Thoughts on Unbreakable (2000)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

While working on my review of The Butterfly Effect, I was in the middle of visiting a rather unconventional trilogy, for which the final installment was recently released. Its nickname is the Eastrail 177 Trilogy, after the event that started it all in the movie that started it all, and that movie is known as Unbreakable.

Following a devastating train crash in which he is the sole survivor (and emerges unscathed), security guard David Dunn crosses paths with a comic book art dealer named Elijah Price, who has been suffering his whole life from a condition in which his bones are very fragile, and many fractures as a result. While in the hospital, he developed a theory based on the comics he read: He is the embodiment of human frailty, so there must be someone out there who’s the complete opposite (someone who’s “unbreakable,” so to speak). This leads him to David and his having recently survived the train crash… and a series of mind games as to whether or not Elijah’s theory is true.

What Worked: First of all, the cast is excellent in this. Bruce Willis is great as David Dunn, showing that he can embody the character’s vulnerability not just mentally, but physically as well, and both aspects are really put to the test in this movie, and they each have their share of shocking revelations. The most shocking one comes with the twist, and believe me, you won’t see it coming.

Then there’s Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price, who also goes by the nickname “Mr. Glass” because of his condition. Even though you don’t know it right off the bat as you would in any other superhero movie, he’s still more or less the villain here, and he makes for a really good villain at that. He’s the “charming on the outside, crazy on the inside” or the “methodical maniac” type of villain. He doesn’t play it over the top, he plays it straight, and that keeps with the movie’s “grounded in reality” feel. That’s just one of many examples of breaking convention (not the kind you’re probably thinking of) here.

There’s also Robin Wright (Wonder Woman) as David’s wife Audrey, and she’s really good here as well, having a smaller but still significant role in the story. Then there’s Spencer Treat Clark as their son Joseph, who believes his Dad is a superhero, and Charlayne Woodard as Elijah’s Mom. They, too, are the same way, but those two you’ll want to keep in mind for later.

It’s also worth noting that the director of the movie himself, M. Night Shyamalan, makes a cameo. You’ll definitely want to keep his character in mind in addition to them, as it might just go full circle by the time I get to Movie #3.

Speaking of M. Night Shyamalan, his direction is very good, and this was during the time when he was just getting started, because this was the movie he did following the enormous popularity of The Sixth Sense. His writing isn’t bad, either.

One more thing to mention: James Newton Howard’s score is fantastic, and there’s great cinematography on display here as well.

What Didn’t Work: There’s maybe some minor (and I mean very minor) pacing issues, but honestly, that’s really it.

Overall: Unbreakable is a great movie, and it’s often considered one of the best superhero movies of all time now, because of how it approaches the genre in such a unique way. As much as I really enjoyed the follow-ups to this one, I still think this is probably M. Night Shyamalan’s best movie*. Out of all superhero movies, it’s definitely among the more underrated ones. It has a fascinating premise, a great cast of both characters and actors, some very tense moments as well as some very emotional ones, and a twist that is still mindblowing even today. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend you do so, especially if you want to see how it all comes together in the end.

*His worst is kind of obvious for the vast majority, including myself… and the time will inevitably come where I end up having to cover it. Here’s the twist: I’ve seen it more times than The Butterfly Effect, yet that’ll ultimately feel less painful. That’s how bad his worst movie is (and I’m barely scratching the surface).

Thoughts on The Butterfly Effect (2004)

Image courtesy of moviemania.io

Hello, everyone. For those who read my schedule post, you may remember that while I was going through the plans I had for this year, I hinted at another special review towards the end… but not for the reasons you may think.

It’s a thriller, and while you could say it’s a sci-fi thriller, it is, but it’s more of a psychological one. I normally never really do this unless it relates to something like spoilers, but I need to do it this time because it’s important for something like this.

Before I continue on with the review, I need to forewarn anyone who’s interested upon reading it: If you’re squeamish, there are some moments in this movie that are startling (as in things like loud bang sounds and shocking events that are kind of “out there,” for lack of a better phrase), dark and at times depressing (like a tragic event in the main character’s childhood, and those who have seen the movie will know what I’m talking about; all I’ll say about it is that in the parts of this movie where it does happen, you don’t see it, but you do see the aftermath, and I can completely understand people being affected by it), and pretty deep at times, too (especially one line in the middle of the movie), and they’re all still pretty messed up either way. This goes for both Cuts: The Theatrical Cut and especially the Director’s Cut. Suffice it to say, if you’re hoping to be the same type of person when you finish watching it as you were when you started, I wish you the best of luck. You’ll know why I say that in the outro, but for now, and with the reader discretion having been strongly advised, on with this review.

The subject here is named for a concept in chaos theory where one small change under any circumstances can massively alter the outcome. In the case of time travel, any alteration to the past will impact the future.

This concept, and the movie named after it celebrating its 15th Anniversary this year, is best known as… The Butterfly Effect.

The story here follows college student Evan Treborn and his friends Lenny Kagan, Tommy Miller and his sister Kayleigh, who was also his childhood crush. They had numerous traumatic experiences growing up, and to make matters worse, they would often result in Evan having blackouts. Whenever Evan woke up, he would do something he didn’t remember, and so he was tasked with keeping a journal of everything that went on.

Seven years after his last blackout, Evan is in his dorm room when he discovers that by reading his journals, he can go back in time to certain parts of his past. He also discovers that the parts of his life where he blacked out were actually moments where his adult self took over his mind. However, he slowly comes to realize that the different choices he makes in the past have drastic consequences in the present.

What Worked: The first thing I’ll get into here is actually the plot. The concept itself is very fascinating, and as with any time travel movie (or show, the most recent example being NBC’s excellent series Timeless), it has to have something about it that makes it distinct from the rest, even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense. The thing about time travel is that whenever and wherever you see it, it provides some interesting “What If?” scenarios, regardless of plausibility. The way this movie puts it on display I think is very clever, and it actually shows how time travel both figuratively and literally can mess with your mind.

The aforementioned “What If?” scenarios here may not be relatable, but the main character certainly is. You do actually feel Evan’s pain at times, and for a comedic actor in a dramatic role, Ashton Kutcher gives a really good performance. He really committed to it, too; he even studied chaos theory itself, as well as psychology and mental disorders. It shows that he did his homework for this (no pun intended).

Everyone else is very good, too. Amy Smart provides the perfect counterbalance to Ashton Kutcher, and it feels like they do have genuine chemistry with each other. The close relationship between Kayleigh and Evan feels very believable because of it. It feels that much more tragic when you realize that while everyone else, such as Tommy and Lenny and even Evan’s mom Andrea, played by Melora Walters*, is certainly vulnerable because of what Evan has been doing, it’s an even bigger case between the two of them since they’ve been in love for so long. It also brings a sense of urgency for Evan to want to make everything right.

Although he’s not in it as much, William Lee Scott is still good as Tommy. He’s the character you hate for most of the movie, but at one point it pulls a 180 and you end up liking him, which is genuinely surprising for both the viewer and Evan in one line of dialogue there.

There’s also a small, but significant role in some of the events here, and that is Kayleigh and Tommy’s dad George, played by Eric Stoltz (Anaconda). It’s the same case with him: He’s good for the time he’s in it, even though you despise his character. He’s more despicable than Tommy because he’s responsible for the rough life that his children had, and basically how Tommy is in most of the movie. In fact, the two of them are each responsible for one of the dark, depressing, and pretty messed up moments mentioned earlier. I’ll leave it at that because seeing them is shocking enough as it is. Why I mention him here even with how his character is, aside from his performance, is that there’s a reason for it, which you come to realize close to the third act.

The best character in the movie is Lenny, because you really feel sorry for him the most, as he usually appears the most affected by Evan’s actions, and Elden Henson does a great job showing that in his performance. His experience here in playing the friend carrying the burden of having to deal with the main character’s actions is something that would carry over into a later role, and his best one by far: that of Matt Murdock’s best friend Foggy Nelson on Marvel’s Daredevil. He shows here that he can play that type of character really well, and it’s just as nice to see that he was able to perfect that later on.

The direction and script come from Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber, who previously wrote Final Destination 2. This has a similarly somewhat saturated look to it, and if that is any indication, they don’t hold back in terms of creating shocking moments. They had guts there with the kills (again, no pun intended), but here, they go even deeper, so why some scenes are as messed up as they are is understandable given that context. That applies to some of the dialogue as well.

The movie is also well-shot and paced in regards to both Cuts. The visuals are surprisingly really good for this type of movie, like the effects used for whenever Evan is reading his journals and whenever the timeline is altered and his memories along with them.

What Didn’t Work: Some moments may be a little too much for certain viewers (especially with the ending, regardless of which Cut you watch), although unlike other movies where it may be nothing but shock value, it actually makes sense. There are also plot holes here and there in the Theatrical Cut, but they are pretty much resolved in the Director’s Cut. However, the Director’s Cut becomes even more messed up with some of the events, particularly when you get to the ending. The dialogue is like that on occasion as well.

Overall: The Butterfly Effect is one of those movies where it’s so messed up to where you can’t take your eyes (and ultimately your mind) off of it. It’s not as deeply complex as, say, Inception or The Matrix, or even more recent sci-fi like Ex Machina or Annihilation, but one thing it does have in common with movies such as those is that it’s the kind of sci-fi that messes with your mind, mainly when it comes to the premise itself and how it’s presented on screen.

The thing that distinguishes it from those in terms of how exactly it plays with your mind is not necessarily through playing mind games or mind tricks. It’s much deeper, and perhaps more personal, than that, hence why I said I wish the best of luck to those hoping to be the same person when you finish it as you were when you started. Chances are you won’t be. Some of the moments that are tough to watch in particular will more than likely make you look back on the parts of your life that you felt could have been better and reflect on them because of how tough they are to watch**; you may end up thinking you probably didn’t have it as badly as the characters themselves do, or maybe even the other way around.

