CANpatbuck3664

Monkey Man wouldn't have caught my eye right away under normal circumstances but I thought it had a banger of a trailer. Part of what makes the film enjoyable is the setting and it's a key ingredient in Monkey Man's success. The movie presents India in both its glory and its less than photogenic aspects which also gives the movie a lot of flavour. I don't think they could have set it just wherever, there's so much baked in culturally but it's to the movie's benefit. Whether Kid and Alphonso are racing around the busy streets, Kid's hopping between rooftops or Kid's spending time out in the wilderness, Monkey Man effectively transports you into this world and despite the stark contrast between the beautiful and the less-than-presentable, I didn't want to miss a moment.

Dev Patel deserves a lot of credit as the writer/director of the project but where he actually impressed me the most in Monkey Man was how seamlessly he fit in the the action hero role. He's great as Kid, he's appropriately stoic and steely but the character's bloodlust and determination comes through in his intense glare. I've seen his work here and there and while I would have described him as a good actor, I didn't know he had this kind of performance in him. Apparently making this movie was quite the journey for him and I think you can see that in his work. The movie is centred around Dev Patel but the supporting cast is also up to the task. Pitobash has a couple of funny moments as Alphonso, Sikandar Kher is very menacing and appropriately villainous and Vipin Sharma gives the movie some depth and a sympathetic angle. I also thought Sobhita Dhulipala did a lot with only a little screen time, she's beautiful and I respected the choice that the movie didn't force a romance between her character Sita and Kid. I'm a fan of Sharlto Copley and he's so well cast as the slimy and duplicitous Tiger. He could have done this part in his sleep.

The action in Monkey Man is more of the gritty variety than the grandiose and it largely serves it well. There's copious amounts of violent kills and it's well captured by Patel and his team. There's plenty of venues, they utilize everything at their disposal and it's all presented in a stylish manner. I was bobbing and weaving in my seat and wincing occasionally when something brutal connected. My only note is that some critics complained of too many cuts during the fights and it also caught my eye a few times. It didn't detract from the experience too heavily but it was noticeable in a couple of scenes.

It seems odd that my biggest complaint would be that I wanted "more" of Monkey Man but the only thing that I really noticed was that I wanted a little more context on some of the smaller plot threads. The evacuation of the village and the slaughtering of the villagers is horrifying but we aren't given much about the larger picture. Also, while the training in the monastery is a stylish and fun way to punch up the training montage, I wanted a little more time with the residents of the temple as well. Their background as fighters is mentioned but not explained thoroughly and the film could have used even more of that as there's a twist with it later.

Monkey Man delivers what you want from the acting, the setting and the stakes in a stylish way and within a fresh setting. It can't escape all the cliches and there were some things that could have used a little more fleshing out but I think it looks even better when compared against other action genre pictures we've seen this year (Argylle, The Beekeeper etc.). I applaud Dev Patel, Jordan Peele and his team for rescuing it and I thank them for bringing it to theatre screens. Monkey Man would grade out between an 8-9 for me but I'm rounding down in this case because it's closer to an 8. I'd definitely recommend it though, it's the kind of movie that should be supported if you're a fan of the genre. You've seen elements of this before but not packaged together like this and it was worth a trip to the theatre in my opinion.

I don't want it to come across that Wanted: Dead doesn't have anything to offer that's good in the classical sense. I do have complaints about the combat (I'll cover it more later) but when I got used to the punishing nature of it, I started to enjoy it. The finisher animations are cool and surprisingly brutal. I also think the character design is impressive, the game is no slouch from a graphics perspective and Stone's weird but slick design is what drew me to the game in the first place (she's got a cybernetic arm, a sleeve tattoo and she has to be at least 7' tall, it's distinctive for sure). The game has an affinity for strange environments, despite it taking place in modern day (alternate universe however), there's a retro diner that the characters eat at during the downtime that looks fun and gives the game some personality. The game randomly forays into anime cut scenes that feel transplanted from something else completely but they're well animated and well put together. It's going to be challenging if you're walking into Wanted: Dead expecting a great game that performs smoothly, that feels polished and will envelop you with its story but I would grade parts of this game as good or so bold that I couldn't help but give them extra points.

If you made me distill my thoughts about Wanted: Dead into a single word, I'd say unique. I've been playing video games for years and I actually had brand-new experiences with this game. I'm going to start with the plot and for the very first time that I've ever played a game, I can't detail its story properly now that I've finished. There is a story present about our protagonist Hannah Stone being indoctrinated and then repurposed into the lieutenant of the "Zombie Unit", a subsection of the Hong Kong police that are made up of former criminals to deal with threats usually relating to synthetic humans that are now part of the populace. There are flashbacks/cut scenes detailing how Hannah came to be under these circumstances but are they carefully placed in or do they really dive into detailed memories about Hannah? Not really. The story is not the primary focus of Wanted: Dead, it's present and we move through it as the game goes on but does it even matter? That's the question I would ask. The game doesn't give you much context and I'd argue that you don't need to bother, it will more or less just bog you down.

If you've seen any snippets of the game, you might be questioning why do the characters sound like that? One of the more distinct parts of this game is the voice acting and while I don't want to be mean, this is some of the worst voice acting I've ever heard. The voice actress behind Hannah Stone has a Tommy Wiseau style inflection and tempo and that's not a compliment. But on the bright side, it had me cracking up constantly whenever a cut scene would come up. It just contributes to the flavour of the game and the insanity of it, were there not any better takes? Could they not come up with better dialogue? Was this intentional or is it just accidentally brilliant? I will credit Kristi Hughes as October and Stefanie Joosten as Vivienne for doing the best of the cast with what they were given.

I also wanted to talk more about the combat. It took me a little while to adjust to it, you can either fight from range with a rifle or close up with a katana. The gameplay overall lacks polish, the gunplay isn't great when compared with top tier AAA titles but yet it's serviceable. The enemy variety just isn't there either and if you get to the later levels, they're full of mini-bosses that can kill Hannah in just a couple of hits and it makes for a frustrating run through the area. There aren't many checkpoints either so if you lose focus at the wrong time, you'll be repeating sizeable chunks of the level. But despite all of that, I still had fun with it. It was challenging but I didn't find it unreasonable (compared to something like Cuphead or Hades).

There are a few mini-games in Wanted: Dead and if you weren't charmed by the confounding nature of the main campaign, the mini-games may be the deciding factor. There are a few games around things like eating ramen and singing karaoke but that description doesn't do them justice. They're so bananas and weird that I was mesmerized by them. I was laughing throughout my entire time in Wanted: Dead but these snippets took the cake.

I don't know if I've ever played a so bad its good game before so this is new for me. Wanted: Dead is so bizarre, it's full of these big choices that don't make sense or don't work as intended but I was enraptured all the same. Wanted: Dead isn't an easy game to complete and I do think its appeal will be highly niche. It's only going to appeal to a certain segment of the gaming population and only they will appreciate it for what it is. So I can't recommend it to everyone but if you're confident enough to give it a try, be patient while you adapt to it's style and willing to laugh along the way, you might see what I see in Wanted: Dead.

Love Lies Bleeding grabbed my attention immediately but not in the way I expected. LLB shows it's world in all it's grimy glory and despite the environment and the people populating this film being decidedly skeevy, it's so well filmed and presented visually. That's not a common compliment for me for this style of film. A movie can feature great camera work and fun visuals if it doesn't have a huge production budget but it takes talent to show how unsettling and unappealing something is but yet at the same time cultivate intrigue and hold your attention. I never wanted to physically join Lou or Jackie in this unforgiving moment of their collective lives but I couldn't turn away either. It reminded me a lot of End of Watch in that they found ways to make the movie dynamic even when there's not a lot of action going on just by how it's shot. I have to applaud Rose Glass and her team for getting the most out of their resources and giving us an unconventionally stunning film.

It's so easy to watch one bad movie, one bad episode or one bad performance and just assume that's the summation of someone's ability. But I've learned never to count any actor or actress out, I've been proven wrong and I've been happy to admit it when I was. I liked Kristen Stewart a lot in the Charlie's Angels reboot but this is a different kind of work she's doing here. She's completely vulnerable in LLB, she conveys Lou's desperation so well and she disappears into the character. She has great chemistry with Katy O'Brian and if you didn't believe she hadn't turned the corner into being a legitimate leading lady, LLB should put those doubts to rest. Her co-lead Katy O'Brian is every bit her equal as Jackie. Not only is her refined physique impressive but she uses it to reveal how conversely exposed her character's emotional state is. Jackie is an enigma in LLB, you never really learn why she blows into this small town for a fateful rendezvous with Lou or what situation she's fleeing from. O'Brian plays up the mystery of Jackie's background and she demands your consideration from the moment she arrives. I also want to give Dave Franco some credit for doing a great job of playing such a slimy and disgusting character. Dave's always had more range then people have given him credit for and he makes for a great antagonist as J. J. in LLB. Ed Harris is appropriately foreboding as shady backwater gangster Lou Sr. It's a fairly restrained performance from Ed but he's a pro and he knows how to convey a lot through just a mournful look. I also liked Anna Baryshnikov as Daisy, she's twitchy and authentic in an unsettling way which I have to believe was the desired effect.

For movies that I really enjoyed I usually have a paragraph for any missteps or minor flaws I may have noticed but I have very few problems with LLB. There were small aspects of the film I didn't enjoy but they didn't feel like mistakes or false notes. I think Rose Glass and her team achieved exactly what they wanted with this film. Love Lies Bleeding is not going to be for everyone but why do we need to issue that disclaimer as if its a warning? I wasn't keen on the moments of magical realism when the rest of the movie is so firmly grounded and I wish we had gotten a more thorough explanation of Lou Sr.'s shadowy business dealings but these were just blips in the journey that barely registered when the ending credits rolled.

My favourite kind of experience at the theatre is a pleasant surprise. I saw Love Lies Bleeding on a whim due to the positive buzz from the critics and while it's not perfect, I was blown away by the vision and unique style on display. LLB is a trip (in the psychedelic sense) and while it's appeal will be more niche, the film features fantastic performances, great cinematography and a distinctive feel that's all too rare in cinema today. I'd grade out LLB at an 8.5/10 but I'm rounding up. Provided you weren't perturbed by the description or the trailers, and if you're in the mood for a unique and decidedly raw crime drama, I think this movie has the potential to surprise you. It's not for the squeamish but I'd fully recommend it.

When comparing the two entries in the Dune franchise, part of what made the first movie memorable (aside from the world building and moody atmosphere) were the likeable characters fighting for or supporting Paul Atreides. I didn't expect to miss Duncan Idaho, Duke Leto Atreides or Gurney Halleck (who reappears but with a different attitude and demeanor) as much as I did. We get more time with members of the Fremen, including Chani and Stilgar but I didn't find them as engaging or I didn't want to follow them as much (more on Chani and Paul later). The interactions between the Fremen and the remainder of the Atreides clan start to fall into a pattern quickly and while I was intrigued to see how easily Paul and Lady Jessica would assimilate into the tribe, it takes a while for the Harkonnen's to start making moves and the pontificating about the nature of power and church vs state with the Emperor and Princess Irulan also got a little tedious.

