Reviews

DC's Aquaman, the 6 film in the illustrious DCU is a boring, lifeless slog buried under an aggressively rough second act full of more sappy, forced romance and exposition than one mere mortal can withstand, sure the cgi (underwater mainly) looks great (mostly) and Wan does pull out some tricks with the action scenes, but it's just far more Flash Gordon and far less Thor Ragnarok and Black Panther. (sorry, but I just gotta make these comparisons, guys, sorry)

SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDERVERSE is a grand celebration of the titular character, a colorful, vibrant, and lively extravaganza full of heart, humor, and pure heroism, displaying a message that it doesn't take much to be a hero. Lord and Miller once again prove their ability as Hollywood screenwriters, bringing their wits and smarts along with them. SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDERVERSE does everything a comic book film should, it has heart, humor, scope, stakes, it's well paced, and has a genuine message of what it takes to be a hero, and it starts with a leap of faith. SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDERVERSE is unlike anything we have ever seen before, in a year of fabulous superhero flicks like BLACK PANTHER, DEADPOOL 2, and AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, it's the 7th Spider-Man film that proves to be the most freshest and original of the crop.

It's finally here! The "Justice League" film you've all been waiting for, dreaming of...just kidding, it's not. Warner. Bros. once again has made something that should be a fun ride from start to finish, pleasing the crowd, infusing its audience with energy, into a boring, scatterbrained mess, where nothing is coherent or of sense, action scenes that are so empty and hit as hard as the New York Giants' defense. Most surprisingly about "Justice League" is how cheap it looks, the film cost THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS! Why does this superhero team up movie look as pricey as a CBS crime drama?! Many people thought the success of "Wonder Woman" meant that WB and DC had figured it out, but no, here comes Zack Snyder doing what he knows best, turning light, fun comic book material into his dark, twisted little fantasy, Joss Whedon's involvement sheds some light, and I do mean some, but it's all in vain, really the only two highlights here are Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and how the film decided to use Cavill's Superman, there are nice team moments but they are most certainly few and far between. "Justice League" is a small baby step in the right direction for these characters but not much else. Everyone involved deserves better, from the cast to the crew to the audience, it's time WB moved from Zack Snyder, it's clearly a failed relationship with nothing left to offer, zip, nada.

"Death Note" based off of the anime, manga of the same name joins the long list of controversially Whitewashed adaptations churned out by the film business, but let's get into the real problems with Netflix, Adam Wingard's take on the popular anime, manga. "Death Note" is a bland, poorly paced, poorly directed, poorly acted, and most importantly very, very stupid movie, and that's not a knock on the original material because well, I haven't seen it. (also, it's an anime) Since putting out two very good original films in "You're Next" and "The Guest", Adam Wingard has seem to have forgotten how to be a good director with his latest offerings in the form of "Blair Witch" and the movie I am talking about with you right now, this film should have been called "Dutch Angles: The Movie" because there are A LOT of them, it would make Michael Bay jealous, and the acting isn't much better. Nat Wolff as Light is just so bland and poorly written, there's nothing about him to like and his seamless willingness to take part in bringing death to criminals is not in the least convincing, same with his sadistic girlfriend played by Margaret Qualley, who goes from beautiful cheerleader to psychotic partner in crime in a heartbeat. Keith Stanfield is poorly cast as L whilst Willem Dafoe is perfect as the demon Ryuk. With better direction and a better script this could have at least been a quite decent film, the film also fails with its tone which is just all over the place, maybe if the film was taken in a less serious tone with a director like Edgar Wright or Taika Waititi, it could have been great.

