Reviews

Where do I even start? The film starts off with a promising dramatic premise of Robert De Niro portraying a recently widowed husband who tries to contact his children. And then it goes downhill from there.

Who wrote this trashfire of a script? The dialogue is incredibly cliche and weak, and tries to establish emotional relevance and connection with quotes about urinating on walls. The film is supposed to be about De Niro reconnecting with his children, but really it's about him reconnecting with his one son who decided to pursue art and his other children (who are also lacking in achievement, to his disappointment) hiding the fact that he was arrested and died of an overdose. How are we supposed to connect to this otherwise heartbreaking event when the son was never shown on screen, and the only flashback sequence we get is of De Niro encouraging his son to pursue art in a god-awful line about urinating on walls? When the film tries to bring it back up towards the end, as if we're expected to cry for it, it's laughable.

Everybody's NOT fine because everybody's not finely written in this trashfire of a film that lacks any emotional connection with its characters and fails to establish and develop the characters that matter because it simply can't handle decent and relatable dialogue.

Yes, this film already has high ratings, but what I mean when I say it's underrated is that whenever I mention this film to any dedicated comic book film fans, they always dismiss it as being a "weak" and "typical" superhero film that doesn't deviate from the formula that Marvel has gotten good at establishing and repeating. Doctor Strange is a spiritual and mystical journey of enlightenment for its viewers. It is certainly much more than just a rehash of Iron Man, and here's why.

The story tells of a brilliant neurosurgeon, Dr. Stephen Strange, whose excellence is prefaced by his harrowing arrogance. After getting into a car crash that renders his hands unusable for the precision of surgery, Strange exhausts all of his resources to improve his condition. With no hope, he turns to spirituality and healing and discovers the school of the Ancient One, where he humbles up and is introduced to the world of the mystic arts.

The film takes great care in establishing Stephen Strange as an arrogant and selfish person. Benedict Cumberbatch, known for his borderline sociopathic and arrogant roles as Sherlock Holmes in BBC's modern adaptation and his villainous roles in other franchises (Khan in Star Trek), is very good at portraying a character who is both unlikable yet sympathetic. I'd argue that Stephen Strange's portrayal in this film is far from Tony Stark's portrayal in Iron Man; the first half of the film shows how much Strange pushes the people who care for him away with little to no empathy, including former lover, Christine Palmer, played by Rachel McAdams. In fact, a significant amount of time is given to developing not only Strange as a character, but also his relationships with the people around him and how they serve as foils to his arrogance and eventual redemption. Of course, there are some characters who fall short of development, including the villainous Kaecilius, a rogue mystic and former student of the Ancient One whose primary motivations to use dark magic are powered by his pain of loss. The film attempts to add more development and background to Kaecilius as a character, but given that Kaecilius is a character that's moreso a reflection of the evil Dormammu, developing him as a character can only go so far as adding the finishing touches to a puppet. With a weak villain, this is definitely one of the weaker points of the film. Other than that, it's the first time in a while that we've seen an origin story like this in this franchise that actually felt independent from The Avengers (Ant-Man's opening made the film seem like an extension of Avengers; the last independent origins story we got that actually felt independent was probably Guardians of the Galaxy), and it's the first time in a while we've received a leading character and supporting characters with this much character development.

Doctor Strange also features visually stunning and innovative action sequences inspired by the effects used in Inception, but wholly expanding upon them. The scene that introduces Strange (and the audience) to the world of mysticism is visually groundbreaking, experimental, yet also accessible for audiences as it puts them through a roller coaster whirlwind of abstraction and surrealism. The first major action sequence featuring Strange in New York City features the action scene we dreamed of in Inception that we thought we'd never get, and the final climactic fight in Hong Kong gives a unique opportunity to watch a fight happen in full reversal while it's characters fight in real time. The resolution to the climactic fight is also original and unique; instead of the "big fight" we're waiting for, Doctor Strange manages to use his wits to avoid a destructive fight and win the battle with Dormammu with clever thinking, adding value to his character not only as a mystical master but also as one of the more clever characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I'm normally not a fan of a film relying too much on comic relief, as I feel it cheapens the quality of the film, but I found the comic relief to be used tastefully in this film to help flesh out character development and provide a balance of entertainment for the film's more serious scenes. Similar to, but not exactly like, Winter Soldier's "On your left" line, Doctor Strange is riddled with simple single-lines that help develop characters and serve to humble Doctor Strange as he goes through a spiritual awakening.