Dune's hero Paul Atreides is once again played by Timothee Chalamet. Timothee slips back into this role like a glove and he does a good job of showing Paul's conflict over having to grow into what has been foretold for him. The character is a little darker and a little less aloof in Part Two and Chalamet shifts his performance to compensate. Zendaya is also appropriately fierce as Chani. She plays her character as guarded, Chani's skeptical of the legend surrounding Paul and annoyed Stilgar and his brethren are so quick to declare Paul the Lisan al Gaib. She eventually gets into Chani's vulnerabilities and does what she can to sell the bond between her and Timothee's characters. Rebecca Ferguson returns as Paul's mother, the Lady Jessica Atreides. I've always thought Rebecca was an underrated talent and Ferguson brings some coyness to Jessica when she's trying to convince the Fremen of Paul's power but she flips the switch and becomes ruthless to see Jessica's plan through. Of the newer additions to the cast, Austin Butler was my favourite as the brutal Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen. His impression of Stellan Skarsgard's voice slips here and there but he's good at playing the savage and angry champion of the Harkonnens and he has a strong screen presence when he's vanquishing or intimidating his enemies. Javier Bardem is also good as Stilgar but I couldn't get past some of the parallels between his character and similar characters from other Sci-Fi franchises. His character is a little one note and while that's not Javier's fault, it did distract me a little.

Even when Dune is meandering through Paul's journey in the early sections, you can't help but be impressed with how engaging the film is through just the visuals and the world building. We are reminded throughout Dune: Part Two how dangerous the planet of Arrakis and how difficult it can be to survive in the wild. This is captured beautifully through the long and contemplative shots of the desert environment and you can see how much care went into making everything looked lived in yet arresting all the same. I also have to compliment Villeneuve and his team for the action in the movie. While the amount of time between set pieces can drag, the film delivered what I wanted. The battles and the ending fight are full of tension and got my pulse racing a little. The choreography is tight and the action looks good and fits in with the tone.

Dune looks impressive, they've cast the movie well and I wanted to know where the story was going to go. The biggest problem I had with Part Two was how slow the 1st half of the movie was. It also became a little formulaic, Paul is presented with a challenge to join the Fremen, no one believes he can do it, he does it, rinse and repeat. It never fully bored me but I was checking my phone. The budding romance between Paul and Chani also didn't completely work for me. Chani is mean-mugging Paul in the early going despite the fact he's smitten with her almost immediately. She flips opinions on him pretty quickly and when they're vowing to stay and protect each other, it was a bit of a tonal shift. I thought the two actors did what they could, I attribute it more to the script and possibly the edit. I also have to both commend and criticize Dune: Part Two for not making an effort to catch people up at all. It was a confident choice but I felt bad for anyone who hadn't seen the 1st entry, there's not going to be an opportunity to catch up.

I can see why everyone is so excited about the future of the Dune franchise and I did like this movie quite a bit. Part One has a small edge over Part Two for me but I get why Part Two has been so successful. It looks gorgeous, the cast gets the job done and there's a story here that justifies a multi-film franchise. I hope there's not a huge gap between entries and with how things finished in Part Two, we should be in for a crazy Part Three.

We do have a lengthy cast list here but One Love is anchored/carried by 2 performances. Kingsley Ben-Adir has the screen presence to carry this project, he nails the accent and even has a lot of physicality to his work in One Love. The emotion he brings to the table helps you understand why Bob Marley was idolized and beloved by so many. I wish the movie had explored more periods of Bob Marley's life just so we could have seen what Kingsley would have brought to them. I expected Ben-Adir to be good but the more surprising but equally impressive acting came from Lashana Lynch as Bob Marley's wife Rita. I've only seen Lashana previously in tentpole-esque studio fare (No Time to Die and Captain Marvel) but she transforms in One Love and I hope both her and Kingsley get some awards consideration. To the movie's credit, both Bob and Rita are presented as complex and multi-layered characters and represent the clay that Kingsley and Lashana moulded beautifully with their work in One Love.

It's a more minor note but one of the surprise boxes One Love ticks is that I think it's filmed/shot well. The camera work highlights some of Jamaica's natural beauty but also shows some of the less camera friendly aspects of it as well. The CGI isn't top-notch but it wasn't bad enough to draw attention to. I have a friend who I saw the movie with who visited Jamaica and she was calling out parts of the country she toured in her vacation. I can't call One Love a visual tour de force but there were shots littered throughout the movie that caught my attention and I think it's worth crediting the team for their work in this film.

So far, you may be confused on why my rating for Bob Marley: One Love is so low and it does have a lot of notable pluses. But the unfortunate truth of the matter is that despite the acting and cinematography being striking and stimulating, the odd structure the movie insists on using to reveal its narrative really hampers the proceedings. My best friend compared the movie's structure as counting to 10 as if it were 1,4,7,2,5. The film is disorganized and almost confusing unless you're intimately familiar with Marley's life (I'm passively familiar at best, I did like some of his music and I knew he passed away relatively young). Subplots are created and dropped (e.g. Marley's greedy business manager, the drama surrounding Marley's father, the political unrest in Jamaica in the mid 1970s) frequently and it helps stop the movie from gelling together appropriately. It also dampens the impact of Marley's passing because the fact he's terminally ill is introduced so late that you can't get emotionally invested. There's a pretty concrete formula about how to operate in this genre and while I admire the screenwriter's attempt to try something different, it does the movie a disservice instead.

Everything to create a compelling and informative film about Bob Marley's life was here. We have some terrific performances, some interesting cinematography and Marley and his story are inspiring and his message still prescient even today. But the result of One Love is a puzzling and mildly disappointing misfire, I understand that the studio and the creative team wanting to circumvent the formula but you still have to justify it by showing us a new angle or creating something memorable. Bob Marley: One Love as a product is fine but I think its subject deserved a better movie. I'd really rate One Love somewhere between a 6-7 but I rounding down because of what they squandered in this production. One Love is still worth a watch but as we frequently get some really fantastic movies in this genre, I'd recommend it only to Marley fans as there's better films about other musicians available for your viewing pleasure.

I won't beat around the bush when I'm discussing what didn't work in Argylle but I would feel remiss if I also didn't credit what worked in this mixed bag of a movie. The first obvious positive is the cast, there's some serious wattage from their collective star power. Starting with our lead Bryce Dallas Howard, I think she did about as good of a job as could reasonably be expected. She's certainly done no favours by the script, her character's motivations and personality shift on a dime (sometimes from scene to scene). She does what she can in the action, she gets a few laughs as the smart yet dowdy Ellie Conway and she has some palpable chemistry with her primary co-star. Henry Cavill's is well cast as the stoic yet fully capable Agent Argylle. I like watching Cavill in action movies period, he's got the physicality for the stunts/choreography and the talent to bring some personality to the characters he plays. He's appropriately suave here and it looks like he's having fun. I actually wish we had gotten even more time with this character. I want to tip my hat to Bryan Cranston and Catherine O'Hara respectively. They're both in roles which would have been easy to phone in, the angry spy chief and the supportive but out-of-touch mother. But Bryan brought some intensity/gravitas as Director Ritter and Catherine was funny even though her character is s cliche. As much as I really liked the entire cast, there was one performance that stood out among the rest. Sam Rockwell is a fantastic talent even on his worst day but he was awesome as Aidan Wilde. He has an effortless charm and a seemingly easy but deceptively sharp comic delivery that mesh so perfectly with his secret agent character. Even when Argylle was about to collapse, his shared chemistry with Howard helped keep the movie above water. I'd love to offer further comments on Samuel L. Jackson and John Cena as Alfie and Wyatt but they're in the movie so briefly, I feel like I can't grade them accurately. I did also want to congratulate Dua Lipa, she also doesn't have much screen time but she nailed the seductive and dangerous vibe of her character Lagrange. I'd like to see her in a James Bond-esque movie in a similar style of role, I was very impressed.

The other clear standout aspect is Matthew Vaughn's filming style for the action scenes. He and his crew know how to bring a sense of danger (through the choreography and the editing) to punch up what could be rote. I did wish that Argylle would have gone full Kingsman and done it with an R rating but Argylle still had it's moments even if it was a little more subdued. My favourite was the scene on the train but Vaughn and his crew's fingerprints are all over all the action bits and they fit the bill for what the genre requires.

I try to form my own opinions about the movies I watch, the critics can be right or wrong depending on the movie and the viewpoint. But I have to admit, when it comes to Argylle's missteps, the group of them more or less nailed it. People have been quick to point the finger at Matthew Vaughn for Argylle's messy plot and pacing (he should at least share the blame but he's not the sole offender) but I want to point out writer Jason Fuch's screenplay for fumbling the story repeatedly. Argylle can't make up its mind on where to stop twisting the story, this might seem like nit-picking but watch the movie, I guarantee you'll be shocked at how many times plot twists feature. Agent Argylle seems like a real person part of the time but then in the next scene, he's a figment of Ellie's imagination. There's some badly needed clarity to what is actually going on, especially later in the film. It was just shift after shift and while I normally like a good plot twist, by attempt #5 I was just groaning in my seat or quietly yet still saying WTF out loud. I think the plausibility goes out the window early and just never comes back and as much as Argylle isn't supposed to be realistic, the creative team needs to put enough effort in so I don't disconnect from the movie completely. The long run time compounds this problem, you could have shaved about 30 minutes off this movie without losing anything relevant to the plot. The decision to keep so much in just adds to the movie's pacing problems and it made me yearn for Matthew Vaughn's better previous works. I also couldn't help but feel a little cheated as half of the cast that feature in the poster have so little to do in the movie that it almost felt like false advertising.

I so badly wanted Argylle to be good. I love some of Vaughn's previous work (I adore the original Kingsman and X-Men: First Class is my favourite X-Men movie). But Argylle is at best a mixed bag with some redeeming qualities that are outweighed by some baffling choices in the screenplay and an unfocused story. If you take Matthew Vaughn's flair out of the movie (the movie does have cool locales, costumes, set dressing and some good looking CGI), there's so little left here minus the cast. I'm going to have to reluctantly give Argylle a 6/10 and I do feel like I could have graded it much more shrewdly. I still enjoyed Argylle and I would recommend it if you enjoy spy movies and frenetic action but the overall appeal isn't going to transcend like Vaughn's Kingsman franchise. Turn your brain off and keep expectations low, Argylle may work for you better than first thought.

The reviews I've seen for The Beekeeper laud it for being "straightforward fun" and "an enjoyable throwback." The underlying message is that The Beekeeper is enjoyable if you can appreciate it for the genre thrills. Now that I've seen it, you're going to get what you want from the action. Bones are broken, bullets go flying and the bad guys are punished for their misdeeds in a satisfying and well utilized manner. I actually think the team behind the camera deserves a lot of credit for this. David Ayer gets a bad rap for a couple of lacklustre movies sprinkled in with a few great ones (including one that's in the pantheon of my all time favourites, EoW) but his direction here is at least a level above from what you typically get in this style of movie. The Beekeeper boasts Ayer's famous gritty feel and this also accents the fight scenes. But I also think the movie looks really good between the cinematography and being cut together really well so I want to credit Director of Photography Gabriel Beristain and Editor Geoffrey O'Brien for helping The Beekeeper punch above it's weight class.

