Reviews

Godzilla vs. Kong was a long-awaited film not just for the year 2021 but also for the past close-to 60 years since the original King Kong vs. Godzilla, for it features a cinematic rematch between the King of the Monsters and the 8th Wonder of the World. I've been a fan of both the Godzilla and King Kong franchises and I've been such a fan of the MonsterVerse for how much the people running it understand and for how the series emulates the sheer essence of classic monster movies, like the best Godzilla movies of old, while updating it with modern effects. And, let me say that Godzilla vs. Kong was well worth the wait and so much more. This was a great monster movie and an absolute blast of a film. Now, here's why.

Spoilers from this point forward.

The plot in summation is that, after a sudden and unprovoked rampage by Godzilla, who was once thought to be a protector, Monarch has to move Kong to the Hollow Earth in order to find him a new home while a conspiracy revolving around the company Apex Cybernetics is delved into that may connect to Godzilla's change in behavior as the film culminates to an epic showdown between Kong and Godzilla that will settle an ancient rivalry between the two Titans.

First of all, the visuals and the action are truly spectacular. From the set piece in the Tasman Sea to the entirety of the Hong Kong battle (and I do mean, both parts of it), the monster fights are done in a way where one would get the sense of not just the sheer sizes of the Titans onscreen, but also the impact of the hits that they lay on each other (and, boy howdy, do they lay some good hits on each other); the sound design and mixing alone brings so much to the action scenes that it's practically Oscar-worthy (not that a film needs to win an Oscar in order to be great, but, still). The action also features some surprisingly brutal moments, such as when Godzilla claims victory over Kong during their Hong Kong bout by laying waste on the latter's chest by scratching it up and then stomping on it. While the monster battles have a different flow than those in past MonsterVerse entries in terms of how the monsters move, even that adds to the visceral nature of the battles. Not only are there such great and visually-striking moments in the action sequences, there are also great nods to older entries in the Godzilla and Kong franchises, such as when Kong goes for Godzilla's jaw trying to break it and even when Kong sticks the stub of his axe in Godzilla's mouth.

The story is straightforward but executed so well, and the characters, while not the most three-dimensional, still do well for what they're intended to be and do, with the standouts being Jia (Kaylee Hottle) and Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry).

Jia, a young girl from Skull Island's Iwi tribe who is also deaf, brings so much heart to the movie with her relationship with Kong while Bernie, a conspiracy theorist investigating Apex Cybernetics and the connection between them and Godzilla's sudden attacks, adds to the film as comic relief and he got laughs a-plenty from me with his interactions with Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) and Josh Valentine (Julian Dennison). The rest of the characters, from Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgård) to Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) to Apex CEO Walter Simmons (Demián Bichir), serve their purpose well. Granted, if there's one character that could've been more elaborated on, it would be the character of Ren Serizawa (Shun Oguri); one would be forgiven if they assumed that the film would address how he relates to Dr. Serizawa, Ken Watanabe's character from the previous Godzilla films in the MonsterVerse who died back in Godzilla: King of the Monsters, as well as go a little more into his perspective on Godzilla when his father dedicated his life in studying and dying for the Titan. However, Ren only serves as a side character working with Walter Simmons in creating and operating Mechagodzilla who then dies when Mechagodzilla turns against Apex due to Ghidorah's consciousness taking over when one of his skulls and neural network was used as a key component in the giant robot's operation. If Ren Serizawa had undergone a name change, the film wouldn't really change at all.

That being said, this is a movie about the monsters, so let's discuss them. People seem to think that the Titans are just cogs in the spectacle when, if anything, they're characters as well with their own goals and personalities. Kong gets the most screen time out of all the Titans as he is the one who not only has the most significant connection to some of the human cast, that being Jia, but he is also the one who goes on a journey to the Hollow Earth to discover, along with Lind, Andrews, Jia, and company the true home of his species after Skull Island is overtaken by a perpetual storm. Meanwhile, Godzilla serves as a driving force for the plot as his attack on Apex's facility in Pensacola, Florida kickstarts the journey to the Hollow Earth, and is very intimidating yet has such standout and awesome moments when he battles Kong. Then, there's Mechagodzilla, the Titan-sized war machine build by Apex that is revealed to be the why for Godzilla's attack as well as essentially akin to Doomsday from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, except better because, whereas Doomsday was an element that occurred aside from the title conflict, Mechagodzilla is the reason for why Godzilla and Kong are trading blows and turns out to be more than a formidable adversary for even the combined powers of Godzilla and Kong when they team up.