On the surface, Doctor Strange is a visual effects spectacle that tells the story of an arrogant professional turned into an extraordinary and humble superhero, but, as you dig deeper, you'll find that the story is one of the most original Marvel films with a strongly developed (and well acted) lead character and supporting cast. With a clever storyline, uniquely fleshed out characters, and stunning visual effects, Doctor Strange proves to be an excellent addition to the MCU franchise.

No spoilers until indicated

Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars film since anything the original trilogy produced and introduces a new, innovative storyline that adds more complexity to the series. Rian Johnson breaks the traditional Star Wars formula and challenges the notions of, "What is a Star Wars film?" and answers that question by being completely unlike any other Star Wars film prior.

The change in direction is clear with the story and style of the film; while Force Awakens focused on nostalgia (as it should have), The Last Jedi ditches the nostalgia trip and focused on developing the most complex storyline in Star Wars yet. Gone are the one-dimensional characters, and in are the conflicted, emotional characters who are the source of what makes this such a compelling Star Wars film. One-dimensional characters were what made Star Wars great in the first place, but it's time to move on with more tension and dynamics with the characters using modern storytelling. Johnson's directing really shines through in portraying the more abstract ideas of the film's plot, and uses perfect pacing to evenly space out three total plots until they all converge onto the closing act.

For the action aficionados, Star Wars: The Last Jedi has the best action in a Star Wars film yet. I wanted to leap out of my seat during many moments due to the sheer emotional capacity and thrills I felt were packed into single scenes. This is definitely an important factor that contributes to my rating; the action is only good because the storyline set it up to full emotional thrill ride.

Just like the characters, the film isn't perfect. There are certain moments that can be received negatively, and I get that. The deciding factor, however, is how you want to interpret those moments. It's one thing for a scene to be questionable, but it's another thing to sit back and think about what Rian Johnson was trying to portray with those scenes. They all mean something in this film, and the degree of "weirdness" to this scene isn't even all that bad as fans may complain. They all make sense, and, if they don't now, they will; don't forget that this is only the middle film of a trilogy! We still have more to see with how this arc goes. I was able to overlook some of these flaws (which overall had to do with dialogue, bland characterization, and weird moments that initially don't seem to make sense). They make sense/will make sense in the long run!

Many of the fans who complain are the ones who hold the most expectations on how the film SHOULD go; they want answers to immediate questions and hold certain ideas on characterizations, so much that the slightest difference in expectation and lack of answers will anger them, so they're the easiest to disappoint, and the quickest to react. They are close-minded and toxic! They are blinded by nostalgia and do not like change, and don't know good stuff when they see it! This is a quality film; whether you like it or not is ultimately and only up to you. Do not let them fool you, and think for yourself on this one!

Star Wars: The Last Jedi reads like a novel; you can watch it multiple times and pick it apart layer by layer, and still find more and more prevalent themes and motifs in the film. It's beautifully written and pictured to portray a fine part of the trilogy that manages to stand on its own. Fans who hate this film will end up eating those words some day on a film that brings a new and unexpected take on the Star Wars saga. Go towards the Light side, turn off your expectations for the film, and enjoy it for what it is. And may the Force be with you, and us all.

SPOILERS BELOW:

Addressing some of the issues people have with this film: Why is everyone mad at Luke's characterization? He literally says in the film that the Jedi shouldn't be put on a pedestal, and neither should he. He's not perfect! The whole point of the Original Trilogy was to learn of Luke's journey through finding the light; it's not gonna end and he's not gonna be pure. I'd take a multifaceted, multi-dimensional Luke any day over a boring, one-dimensional Luke.

Leia's floating: OK, this was weird when I first saw it, but the point still stands is that Leia never uses the Force, but she can when she needs it in cases of survival. This could have been portrayed better, and the scene didn't need to be as long or as hokey as it looked (straight out of a 70s superhero film). I agree this was a polarizing moment in the film, but the film's main storyline was strong enough for me to at least believe in the scene at the moment, and overlook its flaws.