I've already admitted to being a big fan of David Ayer but I'm also a longtime defender of Jason Statham. He's one of the few leading men with the chops and screen presence to lead an action movie in our modern cinematic environment (without putting on a superhero costume). He's a decent actor but more importantly, he's also secretly hilarious when given the opportunity (if you get a chance, check out his turn as Rick Ford in Spy, he's phenomenal in that movie). I was excited that he was getting another potential franchise to lead but while he's certainly bringing his physicality to Adam Clay, there's a complete absence of his charm. He mostly grunts his way through the proceedings and his character felt like a rehash and the type of role he was parodying with his appearance in Spy. There's some really talented names in the supporting cast as well and I thought many of them shone through some so-so material. Jeremy Irons brings his gravitas to the character of Wallace Westwyld. He's relatively grounded compared to some big performances from his cast mates and I enjoyed his measured take. I've always really liked Emmy Raver-Lampan in the Umbrella Academy and I think she's the overall standout in The Beekeeper. She's very serious in her early appearances (to the desired effect) but I liked her even better when she's cracking wise and trading buddy-cop barbs with her on-screen partner played by Bobby Naderi. She's definitely got one of the more fleshed out characters but she's got range and hopefully her work here will lead to more roles in movies. To my pleasant surprise, my other favourite performance was Josh Hutcherson as the unbelievably slimy Derek Danforth. This might not seem like a compliment as he's playing such a detestable character but I thought he was appropriately smarmy and unlikeable without chewing on the scenery (e.g. The admittedly fun but hammy job done by David Witts). I wouldn't have imagined Josh playing a villain but he exceeded my expectations in this role and he deserves kudos.

I've mentioned the acting, the film making and the action but I have to get to the elephant in the room now. The script for The Beekeeper was shockingly inept and I kept wondering how it was greenlit in this condition? Travesty is a little dramatic but Holy Underwritten Plot & Characters Batman! Admittedly, some movies walk a fine line in tonality but not everything has to be deadly serious. There's also such things as enjoyably cheesy or deliberately hammy. I had some trouble deciding if that's what The Beekeeper is aiming for. The action scenes are unflinchingly savage and the film has a mostly-serious rhythm (the all-too-real scams, the political intrigue and government bureaucracy don't seem satirical) but then there's the tongue in cheek joking, the one-liners, the knockoff Wolf of Wall Street bravado from the villains, the constant talking about literal and metaphorical bees and over-the-top elements (a rival beekeeper whipping out a mini-gun at a crowded gas station kind of decision) that suggest it's a secret/surprise comedy. Are the filmmakers being deliberately silly? Are they in on the joke? Is The Beekeeper laughing with the audience or just missing the mark with unintentional comedic results? I couldn't really get a firm grasp on the desired tempo here but the conclusion I arrived at was that the film was serious and that the story and the script missed it's mark. The Beekeeper reminded me a little of the movie Skyscraper when it would careen into silliness. There's no doubt that parts of this movie were designed to be funny but I wasn't just laughing at those deliberate choices and I don't think that was what the creative team had in mind.

I really tried to meet The Beekeeper on every level. My combined love of both David Ayer's and Jason Statham's work, an appreciation of straight-to-the-point action the movie boasts and a cast that showed up to work (extra credit to Emmy Raver-Lampman and Josh Hutcherson). I kept hoping for a gradual turnaround, a twist that would shift the narrative from bouncing between solid action to some disappointingly goofy dialogue and storytelling, or an ending that would ratchet up the proceedings. But it wasn't in the cards and while I don't disagree that The Beekeeper is a serviceable vehicle for some satisfying Statham punching & kicking but this movie could have been a lot better. I saw this with a friend in an empty theatre and we were laughing, rolling our eyes and cracking jokes throughout. I would actually like to give this team another crack at it if everyone was able to return (except Kurt Wimmer, he can just stay home). There's a lot of talent assembled here, I just think they hit a ground rule double instead of a home run. Check The Beekeeper out if you're a fan of Jason Statham or if you can tune out your inner critic and just enjoy the action.

As easy as it would be just to apply one metric or measure each game's performance with one scale, it just doesn't work. The Surge isn't a game that is story-based or relying on the strength of its story but lets dive into it. Our protagonist is Warren, a handicapped man that's starting his job at CREO (a Google style conglomerate) where we're assured that they're a wonderful employer whose interests are aligned with humanity's advancement. Warren is then forcibly attached to a rig (via screws through his muscle and bone while he's still awake). He wakes up in a junkyard, some time has passed and the former workers have been replaced by mostly brain-dead security all too eager to slice, dismember or burn Warren to death. CREO launched Project reSOLVE into the atmosphere to repair it and things haven't gone to plan. They're now scheduled to launch Project UTOPIA which would speed up the effects of reSOLVE but sacrifice most of the population. Warren is then tasked (there's no choice, Warren doesn't speak so there's no discussion) with stopping the release of UTOPIA and hacking his way through anyone standing in his way. I'd describe The Surge's story as serviceable but pretty middle-of-the-road. Right from go, there's barely a hop let alone a leap to identify CREO as the villains (why no one else figured this out in this universe.... I just don't know). While you'd think doing something as unique as making Warren need to be in this rig just to walk (an inspired choice) would signal more character development or a deeper narrative, it's just not here. There's nothing wrong with the larger arc of the plot being telegraphed, I'm just not going to go out of my way to overtly praise or criticize it.

To Deck 13's credit, The Surge doesn't try to hide what it is or try and distract the player. If you're playing The Surge, you're signing up for Dark Souls-esque combat/difficulty in a post-apocalyptic environment. While The Surge wasn't a smash hit game, there's been some debate on whether the game is too hard and I'm happy to weigh in as someone new to the genre. In my opinion, The Surge is too hard for casual players and I'm not ashamed to admit to reviewing this game without being able to finish it. The game has a highly frustrating difficulty level that is only enjoyable to a certain percentage of the gaming community (calling it a niche game isn't an insult, the amount of people who bought the game compared to who finished it is well outside of normal range according to the percentages on the trophies). There's no mini-map, objective markers or checkpoints and if Warren dies, you start again at the med-bay with all the enemies having re-spawned. You've also dropped your loot with only so much time to get back to it to pick it up again. There were some aspects of the combat that I liked and I'll detail them later but I did give up on The Surge after trying to grind through it (I got past the 2nd boss and was about halfway through the next large area, past Biolabs and starting the second visit to Central Production B). Even the low level enemies can kill you with just a couple of hits. If you get lost in an area, accidentally engage with high level enemies or lose focus while fighting, you're done and you're going to be starting over again. I also found the boss fights excruciating, one of the more glossed-over aspects is how awful the camera can be during prolonged battles. I was trying to fight PAX (the first boss) which can kill Warren quickly. You have to get behind its legs and I died so many times because the camera wouldn't position itself where I needed it to so I could see what I was doing. Nothing is fun about dying continuously and while a game can be enjoyably challenging, I'm not going to pin a medal on The Surge for just being hard to complete. I have to want to continue as well and I didn't feel like continuing to trudge through areas, without any direction and little hope of surviving for any meaningful amount of time.

While I'm obviously not the target audience for The Surge, there were things about it that I liked. The reveal of Warren's condition was extremely well done and instantly made me root for his survival. Being able to target specific enemy areas to farm out there equipment is cool, it takes away the dice rolls of most loot drops. The character progression system to level up Warren's abilities was different enough to be interesting. I also begrudgingly respected the loot drop system, it forced you to backtrack and weigh risk on where you decide to venture on the map. I was also impressed by how brutal the kill animations were. You don't have to be hugely gory to impress me but Deck 13 weren't afraid to push the envelope a little. It didn't make up the difference for me but I did get a little satisfaction when I dispatched a particularly tenacious foe because Warren was eviscerating them.

I wanted to like The Surge more than I did but I never really lost my temper with it nor did I stop playing it with a ton of vitriol towards it. It's as difficult as described and it shouldn't be attempted by just anyone. If you enjoy games like Dark Souls or Bloodborne, The Surge is going to scratch that itch and perhaps even then some. The fact that I got it heavily discounted also cushioned some of the blow but I still can't wholesale recommend it. It was too punishing for my liking (the odds suggest it probably will be for you too) and I won't be continuing with the series either.

The plot for Prey is lengthy and would resemble a small novel as opposed to something that could be well summarized into 2 or 3 bullet points. The quickest I can distill the story is that the game takes place in an alternate version of history, the year is 2032 and the Transtar corporation is conducting research on board the ship Talos 1. The Soviet Union previously discovered a race of dangerous aliens called the Typhon and they co-operated with the United States government to subdue them. The US government helps keep this quiet and eventually takes over the project when tensions rise between the two nations. Study on the Typhon continues until the year 1980 when the Pobeg Incident occurs. Scientists are killed by the Typhon aboard the former Soviet satellite the Kletka. The research project Axiom is abandoned and the satellite is left with the live Typhon aboard. Transtar purchases the satellite in 2025 and re-institutes the research with the goal of creating "Neuromods." These are injections that grant super power like abilities based on what the Typhon can do. We join Morgan Yu (you can choose whether the protagonist is male or female) in 2030 as a high ranking member of Transtar about to travel to Talos 1 (the re-branded Kletka) to join his brother Alex Yu in developing the neuromods. Things go array QUICKLY and in ways that you wouldn't expect (I don't want to spoil it, the opening reveal/twist is something that should be experienced in the moment). Prey's story is surprisingly layered and while it might not spell everything out for you immediately, the reward is in the gradual unveiling. Things are not what they seem aboard the Talos 1 and that's outside the shape-shifting aliens that want to rip you limb-from-limb.

It's easy to categorize Prey as a FPS but you'd be shortchanging the game with that assumption. Where other games wall you off from certain parts of the map or rigidly manage where you go, Prey largely lets you traverse Talos 1 unimpeded. There's an amount of freedom in the game that you don't always get in this genre. There are puzzles to solve, resources to manage (the game requires you to recycle junk to give you the raw material to craft things like ammo, health or gun upgrades) and several different ways to arrive at the solution. One weapon specifically plays a large role in this, the GLOO cannon freezes enemies in place and allows you to more easily melee or eliminate them. But the GLOO gun can be used to scale walls, create bridges etc. It's a nice complement to the solid action and it's another way in which the game refuses to just hand it to the player (the effectiveness of this idea is mixed, more on that later).

By the time I finished Prey, I had completely gotten on board. There's been some complaints about the effectiveness of the ending but I think it was a bold and inspired choice. Any game can end in a big fight and the world is magically saved, I appreciated that they tried something different. They pay some lip service subtly to a morality system throughout the game and it affects which ending you're presented with. There are also hints that there's a larger game afoot so while the conclusion was surprising, it didn't feel like dirty pool. I really dug it and I'd actually encourage more developers to take a page from Arkane's book.

I only have 1 complaint when it comes to Prey and while it may come across as a little petulant, I'm not the only one with this view. Prey is HARD at the beginning, to the point it passes past the point of an enjoyable challenge. Your character is deliberately under-powered and you can run into high level enemies in any given area. Some have argued that it encourages puzzle solving, stealth and exploration to pick up items and gain XP but I found that hard to believe as I was terrified to go anywhere but the waypoint on the main quest because I would die so quickly. Eventually, I levelled up to a point where I could investigate other areas and gain new abilities. But I'm not going to begrudge anyone for getting frustrated when starting this game, it's tough and it takes some fortitude to acclimate to how punishing Prey can be.