If it’s those moments that have made people end up not liking this movie (and there are many who don’t), then I completely understand. For me, though, I found more to like about this one than not, and for those who are interested, I’d say check it out, but keep the warning in the beginning of the review in mind if you do.

Also, if you are interested in checking it out, and you don’t already have a copy of it, it’s not hard to find elsewhere at the time of doing this review… and I don’t mean on TV, I’ll put it that way.

*She does still show up in a lot of movies, but when it comes to more mainstream ones, that’s more rare. The most recent example is something I’ll hint at until I get to the review for it: It’s based on a character who was previously played by an actor who co-starred on That 70’s Show with Ashton Kutcher.

**I would know.

2019 Review Schedule

Image courtesy of hipwallpaper.com

The preceding image is for use until I have a proper logo for non-review posts on the site, upon which it will be adjusted to that.

Hello, everyone. We are now in 2019, which means new movies and a new schedule for what the year has to offer.

Before I get started on what I have planned for 2019, there is something that needs to be addressed first: I am aware that I did not get to do a lot of the reviews I had on the schedule for 2018, and I do sincerely apologize for that. Most of them were franchises that received new installments, and while I do stand by my franchise rules*, at the same time, I realized that what’s more important is not that I’m able to cover them, but rather that I’m able to watch the movies themselves in decent enough time to ensure I can cover them as well as the new installments. I was able to do at least that, so I know I’m able to cover them.

As for what’s on the schedule…

First we have Glass about to come out, so the first new series of reviews will focus on M. Night Shyamalan’s superhero trilogy, which started with Unbreakable and continued with Split, and then I can cover Glass once I’ve seen it.

Then I’ll do the first of a few catch-up reviews I didn’t get to do when they first came out, but it’s only the two most recent movies in this franchise, so a “Mini-Marvel-thon,” if you will. That’s right, everyone: The Marvel Cinematic Universe has a new movie early on in the year (keyword on this one: Marvel). In other words, these reviews will be leading up to Captain Marvel, and those are Avengers: Infinity War and Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Then there’s Marvel’s rival, DC, with the DC Extended Universe (as they call it). Around the same time, they have a new movie as well, focusing on a hero who also went by Captain Marvel at one point, and that is Shazam!. Leading up to that, I’ll be covering what came before: Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Justice League, and Aquaman, the latter of which I at least did the marathon in time for.

The next franchise planned for this year is likely a conclusion to a trilogy of some of the best action movies the decade has had to offer: John Wick.

Following that is probably one of the only other successful Cinematic Universes out there aside from Marvel: The MonsterVerse. I’ll be covering Godzilla and Kong: Skull Island for Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

Then there’s another carryover from last year: The X-Men franchise for Dark Phoenix and The New Mutants. Then there’s Men in Black, followed by Spider-Man (possibly), the Fast and the Furious franchise, Terminator, Star Wars (another carryover from last year), and Rambo, among others.

Anniversary posts that can be expected for this year are The Matrix (20th Anniversary of the original, but I’ll cover all of them since technically it’s also the 20th Anniversary of the franchise), the 20th Anniversaries of Tarzan, a childhood favorite of mine, and the best shark movie other than Jaws and The Shallows: Deep Blue Sea. 2019 also marks the 30th Anniversary of Tim Burton’s Batman and the 80th Anniversary of the character himself, so every live-action Batman movie from then until The Dark Knight Trilogy will be covered there.

Then there’s the 40th Anniversary** of Alien, so I’ll be covering at least that and Aliens, but I might as well throw in Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection, and possibly the crossovers, since the original AVP celebrates its 15th Anniversary this year as well.

I’ll likely also be doing the 10th Anniversary of J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek, so I’m including those movies as well, but as a strong possibility for now.

There is also a very special one, but not for the reasons you may think. All I’ll say for now is this: It’s coming very soon, so stay tuned for that.

There are tons of other possibilities for those, so I’ll see what I can do.

One more thing I’m considering doing for this year: A new editorial called Fixin’ Flix, where I take a franchise and evaluate where it has gone wrong in the past before giving some ideas on how to improve it from there. Regardless of when I decide to introduce it, I know of the perfect one to start with.

The other reviews I didn’t get to do last year I’m sure I’ll be able to fit in there in some capacity.

Those are the main ones I have planned for this year, along with plenty of others, so I’ll see you soon with either the first new series, that special Anniversary post, or something else.

With that being said, I look forward to bringing new reviews, and Happy New Year, everyone!

*For those who are unfamiliar, here are my rules when it comes to covering franchises:

1. If a new installment is coming out, I feel it’s only fair to have covered the previous ones first so those eager to hear what I have to say about the new one will already know my thoughts on them.

2. If the new movie in question happens to be a prequel or a reboot, then that’s an exception, and I will go ahead and cover that.

3. If it’s set in a new continuity, like for example, it’s a direct sequel to the original that ignores everything else in between (like most recently with Halloween), then that is also okay because I don’t have to deal with any potential inconsistencies or plot holes.

4. If the franchise itself has an Anniversary, then I cover at least the first movie regardless, like I did with Predator, and most recently Die Hard and Blade.

**There is another 40th Anniversary, which would be for Mad Max, but that’s a possibility at the moment.

Thoughts on Blade (1998)

Image courtesy of moviemania.io

Hello, everyone. I realize this may be very last-minute, but I wanted to get both this and the Die Hard review out before the end of the year so they would still count as Anniversary posts.

With that out of the way, on to the review.

Like how Die Hard celebrated its 30th Anniversary this year, this one celebrated its 20th Anniversary. This is also a particularly special movie: It showed that superhero movies could actually be serious and still work, specifically ones centered around Marvel characters. It did what franchises like the Marvel Cinematic Universe would occasionally do (like with Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man) and make lesser-known characters popular. It was the first Marvel movie to feature an African-American protagonist*. Basically, without this movie, you wouldn’t have X-Men, Spider-Man, and you especially wouldn’t have the MCU (meaning we wouldn’t have gotten Black Panther). It is this movie that paved the way for the superhero genre as we know it today.

20 years ago, superhero movie history was made… with Blade.

The story begins in 1967, where a pregnant woman named Vanessa Brooks is in childbirth when she is attacked by a vampire and later dies, although her baby, Eric, survives the ordeal.

It then picks up 30 years later, and Eric now goes by the name Blade, hunting the creatures that killed his mother, despite being half-vampire himself. Even with the thirst for blood, he’s well-known in the vampire community as “The Daywalker,” because he ended up gaining all of their strengths, but none of their weaknesses. He’s been using that to his advantage ever since, incorporating their weaknesses into weapons built by his friend Abraham Whistler.

When a group of younger vampires led by Deacon Frost intend to rule the world by summoning the vampire blood god known as La Magra, Blade will need more than just his weapons.

What Worked: The performances are (for the most part) really good. With this movie, Wesley Snipes becomes the first of many perfect castings for Marvel characters. He makes the character of Blade his own, bringing a sense of charisma to him. He also shows a sense of vulnerability at points, especially in two scenes in the second half of the movie, one of which is a twist. Without spoiling it, it gives you a definite reason to root for him, and you will be after that.

Kris Kristofferson is great as Whistler, and he and Wesley Snipes work off of each other really well. They have some genuine chemistry, and they feel like they’re old friends who have been on a mission for a long time. Whistler also gets a few great moments.

There is another character named Dr. Karen Jenson, played by N’Bushe Wright. She is a hematologist who gets caught in the crossfire (so to speak) following the opening action scene and taken in by Blade. Like I mentioned in the Die Hard review, this movie also has a smart female character. The main difference here is that she is actually able to help the heroes out because of her line of work: She’s a doctor who specializes in studying blood. She also gives a solid performance, and she even gets in on the action at one point, and it is pretty satisfying.

Now for the villain in this movie: Deacon Frost, played by Stephen Dorff. I mentioned that he leads a group of younger vampires, but for those wondering, this movie was still at a time when vampire movies were awesome because vampires could actually be taken seriously, so they still had some dignity. Therefore, no, Frost is not even remotely like the one that set vampires back to the Stone Age for five years. His group of vampires make for really good villains, and Frost himself is a great main antagonist. I did also like Donal Logue’s character Quinn, who’s basically Frost’s right-hand man (no pun intended, for those who have seen the movie). He’s the crazy one, but he’s the “fun and hyper” kind of crazy, and he does get a few funny lines.

There’s some interesting world-building here. As mentioned earlier, Blade uses weapons that incorporate vampire weaknesses, but the thing is that doesn’t apply to all of them. For example, this movie establishes that crosses and holy water are not effective, but wooden stakes, silver and sunlight are. He even uses garlic for good measure. He also states that they can only be killed if you hit the head or the heart.

In regards to the vampires themselves, they have slaves called “Familiars,” which are humans who side with them and in return gain wealth, protection, and the potential to be turned should they prove their worth. A small tattoo on their body of a vampire symbol (usually on their neck or wrist) is an indication to humans and a warning to rival vampires. However, they prefer to expand their influence more carefully in order to blend into society, a belief that ends up conflicting with those of Frost and his group.

The action is great**. It opens with a scene set in a vampire rave, and the moment Blade shows up, you know something’s about to go down. It’s one of the best entrances in superhero movies, and for good reason: He doesn’t just make an entrance, he makes an impact. The action just gets crazier from there, especially in the final fight between Blade and Frost.

The vast majority of the effects still hold up 20 years later. A lot of them are very practical, and they still look really good. There’s some CGI, but it’s mostly in the third act, which I will get to in a moment.

There’s a lot of memorable moments and quotable lines. Aside from the action scenes, some of the highlights come with the kills in this movie. There are also some scares on occasion, because while this movie may be centered around a Marvel superhero, it’s centered around one of their more supernatural-themed ones. For a movie like this, though, it does make sense for the darkness of the tone.

The soundtrack is also really good, especially the track in the opening. The songs in the credits are pretty solid, too. However, it’s just the beginning in terms of this series having awesome music. The best is yet to come.