Is the 4th time the charm for the DCEU? Yes. Is it a revolutionary masterpiece that all the reviews are making it out to be? HELL NO. "Wonder Woman" is directed by Patty Jenkins, who previously directed a vastly different looking Charlize Theron in the fantastic drama "Monster", which most believe to be Theron's best performance, and well, if there is one huge thing to say about "Wonder Woman", it is that Gal Gadot is pretty good as the red, white, and blue lead, which comes as a huge surprise seeing that most people consider Gadot to be a very weak actress, which there most certainly is a case for, BUT she is triumphant as our main lead. Chris Pine, who plays our main heroine's love interest is also pretty good here, both bringing charisma and a bevy laughs. The first thing you'll notice about the movie is how beautiful it looks when it comes to the glorious production and costume design. So now, let's get into the negatives that people seem to be disregarding. The film had me worried that it wouldn't be as good as people have suggested when the film starts with narration (of course) in the present(?) for some reason because, you know, Warner Bros. needs to let you know that this film is apart of a cinematic universe, I mean, it's not too bad but it really wasn't needed, then we head off to the island of the Amazonians, which looks beautiful but everything in it just falls sort of flat, we are introduced to our young Diana, who is very funny in parts but the kid's acting is just not good AT ALL, which is sometimes expected with kid actors. The cgi in this movie is just plain BAD, that plus the overuse of slo mo somewhat taints some pretty good action scenes, you can definitely tell that Patty Jenkins is a first time director in the superhero genre, (although plenty of directors don't fall into that trap like Nolan, Raimi, Singer) once we head off to London the film gets much better, it becomes a pretty good war film, it's the first time we've seen war portrayed, you know, LIKE WAR in a superhero movie, (sorry Cap) but as I said the great action scenes are tainted by bad visuals, an overabundance of slo mo, and hero shots up the wazoo. Now let's talk about the villains, the villains as expected here are absolutely terrible, just downright cartoonish, and once again we get a big cgi, explosion filled finale that gave me flashes of "Batman v. Superman". (although nowhere near as bad as that) Now does that sound like a revolutionary masterpiece to you? If so, see more movies immediately.

Ridley Scott goes back to basics with "Alien: Covenant", his "loose" follow up to "Prometheus", a film which many fans of the franchise didn't take to kindly to, a film riddled with plot holes, unanswered questions, and characters doing stupid sh*t. Well with this film questions do get answered and the plot holes are in short supply but if you thought the characters in "Prometheus" were stupid, oh boy, wait till you see this film. I don't know how Ridley Scott pulled it off but he somehow made the xenomorph unintimidating, the film doesn't offer many scares and rushes into the scares way too quickly, Scott's decision to go with cgi for the majority of the creatures definitely has something to do with both of those points, what made the xenomorphs so scary were the practical effects and the movements of the actor in the suit. With all the problems I had with this film, I can say that it is at least for the most part highly enjoyable because of how joyously stupid it is. Everything with Michael Fassbender is great and he totally pulls off even the most ridiculous sh*t. The ending is awesome!

Bullets fly in Ben Wheatley's fun, fast paced ode to 70's gangster flicks. "Free Fire" takes place in one location, where bullets do most of the talking, which is fine, I mean, that's why you're here aren't you? But thankfully "Free Fire" features a high powered cast starring Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Armie Hammer, Sharlto Copley, and Jack Reynor, who all with the exception of Larson (who looks like she could care less about being in this film) inject some personality and charisma into a film lacking much of or any of a story, surprisingly the biggest standout from this film is "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" star Sam Riley, who plays the film's drugged up scumbag character whose only here for the deal taking place because he's the stepson of Michael Smiley's character, who of course pretty much triggers the whole shebang. The film does suffer from a slow start but that's a given when you have to set up your crew of shady, machismo fueled characters. The movie gets by on how down you are with the film's simple concept, and how much you like these actors and their characters.

Back in the late 90's, 20th Century Fox cast an unknown Broadway singer to play one of comic's most violent and beloved characters in 2000's live action adaptation of the popular X-Men comics created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, a casting which was met with much scrutiny, similar to the kind Warner Bros. received when they announced that comedic actor Michael Keaton would be dawning the cape and cowl in 1989's "Batman" directed by Tim Burton...well it's now 2017 and both are considered by many to be the best actors to grace the screen as these characters, difference being that Hugh Jackman has lasted as this character for over 10(!) years, appearing in 9 films in the acclaimed X-Men franchise. "Logan" is the supposed final appearance by Hugh Jackman as The Wolverine, and if that is indeed the case, he went out with one hell of a bang. "Logan" is unlike any comic book movie that has ever come before it, its real, gruesome, unapologetic take on the genre is commendable, but most importantly of all, it has a big, hefty heart that it wears proudly on its sleeve, it's an emotionally gripping film that provides genuine surprises, this is a comic book film where no one, I repeat, no one is safe from the grasp of death, which is another commendable trait of this film. Hugh Jackman makes the most of his final outing as The Wolverine, delivering his most refined performance as the character, other series vet Patrick Stewart and newcomer Daphne Keen are excellent as well here. "Logan" proves that there is much more room for growth in the crowded superhero genre.