I didn't love Prey from the beginning, I actually contemplated giving up on it at around the 25% mark. The story was impressive and the mystery of Talos 1 was great (along with the surprisingly stacked voice cast, Benedict Wong's work as Alex is hugely underrated in helping Prey deliver) but I just kept dying over and over again. I stuck with it however and through my stubbornness, I got better at it and finished the game. This game is exceptional in many areas and I now get why it's on everyone's list of criminally underrated games from the previous generation of consoles. I didn't even touch on how scary and varied the Typhon types are (if you don't like jump scares, this game might be a little annoying for you). Prey deserved more attention and bigger sales and if you get the chance to play it, I'd absolutely recommend you to do so.

Trial and Error features a similar format to The Office where it's filmed like we're watching a documentary about the unfolding legal proceedings in East Peck and we get cutaways and snippets with several characters explaining their point of view on the situation. I was not as big of a fan of The Office, I've only seen episodes here and there but I get the appeal of the format. I can't give Trial & Error credit for pioneering the formula but I do think it fits what they're trying to achieve in this genre. What also helps the decision is how silly all the characters are, nothing in Trial & Error is subversive or done with too much obfuscating. It's a deliberate parody and while the show has clever moments, it never tries to reach outside of it's grasp and I think that plays to the show's favour.

Each season of Trial & Error centres around a murder having been committed in the fictional town of East Peck, South Carolina and then we watch our main players continually bumbling through the trial process. A lot of the jokes are being made at the expense of the townsfolk and their backward ways but I was quickly charmed by Trial & Error and how ridiculous the lives of the residents of East Peck were (the mass surrender of the town, the rules around lady drivers, Mickey Moose etc.). Critics may call out the show for being a little repetitive but I impressed continually at how Trial & Error would just introduce some wacky rule or completely shift a scene instantaneously (in a comedic sense). The show is never offensively crude and never even approaches the line of being controversial. I never tired of the madcap and slapstick nature of the proceedings and I laughed hard throughout.

The show is led by Nicholas D'Agosto as nerdy New York lawyer Josh Segal. I've seen D'Agosto in comedies before (Fired Up comes to mind) but this is a fun switch because he's playing a hugely unflattering but inherently sweet character. There's an earnestness in his portrayal that help keeps the show humming and he bounces off of Boyer, Shepherd, and Mays to some continually amusing results. Jayma Mays gets second billing as icy and comically ruthless prosecutor Carol Anne Keane and she also works well in lampooning the no-nonsense woman who has to work twice as hard as any man to get ahead trope. My favourite performances that stole the show are Steven Boyer and Sherri Shepherd as Josh's inept defence team members investigator Dwayne Reed and assistant Anne Flatch respectively. They're both chewing on the scenery, they're going BIG as they're the goofiest characters in the show. Despite that caveat, they're both gut-bustingly funny as these lucky-to-still-be-alive idiots. I have to tip my cap both to Steve and Sherri for some magnificent work. I also want to congratulate both Krysta Rodriguez and Bob Gunton as Summer Henderson and Jeremiah Davis. They both feature in the 1st season and they both shine (I'd never seen Gunton in a non-dramatic role and he nailed it here) in their scenes.

I'd be happy to continue to heap praise on Trial & Error but there is one small drawback. Each season of the show has a featured player as the accused murder, it's John Lithgow in season 1 as Larry Henderson and it's Kristin Chenoweth as town darling Lavinia Peck-Foster in season 2. Chenoweth is really good as the eccentric and pint-sized Lavinia but the show never hits the same heights after Lithgow departs in season 1. He's just so pitch perfect as the constantly dumbfounded Larry (let alone his surprisingly strong comedic chemistry with D'Agosto that just can't be replicated) that I can't put the two seasons on equal footing. There isn't a catastrophic drop off in the quality of the show but it is noticeable.

I've now watched this series through twice and T&E holds up quite well. The first season is the stronger of the two (in my opinion) but both seasons deliver what's needed. If you're looking for a simple and mostly good-natured send up of a court procedural with some Office style formatting, this could be for you. I laughed a lot throughout Trial & Error and I'll be revisiting this show again for sure. I wish we had gotten more seasons and I wish the show was easier to find but T&E is the dictionary definition of a hidden gem and I'd wholeheartedly recommend you check it out if you're interested. I'd also be interested in a series revival.... even if we're not likely to get one, we can always hope.

Getting the audience to commit to a musical requires some work. Wonka has a few extra hoops to jump through on top of that, they're building off of an existing property that they have to pay respects to as well. Establishing the world is paramount, we need to want to believe that Wonka could imagine these confections and use only the rarest of ingredients to make people fly or experience an entire party in a moment. Clearly Wonka's production budget was huge and the creative team uses it to great effect. The fantastical energy the movie is cultivating is dependent on how real a chocolate flower looks or how plausible it is for a giant chocolate vault guarded by monks seems. The practical sets were impressive and I wasn't annoyed by Wonka's use of CGI. It all blended together well and I have to credit everyone involved for selling it as successfully as they did. I'll caution that if you can't accept any fantastical elements, this movie is going to annoy you very quickly. You need to suspend disbelief and accept some dark quirks (like indentured servitude for orphans) on top of this completely fanciful adventure.

I read Charlie and Chocolate Factory as a kid, I enjoyed it and I've seen the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory. I think you'll enjoy Wonka more if you're a fan of the property but it also works as a standalone story. Wonka's continued optimism in the face of failure and difficulty could go either way depending on how you see it (inspiring or annoying? You decide). His journey to becoming a successful chocolate maker isn't exceptionally deep but it's charming and it's clearly made with kids in mind. I think from that perspective, Wonka triumphs in taking the audience on a journey that should delight the younger members of the family and keep the less judgmental adults entertained.

As much as there's lavish production design and a light and bouncy script, Wonka lives and dies by Timothee Chalamet's performance Willy Wonka. Timothee is an ascending talent and I liked him in the sci-fi epic Dune. I think Wonka proves he's got the talent to do almost anything. He does great work here, he brings a lot of kindness and warmth to the character and he anchors Wonka capably. He also skips around the fact that he's not the strongest vocalist. He still delivers during the musical numbers and there's some good sleight of hand to shield him from having to belt it out like it's a Broadway musical. The supporting cast is great across the board, they're all playing it big (Olivia Coleman, Tom Davis, Paterson Joseph, Matt Lucas, Mathew Baynton and Keegan-Michael Key are all enjoyably hammy as the villains of the piece) but that's also the genre and while they could have been toned down a little, I had to put it aside as a concession to the tone of the film. Kudos to Calah Lane who's portraying Noodle, she's very earnest to the point of being potentially cheesy but that's more of result of her character than her acting.

I wasn't planning to go see this movie in theatres but I went out with a couple of friends and I had a surprisingly good time with this film. The lavish production budget, well rounded cast and an inherent sweetness (no pun intended) to the proceedings stripped me of any preconceived bias. Timothee Chalamet's exemplary performance sealed the deal. Wonka still isn't in my wheelhouse and if you don't enjoy musicals, I'm hesitant to recommend it. But if you're attached to the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory story or if you're in the mood to be swept away into a fantastical world of imagination, I think you'll enjoy Wonka wholeheartedly.

I didn't give myself over to Songbirds & Snakes immediately. The movie certainly had my attention and I think the opening was very strong in establishing Coriolanus as a complicated protagonist and setting him down his path to both his triumph and later his destruction. It took me a while to warm up to Lucy Gray, she was too feisty and too finely geared to make her likeable. But her willingness to trust Snow instead of just being whiny and mistrustful and her not too squeaky clean sense of morality wore me down. Her character picks up steam after the games are done and by the end, I was rooting for her. My biggest problem with the original series was how selfish and petulant Katniss could be and Songbirds & Snakes flips the formula by asking us to root for the villain. One of my friends suggested a House of Cards style show just showing Snow's rise to power and S&S showed the potential and promise that kind of project.

I hadn't seen either Tom Blyth previously but to follow Donald Sutherland in this role couldn't have been easy. I was quite impressed with his commanding presence and how well he captured Snow's charm and conversely his ruthlessness. He definitely brought some humanity to the character and he conveys slow descent well. Rachel has a ton of energy as Lucy Gray and she's good at being vulnerable in the beginning and being coy & mysterious near the end. Viola Davis, Peter Dinklage and Jason Schwartzman are the heavy hitters in the supporting cast and I enjoyed them all. Viola comes on strong at the start (could the obviously evil character turn out to be evil?) but her performance fits and Dr. Gaul transforms into a formidable enemy by the end.

I also want to congratulate this movie for putting more of a focus on the animosity between the Capitol and the Districts. There's a lot more anger and venom between the two sides and the bitterness adds to the stakes. They also do a good job of showing how disorganized the games could be in their beginning cycles. This version of the Hunger Games is much less glamorous, the tributes are barely suitable, the mentors are only in it for themselves and the citizens of the Capitol barely care. It adds to the bleakness of the festivities and how they would eventual fuel another rebellion which is important in where the story will eventually finish with the Katniss saga.

I did have some problems with this movie, but they were mostly minor. Songbirds & Snakes relies on some plot contrivances and the film can't help but being a little precious when it's winking at elements from the original trilogy. This is something that isn't unique to Songbirds & Snakes but wouldn't it be nice if it could have been avoided? But the easiest and most obvious problem is that S&S feels a little overproduced. It's been pruned and tweaked for maximum power several times over and it robs it of some of it's spontaneity. I still really enjoyed it but I couldn't help but feel like I was being manipulated a little bit.

I really didn't expect much going into this movie. I saw the original trilogy and read the books but I considered The Hunger Games finished and I moved on. I was blown away by how intricately packed and well made this prequel was. Judging by the other user reviews, I might in the minority but Songbirds & Snakes builds on the mythology while staying true to the spirit, the film shapes Coriolanus Snow into a layered and engaging character/villain and reignites the fire for this universe. I'm somewhere between an 8.5-9/10 but I'd wholly recommend this and unless you're extremely attached to the original trilogy, I'd be surprised if you walk away from the theatre without something to discuss or a new appreciation for this franchise. To Suzanne Collins, Francis Lawrence and the creative team, Bravo!

Carol Danvers is certainly a noteworthy character in the Marvel pantheon but the most memorable part of the original entry was the controversy surrounding it's star Brie Larson. Brie's supposed infamy wasn't deserved, she had so much vitriol spewed her way and it took the focus away from her actual work. Her take on the character was less animated and more stoic but that choice is a product of many people, not just her. With all that said however, her performance in The Marvels is fine but falls short of spectacular. They make a concerted effort to humanize Carol but it only works somewhat and I actually missed some of the dry humour Brie brought to the original film. Iman Vellani shines the brightest of the central three. The humour surrounding Kamala's fangirling over Captain Marvel works the most consistently. She's certainly the most relatable and Iman's awkwardness comes across as genuine. Her earnestness could have been grating had it continued at the initial pace but she smartly tones it down slowly over the course of the run time to further Kamala's growth. I thought Teyonah Parris got the least meaty material as Monica Rambeau. Teyonah has been a scene-stealer in other projects for me and to be fair, she's still fine in The Marvels. But I think with her talent level, she should have been given more time and more room to really show what she could do in this role. Samuel L. Jackson is always welcome to pop in as Marvel regular Nick Fury. I got a couple of chuckles from him but I surprisingly even found his work a little underwhelming here. He lacked the same zip in The Marvels and he seemed less than engaged. Zawe Ashton tries as the group's foil Dar-Benn but she's destined to get lumped in with of Marvel's more forgettable antagonists.