The acting is overall pretty good, including, as I mentioned earlier, Brian Tyree Henry as Bernie and Kaylee Hottle as Jia with the latter standing out as the giving the best performance in the movie which is all the more impressive when taking into account that a good chunk of her interactions are with Kong, a CG character, such as when she calms him down during a storm out at sea where he expresses his woes and longing for home in sign language. Millie Bobby Brown is also very good as Madison, despite having admittedly given a better performance in King of the Monsters. Demián Bichir also does great as Walter Simmons, appearing as if he was having a ball playing this eccentric human antagonist who seeks to make humanity the apex species once and for all, who also gets a great and even somewhat morbidly-amusing scene when he's killed by Mechagodzilla in the middle of a monologue. Alexander Skarsgård and Rebecca Hall do well playing their parts, even if their characters don't have the most depth despite how well they do serve the plot when it's all said and done.

The film also gives us a look at the Hollow Earth, which has been hinted at and teased in Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, which features an unusual yet visually-striking and beautiful setting that gives off a strong sense of wonder, such as with the throne room where Kong's ancestors used to live in.

The soundtrack for this movie by Tom Holkenborg, while not quite as memorable as Bear McCreary's work in King of the Monsters, is still very much an epic collection of music and features some great tunes, such as the new themes for Godzilla and Kong, that are implemented into the film very well throughout, further adding to the scope of the film in both its action scenes and even in the film's quieter moments.

So, to bring this review to a close, Godzilla vs. Kong is a spectacular entry in the MonsterVerse and a truly-epic action film that features a battle between two iconic movie monsters that wasn't thought to be possible years ago and was such a dream come true to see become a thing now. In a meta sense, this movie was a rematch, and what a worthwhile rematch it was. The action is great, the monsters are done extremely well and have many great moments both in terms of action and otherwise, there are fun characters present (both human and monster), the visuals are amazing and do such justice to the scope, scale, and impact of when the Titans clash, and the story goes by like a breeze which culminates in such satisfying payoffs.

I love this movie to pieces, perhaps even about as much as I do Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I am very much happy to see what the MonsterVerse has provided thus far in terms of how it respects and understands the Godzilla and Kong franchises, and I would love to see what is to come next. But, until then, I feel very strong in saying that I am more than satisfied with what we have now, including with Godzilla vs. Kong, for it is a film that, along with the other MonsterVerse films, I will gladly revisit many times in the years to come.

Hail to the Kings, baby!

The Star Wars franchise under Disney has certainly been in a pretty rocky place as of late, and there hasn't been a more emblematic example of that than the Sequel Trilogy. The Force Awakens was a good, albeit not perfect, starting point for the trilogy, then there was The Last Jedi which was a flawed yet ambitious and overall fine film that greatly divided the fanbase. So, naturally, a lot was put on the shoulders of J. J. Abrams and company to bring the trilogy back home with at least a solid conclusion in The Rise of Skywalker, which was not only meant to end the Sequel Trilogy but also bring the Skywalker Saga to a close. And, as far as my consensus is concerned, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker did end the saga, but not in a satisfying way. In fact, I have to say that it's my least favorite film in the episodic Skywalker Saga overall. So, let's set S foils in attack position and talk about the letdown that was The Rise of Skywalker.

So, the plot, as we know it, is that Palpatine, the former evil Emperor played by Ian McDiarmid, who was once thought dead since Return of the Jedi, has come back and has some big plans for the galaxy that involves total domination and the eradication of the Resistance; it's up to Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron, and the Resistance to defeat the looming threat of Palpatine and the First Order led by Kylo Ren in the battle that will decide the ultimate fate of the galaxy.

There are positives that I can say about The Rise of Skywalker. First of all, the cast as a whole does very good; Daisy Ridley as Rey, Adam Driver as Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, and even Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine being the standouts. The movie also has great visual direction going on. There's some good action here and there that also incorporate great effects; certainly not the best or most memorable in the franchise, but fun and well put-together nonetheless. However, the best moments for me that stick out are ones that actually don't involve lasers or lightsabers or starfighters or anything of the sort; it's the more dramatic moments, like where Ben Solo departs from the Dark Side after his mother Leia Organa dies trying to reach out to him and going back to a memory of his father Han Solo that's almost word-for-word the exchange between the father and son in TFA which all lead to his redemption in a pretty powerful scene. This is followed up by a great moment where Chewbacca just breaks down emotionally when he hears about Leia having passed on. It's also nice to see Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams, back despite his limited screen-time & presence, and it's even more nice that he doesn't die by the end of the movie like the three lead characters from the Original Trilogy so that's good for a change. John Williams also does a great job with the score for the film, even though the most memorable bits of the soundtrack are motifs that we've heard from past entries in the series (no Duel of the Fates, though, which is pretty disappointing).