"Live By Night" sees star Ben Affleck back in the director's chair for the 4th time, his previous directorial offerings being "Gone Baby Gone", "The Town", and best picture winner "Argo", and sadly, it's easily his worst. "Live By Night" boasts a wonderful cast, stunning cinematography, and enthralling action set pieces but lacks any emotional weight or an interesting story, it's your usual by the numbers gangster flick about tough guys in over-sized suits blasting each other with Tommy guns and stabbing each other in the back. "Live By Night" is not a bad film by any means but is a forgettable entry in the gangster film genre and a disappointing directorial effort from Ben Affleck.

"Assassin's Creed" is one of the most boring films I've had to sit through this year...this terrible, terrible, and now even more terrible year. So apparently Hollywood still hasn't figured out that if you want to make a good video game adaptation, you need a script that makes at least some kind of sense, and when you have over five games to take inspiration from, a script should come quite naturally, right? Well, apparently it takes three screenwriters to screw in a light bulb, and still end up doing a crap job at it, "Assassin's Creed" however did have an all star cast and a good director behind it, so did they at least do a crack up job at delivering the first good video game movie to ever exist? Well, of course not! Didn't you read my first sentence? "Assassin's Creed" is a poorly directed, poorly acted, choppily edited, bland, visually icky piece of "cinema". The film is predictably at its best when the film takes place in the past, unfortunately Fox didn't get the memo that no one really cares about the modern day segments in the "Assassin's Creed" series, most of the movie is set there where we mainly get a lot of exposition, given blandly by such a stellar cast. So yeah, "Assassin's Creed" is most definitely not the savior the video game movie genre needed, not even close.

A year after enthralling audiences with his second feature film "Whiplash", Damien Chazelle is back at it again with his magical and mesmerizing Musical "La La Land" starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, a film that doesn't just capture the style and essence of a musical in the vain of "Singing in the Rain" but also perfectly blends it with the style of modern day cinema, thanks in part to being set in modern day but taking place in a traditionally Hollywood part of Los Angeles, and boasting some beautifully colorful cinematography that gives you the feeling you're in a sublime and dreamlike state. The direction and editing on display here is quite flawless, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling once again show off their undeniable chemistry as two struggling performers trying to make it big in the city of stars. In a year full of such disaster and indifference, "La La Land" is just what the doctor ordered.

"The Siege of Jadotville" is the unknown story about an Irish peacekeeper troop commanded by Commandant Pat Quilan to Katanga, in Congo, sent to protect the inhabitants of the mining town of Jadotville in the beginning of a civil war. "The Siege of Jadotville" had potential to be really good but ends up just being a solid film, the direction by first time director Richie Smyth is very good, and Jamie Dorman of Fifty Shades fame gives a great performance as Commandant Pat Quilan, sadly, that's about all I can credit this film for, the score is awfully generic and out of place, everyone who aren't apart of the peacekeeper troop are portrayed as villains, and the sound design is lacking. With a bigger budget maybe this film could have turned out to be really good, but as it stands I really can't recommend this film to anyone, as I said, it's a solid film, it's just lacking any real substance to be worth a watch, unless the story sounds interesting to you, go ahead, if not, don't bother, as I said it lacks a lot of substance and leaves more to be desired.

So I decided to waste an hour and thirty minutes of my life on Netflix's newest film courtesy of their deal with Adam Sandler to put out six "original" movies, the first two being "The Ridiculous Six" and "The Do-Over", which haven't garnered a warm exception from critics but did very well with Netflix's audience, so now here we are with "True Memoirs of an International Assassin", and surprisingly it ain't too bad, it's definitely not good, solid, nor decent but it's a step up from the other two films, probably because Adam Sandler is nowhere to be seen. The direction from Jeff Wadlow is decent, the editing is surprisingly really good, and Kevin James is not a bad actor, but this is nothing more than an average, cliché action comedy that mostly falls flat on its face, it's a bit of a shame though because the premise is an interesting one that could have been done better with a more focused team behind the scenes.

Another year, another highly anticipated film from acclaimed director Denis Villeneuve, the director of "Prisoners" and "Sicario" is back at it again this time in the science fiction genre with "Arrival" starring Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner. "Arrival" based off of the novel "Story of Your Life" follows expert linguist Louise Banks played by Amy Adams, who during an extraterrestrial invasion is contacted by the U.S. military to try and decipher their alien language, trying to find out what their purpose on earth is, do they want peace? Do they want war? Or maybe something else? Well that's for Louise to find out, but "Arrival" isn't really about that, it's a love story, it's a sort of coming of age story, a film about healing and revelation, beautifully told by Denis Villeneuve and writer Eric Heisserer. "Arrival" doesn't quite measure up to other works from Villeneuve, but it stands as one of the best science fiction films of the last 5-10 years.