Carol's vast and varied power set creates all sorts of possibilities and when you combine that with the character swapping, there's so many different directions you could go with the action set-pieces. The Marvels looks good (and it's obviously well financed) and has a few standout moments in the action. Most notably the initial set-piece where the characters are flipping locations almost constantly has some satisfying punch. I also wanted to point out that just like Multiverse of Madness, the weirder moments in The Marvels are some of the best. The logic and practice surrounding the payoff of the Goose subplot seems a little flawed but I laughed hard and couldn't help but ponder the implications about where the movie decides to go with it.

In my previous paragraph about the performances, I can't lay the blame for the scattershot success of The Marvels at the feet of the cast. The worst part of The Marvels is the wasted opportunities and choppy nature of the final product. There's all these rumours about extensive reshoots and drama behind-the-scenes and while I'm not read into the specifics, you can see it in this cut of this movie. So much of the drama or the set up for the respective character's emotional payoff is skipped over and it undercuts some of the more poignant scenes. Monica's regret and anger directed at Carol not being around comes off as petulant but only because it's not covered properly through the movie's flashbacks. Ditto for Carol's shame over how she handled the climactic battle with the Kree, it could have been affecting if given enough screen time but it's an afterthought in The Marvels. To punctuate this, what really astonished me was how rushed the ending felt. A shorter Marvel film is a blessing but the climactic battle between our heroes and Dar-Benn is so anti-climactic and the solution to her villainous plan has so little oomph and is so slapdash that The Marvels ends on a whimper. I was wondering if the movie had a mandate to be less than 2 hours and it was trying to beat the buzzer. I would also give The Marvels more credit if this decision tried to buck the formula but the movie is all the more formulaic for it.

I'm usually in the theatre for opening weekend for most of Marvel's movies, some are amazing, most are good and you have the occasional misfire (I'm looking at you Ant-Man and the Wasp). I wanted to see what another Captain Marvel adventure would look like but I was also looking forward to this because it was Nia Da Costa directing. A tentpole franchise is a different animal but I'd truly enjoyed some of her other directorial efforts (Little Woods was great and Candyman was pretty good). I was disappointed that there wasn't any of her Candyman style flair in this. The Marvels is a passable effort with some intriguing moments packed in. It's certainly not the "cinematic travesty" some would have you believe. But it's also rushed, lacking distinctive qualities and overall just okay. With most of Marvel's recent output (Guardians 3 being the exception), we can't deny that superhero fatigue is officially here and if this genre is going to continue to thrive, we need a few daring films to steal back people's attention. I'd grade The Marvels somewhere between a 6-7 and as much as I wanted it to be worth a trip to the theatre, you'd get just as much checking it out on streaming. The original Captain Marvel was flawed but it was markedly better than The Marvels. I can't help but feel sorry for those involved with this project. There was obviously conflicting visions about what The Marvels should be and The Marvels clearly suffered for it. It's also most likely an unceremonious end for what could have been a key Marvel character moving forward and that's just plain disappointing.

The original Five Nights at Freddy's game (which this film is largely based off of) was a super simple but surprisingly innovative game about a security guard in an abandoned Chuck E Cheese style pizzeria hiding from the animatronics while trying to make it to the end of their shift. There were hints given about the overall arc of the story but they were doled out slowly and a lot of it came in after-the-fact. We focus on Mike and his tireless pursuit of his missing brother Garrett while he simultaneously looks after his sister Abby. You would think a movie about killer animatronics would be fast-paced but in a different tactic, Five Nights is content to slow things down for most of the run time. It wants to setup the mystery surround Freddy Fazbear's and Garrett's abduction which is a choice but it's an odd one. There's something to be said for fleshing out the characters but I was certainly expecting something a little more visceral. The rest of the movie is geared toward the fanbase and if you're a fan, you know the story so all the buildup seems a little redundant if you already know what's going to happen.

Casting Josh Hutcherson in the lead was an interesting pick. Hutcherson is in his early 30s but he looks like he's in his early 20s. To be fair, the games don't go into Michael's appearance a ton so it's not like Josh is cast against type. Hutcherson is giving it his all in this and I thought he succeeded as much as he could as Mike. He's appropriately frantic when called upon and he's fine acting beside Piper Rubio and Elizabeth Lail. Matthew Lillard was a pleasant surprise as Steve Raglan, he's appropriately campy and he got a few solid laughs out of me as the career counsellor. Piper Rubio was alright but I thought her performance was a little uneven, I had a hard time understanding where her character was at mentally because how affected she was didn't seem consistent from scene to scene. Abby was also a hard character to portray however. I really liked Elizabeth Lail in some of her previous work (mainly the 1st season of You) and while I don't think she was bad, she's kind of brought down by her character. Vanessa is really wishy-washy in this and she's all over the place emotionally. I just didn't see the same kind of spark from Elizabeth in Five Nights. The cast was mostly passable as a whole but while I don't like singling out one member, I was taken aback by how off pitch Mary Stuart Masterson was as Aunt Jane. While Lillard's work was more playful, she was unintentionally comedic and her bluntness didn't have the desired effect that I think Five Nights was going for.

As much as Five Nights has a ton of moments for the fans between the small nods in the set dressing, in-jokes in the dialogue and it brings in many of the fan-favourite characters, it still doesn't accomplish the most basic thing it needs to do. There's barely anything unsettling in this version of Five Nights let alone anything scary. The movie feels neutered to cater to its target audience. I understand that making it a conventional R rated slasher was never going to be in the cards but any violent deaths or maiming is done off-screen and it just sucks away any possible tension or thrills. To me it made the movie come off as accidentally goofy, the mythology of this series of games is surprisingly dark and relying on jump scares so frequently or choosing "simulated horror" over showing anything that could have possibly raised your pulse paints the original material in an unflattering light.

I wouldn't describe myself as a Freddy's fan but I do know a fair amount of the larger story of the franchise and I respect how much work went into creating the phenomenon that the Five Nights at Freddy's morphed into. The early games were basic and even cheap when it came to the scares but people gravitated toward them in droves and I think there was a lot of vision in how the series unfolded. This movie will give the die-hard members of the community what they want (this was evident in my theatre where a large percentage of the audience was cheering and clapping when the film ended) and Emma Tammi and her team (including Scott Cawthon and the writers) deserve credit for clearly prioritizing/caring about the fans and pleasing them first. But I can only imagine this will entertain those fans and few others, they needed to push the envelope a little at least but Five Nights is too safe and too contemplative for anyone interested in a legitimate horror movie. I have to think this will get a sequel and colour me interested if they try to go a different direction in the next chapter. If you're a fan, I think you should check this out but expectations should be kept low. If you've missed the hype train to this point and are only coming to this now, this version of Freddy's isn't going to win you over, you can skip it.

Killers of the Flower Moon centres around 3 primary characters instead of a single protagonist. They're all interesting but in my opinion, they aren't all layered characters. I gravitated towards Molly Burkhart quickly (this was helped by Lily Gladstone's performance but I'll talk more about that later), she's quiet but strong and takes initiative while others are more content to just suffer through what's ailing the Osage tribe (several things are but a bad case of continual murder and theft are the primary problem). She also tries to see the good in Earnest even when there's so little on display. William Hale is closer, he's playing both sides, pretending to be a friend to the Osage nation yet having his own stake in the game through manipulation and coercion. His true motivations are never in question however and I could have used a little more time with his character's lighter side to perhaps feel some sympathy or understand his side of the story. I wanted to bond with Ernest but his lack of common sense is revealed almost immediately and due to his actions throughout the movie, I never wanted to side with him or was rooting for his success. I think this is all intentional, Flower Moon is a drama and ultimately a tragedy so this always how this story was going to unfold (you also have a duty to tell the story how it actually happened... instead of taking the American Hustle route). But even if that's the intention, you can't blame the audience for refusing to invest in all 3 of the protagonists and instead only empathizing with the one of main characters. This in turn will limit how much I engage with the movie because if the movie is predominantly being led by characters who are unsympathetic scumbags, why should I do anything but root for them to get their just deserts? This is so drawn out in the movie's laborious runtime that it dampened the enjoyment I got from the retribution, but more on that later.

Killers of the Flower Moon was hyped up with featuring 3 Oscar calibre performances. I would say Gladstone is worthy of that consideration and De Niro is close. I have to give Lily all the credit in the world, this is the biggest stage with some of the most talented people in their respective fields and she shone the brightest. She was a great casting choice and she fits this part like a glove. I had some problems with William Hale's characterization but De Niro hits all the right notes. He's affable when he needs to be, sinister when it requires and icy cold by the end. Scorsese-De Niro pairings have led to some legendary films and it's obvious to anyone that has seen any of those movies, they're a perfect match and they create special stuff together. I'm probably going to be in the minority here but I think Leonardo DiCaprio is miscast in Killers of the Flower Moon. His character is supposed to be an every man nitwit who is easily manipulated and he just doesn't fit as the yokel type. He's a great actor and I understand why Scorsese cast him but I would have gone another direction. The supporting cast is stacked but my favourite was newcomer Tommy Schultz as flunky Blackie Thompson who's darkly comedic in how blunt his delivery is. Killers needs a little levity here and there and he made me laugh with how resigned his character is to just doing everyone else's dirty work.

The trailers for Killers of the Flower Moon should have been advertising it as a Best Picture nominee (we all know it will be) and you expect a lavish production when you're stepping into the theatre. Killers definitely delivers on that front. The sets look fantastic, the attention to detail is great and it helps you absorb the world these people are experiencing. The cinematography is fantastic and the production design is top shelf. You can tell this movie was well funded and they used their giant budget effectively.

I was prepared stepping into Killers of the Flower Moon for it to be long but just like previous Scorsese flick The Irishman, even knowing ahead of time might not prepare you for how LONG this movie is. Conversely to the Irishman, this movie had a lot of fat to be trimmed off here. This is a good film but holy cow is there a lot of dead air in Killers. The story is fairly straightforward, there aren't many unexpected twists or turns to accommodate so the scenes of trickery and deceit all meld together. You have to take the movie how it is but I do think there was a more compact version of this movie that would have been more palatable.

I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did and I'm a little disappointed I didn't enjoy it more. This movie will be remembered fondly by most of the critical population and I feel like a killjoy. Killers of the Flower Moon is beautiful and has all the trappings of what should be the premier movie release of the year. But I liked it as opposed to loving it and I do feel like I won't be the only one who feels this way. I'd still recommend checking out Killers if you're intrigued but in terms of quality, I think you can wait for streaming.

Starting my review of the creator with some comments on the acting, I'm surprised at how meteoric John David Washington's rise to the top has been. He's a good actor for sure but he's not just ascending the staircase, he's jumping a few steps at a time. He's anchoring the Creator as our protagonist Joshua. I think he's good in the movie, he's brooding for what feels like most of the run time but when he's given a chance to either be funny in short bursts or vulnerable near the end, he gets the job done. Madeleine Yuna Voyles is fine as Alphie, she accomplishes what's required in any given scene and by the end of the movie, she does what she can in regards to selling the bond her character has with Joshua. It's hard to deliver a noteworthy performance as a child actor/actress and she's better than passable. I keep waiting for the Gemma Chan's breakout role but this is one of her better performances as Maya. She has chemistry with Washington but she's given little to do on her own. She's appropriately cast and she sticks the landing in her part. My two favourite performances were from the veteran members of the supporting cast in Ken Watanabe and Allison Janney as Harun and Colonel Howell respectively. Janney pushes the envelope just far enough without descending into being a cartoon character, her character's palpable hatred for the Simulants creates tension and the amount of disdain she conveys through just a look is impressive. Watanabe brings strength to Harun when he needs to but there's also a lot of warmth when his character is bonding with Alphie.