What Didn’t Work: There are some predictable moments here and there. For those who have seen a lot of superhero movies and/or action movies in general, chances are you’ve seen those types of moments before.

Although I did say the performances are really good, the reason why I say for the most part is because there is one that stands out… and not in a good way. The character of Mercury, Deacon Frost’s lover, is played by Spanish model-turned-actress Arly Jover in her American debut. This is one of those times where it’s their first movie, but it shows in their acting.

The biggest issue here, though, is some of the effects you can tell are dated. Those are great for the time, but watching them now, they do not hold up at all. However, those are mainly in the third act.

Overall: Blade is significant for the superhero genre. It was the first time Marvel had a successful movie, and ironically, it was the one based on a lesser-known character that actually worked. It does the character of Blade justice, and it shows both that writer David S. Goyer (who would go on to write The Dark Knight Trilogy) knows the character and that Wesley Snipes himself embodies him. If it weren’t for this movie, and had it failed, we wouldn’t have had so many more iconic characters, both good and evil, brought to life. We wouldn’t have had the big superhero movie boom that we have today. This laid the groundwork for it, and it didn’t take long for Marvel to improve upon it, let alone for DC and other comic book companies to take notice. You can also thank this movie for showing that R-rated superhero movies can work, because that superhero movie boom also led to us getting Deadpool and especially Logan. In the grand scheme of things, though, Blade I think is actually a pretty underrated superhero movie.

Aside from being an essential superhero movie to watch for those who want to get into them (and to an extent, a good choice to show that there was a time when vampire movies could actually be good), Blade is a fun action movie, too. For those who aren’t fans of them, yes, there are some corny lines and cartoonish sound effects in here, but those didn’t just make 80s and 90s action movies so much fun to watch… they defined them.

Now, as a movie in and of itself, Blade is not perfect. It has effects that don’t completely hold up well, not the best acting or dialogue at times, etc. However, it seems like they were aware of that, and just wanted to make an entertaining movie for fans and audiences alike, and on that level, it works. It has an interesting world and rules established within it, a lead protagonist that’s perfectly cast and that you can get behind, a good choice of antagonist to go up against him, a strong female character, great action, very good music, and a story that works in establishing Blade himself as a character. On top of that, it’s paced really well: It’s 2 hours, but it goes by pretty quickly.

While not one of my absolute favorites, Blade is still something I suggest that anyone starting to get into superheroes and want to start getting into the movies should have among the first ones to watch.

For those accustomed to hearing whether these movies have them or not, this is one of the few Marvel movies to not have a Stan Lee cameo. He did have one, but it was cut. There is also no mid-credits scene nor post-credits scene, because it wasn’t really a thing yet to have either or both of them.

R.I.P. Stan Lee

(1922-2018)

Everyone, I hope you enjoyed these reviews, and plenty more (mostly catch-ups I didn’t get to do as planned) are near.

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas, and I’ll see you shortly next year!

*Prior to this, when superhero movies hadn’t quite been perfected yet, we got not one, but two African-American superhero movies in the same year, neither of which focused on Marvel characters: Steel, starring Shaquille O’Neal (no, I am not making that up; it’s basically DC trying to do their version of Iron Man) and Spawn, the latter of which is getting a reboot. It’s also the year that brought us Batman & Robin, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves… for now.

**Speaking of action, here’s an interesting fact for you: One of the members of the stunt crew is David Leitch, who would go on to collaborate with Keanu Reeves on The Matrix and John Wick, and most recently directed Atomic Blonde and Deadpool 2.

Thoughts on Die Hard (1988)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Hello, everyone. I’m back with another holiday themed movie review. It’s for the most wonderful time of the year: Christmas. This year also marks the 30th Anniversary of an action classic, and one of, if not the definitive Christmas movie. It comes from John McTiernan, the director of another iconic 80s action movie, Predator (which celebrated its 30th Anniversary last year, and I in turn honored it with my review).

As I alluded to in my review of that movie, we go from one action classic to another… with Die Hard.

On Christmas Eve, New York police detective John McClane has come to see his estranged wife Holly in Los Angeles in the hopes of reconnecting with her during the Christmas party at the Nakatomi Plaza where she works. However, the celebration is cut short when a group of German terrorists storm the building and take everyone in the room hostage… except for one: John himself. The terrorists want $640 million from the vault, and they will do whatever they can to get it. John has only his wits to rely on if he has a chance of stopping them and freeing the hostages.

What Worked: The premise is timeless, and has inspired countless knockoffs for a reason, including two this year; some of them are still fun to watch, while others are just flat-out great movies in their own right. I mean, this decade has two prime examples, both of which also came out in the same year: The Raid and Dredd.

The cast is fantastic, particularly Bruce Willis as John McClane and Alan Rickman (in his first movie) as Hans Gruber. Their performances alone make this movie, because they bring an iconic hero and an equally iconic villain to life. John McClane is more than just a cop and a family man; he’s a good person who just wants to help, but ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, something he’d end up having a knack for. As for Hans Gruber, he has a clear motivation and will not let anything, or anyone, get in his way.

The supporting cast are really good as well, with Bonnie Bedelia as John’s wife Holly, and Reginald VelJohnson as Sgt. Al Powell, an LAPD officer sent to investigate the situation. The relationship between John and Holly feels genuine, and on top of that, Bonnie Bedelia doesn’t portray Holly as a damsel-in-distress, but as a smart character. She knows the type of person her husband is, and rather than intervene, she lets him do his thing while she stays put.

As for Powell, he’s the perfect counterpart to John McClane. He, too, is a cop who wants to help. He doesn’t know what the situation is at first because he’s on the outside, so he uses the necessary police procedures. John, being on the inside and knowing the terrorists’ plan, has to improvise on the spot if he has a chance of beating them. Despite that, Powell does gradually get to know who John is and that they’re on the same side, and he ends up having proven a worthy ally by the end of the movie. They also have some good banter with each other.

The movie is full of tension, and you’re constantly wondering how John is going to be able to outsmart Hans and his gang. Michael Kamen’s score also adds to the tension at points, and it’s actually even more effective because of it.

You’re also constantly on the edge of your seat, because the action is so relentless here. It shows why John McTiernan became a go-to action director during that time, especially after this. If Predator wasn’t evidence enough of that, this certainly is.

Much like in Predator, this also has some quotable lines aside from John McClane’s signature catchphrase. There’s some humor as well, which provides a nice little break in the tension before going right back into it. In addition to the aforementioned banter between McClane and Powell, the humor mostly comes from the limo driver Argyle, who is the best character in the movie.

What Didn’t Work: There’s one minor character named Harry Ellis (one of Holly’s co-workers) who’s not only cocky and sleazy, but he makes some of the stupidest decisions to where it’s not long before you want him out of the movie. What makes it worse is that he’s in the movie for a good portion of it.

However, everything else is so good that by the time it’s over, you barely remember he was in it.

Overall: Die Hard is an action classic on so many levels. It defines what make action movies in general so enjoyable to watch: memorable characters, quotable lines (including one of the most iconic catchphrases in cinematic history), constantly building tension, and yes, great sequences filled with gunfire, explosions (before they became mostly associated with Michael Bay), property damage, and a rising body count galore. Having a great story and the right amount of humor to balance it out also helps. When you have those as well, you know you’re in for something special, a gift that keeps on giving, if you will.

So yes, contrary to what Bruce Willis himself may tell you, Die Hard is, in fact, a Christmas movie. If it’s set around Christmas and has Christmas references throughout the movie, it counts. There’s plenty of other evidence aside from that, including people making it a holiday tradition by having it among the movies they watch for Christmas.

Thoughts on Halloween (2018)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

Hello, everyone. This is the second of two special holiday-themed reviews, so if you haven’t read the first, go ahead and do so, and then come back. Before I get started here, I’ll need to clear a few things up surrounding the subject of this review.

Even though it has the same title as the previous one, it is not a remake, but a sequel. Those who are at least familiar with the Halloween franchise may be wondering why I am jumping right to covering this movie when there are so many others in between, and therefore think I am breaking my franchise rule*. That’s because this new movie is a direct sequel to the original that ignores everything else, meaning the timeline of events is easier to follow and any inconsistencies or plot holes from those previous movies are now gone. In fact, the most you’ll get here regarding any of those are references. Other than that, story-wise, it’s just the first one and this one.

Now, on to the review.

Upon barely surviving her first encounter with Michael Myers, Laurie Strode believed he was dead, only to discover that Michael’s body had disappeared. His psychiatrist, Dr. Loomis, would then reveal to her that she essentially was dealing with The Boogeyman the whole time, despite not having been convinced otherwise prior.

It has now been 40 years since the ordeal. Dr. Loomis has since passed away, but Michael has been locked back up. Meanwhile, Laurie, knowing Michael’s return is inevitable, has been preparing for him during that time. However, that first encounter took a huge psychological toll on her to where it’s been affecting her family. When history starts to repeat itself, Laurie now has her chance to finish Michael once and for all.

What Worked: First of all, the performances are excellent. Jamie Lee Curtis really sells how Laurie’s trauma has affected her, as well as her dedication to conquering the source of that trauma. She is fantastic in this movie. For those who remember from the previous review, I compared her to Linda Hamilton’s original portrayal of Sarah Connor in The Terminator, and hinted at another parallel, which is in this movie. Like Sarah in between the first two movies of that franchise, Laurie Strode is basically the same way here. She also goes from being a reluctant protagonist who doesn’t realize that what they’re up against isn’t human into a strong female character with a survival instinct preparing for the event that the threat comes back.

In addition to Jamie Lee Curtis, they also brought back Nick Castle to portray Michael Myers again, which I felt was another nice touch in keeping with continuity (it’s more than just him, though; I’ll get to that in a moment).