Killing Snoke off was both necessary and important. It serves as a shock for most of us who expected Snoke to survive until Episode IX, and also represents the film's removal of nostalgia and focus on a fresh take for the Star Wars franchise. Having him alive and be the "main villain" of IX would have been too similar to having Palpatine as the main villain of the original trilogy. Snoke is a one-dimensional character with a backstory we couldn't care less for, and killing him off is symbolic of the film's intentions to kill off what Star Wars used to be and emphasize what it could be now. Let go of the past, kill it if you have to, as Kylo Ren says; we don't need a repeat of the Original Trilogy's formula.

Note: No spoilers until indicated.

When it comes down to it, yes, Zack Snyder is a second unit director who, whether he thinks so or not, prioritizes visuals over story cohesion. And, yes, that's reflected in the CGI-laden Batman v Superman, as it was reflected in Man of Steel. It's certainly flawed, but it's not flawed enough to make it seem like the trashfire of a film that other reviewers seem to say it is.

First off, Batman v Superman corrects some of the flaws that Man of Steel had. One particular gripe I had with Man of Steel was the fact that the final fight scene was unnecessarily long, cliché, and destructive. Batman v Superman immediately corrects this by making this as a plot device that motivates Batman to turn against Superman. Suddenly I like Man of Steel more now. The scenes are depicted, for once, with the right amount of emotion to set up the pace for the film (it won't stay consistent, but we'll get to that later). Just to add on this, Man of Steel had too many fights in major cities that caused unnecessary destruction, Batman v Superman now has fights on uninhabited islands! Perfect!

As polarizing as it may be, Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor is wonderful. Instead of the ruthless Lex Luthor we're used to in the comics, Chris Terrio managed to modernize his characterization into the socially awkward, but incredibly intelligent, Silicon Valley-esque tech giant we see in this film. Many of the film's events orchestrated by Luthor perfectly illustrate his sinister characterization, sometimes without even needing him to be on screen.

Zack Snyder's direction, once again, brings a less-than-cohesive film plot that seems to jump between the tension between the main characters and superfluous action. It tries to pack so much into so little time, and the result is the odd pacing and underdeveloped characterizations and scenes that are slowly becoming Snyder's trademark. I'd compare him to McG and say that this film focused too much on being visually a comic book and less on a graphic novel, with underdeveloped characterizations and scenes that needed to be fleshed out longer. Zack Snyder is still trying to find his right pacing, and it's not working yet.

That said, Batman v Superman has one of the best action scenes in comic book film history. Zack Snyder, again, a visual guy, knows how to direct many of the complex action sequences the film portrays, and executes them beautifully, so I'll give him that.

I HIGHLY recommend watching the Ultimate Edition; it helps even out some of the pacing and narrative flaws in the original. The narrative is still a bit messy, but it was already messy to begin with. However, the added footage adds much more to the plot and helps answer any unanswered questions viewers of the original may have had (see spoiler section below).

Overall, Batman v Superman is not nearly as bad as critics or fans may say. Is it perfect? No, it has noticeable flaws. BvS tries to pack in the standards of a Christopher Nolan-brand superhero movie with the action spectacles of a Marvel film; the result is a visually aesthetic comic film with somewhat decent characterizations and scenes, at the compromise of its pacing and overall development.

For opinions on some spoilers:

SPOILERS BELOW:

The "Martha" issue is totally blown out of proportion. Batman doesn't "suddenly become friends" with Superman just because their mothers share the same name, the name only served as a trigger that halted Batman from killing Superman. That gave him just enough time to realize that Superman was also more "human" than he ever imagined, and that there were even bigger issues at hand rather than just killing Superman.

The Ultimate Edition adds in more details that makes the plot more cohesive and less "intuitive," so to speak. If you want to know what the Ultimate Edition adds to the original, here are some key details:

Additional opening scenes that add further detail on how Lex Luthor was able to place the blame on Superman for the village's destruction. Clark Kent's investigation of Batman's vigilante practices, which further motivates him to confront Batman (Adds more detail to the significance of the Bat Branding employed). Lois Lane's investigation of the bombing at the Capitol, which answers any questions viewers of the original cut may have had.

DISCLAIMER: This review is an analysis, please keep in mind.