While there's quite a bit to like or to be entertained by in it, The Rise of Skywalker is still unfortunately a scatterbrained mess. Right from jump, you feel like you've missed out on some important events that occurred that the film just glosses over in order to move quickly along to the next set piece. While past Star Wars films have done that, like Revenge of the Sith throwing us right in the middle of some action after its opening crawl, it doesn't hurt the overall narrative because you can still pick up on some stuff without much trouble based on where a previous installment has left off (like how Attack of the Clones basically ends with the Clone Wars having begun and RotS taking us to one of the big battles in the Clone Wars where we see Anakin and Obi-Wan on a mission); whereas in the case of TRoS, there was nothing in The Last Jedi that indicated or even teased the return of Palpatine, which would be considered way too big a deal to gloss over considering the last time we saw of him in the saga chronologically, so such an event would just seem out of left-field. Also, Palpatine announces his return & threat to the whole galaxy so basically the plot of TRoS got kicked off by a dumb decision on the villain's part who could've just kept his mouth shut and his plan secret for just long enough to ensure some chance of victory. The plot is basically a giant scavenger hunt for a Sith Wayfinder to get to Palpatine's HQ world Exegol, with characters constantly on the move from one thing to the next until the film reaches its big climax with very little room for proper development for the story and characters. There's also an abuse of fake-outs in terms of certain characters in the film. Chewie gets captured which leads to a fake-out involving his apparent "death" and a detour in the plot just to keep the movie going. C-3PO gets reset, which causes a total memory wipe that's like a "death" for that character, but it's not treated seriously enough for it to even register and even then R2-D2 gives him his memory back so it's rendered totally pointless. The dagger not only comes across like an unnecessary MacGuffin but also one that doesn't make sense as a MacGuffin especially when one considers that it's meant to point to where the 2nd Wayfinder is in the wreckage of the 2nd Death Star that's somehow still relatively intact after having been blown to smithereens in Return of the Jedi and lying in high-tide waters of Kef Bir for many years. There's new characters who just show up out of nowhere (i.e. Zorii Bliss, Jannah) who would be a lot more interesting if we had spent more time with them in the trilogy as opposed to having introduced to them in what is supposed to be the final chapter of the Skywalker Saga. The last 30 minutes are greatly disappointing, from the obvious Avengers: Endgame similarities, to Rey deflecting Force lightning back at Palpatine, which kills him, with just 2 lightsabers even though said lightning was powerful enough to take down the entire Resistance fleet, to Ben Solo, a Skywalker, not being able to at least take part in helping Rey kill Palpatine and simply dying after resuscitating Rey via the Force, and especially to Rey taking the Skywalker name even though it goes against the film's themes of being proud of where you come from and how it would've been much more poetic if she just kept her Palpatine name and go on to go against her grandpa by turning the Palpatine legacy into one for good as a middle finger to him. But, oh well, I guess.

The movie's story is not only rushed in execution despite how solid it may be in theory, but it also feels like "damage control" for The Last Jedi. General Hux is revealed to be a spy giving info to the Resistance only to be killed by a new villain, General Pryde, as part of said "damage control." Holdo's hyperspace maneuver in TLJ? Retconned as "one in a million." Rey coming from nobodies according to Kylo Ren in TLJ? Retconned to her being a Palpatine (Yep, she's Sheev Palpatine's granddaughter, which explains why she's so powerful despite not having gone through much training to gain such power), even though it totally contradicts with Kylo saying how he never lied to her. Snoke being killed off without much backstory in TLJ due to being a key stepping stone for Kylo's rise to power which was already fine as is? Snoke turned out to be created by Palpatine the whole time; ergo, Palpatine was ultimately responsible for Kylo Ren via a pretty convoluted way. Luke's Ghost acknowledging that he was wrong and pointing out how a Jedi weapon should be treated with more respect are organic in the context of the overall story of the Sequel Trilogy, but they still feel like jabs at the story decisions made in TLJ. Such jabs at other people's work makes the Sequel Trilogy not seem like a unified, cohesive whole, and that's not good storytelling. At least the Prequel Trilogy seemed like it was all planned out by George Lucas before he even started shooting Episode I and it was all a consistent vision; the PT wasn't the most well-executed bunch of films, but it at least had consistency in retrospective and seemed planned-out, attributes that the Sequel Trilogy is sadly mired for not having. However, Leia having had training does help fix some of TLJ's issues. You also get a sense in this movie, more than TFA and TLJ, that the Sequel Trilogy wasn't created with a set plan/road-map in mind other than to make big bucks at the box office for Disney and Lucasfilm. Abrams set up plot threads that were left open for the next film to follow up on, then Rian Johnson decided to have TLJ go in directions with said threads that were radically different from what Abrams probably had in mind. So, with TRoS, Abrams had to follow up on the previous films in a way that would make the trilogy seem somewhat coherent as a whole and, as far as I'm concerned, he didn't succeed in that. As far as I'm concerned, a theoretical Episode IX that found a middle ground between satisfying what TFA had going on and what TLJ had going on could've been what we got without needing to bring Palpatine back, without retconning Rey from being the child of nobodies to Palpatine's granddaughter, without making Snoke Palpatine's weird Frankenstein-esque creation, without being so blatant about taking jabs at TLJ. But, it's not to be now.