There is another one, but it’s more of a cameo. It’s also not in the way you would usually expect when I mention cameos. I’ll say where to look for it: After Laurie is reintroduced here, a couple scenes later, listen closely. They also do something similar in the movie to reference Loomis in a way that pays tribute to both him and Donald Pleasence, the actor who played him.

As for the new characters, there’s Judy Greer as Laurie’s daughter Karen, who has had a rough relationship with her, but tried her best to move on from it. Although she has played these types of characters in the past (Ant-Man, Jurassic World), the "strained relationship” aspect was not as significant. Then you get to this movie, where it goes much deeper, being part of both the main narrative arc and the characters’ own personal ones. Because of its importance here, you not only see and understand how well their family dynamic works, but there are times where you may actually feel it.

I also really liked Allyson, Karen’s daughter, played by newcomer Andi Matichak. Whereas Karen thinks Laurie is just paranoid, Allyson is the kind of family member that is a bit more compassionate. She recognizes that her grandmother has been through a lot, but focuses on her own problems more. All three of them have great chemistry with each other, and you do feel like they’re a genuine family (maybe slightly dysfunctional at points, but a family). What’s even more impressive with her is that (as the original was for Jamie Lee Curtis) this is her first movie, and she’s still great.

I enjoyed the friend characters more this time around, too. While Laurie’s friends Annie and Lynda were good performance-wise, character-wise, they were okay, but not entirely likable. Here, Allyson’s friends are more likable because they feel more charismatic, and some of them are actually funny.

The other new addition worth mentioning is Will Patton as Frank Hawkins, who, as it turns out, is the deputy who recaptured Michael following the events of the original. He isn’t in it that much, but he is good for the time he is in it. He does have several interesting scenes, including some great banter with Laurie.

Now to get back to Michael himself. The reason why he’s kind of a gray area here is while they did bring back Nick Castle, there are only a few scenes where it actually is him under the mask again. For the most part, though, it’s an actor and stuntman by the name of James Jude Courtney. However, he manages to emulate the way Nick Castle’s original Michael would move to where it still feels like it’s him.

They also brought a particular crew member back: John Carpenter himself. Now, he didn’t write nor direct this one, but he did come back to do the score for it. Of course, it has been updated somewhat, but it is more or less the score everyone knows and loves, including the theme.

As for the director and the writer, it’s a case of "the last people you’d expect to make this type of movie work somehow actually did": The director is David Gordon Green, and he co-wrote it with Danny McBride (whose previous association with horror was Alien: Covenant, which was among the first reviews I ever did). The surprising part is that they’re doing a horror movie, and a new installment in a franchise, no less. However, they’re mostly known for comedies, the best known of which is probably Pineapple Express. How did it turn out? Shockingly, they knocked it out of the park. They happen to be huge fans of the original, and the amount of effort put forth into getting it right shows in the movie. On top of that, they do have humor, but it's just the right amount needed if you’re going to use it in a horror movie that isn’t also comedic.

What Didn’t Work: I would have liked to have seen a bit more of Will Patton’s character Hawkins. To me, he ended up being an interesting character with a very clever connection to the ending of the original. My main issue, though, is with the character who’s replacing Loomis. I liked the character and the performance, and I also liked where they were going with him… at first. My issue with him is where his part in the story ended up going. He’s supposed to be a replacement for Loomis, and he does have an obsession with Michael to about the same degree that he did. Without giving too much away, he ends up being the complete opposite, mainly by doing things that Loomis would never do (there is something else, but it’d likely be a spoiler).

Overall: This Halloween isn’t just a solid sequel in general, it’s one that treats the original with the utmost respect while bringing something new to the table. It also reflects how times have changed since then in regards to how violent you could get with a horror movie. For those who wanted the kills in the original to be more bloody and gory, this more than makes up for that. The best way I can put it is this: you’re going to see some crazy stuff go down in this movie, especially with one kill near the end. It is balanced out by having some welcomed humor, including one particular moment in the middle.

Even looking at it on its own, it’s still entertaining. Those who haven’t seen the original, but are interested in this one, it’s understandable if you’re wanting to have this be your first time seeing a Halloween movie. You’ll just be wanting to have a fun time, and you’ll definitely get it with this. In fact, you might have so much fun, you’ll want to watch the original as well.

I would say see the original first, and then as soon as you can afterwards, see this one. It helps even more if you go at night (which is what I usually do for horror movies), and since it’s been out for a couple weeks, although you may not get as packed an audience now, just hope it’s close enough to that, and that you get an audience who knows what they’re in for.

One thing worth mentioning: There is something at the very end of the credits (but like with cameos, not what you usually expect when I bring this up). All I’ll say is this: keep a significant moment in mind when it gets to what I am alluding to.

*For those who are new here, one of my rules for reviewing new releases is this: if it’s part of an established franchise, having already covered the previous installments is the best way for me to review the latest one properly. The original exceptions were for prequels or reboots that have franchises of their own, but now, I can add “direct sequels to the original that negate everything that came in between.”

This is probably a big reason for my absence these past few months: so many franchises receiving new installments this year that I may have been able to marathon them, but not immediately get to covering those newer movies, although it’s more important that I was able to ensure that I could.

Thoughts on Halloween (1978)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Hello, everyone. Guess who’s back… I may not have been able to do a holiday-themed review for Independence Day with Independence Day, but since the chance will come again, I figured to make up for that (and since it’d been a long time without any reviews), I would come back with not one, but two holiday-themed reviews. With said holiday upon us, I figured what better time to come back than with these?

So, without further ado, here’s the first of the two… the slasher classic known as Halloween.

On Halloween night in 1963, in the town of Haddonfield, Illinois, a six-year-old Michael Myers, wearing a clown costume, picks up a kitchen knife and stabs his older sister Judith to death, after which he is locked up in Smith’s Grove Sanitarium.

Fifteen years pass, but on October 30, 1978, Dr. Sam Loomis, the psychiatrist assigned to Michael, has come with Nurse Marion Chambers to take him to court. However, it turns out that Michael escaped as he proceeds to then take their car and head back home to Haddonfield, with Loomis in pursuit. Loomis tries to warn the police about Michael’s arrival and that they have to be prepared for him.

The following day, Halloween has arrived once again… and so has Michael. His target is Laurie Strode, who he spotted outside his old home. She sees that he’s stalking her, although her friends Lynda and Annie don’t believe her. When Loomis arrives, he realizes that Michael is just getting started, and even with the help of Sheriff Leigh Brackett, he can only hope he’s not too late to stop him.

What Worked: The performances are really good, with the standouts being Nick Castle as Michael Myers (or “The Shape,” as listed in the credits), Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis, and of course Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode. Nick Castle really leaves an impact with how menacingly he portrays Michael Myers. You know he could be anywhere, but you don’t know when he’ll show up. With Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis, their performances make their characters just as iconic.

Loomis’s determination to stopping Michael really comes across in Donald Pleasence’s performance to where it not only brings a sense of urgency to his character and therefore the movie, but also to where it leads to one of the highlights of the movie. There’s a pivotal scene when he has to explain to Sheriff Brackett that what they’re dealing with is the embodiment of pure evil that has a constant desire to kill, and, despite having been locked up for fifteen years, can never truly be contained.

Then there’s Jamie Lee Curtis, who gives an equally great performance as Laurie Strode in what was actually her first movie, which makes it even more impressive. It’s her first movie, and she still does a really good job. In a way, it’s kind of like how Linda Hamilton portrayed Sarah Connor in the original Terminator: the reluctant protagonist who doesn’t realize that what they’re up against isn’t human*.

Charles Cyphers, who plays Sheriff Leigh Brackett, is also really good here, as he does come to have a very significant part by the end of the movie. He also proves to be a good foil for Loomis, where Loomis is really the only one who knows what Michael’s capable of, and Brackett is the one who takes his word for it and hopes he’s right, even in deciding to help.

The supporting cast (like P.J. Soles as Lynda, Nancy Kyes (or “Nancy Loomis,” as listed in the credits) as Annie, and Nancy Stephens as Nurse Marion Chambers), while they aren’t in it that much, still give good performances, and some of those characters do have more significance within the story than others. For example, there are certain scenes with Lynda and Annie that would become a common trope in horror movies, even going so far as being parodied in Scream. Not only that, but there’s a scene towards the end with another character that would ultimately become a common trope as well.

However, it’s more than just the performances here that stand out. Everything that went into making them work stands out just as much. One such example is through the multiple contributions from John Carpenter. In addition to directing the movie, he co-wrote the script and composed the score. His direction definitely shows that he had a clear vision for how he wanted to bring this story to life.

That approach is also evident within the script. Since both go hand-in-hand, the result is a movie with an unsettling atmosphere, unpredictability of when the villain will appear from being hidden in the shadows (which also shows with its utilization of lighting and a distinct visual style), and a sense of ambiguity with Michael’s motives and his backstory. It’s all accompanied through excellent cinematography by Dean Cundey, who went on to do it for Jurassic Park.

As for John Carpenter’s score, it may sound simple, particularly with the theme, but it is effective when used in the movie, often whenever Michael shows up, which leads to yet another trope: the killer having their own theme. Its use in his appearances works since it’s not used for shock value from cheap jump scares such as loud noises or cats jumping out, but rather to make his sudden appearance a jump scare. Aside from not really having any jump scares, there’s actually very little blood and gore here. This proves that not all horror movies need to rely on blood, gore or jump scares to get a reaction from an audience, and that sometimes, it’s better to build up the tension and suspense and then surprise them because it’s that style that leaves much more of an impact.

There aren’t really any legitimate issues here, because for every detail that could be considered a problem, there’s actually a purpose to each of them. While it is slow at first, when it does get going, it doesn’t let up (it’s really fast-paced from that point on, and it goes by quick). There are some questionable decisions, but they either are for the purpose of building up to something later on or lead to what would become common horror movie tropes. While the score may sound simple, it still leaves an impact when heard in the movie.