The film Room tells the story of 5-year-old Jack and his mother, Joy, told in Jack's perspective. All of his life, Jack has lived in a small world known as "Room," which his mother convinces is his reality, and that everything beyond is fantasy. The room is small, fixed with only a bathroom, a small kitchen, a television set, and a skylight. They essentially live in an average bedroom.

To the audiences, it becomes apparent that their living situation is much darker than Jack perceives it. Through her sugar-coated stories, Joy explains to Jack why they are in "Room;" Joy was abducted as a teenager and kept in a security-locked garden shed by a man only known as "Old Nick." When Jack becomes old enough, Joy uses him to finally free the two of them from their prison. From there, Jack experiences the outside world for the first time and begins adjusting to his new life beyond "Room." What makes Room such a great film is that it places the audience into the world of Jack. It lets the audience experience how Jack comes to know "Room" as his whole world, and how he processes seeing the real, outside world for the first time. The photography employs hyper-focusing on objects in "Room" to accentuate Jack's familiarity and never shows the outside world until Jack finally escapes. From there, the direction of the film manages to make the audience feel so acquainted with Room that everything else seems alien for a moment.

The film is multiple films at once, which is a good thing. The entire premise of the film touches on Platonic themes explored in the famous The Allegory of the Cave and incorporates those themes into a contemporary issue, making it philosophical. At the same time, the film deals with the emotional drama and friction that occurs not only with Jack, but also with Joy. Joy struggles with trying to teach Jack about the outside world, as well as trying to gain her family's acceptance of Jack, since she is dealing with the fact that Jack is Old Nick's child, while dealing with the media circus surrounding her story. The film details the emotional experiences and side effects that occur when one leaves the world and sees it for the first time again. It's philosophical, psychological, and emotional.

Fantastic performance from Brie Larson as Joy; she encapsulates the deep emotional scars that her character carries from Room. She takes on multiple roles as Joy; a strong mother figure for Jack, but also a helpless, adjusting woman to her family. Jacob Tremblay gives an excellent performance as Jack as well; he helps bring the film's innocent perspective to life and provides a great emotional dynamic and contrast to Joy.

Those are words that I would use to describe The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I finished this film feeling inspired and connected with life.

The film tells the story of Walter Mitty, a lonely, kind introvert who processes negatives for Life Magazine. Walter has a crush on a coworker at Life, Cheryl Melhoff, of whom he regularly daydreams. The film's plot begins when Life Magazine undergoes new management and a transition to online publication. When a photo meant to be the cover for the magazine's final print issue has gone missing, it is up to Walter to discover the locations of the photo and its photographer, reclusive Sean O'Connell, spurring an adventure of a lifetime.

What I love about The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is the visual and symbolic language the film employs. Ben Stiller's direction is appropriate for what the movie is aiming for: his beautiful, perfectly aligned shots give off the indie film vibe and accentuates the details of Walter's life. His daydreams are fantastic yet initially feel real; as his adventure picks up, his real life experiences begin to parallel and seem more like his fantasies. Walter's job at Life serves as the perfect metaphor; as Life transitions to online, Walter begins distancing himself from work (as well as his eHarmony profile) as he pursues his real life.

How could so simple a plot be so inspiring? The film focuses more on the themes of the plot rather than the actual plot and, as a result, adds an emotional texture to an otherwise dull storyline. Walter's decision to take the chance and fly to Greenland and search for Sean O'Connell became one of the iconic moments in that film because of how it Stiller directed the scene; the moving camera, the background text that stated Life's motto, the epic indie rock music. Stiller makes his emotional intentions clear and helps the audience experience the world and its potential through the eyes of Walter Mitty.

As with any Ben Stiller film, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty has its share of humor. If you're a fan of Ben Stiller's humor, great! If not, this movie is STILL fine for you. The film's best qualities do not rely on the delivery of Stiller's unique sense of humor. The chemistry that develops between Stiller and Wiig (Cheryl) could have been better; only some of their relationship seemed to barely begin picking up by the end of the film, but also leaves an open ending to leave the audience feeling hopeful.

Overall, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a beautiful work of art, a fantasy-reality film that inspires its audiences to, like Walter Mitty, escape their fantasies and to begin living life to the fullest potential. Pretty soon, our dreams become our lives.