When it's all said and done, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is a greatly-disappointing finale to the epic Skywalker Saga. It's a watchable movie with great performances, good action and some pretty good dramatic moments/scenes that are pretty effective on their own, but all that isn't enough to make up for how convoluted and even kinda nonsensical the plot is. The Sequel Trilogy will now stand as a prime example of how not to plan out an overarching storyline. And, it's a shame, too, because Star Wars deserves better than a trilogy that was made without a road-map and I sure hope Lucasfilm really learns from this mistake.

The Lion King from 1994 is a great piece of animated cinema and it will always have a place in my heart as being THE Disney movie of my childhood. So, yeah, I love that movie. So, one can only imagine my skepticism and worries when I heard that Disney would remake it in a more photo-realistic style and would come out in a July 2019 release. However, I still wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt since I felt Jon Favreau did a great job with The Jungle Book 2016 and hoped that maybe he would at least do The Lion King justice as well. But, alas, The Lion King 2019 didn't do its 1994 counterpart justice, I feel. So now, let's get into why.

There are things that I admire and find to be good in this remake. First of all, the visuals are remarkable; yeah, everybody's pretty much said it already, but I do agree that the film looks incredible. The animals naturally fit in with the environments for the most part and there's an insane amount of attention to detail to make the animals look and interact with various things as realistically as possible, although it is to a fault but we'll get to it shortly. Also, Timon and Pumbaa did get some chuckles out of me every now and then and that Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen did a good job at portraying those characters. Even some of the songs were done well enough here (not as good as in original but still not badly-done), like the opening rendition of 'The Circle of Life', 'Hakuna Matata', and 'Can You Feel the Love Tonight?', although the scene where the 3rd aforementioned song plays takes place during what looks to be afternoon so that one's a lil' jarring.

Now, despite the things that are good, The Lion King 2019 still has more wrong than right. First of all, while Eichner & Rogen do a good job with their roles, I can't say the same for the actors/actresses who plays the lion characters. Donald Glover as Simba wasn't awful, but I feel he was wasted as his performance was still kinda flat. Beyonce, who plays Nala, was even more flat; while she's a great singer, her acting in this was very dry and it felt like she was reading through the script with not much interest in the material. Even James Earl Jones, who reprises his role from the original as Simba's father Mufasa, feels flat in his delivery; now, it has nothing to do with his age at this point, but it feels like he should've been able to put more emotion and authority into his character especially since he played Mufasa before. And, then there's Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, Simba's uncle, who is the worst of all; his delivery was the flattest of all the actors in the film and he emulated no menace in his role whatsoever. Jeremy Irons was so perfect as Scar that, if the makers of this film were just gonna do a near-exact redux of The Lion King right down to the dialogue, why couldn't they bring Irons back when they got James Earl Jones back? For example, Ejiofor's delivery for when Scar loses his lunch (a mouse) when Zazu steps in simply does not mesh with the dialogue in that moment, which was taken right out of the original, and it's as jarring as can be when that dialogue was meant to be delivered through the sliminess that Irons pulled off wonderfully in the past. The issues regarding the acting also stems from how it was directed in order to match with the realistic looks, which it's invalidated when one were to take into account that The Jungle Book also had photo-realistic animals yet the cast members who played said animals still brought some charisma and emotion to their roles. So, there's no excuse for why the cast for The Lion King 2019 needed to give as flat of performances as they did. The realistic look certainly makes certain scenes that are meant to hit emotional crescendos appear awkward and even unintentionally silly; Mufasa's death at the hands of Scar, for instance, simply doesn't work as well as the original film was able to bring some emotion just from the visuals of the characters' facial expressions, so making that scene look more realistic just takes so much of that visually-driven emotion away. By making the film look more realistic with more suppressed emotion from the cast, it takes so much away from the story and its heart. If the movie was more like the scene where Timon and Pumbaa do a number for 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight' and other animals join in a sort of a capella where the movie for once decidedly to be lively in its animation in a similar vein as the original, then the movie overall would've been better for it. But as it is, The Lion King 2019 fails to translate the story of its 1994 predecessor well.