Despite some solid work from the cast overall, I'd bet what's probably going to draw your attention in the marketing material for The Creator is the design of this dystopian world and how the war between humans and A. I. dazzles on the big screen. Gareth Edwards and his team weren't working with pennies but this is as impressive of a display for a science fiction movie that I've seen in quite a while. The cinematography is fantastic, the character design of the robots evoked Neil Blomkamp's work for me in the best way without ripping it off and the action set pieces are memorable enough to hold your interest. The movie is just as fantastical (or grounded depending on your opinion on the future of artificial intelligence) as any other sci-fi epic, but there's a beautiful mix of real imagination that keeps the movie grounded just enough that you can still take it seriously. I found it disarming that it was so excellently realized and even if you aren't enthralled by the story, The Creator is still a delight from a visual perspective.

I would describe The Creator as story driven as opposed to character driven but we spend enough time with Joshua, Alphie and their friends and enemies to get to know them. I liked the work done on the characters but I wasn't emotionally invested in whether Josh and Maya were going to reunite or if Alphie would make it away safely. I don't want to point the finger at the scriptwriters or the creative team, I was left wondering how much of this movie had been cut out and left on the cutting room floor. Scenes normally required to get us to invest in some of these relationships (e.g. Josh & Alfie, Josh & Shipley or Colonel Howell & McBride) felt like they were missing to me. I don't want to complain about the run time because The Creator isn't a short movie but I was left wondering if they cleaved off a little more than they should have.

My most prominent problem with The Creator was how easy to guess the overall arc of the plot was. I didn't discern what it was going to do minute by minute but you can get where the story will start, advance to and finish largely from the trailer. There are some surprises here and there but if you zoom out and observe the macro progression of the plot, this ground has been covered before. Cliche seems a little harsh of a description but The Creator still lacks something bold in where it decides to venture and I was a little disappointed by that.

The Creator really falls between a 7-8 for me but this is one of the rare situations where I'm going to round down. The film is still a spectacle and if you can get over that the plot is a little recycled in certain respects, there's a lot here to enjoy. Gareth Edwards and his team deserve kudos for making The Creator a worthy theatre experience. But I still wasn't blown-away by this movie and I wanted it to really kick into the next gear to get past the 8/10 mark. The Creator is a solid science fiction adventure that is worth checking out on the biggest screen you can but outside of it's CGI and visual sensibilities, I don't think it will have the staying power to make the huge impact it's clearly swinging for.

I missed the original Psychonauts, it just didn't come up on my radar at that time so despite hearing universal praise for this game, I hesitated in picking it up. Having played through it now, I can confidently relay that not having played the first shouldn't be an obstacle. You may miss a couple of the in jokes but the game offers a lengthy intro which fully explains the events of the original Psychonauts and adequately catches-up the uninitiated.

I've listened to a few reviewers talk about the differences between the two entries in the franchise. The 1st game was allegedly more comedic and light-hearted. Supposedly, this game is much more dramatic and serious, in some cases to its detriment. I wholeheartedly disagree with this, I do think this game is more chuckle-worthy than uproarious but they've done a great job writing an adventure here that has huge amounts of pathos and emotion. This is a much deeper than it appears tale about things like PTSD, addiction, regret and loneliness and it's fantastically done. The story balances showing some of the darker sides of these conditions and how they can haunt you long past the inciting events while not dragging the game too far down into the emotional muck. Raz isn't just fighting off Maligula, he's been tasked with healing his troubled friends, co-workers and family along the way and it wasn't too dour or serious for me at all. The game is extremely well written across the board I don't know if a better kid-friendly slant on these issues exists (if you know one, feel free to point it out).

There are so many standout aspects to this game but the most impressive part of it for me was the imagination put into the level design and the environments. Razputin's adventures through these varied and awe-inspiring worlds are ridiculously creative and visually stunning. Each one has new concepts or ideas that are remarkably inventive and present the player with a fresh take on something. But just when you've gotten used to the environment, it flips on a dime and you're doing something new. The art style reminds me of Tim Burton but it's far from derivative and the character designs are so distinct and memorable as well.

We play predominantly as Raz and aside from jumping around each person's mind, we deal with combat with Raz having a variety of attacks and powers. The game isn't combat focused but I liked most of the fighting because how easily you get through it is directly correlated to how imaginative you want to be with Raz's abilities. Minus the boss fights, combat is usually brief as well and the variety of minions is solid and even a little funny as you get a couple of lines of backstory when a new one is introduced (there's usually an accompanying joke).

My gripes with Psychonauts 2 are going to be brief. My biggest is that I'm not the most experienced platformer, I've played platforming games before (the Sly Cooper Series would be my most direct comparison to this game) but I had a hard time with some of these levels. I want to add however, I've played games that are deliberately so difficult that it's part of the draw (Cuphead, The Surge etc.), the fact that I died so often here came across as more my fault than the game's fault. I died a lot more than I'd care to admit playing Psychonauts 2 and that did lead to a little frustration. Some people have complained that the collectibles are a bit much, I didn't have a problem with them but I did gradually lose interest in grabbing every single one as the game progressed.

I struggle to give just about anything a perfect grade (in this case a 10/10) because everything has flaws to some degree. Nothing is perfect and I do feel that way about this game too. I did have small problems with Psychonauts 2 but what it excels at is so far beyond what I expected. The level design, voice-acting, story, character design and graphics are amazing and the game deserves all the praise and the awards buzz it got. I could continue showering Psychonauts 2 for several more paragraphs, that's how strongly I feel about it. I would give it a 9.5/10 but I'll round up because of how pleasant of a surprise this was. I sincerely implore Double Fine Productions to consider making another sequel and not to compromise on their vision because this was spectacular. Provided you can do some platforming, this is a slam-dunk must play for me.

The Forgotten City begins with us meeting a woman named Karen, she has pulled us out a river, having saved our lives. She wants to tell us what's going on but she's worried for another traveller who required the same assistance. His name is Al and he went into a nearby cave. We agree to help and soon after, we find Al having committed suicide, he left a note warning us not to go through the time portal. All that lies beyond it is suffering and a wasted life of trying to figure it out. Once we go through the portal, we are transported to Roman times to a remote city where its inhabitants are trapped reliving the same day (without their knowledge minus one or two members of the community) and they will be executed at the end of that day because someone breaks "the golden rule" (no member of the community is allowed to commit a sin, if one of them does, they are all horrifically changed into golden statues). The leader of the community, Magistrate Sentius charges us to solve the mystery and prevent the person from sinning and triggering the destruction of the community. He has also discovered a ritual that will restart the loop and every time the culling starts, he performs the ritual and restarts the day, theoretically giving us unlimited attempts to try and solve this.

While some people are tired of the time loop as a storytelling device, I think it's an underrated device for developing a narrative and fleshing out characters, we learn more every time we encounter the same set piece. I think the game has a great premise and the team fully takes advantage of it through the use of that device. While the overall beats of the plot aren't entirely shocking, it never failed to have a surprise up its sleeve or a twist to spring on me when I didn't expect it. The game features a great central mystery and there wasn't a moment in The Forgotten City where I wasn't intrigued or wanting to know what would happen next. Setting up that kind of plot isn't as easy as it looks and this is exemplary work from Modern Storyteller.

If I had to point to the best feature of the game, I think it's how expertly woven together every thread that this game creates ultimately is. There's a lot to juggle here between the different leads to track down, the group of 20 odd characters approximately to meet and learn about and exploring every corner of the deceptively small map (the game feeling huge when it's actually quite contained is an underrated aspect). Nothing feels out of place and it effortlessly shifts from one thing to another. This includes the characters, the game isn't overly long but the developers created a group distinct and instantly likeable people in a contained setting. The villains are appropriately sinister but somewhat understandable, the villagers each have a story where their motivations can be related to and there's a lot of theorizing about the nature of sin, what should qualify and how unjust this kind of arrangement actually is. It's as well written as any game I've seen and once again The Forgotten City is deserving of all the praise it got and more yet.

The one knock I heard on this game consistently before I got a chance to play it was the facial animations were firmly in the uncanny valley and that some of the graphics weren't up to par. Even that criticism of The Forgotten City is overblown, that kind of detail is hard to do accurately when a game has a giant budget. This game was primarily made by one person in their spare time at first with two more people eventually getting involved (the game started out as a Skyrim mod and they expanded on it). Those animations aren't flawless but considering what they were working with, they weren't distractedly bad and I'd consider any excessive complaining about it a nitpick. My biggest complaint is that the combat can be kind of clunky (this was magnified the most in the fighting through the palace, it's a fantastically written mission with some very distressing implications but I got frustrated with how inconsistent hitting the enemies could be). But even if they weren't executed perfectly, those parts of the game add so much to the narrative that it was worth playing through them then doing without.

It took me a while to get to this game and I'm always a little wary of something that's so universally beloved. But if you're primarily interested in story and world building, The Forgotten City is so charming and pulls of so much with seemingly so little difficulty. The team gets you to care for the characters despite reliving the same day again and again in the time loop, the mystery is as well crafted as any movie or TV production that I've seen recently (maybe even better) and the game never stagnates, I was always finding a new angle to pursue or a new quest to help a character I previously met. I wouldn't call it perfect (no piece of art really is in my opinion) but it not only met my high expectations but surpassed them. This game is a gem and provided you don't exclusively play FPS or JRPGs, I'd recommend it across the board.

As much as I just want to suit up with Iron Man and Blade and go fight Hydra and slay vampires among other assorted baddies, I'd like to touch on the larger narrative the game is built on. We play as The Hunter, an up-until-recently expired warrior who died in combat centuries ago defeating our also recently resurrected villain Lillith. Lillith is a hugely powerful sorceress whose goal is to deliver on a bargain she made with Cthon, an ancient and unstoppable evil and she's using Hydra as her army. She also happens to be The Hunter's mother. Upon The Hunter's revival, their brought into the Midnight Suns, an edgier and more anxious team of heroes that specialize in supernatural threats. But the situation slowly escalates as Lillith gains power and rosters even more powerful followers. The Midnight Suns eventually enlists the help of the Avengers and The Hunter tries to rally the troops and harness their own power to save the day. That's more or less the story and while I wouldn't describe it as bad or without any surprises, I found it to be more or less okay instead of spectacular. The conflict between The Hunter and Lillith is a little dragged out and I wasn't really invested in their strained relationship. To be fair, the game is juggling a lot of characters and subplots and it's not deficient in this area. I could also argue it's not the focus of the game and I do think other aspects of the game more than compensate. But I still would have liked something that pushed the envelope a little further. In summation, the overall story in the game is fine but it isn't going to blow anyone away.

While the story here could be considered what's more or less expected, one of the two of the areas I really want to praise Midnight Suns for is providing a cast of different/interesting/fun heroes for The Hunter to fight with. We get all The Avengers mainstays but The Midnight Suns are all great in their own right and I got to use all the DLC characters (bought the season pass on sale) and they were all fantastic as well. The game also encourages you to spend time with them in casual interactions and "hangouts" where you get to do activities around The Abbey (the home base of the Midnight Suns) with your chosen character and converse about their pasts and the nature of being a hero. These segments quickly became some of my favourite parts of the game and spending more time with your favourite members of the team unlock bonuses for combat or new cosmetics. I've never played a game that's combat based (in this case a card/deck battler) that put so much effort into providing an experience away from the action. I couldn't wait play video games with Spiderman, fish with Wolverine or work out with Venom and there's some exemplary work done on the character development in Midnight Suns.