Overall: While everything within Halloween would become iconic in its own right, it’s the impact the movie itself had on the horror genre as a whole that really gave Halloween its legacy. It was a huge influence for what made slasher movies so popular in the 80s, including the clichés that they would use, like a theme that would prove as iconic as the villain it’s associated with. Those movies would also gain their popularity by using Halloween as a template for how to make an effective horror movie, and just followed that.

If it weren’t for Halloween’s success, we wouldn’t have gotten equally popular horror movies (let alone franchises) like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. In other words, without Michael Myers, we wouldn’t have Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. We also wouldn’t have gotten Scream to spoof them because it wouldn’t have had the material to work with. Even if you’re not much of a horror fan, but you’re aware of the tropes, you should still experience it for yourself at least once. You’ll discover a lot of them originated here while you’re watching it, perhaps without realizing it, which is just one of many reasons why Halloween is the classic it is.

*There’s another parallel, but that’s a different story… for now.

Schedule Update

Image courtesy of hipwallpaper.com

The preceding image is for use until I have a proper logo for non-review posts on the site, upon which it will be adjusted to that.

Hello, everyone. I know it’s been a long time since the last review, and that I haven’t put up a new one in four months. I recognize that I had a pretty big schedule planned early on in the year, and it does seem unlikely for me to stick to it now, but I do think it could still be done, as I am currently working on the notes for each of them, which will allow me to do the reviews themselves more quickly and maybe work on several at once.

With that in mind, the planned reviews are still coming, but since we have a particular holiday about to arrive, there are two movies surrounding it that I think would be a perfect way for me to make a comeback. I may not have been able to do it this year for Independence Day, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still work on it, I just need to wait a little bit longer for the opportunity to present itself to release it. Hopefully, these two can make up for it, since they do have the same plan as that one: release the review around or on a particular holiday, and then get back to the ones already in progress.

Speaking of the ones already in progress, I will be sticking to the overall plan. In fact, after some consideration, the planned schedule will actually be adjusted. For example, I had initially intended to do reviews for the Transformers franchise, but upon realizing the next installment, Bumblebee, is a prequel, that meant I didn’t need to have covered the rest prior, so I could just review that.

I had also mentioned the Harry Potter franchise was a possibility because a new Fantastic Beasts movie is coming out, but the same thing applies for that. All I actually need to do is cover the first Fantastic Beasts and then I can cover the new one.

Another possibility I had mentioned was the remaining Predator movies (which likely included the crossovers*). However, while I do intend to cover the crossovers at some point, I have decided to hold off on those for now, but the Predator reviews are coming.

For Anniversary posts, at least the first installments of Die Hard and Blade will be covered.

One that I may not get to this year, despite it being part of the plan, is Star Wars (since Solo came out this year). If it turns out I am not able to do it this year, those movies (including Solo) will be covered next year for Episode IX. I am also considering bumping the X-Men reviews to next year as well for similar reasons, since there are two new X-Men movies, both of which will have been released around this time next year.

I know it’s a lot to take in, but considering how long it’s been, there was a lot I had to address. Now that I have done so, expect the two surprise reviews to arrive very soon. As for what they are, you’ll just have to wait and see.

*Those crossovers being the AVP movies, which involve the Predator and the Alien going from their respective franchises and squaring off against each other. Speaking of Alien, I do have some plans involving that, but that is for another update.

Thoughts on Tomb Raider (2018)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Next up in the series of catch-up reviews is Tomb Raider, one of two video game adaptations to hit theaters in 2018. This one is particularly based on the 2013 game that rebooted the series, also called Tomb Raider. Not only that, it serves as a reboot of the film franchise that came before, which starred Angelina Jolie as series protagonist Lara Croft*.

For those mostly unfamiliar aside from the name and lead character, Lara Croft (minus gender and age differences, of course) is basically the British Indiana Jones.

The game was awesome, but is the movie at least decent? You'll find out soon enough.

The story follows a younger Lara Croft trying to make ends meet since her father, Lord Richard Croft, disappeared seven years prior. Determined to find the truth, she learns that he had been researching the Japanese island of Yamatai, the final resting place of its Queen: the sorceress Himiko. An organization known as Trinity plans to use his work to locate the tomb and unleash its power upon the world. This leads to an adventure where Lara might not only find the answers she seeks, but also her true calling.

What Worked: The majority of the cast is really good. Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina) proves to be an excellent choice for Lara. She looks the part, commits to it, and conveys the character's dedication very well. Dominic West (300, Punisher: War Zone) as Lord Richard is another good choice. He shows that sense of urgency and genuine sorrow a parent may feel when having to make the hard decision to leave a loved one.

Then there's Daniel Wu (currently known for "Into the Badlands") as Lu Ren, the ship captain Lara hires. He becomes an interesting character because he has a purpose aside from her means of getting there. He can handle himself in a fight, which is shown particularly in the third act, and has some humorous moments.

Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead) also has a small, but enjoyable, part here. His scenes do have some significance, so it's not necessarily a cameo**.

Now for the technical aspects. This is the first studio project from Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, and for a first effort with such a high-profile film, he does a very solid job. He manages to capture the game's look and tone and make the action feel just as intense, because it does not let up; it's even suspenseful at times.

The action also has an authentic feel to it because Alicia Vikander actually did most of her own stunts. Therefore, you feel as if you're seeing Lara herself risking her life whenever danger comes her way. The movie goes along at a nice pace because of that, especially when the action starts.

There are some references to the game itself, its 2015 follow-up Rise of the Tomb Raider (of which a few aspects are present here as well), and even to the previous movies. However, it uses them either to add to the humor or when it may be necessary for the story.

The humor, for the most part, works and helps give the audience some breathing room in between the action sequences.

The score is really good, especially during the action and some of the more dramatic moments. I also enjoyed the song played in the credits.

What Didn't Work: Although this version does get a fair amount of things right, there are still some that could have been done better.

Some of the dialogue makes it seem like it's trying too much to be both an all-out action movie and self-aware with the clichés commonly found in them. Particular examples are one-liners, and the protagonist surviving so many situations where they otherwise would have died, even acknowledging it on one occasion.

There are several predictable moments, a few of which involve Mathias Vogel, the villain played by Walton Goggins. His performance is good, but he's not that memorable of a villain, let alone a character. The same goes for the rest of the supporting cast, including Derek Jacobi (Murder on the Orient Express): good, but not much of an impact.

The one thing that really did not work for me, though, is some of the sound. It's whenever Lara has to exert herself, is in pain, etc. It does not sound like Alicia Vikander at all, but more like it was dubbed. Every time it happened, it was so jarring that it took me out of the movie.

Overall: Compared to the majority of video game movies before it, Tomb Raider ends up being among the more faithful ones, and probably the best one so far. Both fans and general audiences might enjoy this version quite a bit. Regardless of which group you're in, you get a likable protagonist, entertaining action sequences, and some very intense moments. Even looking at this version just as a movie, it's still a lot of fun.

In summary, to answer the question in the intro, is this at least decent? Yes; in fact, it's actually pretty good, so this may be a sign that the genre of video game adaptations may be heading in the right direction. I also mentioned that this is one of two being released in 2018, so the question now is: can the same be said for the other one? It won't be too long before that one is answered.

For those interested in checking this out, there's one more thing I have to mention: there is a mid-credits scene.

*Those being 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2003's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life, respectively. I'll say this about them for now, because I actually did watch them prior: they have their fun moments even with how dumb and especially dated they are. Because of that, I can see them being in Guilty Pleasure territory.

**That part is not a spoiler, because he is shown at least once in the trailer.

Thoughts on Game Night (2018)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

Hello, everyone. I realize it's been at least a month and a half (coming up on two months) since I posted something, as well as since the last review, which was for Annihilation.

The reason why I'm behind is something I mentioned in the previous post, but for those who came in late, I'll mention it here as well, because it started the day after I saw the subject of this review. I had been having some medical issues for almost a month, and it got to where I ended up having surgery. Since coming home, I have needed time to recover from it.

Now, I think I'm in good enough condition to where I can get back to the reviews. As the first of several catch-up ones, this review will be covering Game Night.

The plot follows several couples who have a game night every weekend, among which are hosts Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams). However, on one such occasion, Max's more successful brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) arrives, and he decides to change things up: this time, the game centers around a murder-mystery, and each couple has to work as a team to solve it.

What Worked: As always, the first thing to talk about is the cast. They all have excellent chemistry with each other, especially Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. It's surprising how Rachel McAdams is able to figure out how to retort to Jason Bateman's comedic timing as quickly as she does. There were three standouts for me, and she was one of them. The other two were Lamorne Morris (primarily known for "New Girl") as Kevin, one of their friends, and the best character in the movie: Jesse Plemons as Gary, the neighbor. Although one could argue that Rachel McAdams steals the show here, he ultimately does. He's hilarious in this. Also, Kyle Chandler is really good, too, selling how Brooks may have been more successful than Max, but that doesn't mean he's smarter than him. He does make some very irrational choices, but that aspect of his character has a legitimate purpose and drives the plot along in a way that makes sense.

The plot is actually an interesting idea, even more so for a comedy. How it's executed works very well, because it goes so far as to have transitions (look out for this as you watch the movie) where the camera is panned out, and the setting's appearance is similar to that of a game board, and the people and cars are the pieces. I thought that was a nice touch, as well as very clever. They make the direction, which is already really good, stand out that much more.

The direction comes courtesy of John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, who, aside from previously directing Vacation, are primarily writers, having contributed to writing Spider-Man: Homecoming. Most notably, however, they wrote Horrible Bosses. This movie has that feel to it at points with the tone, because both are dark comedies; the concept you'd least expect to be really funny actually is.

Speaking of funny, the majority of the humor works here. The directors did not also write this, but as with the tone, it feels like they did. It also applies to the cast's comedic timing because it's similar to how Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day were able to play off each other so well in Horrible Bosses. The small amount of humor that didn't work is something that I will get to in a moment.