The Lion King remake is longer than the 1994 original by about 30 minutes, and most of it is due to extended shots or extra visuals that seem to pad the movie out. For example, we see how Simba's piece of hair gets to Rafiki; it takes WAY too long just to get to that simple point. But, the real kicker is that, while the film is longer due to extra moments to pad the run-time, the film, for some reason, not only rushes through Simba and Nala seeing each other again and in surprise, but also, and even worse, leaves out the part where Rafiki teaches Simba that he can learn from the past which is the moment where Simba decides to go back to the Pride Lands and take back his place as king from Scar. Here, when Simba decides to return home, it feels like he missed a significant character beat like he went from A to C while skipping B; why leave out such a crucial part of Simba's development as a character, especially when the movie up to this point went out of its way to follow the 1994 film's plot beat for beat?

While some of the musical numbers weren't badly-done, they still don't have the same amount of energy and charm here as they did in the original. The one case where a musical number was done in such embarrassing fashion was Scar's musical number, 'Be Prepared', which happens to be my favorite song from The Lion King, aside from 'Can You Feel the Love Tonight?', by the way. Not only is Chiwetel Ejiofor's delivery in it just flat and terrible, but the song feels like it was tacked on in the last minute and only half-finished, like it wasn't gonna be in the movie initially only to be put in just to keep audiences happy; honestly, they should've either fully-committed to it or just not even have it in the movie at all if they were just gonna be lazy about it. Also, Beyonce's single for the film, 'Spirit', comes up in a jarring place which is where Simba and Nala head back to the Pride Lands; they should've just kept the music Hans Zimmer did for that same scene in the original. Speaking of Zimmer, who is probably my favorite composer of all time, while his music here is good, it's still a carbon copy of his work in the 1994 original film and isn't incorporated throughout the remake as well as in the original.

So, overall, while The Lion King 2019 does get some things right from the original, it still got more wrong than right and even the things it got right wasn't done as well as in the 1994 original. I'll let the word be known: Black Panther from the MCU was a better remake of The Lion King; at least I could tell people cared about their material and actually tried in that film. The Lion King 2019 just feels like the most bloated and most expensive tech demo ever made, and I can't believe not enough people didn't see enough of just how obvious of a cash-grab this movie is to keep this movie from becoming one of the highest-grossing films ever. It's sad that Disney got rewarded so handsomely for essentially just redoing The Lion King down to a T and now they're just given all the justification in the world to do the same for other films down the road. But, what do I know, I guess?

Even though I've never read the Harry Potter books, I can certainly say, with conviction, that I'm a fan of the movies; all 8 of the main HP movies range from very good to amazing. I even liked Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them quite a bit, and I came out of that film pretty satisfied with it. So, when I heard that it would be the start of a saga of prequels in the now-dubbed 'Wizarding Worlds', I was certainly anticipating to see where it would go. So, now, we go into Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. When I heard that it was getting mixed reviews, something that seemed unprecedented in the HP movie franchise because all the other movies including the 1st FB film got at least generally positive buzz, I went into this film with some caution but still optimistic; after all I have liked movies with worse reception than this. Sadly, however, that was not to be in the case of The Crimes of Grindelwald, which is not only the weakest entry in the overall Wizarding World series by a landslide but is even kinda bad. So, let's go further into this tale of woe and wasted potential that is Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

I do want to get into a number of positives first, because this movie isn't without merit. First of all, the movie looks great; David Yates, who's been directing the movies in this franchise since Order of the Phoenix, still manages to direct the movie very well visually. From the luscious look of 1920s Paris to the fog-covered streets of London, the movie looks really nice. The magical parts of the movie, like one scene where Newt Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) rides on a water creature, still give me a sense of wonder even if I'm more used to that wonder at this point. The creatures (the "Fantastic Beasts" which don't seem to play as big a role this time around as they did the 1st movie) range from cute, like the little jewel thief critter that Newt carries around, to majestic, like the Chinese dragon-looking creature. The action scenes, when they do happen, are grand and visually interesting for sure, including the opening scene where Gellert Grindelwald (played by Johnny Depp) breaks out of his bonds in a flying carriage. The special effects for the magic as well as other things are really good, I might add; there are scenes where what looks to be big, black drapes come down on downtown Paris and it looks unnerving yet gorgeous. Also, the acting in the movie all-around is great; the whole cast has at least a moment to shine, from Redmayne as Newt to Dan Fogler returning as Jacob to, especially even, Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore and Depp as Grindelwald.