I've been getting more into card/deck battlers lately, it's a genre I wasn't interested in until I started giving things a shot (I also recently played a great game called Griftlands that put a new spin on it as well). The missions you're sending the Midnight Suns on could have easily gotten old or derivative really quick but I looked forward to every single combat mission. The strategy combined with super hero abilities was a seamless fit and I became addicted to taking down as many enemies I could in the fewest number or turns. The game provides unique abilities for all the characters and it gives you incentive to play creatively and you're rewarded for thinking outside the box to eliminate the Hydra threat. Are some missions frustratingly difficult? They can be (buyer beware with Storm's DLC pack, I got more than a little frustrated) but part of it also comes down to how you build your decks for your respective characters. You're being offered new cards and abilities after every fight and if you put some time into considering your preferred play style, it will streamline some of the bumpier interactions. I loved how Firaxis set up these bits and it helped change my opinion on the genre as a whole.

I loved a lot of Midnight Suns but it still ends up feeling like a bit of an oddity overall. Anything I enjoyed in this game, I adored but there were also some segments of the game that I found disappointing. The lack of character customization for The Hunter as the first noteworthy frustration. That there's no choice in The Hunter's powers and so little ability to change his/her/their build or appearance. I know Firaxis was balancing a lot on their plate but this isn't a novelty, it's more or less expected at this point when you're creating a character. I also wanted to touch on how little personality The Hunter has. You've got all these eye-catching and fleshed-out characters surrounding The Hunter and he just doesn't have much there other than having PTSD about his demise the first time around and brooding/being stoic. I don't want to penalize the game too heavily but I was hoping for better that way, you almost have to imagine the Hunter being more interesting than he is. My last complaint, which isn't a uniquely Midnight Suns problem, is that the PS4 release was really buggy. The graphics were touch and go at points and the game crashed on me consistently (at a rate of almost 1 time per session). I understand that the supply issues surrounding the PS5 have been solved but if it's so hard to optimize a game to several platforms and it can't be done effectively, forget the older consoles. It's just sad for those of us still playing on the previous generation how poorly these games run.

I can't say it's flawless but I really enjoyed the time I spent on Midnight Suns. I also think the game has a lot of replay value, despite any buggy performance issues. You can invest points elsewhere, focus on building relationships with other characters and end up with a fresh experience. I wish Midnight Suns had sold better, I would have loved a sequel but this is a worthwhile game to invest your time in (provided you're open to the combat style) and I'll be playing it again at some point in the future. Give it a try if you're intrigued.

Oppenheimer is an unconventional movie for this time of year. It's not action heavy flick and it's mostly reliant on dialogue and conversation between the characters. My favourite part of Oppenheimer is that the story, characters and events were riveting despite the fact I knew comparatively little about the Manhattan Project going into the theatre. I was enraptured by these backroom political machinations and long conversations in classrooms, everything felt pertinent to the story and despite the contemplative pace, I couldn't turn away. If you're worried that some elements of Oppenheimer may go over your head, it shouldn't deter you from going to see it. I certainly didn't catch everything but when taken into context with the gravity of the stakes, the movie was no less entertaining or involving for it.

We've become accustomed to CGI being part of the experience, it seems you can't have a big Hollywood spectacle without it. I wanted to comment on how beautiful Oppenheimer as a movie is through both its cinematography and its use of sound. The movie frequently cuts to chemical reactions, shots of the stars and towers of fire that underscore the gravity of what's being attempted. It also shows you something a little more tangible when they're positing theories about dying stars, atomic reactions and fallout. The visual sensibility makes things more dynamic and keeps the pacing up when it could easily slack. The use of sound in certain scenes amp up the tension. When Oppenheimer's guilt is clawing at him, he remembers the pounding of the feet on the bleachers when he was giving his speech at Los Alamos after the bombs had dropped. It made me jump several times as did the sound of the aftershock at the Trinity test. I think we all get that these men and women were developing something that would change the course of history but even in Oppenheimer's quiet moments, these effects serve as an eerie reminder of the eventual devastation that they brought onto the world.

The ensemble that's been put together for Oppenheimer is unlike anything I've ever seen. This many recognizable actors in one movie isn't done unless you're buying a ticket for something like the new Avengers movie. As much as it may seem a little hackneyed, everyone is awesome across the board. There's not enough space to break down each one individually, Cillian Murphy is mesmerizing as J. Robert Oppenheimer. Murphy's physique and visage has always has carried a haunting quality and that lends itself well to the character. He plays Oppenheimer as a man who's grappling at several forces beyond his control and whose brilliance may never get the proper understanding. Instead of breaking down the whole supporting cast, I just wanted to highlight a few of my favourite performances. Robert Downey Jr. Transforms into Lewis Strauss. Oppenheimer is a nice reminder that while we all love RDJ as Tony Stark, he was once known as a prodigious rising star and he's completely up to the task as the vengeful politician. I was so pleased to see Josh Hartnett in a supporting role (the man who turned down Batman), I would have never pictured him as a scientist but he's great as Oppenheimer's supportive colleague Ernest Lawrence. Alden Ehrenreich is in top form with RDJ playing his Senator Aide. In another metamorphosis-style acting job, I really liked David Krumholtz as Isidor Rabi. Everyone in Oppenheimer is excellent but fairly restrained. Krumholtz is less muted, he exudes a lot of charm and warmth as the cautious but supportive Isidor. The only performance I didn't love was Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman. Oldman was great as Winston Churchill but he was a little cartoonish for me as Truman when he was harshly rebuking Oppenheimer for feeling guilty for his actions.

Oppenheimer is so packed to the gills with memorable moments and vivid scenes that it's hard to find almost anything to criticize. I can't recommend that the length of the movie be extended but there were a couple of subplots I wish had gotten more fleshed out. I would have liked a little more time on Robert's relationship with his wife Kitty, Robert's love life is pretty unique (this is underscored by Emily Blunt's and Florence Pugh's terrific work as Kitty and Jean respectively) and it could have been given a little more time. I also would have liked some more coverage of the fallout in Japan after the bombs were dropped, it didn't hurt the movie's grade but it maybe would have added a little more gravity to the PTSD Robert was feeling post WW2.

I was blown away by the experience that was Oppenheimer. Your expectations are going to be high going in, the project has all the pedigree you could want (the sparkling cast, Nolan's collective might as a director and writer, plus an important historical subject that carries overtones even today) but even with those high expectations, Oppenheimer surpassed them. There are nits to pick, every movie has them. But my eyes were glued to the screen throughout and considering the 3 hour runtime that Oppenheimer boasts, that's an accomplishment by itself. I'd rate it somewhere between a 9-10, I'd encourage almost anyone to check it out in theatres if you get the chance.

The Barbie movie got a lot of buzz from critical praise but I was intrigued even before that because there were stories about how it had quite the journey through development. I don't know what the previous versions would have looked like but I wanted to start with how Greta Gerwig's version is structured. It would have been pretty easy to play to formula writing and developing the script, to just repackage a popular framework and insert Barbie with some different touches (paint it pink and glam it up a little). But the creative team wasn't content to do just that here, my favourite part of Barbie is the unconventional directions the plot shoots off in. Barbie coming to the real world could have been predicted but the parallel journey of Ken, Barbie bonding with Gloria and Sasha, the odyssey that the Mattel executives go on are so off-kilter and fresh. It's all firmly tongue-in-cheek as well, the movie is deliberately poking fun at both itself and the system (including the corporate owners of the Barbie brand Mattel). Is there the occasional misstep? Sure, but this movie was so rare that while I could have nitpicked and poked at inconsistencies, I didn't want to. Barbie encourages you strap in for a ride and I can forgive the occasional bump in the journey if you deliver the goods. With such a silly tone and some well-intentioned rhetoric, Barbie absolutely does that and more.

In Barbie's debut, we travel to Barbieland, a candy coated toy-like version of reality that is perfectly curated to the needs of all the Barbies (and to a lesser extent all the Kens). The production design, costuming, sets, lighting are all dynamic and creative. The creative team does an excellent job of adding little touches to flesh out the world while maintaining the glossy veneer of the toys. The cars, the houses, the outfits are picture perfect and magnify how much money and effort clearly went into designing and creating this world. They use set dressing to great comedic effect too and it helps sell how strange and eerie coming to reality would be for our heroes.

Margot Robbie is pulling double duty as both the star and a producer in this feature. Robbie is her typical excellent self here, she's what the movie is centred around but she isn't afraid to share the spotlight with some of the other heavy hitters in the cast. She's as advertised in Barbie, she's funny, dramatic and magnetic all in equal measure. Ryan Gosling is really going for it as Ken, he's also underrated as a comedic talent. The jokes are fairly simple here but his enthusiastic delivery is what sets his work apart. Some people have mentioned awards consideration, I wouldn't go that far but he's great and he showed up to work. My favourite performance actually came from America Ferrera as Gloria. She's got great chemistry with both her on-screen daughter Sasha (played by an also great Ariana Greenblatt) and Robbie. She's playing more the everywoman in the minefield that is the world today with a frenetic energy that totally fits. I also wanted to congratulate Rhea Perlman, Will Ferrell (in a very President Business-esque turn), Issa Rae and Alexandra Shipp for some excellent work in their respective supporting roles as well.

Barbie has plenty to say and uses the platform effectively to get the message across. There's so much packed in here from how problematic it can be excelling as a woman in today's world, the fragility of the male psyche, how corporations flip-floppy attitude towards gender politics are based upon greed instead of the collective good etc. Depending on the scene, some of the material is delivered in a more subtle manner than in others but I was continually impressed by how the creative team was able to get the message across while weaving it into the movie without coming across as too heavy-handed. I'll also concede that I felt like they got 80-90% of the way there instead of the whole 100% (there's still an aftertaste of non-equality at the end). But I'll also concede that I'm not the target demographic here, I completely approve of the movie in its completed form and I'm all for what the message is trying to say (woman power, working through insurmountable obstacles bit by bit, getting in touch with yourself through introspection and acts of kindness, shape your own standards for beauty etc.)

Barbie was a little uneven for me but I really enjoyed the overall package. Barbie is bold, vibrant, well-made and delightfully weird in the best of ways. The performances are great and I liked that despite it taking advantage of existing intellectual property, it stands out by being a self-contained story that doesn't hinge on a Mattel Cinematic Universe or suggest that there will be sequel after sequel. I want to tip my cap to Greta Gerwig and her team for subverting expectations and giving us an unconventional blockbuster experience. Go see Barbie in theatres if you get the chance.