Now for the biggest positive for me before I do: the music. The score here is great, incorporating synth that makes it feel quite similar to 80s music, like the score for Thor: Ragnarok did. What made the music the biggest positive for me with that movie is overall the same case here: using a song from an iconic rock band at the beginning and at the end. The only differences are which band, and that this one uses two different songs. The one used in the beginning stood out to me because as soon as I heard it, the movie automatically started on a high note* by using one of my all-time favorites**, a song where you can use it for anything and it still works, and that is Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now." If nothing else, the music was my biggest positive because of that song alone.

What Didn't Work: There were a couple issues I had. The main one is that as much as I love making references, of which there are plenty here (especially movie references), I did feel like the amount they had could have been slightly dialed back. They were still funny, but there were times where it became a bit excessive.

Aside from that, the only real issue is that in the third act, it gets a little too absurd, but then by the end, it balances back out.

Overall: Game Night is a rare example of an R-rated comedy that's actually good, especially considering how the majority of recent ones have not even been sub-par. It's one that takes a similar approach to Horrible Bosses, because it feels as if genuine effort was put into it, like presenting an interesting new concept. It also helps that the cast have perfect comedic timing with each other. It's not groundbreaking or anything, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be more of a fun comedy that'll actually give you more than a few laughs, especially if you're into certain aspects of popular culture like I am. Because of how good it actually is, Game Night is one of the biggest surprises of 2018. It may not end up being the best comedy of the year (we'll just have to wait and see on that one), but it certainly is so far.

One more thing: there is a post-credits scene that ties back to something mentioned earlier in the movie. Since it's a comedy, expect it to be more of an amusing one.

*No pun intended.

**Also used in Shaun of the Dead and Hardcore Henry; while not quite as effectively incorporated as in those two movies, the fact that it was used here I still count as a positive.

Schedule Update

Image courtesy of hipwallpaper.com

The preceding image is for use until I have a proper logo for non-review posts on the site, upon which it will be adjusted to that.

Hello, everyone. I realize it's been almost a month since the last post, but the reason I feel like I can divulge now before I get to the update.

I stated in the previous post that the next few reviews would be delayed due to medical reasons. Specifically, I had surgery the following week, and have needed time to recover from it. For the most part, I think I'm in good enough condition to where I can get back to the reviews.

Now for the update.

The aforementioned next few reviews (or at least most of them) are still coming. The next one will still be for Game Night, and the ones for Tomb Raider and the two Pacific Rim movies can be expected as well. I'll see if I can still cover Red Sparrow. If not, I may postpone it for now.

Since coming home from the surgery, I was able to see A Quiet Place and Ready Player One, so those are also on the list. In addition to those, I will be seeing Rampage next week. Hopefully, I can get a few of these out before I've seen Avengers: Infinity War*.

After the Avengers review, I may do the Star Wars reviews now that I have a copy of The Last Jedi (either that or X-Men; either way, both will be covered soon, considering Solo and Deadpool 2 are about to come out).

I will do my best to get caught up as quickly as possible, so with that in mind, I will be back in the Game Night review.

*Rest assured, when I do get to that, there will be no spoilers. While I usually try to do a review with as few spoilers as possible, with that one, I will try to do it with no spoilers, considering how huge the movie is. It's going to be hard, but I will do my best. I just figured I'd mention that.

Blog Update

Image courtesy of hipwallpaper.com

The preceding image is for use until I have a proper logo for non-review posts on the site, upon which it will be adjusted to that.

Hello, everyone. I'm back with another update. This is an important one, and I wanted to provide it as soon as I could.

I realize that I have not been getting reviews out as often as before (putting the Ex Machina and Annihilation reviews out a couple weeks following the Black Panther one, for example), but there's a reason for that where otherwise they would have been out sooner.

Due to medical reasons, I will likely not be able to see, let alone review, any movies next week (at least not in regards to new releases). This means that unfortunately, I will not be able to see Ready Player One or A Quiet Place right away. At best, I will probably not be able to get back to watching new releases until Rampage comes out, and then hopefully get to those two.

That's not to say I won't be able to watch any movies period during that time; I will, just not in theaters.

Also, because of this, the reviews of Game Night, Red Sparrow, Tomb Raider, Pacific Rim and its sequel will be delayed. Until when, I don't know. I will try my best to at least do the notes for them, though, and get to them as soon as I can when I'm able to cover them.

In addition to that, I haven't had time to figure out how to approach the logo yet.

I apologize for having to delay newer reviews, but I won't have time to do them for a few days at minimum due to what's going on.

However, I do have some good news: I was able to get one more review out earlier today. The Annihilation review is up right now, so feel free to check that out.

I'll likely be back with either an update on when I can get back to newer movies, with the aforementioned reviews, or something else.

Whichever it ends up being, I'll see you there.

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments.

Thoughts on Annihilation (2018)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

In the previous review, I covered Ex Machina to prepare for Annihilation, the new film from its director, Alex Garland. Now it's time for me to review it.

The story follows Lena, a biologist and former soldier whose husband Kane (a soldier himself) suddenly reappears from inside The Shimmer, a zone where everything changes and those who go in usually never come out. Since Kane managed to make it back, Lena joins a team of fellow scientists to find the source of The Shimmer (a lighthouse) and what happened to the previous team searching for it.

Before I get into my thoughts on this one, I must address something. This is a very polarizing movie, so in regards to what worked or didn't work for me, you may not share the same sentiments.

With that having been said, on with the review. I realize it's been a month since it came out, but for those who still haven't seen it and are interested in doing so: other than what was in the trailer, there will be no spoilers, or at least no major ones.

What Worked: One of the biggest subjects of debate is something I usually start with: the performances. I actually enjoyed them. Natalie Portman's portrayal of Lena I found believable; a woman trying to find out what happened to her husband is something that I can see an actress like her playing. You can see her determination. She ends up being the most interesting character in the movie, but considering she's the main one, that probably doesn't say much.

Then there's the rest of the team, consisting of Jennifer Jason Leigh as Dr. Ventress (the psychologist who leads them), Gina Rodriguez as Anya Thorensen (the medic), Tessa Thompson as Josie Radek (the physicist), and Tuva Novotny as Cass Sheppard (the anthropologist). Their performances were also really good, but their characters I'll get to later.

In the review for Ex Machina, I mentioned how Oscar Isaac was in this movie as well. Although he's not in it that much, he is good for the time he's in it. Kane ends up being the second most interesting character because in a way you do actually see the events from his perspective. If I go any further into it, it'd be a huge spoiler.

Another supporting character I liked was Benedict Wong (Wong from Doctor Strange) as Lomax, the scientist in the hazmat suit who's questioning Lena that you see in the trailer. Those scenes looked similar to The Signal (a sci-fi movie I really enjoyed), even from the trailers for both movies.

Speaking of looks, the biggest positives for me were the same ones I had with Ex Machina: the technical aspects. The one thing I'm sure everyone will agree on for this movie is that it looks great. The visuals are excellent, particularly the appearance of The Shimmer, the creatures, and basically the entirety of the third act. The creatures are in some of the most intense parts of the movie. There's a scene with a gator that's even creepier in the movie, but it's not the most unsettling one for me. That would be a scene with a bear that does something similar to the Predator.

I also really liked a portion of the score, which, oddly enough, is the same music you hear in the trailer, so I was surprised that carried over into the movie.

What Didn't Work: Although I did enjoy the performances of the supporting cast, I felt their characters could have been written better. They are supposed to be smart, and yet a common cliché returns in this movie that appeared in the first few movies I reviewed. They make stupid decisions. You also don't really have a chance to get to know them, aside from perhaps Ventress, and that's in the second half of the movie.

The problem I had with most of the score is that it felt inconsistent. At least to me, it sounded like it belonged in a different movie, and then when it got to the song from the trailer, it sounded more like something that belonged here.

The main issue for me was the transitions. Ex Machina did have them, but it was more concise there because of the story structure. Here, it goes back and forth between settings when you least expect it, and not only is it jarring at times, but it also affects the pacing, which is another subject of debate. I found it slow on occasion, though the visuals alone held my attention.

There is also a subplot where I get the purpose behind it, but it just felt out of place.

Overall: Annihilation is one of those movies that's not for everyone. As stated prior to my positives, this is very polarizing: people either love or hate this movie. It's also one of those movies where seeing it once may not be enough. It does encourage you to think, especially with the ending, which will stick with you regardless of where you stand on the movie as a whole.

I'm more on the side of those who love it, because I really enjoyed it. However, I can't quite say I loved it outright like I did with Ex Machina. With that movie, you could see the passion Alex Garland had in being able to make it. Here, the ambition is present, but not everything works. With this being his second movie as a director, it may have been too early to take the leap into the territory of bigger budget and scale.

Ex Machina is a stronger movie, but that's not to say Annihilation doesn't have its own share of good qualities. The visuals look fantastic, and there are some tense moments. If nothing else, see it for those, but go into it knowing it's not for everyone.

Thoughts on Ex Machina (2015)

Image courtesy of all4desktop.com

The next new release was Annihilation; however, before I cover that, I decided to review the previous work of its director, Alex Garland: his directorial debut, Ex Machina.

The story follows Caleb, a programmer and employee of a widely popular search engine company. He is selected for what he believes is a week-long visit to the home of the CEO, Nathan. When he arrives, Nathan informs him that he's in a research facility specializing in artificial intelligence. In addition to that, he's built an AI (a female named Ava), and chosen Caleb to be the human component in a Turing test. His objective is to analyze her and see if she has any humanity. What follows may be more than just mere conversations; they might just be a series of mind games.

What Worked: Despite not having much in the way of cast, that limitation actually works here because the plot is built around it. What benefits it further is the fact that the three main characters are all played by good actors. Caleb, the protagonist, is played by Domhnall Gleeson (Bill Weasley from Harry Potter). He's great in this, showing legitimate astonishment at what he learns from Nathan and while interacting with Ava.