The movie also touches onto some pretty interesting things, like how Grindelwald is able to gather followers by making cases about the barriers that all the Ministries of Magic and all the MACUSAs create that prevents wizards/witches from courting with non-magical individuals (i.e. Queenie & Jacob) as well as about how the non-magical society (i.e. "muggles") will destroy themselves and affect the Wizarding World in a negative way by showing visions of WWII, as he does in the 3rd act of the film; it brings in an interesting context on how someone like Voldemort, the Dark Lord who would come after Grindelwald, could gain a following that pushes for witch & wizard supremacy, and that adds something meaningful to the lore & world-building in the greater Wizarding World universe without needing to rely on Easter eggs and tie-ins to the main HP movies. The movie also touches a little bit on Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship, which gives us just enough history between them that we do feel for the emotional struggle within Dumbledore in one scene.

So, now, even though I've said a decent amount of positive things to say about The Crimes of Grindelwald, they don't really amount to enough to save it. First off, let's discuss the plot for a bit here: There isn't much of one; sure, one can say that the plot is that Grindelwald is looking for Credence (played by Ezra Miller) and the heroes (Newt & company) are trying to stop him and find Credence before he does, but there are so many plotlines and arcs going on in this movie that it makes even Batman v Superman blush, and yet they don't culminate to much by the end. This is pretty much a 2-hour-&-15-minute collection of spells, Easter eggs, and set-up for the next (hopefully, more interesting) film.

While some Easter eggs are neat, like when we go back to Hogwarts at one point in the film as well as the inclusion of Dumbledore and even Nicolas Flamel in the film, there are other Easter eggs that not only felt unnecessary but even somewhat detrimental to the rest of the series. We have Nagini who, in this film, is a young woman who befriends Credence (played by Ezra Miller) and has a curse where one day she'll turn into a snake but can't turn back; she didn't add anything to the story, she was just a minor side character who just happens to be the future snake servant/Horcrux of Voldemort, and by making Nagini a being that was previously human takes away from how loyal to Voldemort she was (From the main HP movies, you get an understanding that Voldemort trusted Nagini, an animal, more than any human follower in his regiment because no human would have the same amount of loyalty to someone as an animal), and even though we still have three more movies to go before we see what could supposedly turn Nagini to the dark side (because she's still on the good guys' side by the end of this movie) one cannot help but find it a bit unsatisfying knowing that the context of a character in movie that take place later in this series' continuity has been changed and needlessly so.

Jacob, Dan Fogler's character, also seems pointless; his arc already felt wrapped-up and conclusive in the 1st Fantastic Beasts, so by bringing him back by having him say that the Obliviation that he received didn't work not only feels like a contrived excuse to bring a character back just so the actor's contract could continue (supposedly) but also seems to undermine how effective the magic in the Wizarding World is; Hermione, in Deathly Hallows - Pt. 1, Obliviated her own parents in order to protect them and all traces of memory of her were wiped completely away from not just their minds but even in photographs, and this movie is saying that even magic can have faults even if it's used correctly. Wow.

Now, let's discuss Credence for a bit here: There is a mystery revolving around his lineage, his bloodline; Leta Lestrange, the love interest of both Newt and his brother (weird, I know) (played by Zoe Kravitz) and another guy, who is also tied into the Lestrange bloodline, are also involved in this mystery; the guy mentions how Credence is the lost son in the Lestrange family tree and should be destroyed, but then Leta says that the lost son was already dead because she left him to die on a sinking ship when he was a baby, thus rendering Credence having anything to do with the Lestrange bloodline null & void. It's like there was one reveal that came in to explain what's going on, only for it to be completely revised as something else; now, I'm all for red herrings, but this is too much. Then, it gets crazier: At the tail end of the film, where we have the obligatory teasing for the Fantastic Beasts 3, Credence, now on the side of Grindelwald (along with Queenie), is revealed to have had a baby bird with him throughout the film which turns out to be a phoenix (the family bird of the Dumbledores), so it turns out that Credence is the lost brother of Albus Dumbledore; not only was it obviously a twist thrown in at the last minute just to try to get people excited about the next film, but it also makes the timeline and relationships among characters in the Wizarding World all the more convoluted, like, how come Dumbledore never mentioned that he had a long-lost brother in the Harry Potter movies? Just saying.

When it's all said and done, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald isn't the worst movie of 2018 (like, not even close), it's certainly the most disappointing movie of 2018. Despite great direction by David Yates, great visuals & solid spectacle, and even some great performances among the cast, the plot is so convoluted and all over the place that it's even honestly kind of hard to follow (and I don't usually have that problem with most movies, even bad ones) and the movie, written by J.K. Rowling, seemed like it was a filler movie trying to get by on Easter eggs and magic to be entertaining enough for people to want to see the next film; unfortunately, this movie's "spell" didn't exactly work on me as well as I'm sure the people behind it were hoping it would. Honestly, I'm mildly curious to see if the next film could be more interesting and could hopefully improve on the mistakes made here based on where this film leaves off, but at this point I'm not too excited for what's to come in this prequel series. Oh well, at least we still have the main Harry Potter movies, and no lackluster prequel can take them away from us.