Mel Gibson returns to the director's chair with this war epic based on the true life story of Private Desmond Doss, who served in the Army as a medic during the Battle of Okinawa during World War ll...he also happened to be a pacifist, someone unwilling to partake in violence due to his religious beliefs, which there is plenty of in the climate of war therefore facing tremense odds not in his favor, more so than the men who carry their weapons into battle. I've been a big fan of Mel Gibson's work despite the lows of his career, and "Hacksaw Ridge" is no exception. One of the biggest strengths of Mel Gibson's direction is that he doesn't shy away from depicting violence in his films, and with this film he shouldn't, war is one of if not the ugliest thing to exist in the history of mankind, war SHOULD be gory, it SHOULD feel like you're watching a horror movie. Andrew Garfield is very good as Private Desmond Doss, he perfectly portrayed the good hearted nature of his character, and his accent for the most part wasn't too distracting, the film also stars Hugo Weaving, Teresa Palmer, Vince Vaughn, and Sam Worthington, they too give very good performances in the movie, but most surprisingly of all we also see "Point Break" remake star Luke Bracey EASILY giving the best performance of his young career. "Hacksaw Ridge" is a roaring return for Mel Gibson in the director's chair, masterfully delivering this brutal yet uplifting tale of one man's battle against the tremendous odds stacked against him and his brothers in arms.

Andrea Arnold's "American Honey" is a bold and ambitious film filled with good performances, and for the most part I like this film, but boy does it have a ton of pitfalls. "American Honey" is repetitive, bombastic, overlong, and filled with unlikable characters, and most of the repetitiveness comes from these characters constantly listening to and singing to rap music in their white van. Sitting through 2 hours and 43 minutes of this film felt more like a chore than a cinematic experience. I'm looking forward to what Andrea Arnold has in store for us next, I truly am, and hopefully her next film won't be as preposterously long as this.

Despite the film's many clichés and narrative flaws which come mostly in the film's final 20 minutes or so, "The Accountant" nudges on by thanks to Ben Affleck's leading performance as an autistic accountant with a deadly secret, and the film's quirky, timely comedy. The film is pure blood soaked cheese, and if you're not with it from the very beginning you might not find the film very entertaining, luckily, I was in the right mood for it. The film's biggest downfall is when it tries to cram so much exposition in one particular scene towards the end, and also wasting the talents of veteran actors John Lithgow, and Transparent's Jeffrey Tambor.

Peter Berg may have just delivered his best film since "Friday Night Lights" or just maybe his best film to date with "Deepwater Horizon", an intense, well crafted, well detailed, and emotional spectacle, not often are we treated to big effects heavy spectacles with a firm emotional grip, and characters that feel very well realized. The film takes a while to get to the devastation on the Deepwater Horizon but it's totally worth it thanks to its surprisingly hefty focus on character development. Mark Wahlberg once again provides a good lead performance along with fine supporting performances from Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, and many others.

Hollywood is back at it yet again with yet another remake of yet another classic film, this time it's the "Magnificent Seven", a remake of a remake of Akira Kirosawa's "Seven Samurai", but luckily this remake has a good director behind it in Training Day's Antoine Fuqua, and a very stellar cast including the likes of Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, and Peter Sarsgaard. The chemistry on display here between the Magnificent Seven is kinetic, and Fuqua does a damn good job at staging action and building up tension, it's definitely in my mind his best film since the Aforementioned "Training Day".

First time writer-director Elizabeth Woods delivers a raw, energetic, and downright uncomfortable tale about a young college student named Leah, who moves to the big apple and finds love in one of the local drug dealers named Blue, one night of partying later finds the two separated as he's arrested on possession of narcotics, and that's 3 strikes for him, and Leah must do whatever she can to be reunited with him. It's an ugly and uneasy look at white privilege, and the self destruction of such a young, promising girl who just can't seem to stay away from taking the trip down the white brick road. This is a roaring directorial debut from Elizabeth Woods, and quite the controversial, personal one at that.

"The Light Between Oceans" had all the right ingredients to be a serious Oscar contender, a great director, a great cast, beautiful cinematography, a beautiful score, and a gripping story, but it ends up falling way, way short of its end goal, it's unrelenting in its efforts to get an emotional reaction out of its audience, and in doing so the movie loses some of its humanity and relatedness, the film also suffers from its 2 hour run time, with about 20-25 minutes cut from its run time, it could have at the very least been a solid period drama about such a daunting subject matter, but instead it's just a very big disappointment.