Nathan is played by Oscar Isaac (Annihilation, Star Wars*), who is very believable at conveying the Steve Jobs-type qualities of his character, as well as a laid-back personality. He also shows that he can have some fun in one scene.

The one that stands out the most, however, is Ava herself, played by Alicia Vikander (Tomb Raider, Jason Bourne). This movie gave her recognition, and for good reason; she's fantastic in this. Every time she's on screen, especially when interacting with Caleb, it's hard not to be invested. It's not just her performance that gives you that feeling.

This movie looks gorgeous in its cinematography and production design, from the environment around the building to the building itself. If the look of the setting alone doesn't grab your attention, just wait until you see the visuals. They are that good to where they even won Best Visual Effects (and I was actually fine with that). The score is also very solid.

All of that shows in Alex Garland's direction, and in his script to an extent. There are some interesting ideas presented through the dialogue, along with a bit of humor.

What Didn't Work: A minor issue I had is that while the pacing is overall very good, there were times where it felt slightly uneven when going from one session to another.

Overall: Ex Machina is a great example of both an original and clever sci-fi story and an excellent directorial debut. It shows that Alex Garland can be a solid director in addition to a solid writer who has experience in the genre itself. While not as thought-provoking, it's similar to The Matrix in that it poses intriguing questions and opens the door for the audience to interpret its themes, particularly through a very unsettling ending. It also allows them to view how we interact with our technology from both perspectives and what could happen if we underestimate it.

Ex Machina is proof that even on a smaller scale and with a smaller budget, a sci-fi story can work if it justifies them enough to still be interesting.

*He and Domhnall Gleeson would go on to be in Star Wars following this movie.

Thoughts on Black Panther (2018)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

The newest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is finally out. The "Marvel-thon" posts have been building up to this. Now I can give my thoughts... on Black Panther.

Following the events of Captain America: Civil War, T'Challa has come home to Wakanda, a nation in Africa that's isolated from the rest of the world. However, his status as King is challenged when old enemies resurface. As both the new King and the Black Panther, he must not only protect his people, but also the outside world.

What Worked: There are many positives here. First of all, the performances are very good. After being introduced in Civil War, Black Panther has his time to shine. The performance by Chadwick Boseman there was more about setting the character up. In this, you see how the events of that movie affected him and Wakanda itself. He makes the character his own, and he's only shown up in two movies so far.

There are two other characters to talk about that return from previous movies. The first one is Everett K. Ross, played by Martin Freeman, who also returns from Civil War. You get to learn more about him in this as well, and Freeman does get some funny lines. The other one is Ulysses Klaue, played by Andy Serkis, who returns from Age of Ultron. He had a small role there, which I thought was to set up a larger role in this. Oddly enough, he's not in this movie that much, either. However, some of the events from Age of Ultron are addressed (including one involving him), and like that movie, Andy Serkis is good for the time he's in it.

Now for the new characters. There's Lupita Nyong'o (The Jungle Book, the Star Wars sequel trilogy) as Nakia, who has past history with T'Challa. There's also Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out) as W'Kabi, T'Challa's best friend. In supporting roles are Angela Bassett as Ramonda, the Queen of Wakanda, and Forest Whitaker as Zuri, one of the elders. They all get some interesting development.

There are three standouts in the supporting cast, and either of them could be considered the best character in the movie. One of them is Danai Gurira as Okoye, leader of the Dora Milaje (an all-female group of warriors who are fiercely loyal to the nation and its protector). The second one is Letitia Wright (The Commuter) as T'Challa's younger sister Shuri, who was probably my favorite. If T'Challa is Marvel's James Bond, Shuri is their Q; she is responsible for designing tech not only for Wakanda itself, but also for her brother. The other standout is Winston Duke as M'Baku, who leads a tribe distant from those in support of T'Challa being King. Although Shuri has some of the funniest lines in the movie, M'Baku gets one as well.

Last but not least is the villain, Erik Killmonger, played by Michael B. Jordan. He's a great actor (for evidence of that, go watch Creed), and he ends up being a great villain. Similar to Vulture in Spider-Man: Homecoming, you see where he's coming from, perhaps even more so than with Vulture. Is he the best villain since Loki as some have been saying? For me, no... he's the best villain since Zemo in Civil War.

As if the villain's motivations were not brutal enough, at least a couple of the fights in this get pretty visceral, too. The best way to describe them is if you take the fight scenes in Creed and the Bane fight from The Dark Knight Rises and put them together.

Speaking of Creed, Michael B. Jordan's collaborator from that movie, Ryan Coogler, directs this movie. He proves to be an excellent choice not only because he knows how to film fight scenes and hold nothing back, but also because he's known for using certain cultural aspects that do not get much attention as a key part of the story, particularly the Black culture. I will get more into that in the outro.

As for how he films fight scenes, it was very impressive in Creed, and this manages to top it. A great example is a casino fight that looks like it's all one take.

The biggest positives are the production design and the music. The costumes, sets, and especially the cinematography are amazing here. With the music, I'm not just talking about the score. There is a soundtrack in this, produced by Kendrick Lamar. In hearing that, you might be concerned that the songs may distract from the movie. If it were any other movie, maybe, considering those try to incorporate as many as they can for the duration of the runtime. Here, having a soundtrack by a popular artist actually works because they're used sparingly. I only noticed three used throughout the movie (counting the credits). The soundtrack for this is very good, and so is the score. There's also a reference to an old favorite of mine during a scene with Andy Serkis.

There is humor, but it's spread out, like with some references and particularly the dialogue.

What Didn't Work: While a vast majority of the visuals are excellent, there are some that you can tell are CGI, especially in the third act.

The beginning is a little slow, but it's not long before it picks up.

Overall: Black Panther is not only among the very best installments of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (might be high up for me; I'll have to think about that), but also will likely be among the very best movies of the year. Like with Thor: Ragnarok, it has another great villain. However, whereas that was the best MCU movie since Civil War, this has the best action since Civil War.

What makes this stand out that much more, though, is its cultural relevance. It's like a mix between Wonder Woman and Get Out. This and Wonder Woman give a particular demographic a hero of their own. This leads to the similarities with Get Out. They both bring to light issues faced by Black culture, except Get Out was a social commentary on that culture, while this takes that culture and embraces it. For those reasons, both also feel like a movie they needed, while being one everyone else can enjoy with them.

Expect a Stan Lee cameo (the best one since Spider-Man: Homecoming), as well as a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene.

2018 Review Schedule

Image courtesy of hipwallpaper.com

The preceding image is for use until I have a proper logo for non-review posts on the site, upon which it will be adjusted to that.

Hello, everyone. I just wanted to provide an update regarding the schedule.

I have been trying to do some catch-up reviews, like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, The Commuter, 12 Strong, The Shape of Water, and most recently Winchester. I know I said I would do Star Wars, but I have decided to hold off on that for now. Unless I can do maybe 1-2 of those prior, the next review will definitely be for Black Panther, so at least look forward to that.

For the schedule itself, a lot of franchises receive new installments every year, and this year is no exception.

In 2018, reviews can be expected for...

Pacific Rim, X-Men, Star Wars, The Incredibles, Jurassic Park, Mission: Impossible (I absolutely plan to do those two franchises), Spider-Man, the DC Extended Universe, and Transformers.

Possibilities are Cloverfield, the remaining Predator movies (which likely includes the crossovers), and Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts.

That's not to say these will be the only franchises I plan to cover; if an opportunity presents itself with a certain one I didn't mention, I can cover that even if it doesn't have a new movie this year. For example, another one that can be expected, but for a different reason, is Die Hard; since the first one celebrates its 30th Anniversary this year, I thought why not incorporate that. A similar case can be made for the 20th Anniversary of Blade.

I would also like to announce new segments. There's "Trash Tuesday"* where I cover bad movies ("so bad they're good" or otherwise; Guilty Pleasures are debatable), "Thriller Thursday" where I cover different types of thrillers (be they sci-fi, action, horror, etc.), and "Favorite Friday" where I cover some of my personal favorite movies. As for when I intend to start them, I do not know yet, although I do have some ideas.

One more thing: I don't have a proper logo for the site, so the image you see above will serve as a temporary one. I may also use that (and eventually the logo) if I can't quite find a good enough quality image of the poster for the corresponding movie while preparing a review. I figured I'd forewarn you if you happen to see a logo instead.

That pretty much sums it up for the plans for 2018. I will also be gladly taking requests for future reviews, and I'll see what I can do. One rule for doing so: it has to be something I'd even remotely be interested in, so nothing like Twilight or Fifty Shades. It has to be something I'd enjoy watching willingly.

With all of that in mind, if I'm not back in a catch-up review, I definitely will be with my thoughts on Black Panther, so either way, you'll be seeing another post very soon on something.

If you have any questions or suggestions, leave them in the comments.

*I may need a better name for that, as well as names for the other days, although that could vary depending on the genre or even a franchise.

Thoughts on Maze Runner: The Death Cure (2018)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

This is the second of two posts focusing on the sequels to the first movie I ever reviewed, The Maze Runner. In the previous one, I covered The Scorch Trials, and in this one, I will be covering the finale, The Death Cure.

After surviving the Scorch, Thomas and his group must now conquer their biggest obstacle yet. One city still stands, but it is under the control of WCKD. They must find a way in, rescue their friends, and find a way out. While in the Last City, they may also find the answers they have sought from the very beginning.

What Worked: While I will start off with the acting (as I often do), there is something I noticed in regards to the characters here: there is only one new character in the entire movie. The rest of them are either in the main cast or returning from the second one.

The main cast themselves are still very good here, especially with Dylan O'Brien as Thomas. This is his best performance in the franchise, showing his determination and some genuine emotion in a couple scenes.

Returning from the second one are Giancarlo Esposito as Jorge, Aidan Gillen as Janson, Barry Pepper as Vince, and Rosa Salazar as Brenda. With Giancarlo Esposito and Barry Pepper, they continue to be awesome. Although Jorge is involved in the action, Vince is given more to do here.