Speaking as a Star Wars fan who has at least liked the previous three Star Wars movies (Yes, I even liked the controversial Last Jedi), I was never all that excited about Solo: A Star Wars Story because I felt like we never needed a prequel/spin-off detailing the origins of the beloved intergalactic smuggler. However, seeing as how I am a devoted-enough fan to be willing to give any Star Wars film a chance, I gave Solo a chance and went into it with cautious optimism. And, I was totally right for being cautious, because Solo was kind of "meh" and, if I'm being honest, that was pretty much what I thought it was gonna be. So, now, let's go a lil' further into why I feel this way.

I do have good things to say about this movie, so I figure I'll start from that. First off, the cast, overall, was fine. Alden Ehrenreich was pretty solid as a younger, less-experienced Han Solo; he's no Harrison Ford, but I feel like he didn't need to be because this is Han Solo from a different period in time than when he saw him in the original trilogy, and I don't blame Ehrenreich for not being on par with Ford because he was given the impossible task to try to portray a character who is so iconic as a result of Ford, so Ehrenreich made the role his own and he did it well enough. Donald Glover was really good as the young Lando Calrissian; nothing like Billy Dee Williams but, much like Ehrenreich, Glover still manages to pull it off for the most part, to where he even manages to pull off a dramatic scene at one point. Paul Bettany is also good as the villainous crime boss, whom Solo and Beckett (Woody Harrelson) work for, despite his limited screen-time. The rest of the cast (Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, etc.) were just fine; none of which stood out as great nor awful. Han and Chewbacca's relationship and chemistry is pretty solid; there's some banter between them that did get some chuckles from me (although one of them, which was shown in the trailer, never made it to the final cut, which was kinda disappointing) and their first meeting was handled pretty well. Ron Howard's direction in the action scenes is good, especially in the train sequence and the Kessel sequences, and the effects work is pretty strong, although I do wish that there was less of that "foggy" look going on that makes scenes in this movie look like there's a barbeque party going on with someone's grill running (That's the best way that I got to describe it, so hopefully you get what I mean).

The movie is, at the very least, watchable; there's entertainment to be had in the movie. However, with all those positive vibes being expressed, Solo: A Star Wars Story doesn't really rise that much above being watchable. I couldn't say that the movie was really that boring to me, but I never felt much wonder or awe or even surprise in what was happening, especially in the plot which I found to be kind of predictable (I'll get to the twists later down here). And, even though I tried to leave the feeling of how unnecessary this movie was out the door, the movie itself didn't do much to keep that feeling from happening at points. Another thing that I didn't like in the movie was L3-37, Lando's personal droid who is pretty much an SJW who's all about "droid rights;" not only was it so obvious in what the writers were going for with that character that it bordered on being obnoxious but it was also just the same-old, same-old funny droid sidekick that we've gotten in Star Wars, like C-3PO & R2-D2 from the original trilogy, BB-8 from the sequel trilogy, and K-2SO of Rogue One, but not executed very well; the one scene between L3 and Lando that was heartfelt was the one scene involving that character that legit worked for me and that was mainly because of Glover making it work emotionally. The opening scene of the movie also brought in something that I honestly hated looking back, and that was where Han Solo got his last name; it's like, why couldn't Solo be just a family name of his instead of just some name that was he was given by some guy?

Now, let's talk about the many twists in this movie, and this is where we get into the more spoiler-y side of things so you've been warned. Of course, it's to be expected that a heist movie like this would have some twists and turns, but this movie, I feel, had a few too many. I didn't mind the twist where Beckett betrays Han, because it at least gave Han some development when he shoots first and kills the guy who was the closest thing to being a mentor figure for Han; it was predictable, yes, but it worked. Then, there's the other twists. Enfys Nest, a side-antagonist who shows up every now and then for a bit to cause our heroes trouble, revealing himself to be a young girl, who leads a group of other rebels like they're the kids from Beyond Thunderdome, who is trying to forge a rebellion; it was a lame twist because not only was it for a character that I didn't even care about and one that, I felt, seemed very tacked-on but the whole "birth of the rebellion" thing has been done to death at this point, to where I'm like, "We get it. Move on;" Han Solo contributing to these kids' plans for a rebellion in some way was also lame, because it renders his reluctance in joining the Rebel Alliance in the original trilogy almost null in void because by this movie's logic he's already contributed to the rebellion. Now, the big twist: There is a bigger crime boss, who's above Paul Bettany's character in the chain of command, who takes Emilia Clarke's character, Qi'ra, in as a sort of 2nd-in-command after she betrays and kills Bettany's character only to betray Han as well, and then the bigger boss reveals himself to be Maul (That's right, Darth Maul); at first, I was surprised, but then the more I processed it the less I liked it, because, first off, why would Maul get involved in the criminal underworld when he has bigger fish to fry, like tracking down Obi-Wan for revenge or seeking revenge against Palpatine? Second off, how are casual viewers supposed to be excited about the return of a character who they probably thought "was as dead as a door nail" since the end of The Phantom Menace, especially when they might not have seen or are even aware of Maul's presence in the Clone Wars and Rebels cartoon? Third, I can't get excited about a sequel because I can't see where this whole thing with Maul is gonna go from here without it somehow messing with the continuity, especially when I'm even aware of how his story in the cartoons (which I guess are considered canon at this point) ends. And, fourth and finally, I find it odd that LucasFilm, or whoever came up with this, thinks that bringing in a character from the prequel trilogy, which is not all that well-loved by people or Star Wars fans, is used to get people on board with trilogy of Han Solo movies, which no one, except Kathleen Kennedy, I guess, has asked for.

