a lot of fun. Unfortunately, just not as much fun as the original.