Mission Impossible has carried the torch for the sans superhero action blockbuster and you can tell Dead Reckoning spared little to no expense for the budget. The sound design, soundtrack and visuals continue to perform at a high level. The filming locations are beautiful, the choreography for the action is tight and the effort to go with some practical choices as opposed to CGI are reflected in how good the movie looks. Whether Cruise is whipping around in a Fiat, soaring through the air in a parachute or sprinting through an airport, Dead Reckoning Part One is always engaging and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Tom Cruise may not be an ageless wonder but he works his tail off for the box office winnings. The commitment he shows to attempt what he attempts in every MI movie is some kind of dedication. He doesn't look like he's 30 years old anymore but he's still a bona fide action star and I still enjoy his performances as Ethan Hunt every time. Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg are your regulars and I've always enjoyed that the later movies are more team centric. I look forward to watching Pegg's frantic yet funny delivery and Rhames' cool presence just as much and they help keep things bouncier when the movie needs to release some of the tension. Rebecca Ferguson can be a little hit and miss with project choices (even though she's usually good in the role no matter what) but Ilsa Faust is my preferred character for her to play. She's appropriately steely when the action gets hairy but she's always got this mischievous glint in her eye (accompanied with a knowing smirk) that fit perfectly when she's interacting with the team and she's always been a seamless fit in the franchise. I was so happy to see Hayley Atwell in the trailers for this, she's long overdue for another turn in a tentpole franchise. She does it all in Part One, she's great in every scene, she's gorgeous and I hope she continues to be a featured player going ahead. I wasn't sure what to think of Esai Morales in the marketing but I really liked his take on Gabriel. He's as smooth as silk as the overconfident envoy for the entity, he stole almost every scene he was in without falling into any maniacal cliches. Shea Whigham got a bunch of laughs as Briggs. If there was any disappointment for me, I wish Pom Klementieff had gotten a more developed character. She's great in the Guardians movies and although she's throwing her all into Paris, she's reduced to just fighting, driving and being a generically evil flunky for the Entity.

I enjoyed Dead Reckoning Part One throughout but I wasn't as blown away by it as I thought I would be. It's well directed, well cast and it has some decent set pieces but it lacked the WOW factor that some of the previous MI movies have delivered. I do have to applaud them for saving the best for last however. The scene on the train is long but it's by far the most satisfying in the movie. You get some crazy stunts, some interesting twists in the narrative and a rewarding payoff. It certainly had me squirming in my seat and while you know the probable outcome, it certainly gave me what I wanted from a Mission Impossible movie.

This franchise continues to have a ridiculous amount of staying power. Dead Reckoning: Part One isn't the high point in the franchise that Fallout was but DR Part 1 is still way better than most stuff being shown in this genre. A decent entry in this franchise is worth the price of admission at your local theatre every time. Tom Cruise and the rest of the cast are still a ton of fun in their respective roles, they push the envelope with the action with each new film and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where Dead Reckoning Part Two will go next. I'd fully recommend catching it at the theatre if you feel like a little heart-stopping action while on your night out.

Based on a True Story is about a couple of true crime junkies (one more so than the other) who discover the identity of a serial killer and instead of turning him in, they decide to partner with him to create a podcast and cash in. Deep-down, the show is parodying the hardcore true crime fans and the spin-off industry they've created. If you're unfamiliar with the movement, this may seem like a odd thing to make fun of but it's way more common and mainstream than you may think. The show has a good grasp of the eccentricities of the fans, the jokes are pretty on-point for the most part. The writers conversely don't have a terribly optimistic opinion of how well-adjusted those fans are. So if you're part of this community and aren't open to being made fun of, this show may annoy you just a little bit.

Kaley Cuoco has transformed herself as an actress and I'm all the more impressed for it. She was great in The Flight Attendant and she continues to shine in BOTS. Ava is a different kind of character and she's not only good performing solo but she's great with Chris Messina who is just as noteworthy here. I really liked Chris on the Mindy Project, I always thought of him as more of a character actor than a lead but he showed he's got the talent in BOTS. He's excellent playing the secretly unhinged Nathan. My favourite performance came from Tom Bateman as the handsome psychopath/plumber Matt. I'd put him up for awards consideration for this, he's really good as affable nice-guy Matt but he's just as fantastic when the veneer is washed away and his character's true nature slips out. I'd also like to credit Priscilla Quintana as Ruby, she's great as this devious and self-centred character. I didn't feel sorry for Ruby but I appreciated how seamlessly Priscilla was able to jump between ignorantly selfish to cunning when Ruby makes her turn.

As I said in the title, I wasn't terribly impressed with the pilot. Ava and Nathan's initial decision to try and leverage what they know about Matt is really dumb and completely against any kind of self-preservation. Is it too outlandish or unrealistic? I'd say no (with all the obsessive true crime fans out there, someone would be this stupid) but it still stretches plausibility. But I gave Based on a True Story a little more time to develop and by the end of episode 3, I was in. What kind of helped the show turn the corner for me is that Ava and Nathan gradually admit to themselves that they're Matt's accomplices instead of keeping up the "holier than thou" charade. They're all a little crazy and sadistic as a group (this includes their well-off but hedonistic social circle), not just Matt and that self-awareness was important to making it more believable.

I hope Based gets renewed for a second season. The descent of Ava and Nathan down to Matt's level was entertaining and I kept wanting to see what would happen next. If you can't get over the initial plot contrivance, I get it, I was there myself. But I gave Based a little more time and the mystery and performances won me over. If you're open-minded enough or intrigued by the premise, BOTS is worth a shot.

I'm probably not alone in this opinion but one of the things that really separates Indiana Jones' adventures as such an amazing series is how funny these movies are. Harrison's an underrated comic talent and I laugh uproariously every time I watch Raiders or the Last Crusade (Temple of Doom as well but maybe a little less often). There were scenes that garnered some hearty laughs from me in Dial of Destiny but it was a little more spotty. I think part of this is that Indy is a more inherently beaten-down and sad character after the tragedy he's suffered but the proceedings overall feel a little more serious and that choice comes with it's pros and cons. Indy has always succeeded through a combination of book smarts, street smarts and more than a few lucky bounces and while the new creative team was aware of that, I think they could have played into it more. They might have over-corrected a little from how silly Crystal Skull ended up being.

James Mangold takes over as the mantle of director from industry titan Steven Spielberg and I would think part of the reason he got the gig is his experience with big budget action flicks (Mangold's past credits include Logan, Ford v Ferarri and 3:10 to Yuma among others). Dial has a ton of action and there's a concerted effort to follow in the same style as the previous entries of the franchise. If there's an area where Dial really stands on it's own two feet, in my opinion it's in the action set-pieces. They ebb and flow well and while they have the same kind of flavour, they do their own thing with it (they show a lot more of the carnage without being too gratuitous). Does anything approach the original trilogy? I'd still say no but the Indy movies are the gold standard for a reason. I don't think there's another movie period that so seamlessly blends how thrilling, effortlessly funny and memorable those scenes are. So I can't penalize Dial too harshly for being solid if unspectacular in this area.

Harrison Ford loves playing Indy and it's perhaps the defining role of his career (I prefer Indy to Han, just my opinion). He's still good as Henry Jones Jr. Here but he understandably is limited by his age (e.g. The CGI on younger Indy is pretty good but it's weird hearing older Harrison Ford's voice come out of his younger computer-generated body). He's still a treat to watch as this character and he does what he can. The star of the show and the biggest surprise of the movie for me was Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Helena Shaw. I'm not familiar with Fleabag so I didn't really have any previous experience with her work but I was really surprised with how effortless her charisma and her performance were here. She was great working with Harrison, she handled both the dramatic and the comedic moments deftly and she succeeded whether others had previously failed. It was great to see John Rhys-Davies as Sallah again, he came to play and while he's aged quite a bit, he brought Sallah's enthusiasm and joy to this project as well. Getting Mads Mikkelsen as Dr. Vollmer was great casting, he gets the job done in Dial but I wish they had given him more solo screentime. He's an amazing actor and he deserved a more developed part to play. Ditto for Antonio Banderas as Renaldo, he's got screen presence for days and I was disappointed that there wasn't more chances for him to show off his comic chops. Toby Jones was cast well as Basil Shaw, he's a great character actor, he's more the Sean Connery type of sidekick and it suits him. I did want to point out the one performance that really stood out but not in a good way. I've liked Boyd Holbrook in other projects but I was taken aback by how out of sync he seemed with everything else. I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be comedic relief or a scary and ruthless killer, it seemed to flip flop depending on the scene. I still think he's a good actor but I was legitimately confused at what he and the movie were trying to do with his character.

While I like the movie overall, I also don't disagree with some of the criticism being lobbied at it. The movie pops when it needs to but underneath the on-screen product, it did feel too pat and a little manipulative. The studio obviously poured a ton of money into this and instead of what felt like cinematic magic in the original trilogy, Dial feels like the movie was calculated to the most finite degree. Dial is over-manufactured and over-produced but I'm not sure how much that could have been avoided. It's not a crime for Indy 5 to be found guilty of, it's just a little disappointing.

I get the impulse to just rail against the final product here. I'm coming at this as a die-hard Indy fan, Raiders is still my favourite movie of all time. Does Dial of Destiny recapture the old magic? I'd argue that it does in moments but I don't know if anyone ever will replicate that entire elixir again. The action is solid, there are some good performances and I think it still hits the mark more than it doesn't. It's way better than Crystal Skull (you can decide how impressive of a complement that is) and while I acknowledge that Dial feels a little less enchanting, I still enjoyed myself. As long as expectations are kept low, it's worth checking out in theatres. It's a decent last ride for Indiana and a better send off than what had been fated to the character in the previous entry.

Point & click games have mostly gone away (unless you count visual novels) but I still enjoy the odd one provided they can tell a good story. I was introduced to Sam & Max through the Poker Night games, I understood very little of what they did made sense (not being familiar with their previous TV shows or comics) but they were consistently hilarious. Moving to this game, I'm not sure how much I can talk about the story in this game. Sam & Max are hunting a mysterious villain/villainous group that are setting propping up various other villains as part of their "master plan." The scope of this game is nuts, they work as TV stars, mafia goons, Max becomes the POTUS, they become warriors online and they take the DeSoto to the moon. There's a through line but it's loose at best. But while this would normally be a negative, it's true to the random nature of the property and I was consistently entertained. It's completely random but it was never boring and I was laughing throughout. My favourite episode was Reality 2.0 but all the episodes have their moments..

To me the draw of the Sam & Max property isn't the story, it's the characters themselves and the surrounding cast. They're such a fun duo and I love their wacky dynamic. They're both down to clown for whatever and when I say whatever, I mean whatever. The Poker Night series accurately shows what they're like in their own property and their comic dialogue was worth the price of admission by itself. I can see why the property has a cult following and I'll count myself among the group now. I also loved the supporting characters. Between Bosco's paranoia, Sybil's frequently changing professions or Jimmy's underhanded dealings, the game never grows stale or tiresome.

Gameplay is largely restricted to clicking around the environment or dialogue trees. This isn't the most frenetic style of game but it is as advertised. As mentioned before, the dialogue is awesome and completely slapdash. The accompanying voice acting is also good. Some people got upset over Bosco being recast but I never heard the original actor and I thought Ogie Banks sounded great. I also enjoyed the animation, their cartoonish movement compliments their frenzied shenanigans perfectly and the remaster on the game looks great. Skunkape did an excellent job updating the game, I guess some jokes were cut as well but I didn't let that bother me either.

This game won't be for everyone between the random humour and the old-school gameplay but I enjoyed this game wholeheartedly. I hope it wins some new converts to the property and I'll be playing Beyond Space & Time and the Devil's Playhouse when it comes out. If you're interested in a gem from yesteryear, I'd happily recommend Sam & Max Save the World Remastered.