So, overall, even though that last paragraph goes on for so long with that lil' rant there, I don't hate Solo: A Star Wars Story, but I'm not a fan of it either. I can honestly say that it's the first time, for me, since the Clone Wars movie back in 2008, where I didn't feel all that excited or wowed by a Star Wars movie; even the prequels have wowed and excited me at a few points at least. And, like the 2008 Clone Wars movie, I can't see myself revisiting Solo anytime soon, if ever. I recommend a Redbox rental, a viewing on Netflix, or a viewing on cable television for Solo, so that much I can give it. Solo isn't terrible nor is it great, it's just average and that, to me, is sad because a Star Wars movie should be better than average. And, to close this, I'm not even excited for any more Star Wars anthology movies (And, I adored Rogue One and I found that it actually added something to the franchise, especially the original trilogy), seeing how this one turned out, so I can't see myself seeing another anthology movie in the theater again because whatever LucasFilm and Kathleen Kennedy plan next in that field is probably not gonna get me excited at this point.

Sharknado 5: Global Swarming is the worst out of all the Sharknado movies. I enjoyed the first 3 movies as bad movies that are just for fun. However, I hated the 4th because that was where the franchise has lost all of its "teeth" because the joke of sharks in tornadoes is all old hat at that point and that The Asylum should've just stopped at 3.

Now, onto Sharknado 5. (*Spoilers ahead, but here, in this case, they don't matter*) I hate this horrendous, godforsaken piece of garbage movie. The "plot" literally digs deep for a reason for this mess to happen, when Fin and Nova steal an artifact that can create Sharknadoes; the events in this movie all hinge on Fin and Nova being the biggest idiots on the planet especially considering what they all went through in the previous films. This movie was so unfunny, it's all done before in the other Sharknado movies and, I'd even say, done better in the first 3; I only laughed at a line from Gilbert Gottfried and when Abby from Dance Moms gets killed randomly by a shark, that's it. This movie reaches levels of insulting that the 4th reached only to even far exceed them: Sharknado 5 expects you to care for Fin's family when almost all of them die, including Fin's cyborg wife, but since this series wasn't even meant to be driven by storytelling and characters the "drama" just doesn't work because, guess what, Asylum, THAT'S NOT WHY WE WATCH THESE MOVIES! The actors don't even seem like they wanna be in this franchise anymore, that they seem to literally only be there just to pay their rent for another year (not that that's wrong of them to do it, but it's so obvious that that's all of what I got from them). Of course the effects aren't special, but now they're even less special because they keep trying to push how stupid they could get with sharks and tornadoes which ultimately leads to whatever comedic sting that was supposed to be there to just simply be nonexistent. The problem is that the passion to make a so-bad-it's-good movie that was in the first 3 is now gone: This movie is just a corporate shill husk of a "film" right down to having constant, obnoxious Xfinity advertising all over the place in it. And, the end of this movie brings in time travel where Fin's son is played by Dolph Lundgren, after the kid presumably died, and ends at a cliffhanger "Back to the Future" style. At that point, I thought, "I'm done. I am just so done. I'm not gonna watch any more Sharknadoes after that abortion."

I hope to God that Sharknado 6 doesn't happen, but if it does I sure as sh** wouldn't be there watching it after seeing 5 which makes me want to give all the 5th installments in various franchises that I've seen, that I've liked or otherwise, an extra 1-up for simply not being like Sharknado 5. I felt like I had so much more things taken away from me by Sharknado 5 than things given because this movie was such an absolute nightmarish slog to sit through.

In closing: Avoid Sharknado 5: Global Swarming like the Plague and just watch the first 3 Sharknadoes.