Brenda is definitely given more to do compared to last time, even having a significant part in the third act. Rosa Salazar's performance is pretty good, particularly in her scenes with Esposito. The second movie established that their characters were close, and that relationship continues to an extent here.

Another character worth mentioning is Dr. Ava Paige, played by Patricia Clarkson. She did show up in the previous two movies, but it was more of a cameo. Why I mention it now is because she has a bigger part in this one. With all of that setup, it seems like she's the villain, and yet Janson is more of a villain than she is. If you thought Aidan Gillen made Janson appear evil in the second movie, wait until you see him in this.

With the action, its purpose has at least been consistent, even if the style hasn't. The purpose has been to build up to the bigger picture by escalating the conflict the heroes face. They went from isolation to the outside world and now to the source.

There are huge improvements from the previous film. In that movie, there was a small amount of shaky cam during tense moments and action scenes. This might still have some, but it's minimal and not noticeable. Therefore, the action in this looks more like it was in the first movie. The same can be said for the effects. The moments of tension work very well because of these improvements.

My two biggest positives are the third act and the ending. Everything that has led to this more than pays off in the third act. The heroes' last stand feels like it should in an action movie: it goes all-out, sometimes beyond that. With the ending, it's actually very satisfying in the ways you'd think. It also wraps everything up quite nicely.

What Didn't Work: There are some predictable moments throughout this movie, although not as much as last time. My main issue here is that the third act is a little long, so it could have been paced better.

Overall: Maze Runner: The Death Cure is a solid and satisfying conclusion to what is ultimately an enjoyable young-adult sci-fi action franchise. This might be even better than The Hunger Games, and not just because this didn't stretch one book into two movies (although that helps). It's also been more consistent throughout the series, showing that not every franchise has to go darker in tone with each installment and that sometimes it's okay to keep the same tone while adding darker elements along the way.

This movie answers any remaining questions from the previous installments, and ends the series on a bittersweet yet hopeful note, and in a brilliant way.

Thoughts on Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

The focus of the next two posts will be on the sequels to the first movie I ever reviewed, The Maze Runner. In this one, I will be covering The Scorch Trials.

Having escaped the Maze, Thomas and his fellow surviving Gladers now find themselves in a facility that will protect them from the deadly Flare virus. It turns out this is a test facility to see who is immune to it, as it was previously thought incurable. Thomas thinks the staff is up to something, and that they may in fact have been captured by WCKD (the World Catastrophe Killzone Department). However, after Thomas manages to gather his friends and escape, they have to deal with something worse: Cranks (the Infected) and the environment they inhabit. What was once our world is now a desolate wasteland known as "The Scorch."

What Worked: The acting is still really good. The returning cast continue to have great chemistry with each other. I especially enjoyed most of the new characters. The ones that stood out to me were Jorge, Vince, and Janson. They are played respectively by Giancarlo Esposito, Barry Pepper, and Aidan Gillen. Jorge gets in on the action quite a bit here, and he's awesome whenever he does. Vince, although he doesn't come in until basically the entire third act, is an interesting character because he has leader-like qualities to him, similar to Jorge, but even more so. It's also nice to see Barry Pepper in a good sci-fi movie.

As for Janson, this is one of those times where if you see Aidan Gillen in something, you know he's bad news the moment he first shows up. He's very good here, and he is a better villain than he was in 12 Rounds where he went up against a certain wrestler who isn't The Rock or Dave Bautista*.

The action works here because it's amped up from the first movie, which also helps the story of the bigger picture progress. In the first one, there was action, but it was more about the group trying to find a way out of the Maze; the action provided the conflict throughout the movie. Here, it's in a larger setting, so you don't know what could be out there.

In addition to helping with story progression, the action sets up several moments of tension. A good example is one scene (part of which was in the trailer) where Thomas and another character are being chased by a Crank in a building, and one of them lands on glass, which slowly starts cracking.

For those who have read my review of the first one, my main issue with it was that some of the characters' decisions might not make sense. Thankfully, the amount of questionable decisions has been dialed back this time.

What Didn't Work: Something that seems to have also been dialed back is a fair amount of the effects. In the first one, they looked practical. Here, some of them look like they were done with CGI. My problem with that is not the fact that they might have used it, but rather that at times, it looks obvious if they did.

The amount of questionable decisions may have been reduced, but this one has something similar: predictable actions and lines. If you've seen any post-apocalyptic zombie movie (which you could argue this is to an extent) or any sci-fi action movie, chances are you know what I'm referring to.

While there is tension, and the action is still good, for some reason it's accompanied with a little bit of shaky cam. It didn't bother me too much, but it's there. I understand that there had to be a way to convey a sense of urgency with the group trying to find someone to protect them, but there had to have been a better way of doing it.

My main issue this time is with some pacing in the middle. It's after the building scene I mentioned. The problem is that it had been going at such a consistently fast pace prior to that, and then that scene happens, and it takes some time to get going again. It just felt very jarring.

Overall: Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials still has a lot of good parts, even with its problems. It does answer some questions posed in the first movie while building towards the answers for others. It also continues to build upon the world established there. It's still fun to watch because it's interesting to see how the story picks up and progresses. Then when all is said and done for the events of this movie, you want to see how it will be for the events of the franchise.

*I know the joke is coming.

Thoughts on Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Image courtesy of wallpapersden.com

The conclusion of the "Marvel-thon" is the latest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe leading up to Black Panther, and that is Thor: Ragnarok.

Thor has been searching for the Infinity Stones since the Battle of Sokovia, to no avail. This leads to him being captured and brought before Surtur, a fire demon destined to cause Ragnarok, the end of Asgard. After defeating him, Thor thinks he has prevented it, but it had already begun. The Goddess of Death, Hela, emerges while Thor finds himself on Sakaar, a planet ruled by The Grandmaster. If he has a chance of making it back to Asgard in time to stop Hela, he has to fight the reigning champion: the Hulk.

What Worked: I will start with the approach to the movie this time as well. It's much different from the previous two movies. The serious tone is now more comedic. Unlike Iron Man 3, which at times felt like it was trying to be more of a comedy than a superhero movie, the comedic tone actually works here because the two genres have more of a balance. With that tonal shift, it feels more fun. This is something that director Taika Waititi intended to convey to the audience, and it shows while watching the movie.

He's also known for having a lot of humor. This has more subtle humor than quirky, though; the quirkiness shows more in the look of the movie. The humor is still very clever, as evidenced by a couple moments that involve monologuing, and especially the scenes with a certain character.

Now for the cast. This is Chris Hemsworth's best portrayal of Thor, and you can tell he's having fun. It also shows that he can be hilarious. The same goes for two other returning characters. The first one is Tom Hiddleston as Loki, who has one of the funniest lines. The second one is Mark Ruffalo, returning as Bruce Banner / Hulk. Some of the best scenes in the movie involve Hulk, and Banner has a relationship with Thor that might be better than that of Tony Stark and James Rhodes.

Then there are the new characters, starting with the villain. Hela, played by Cate Blanchett, is easily the best villain in the Thor trilogy, as well as another example of a great MCU villain. Loki was able to make his mark across two movies; Hela does so over the course of one. Plus, Blanchett's performance makes her even more menacing.

Someone else who can be both menacing and funny is Skurge, Hela's executioner. He is played by Karl Urban, who's no stranger to appearing in franchises like The Lord of the Rings and Star Trek. He's not in the movie that much, but he does get a couple good moments. The same goes for Heimdall, but there's a reason for it with him, which helps develop him.

With the characters on Sakaar, the first one to mention is The Grandmaster, played by Jeff Goldblum. He's like The Collector from Guardians of the Galaxy, except he's more of a villain. The Collector was somewhat quirky, whereas The Grandmaster definitely is. He's great in this, and it feels like he's playing himself in a way with how eccentric the character is.

Before I get to the best character in the movie, there is one more to mention. This movie brings in another strong female character with Tessa Thompson (Creed*) as Valkyrie. She's independent and can handle herself in a fight. As great as she was in that movie, I might have enjoyed her even more here.

The best character in the movie is actually played by Taika Waititi himself. It's a fellow gladiator Thor meets, a Kronan (rock creature) named Korg. What's hilarious about him is that you hear "rock creature" and you'd think he has a tough voice to accompany that, and then he ends up being so casually soft-spoken. Every scene he's in, he's awesome. Some of the funniest dialogue comes from him. Waititi even references one of his previous movies as the character; all I'll say is that it involves a pitchfork.

For the technical aspects, this has the best action of the three Thor films. I can actually mention the "Rule of Threes" again, because this absolutely follows it. First is the fight with Surtur, then the fight between Thor and Hulk, and then the finale.

Those two bookending fights in particular stand out because of the soundtrack. Let me put it this way: within the first five minutes, I knew I'd love this movie. When the finale came, I knew I'd love it even more. This has the best use of a classic song since Hardcore Henry and/or Shaun of the Dead; in fact, this might have actually topped both of them, and those two used the same song. I always love it when a movie takes the song from the trailer and still manages to incorporate it.

In addition to that one song, the score is also great, with Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo and Rugrats fame composing it. It has a very "synth" feel to it, like something that came out of the 80s.

When it comes to the visual effects and the look of the movie, this has the best since Doctor Strange on both counts.

What Didn't Work: There are times where Jeff Goldblum does play up the eccentricity a little too much. That's more of a nitpick for me, though.

Overall: Thor: Ragnarok is hands-down the best Thor movie. It's also the funniest Marvel Cinematic Universe movie to date, showing that Marvel can actually balance compelling and comedic while still keeping to a consistent tone. With another great villain and exciting action (with a little help from an iconic rock band), among other things, it ends up being the most fun installment of the trilogy. This is the best MCU movie since Captain America: Civil War, in that it escalates the conflict to even greater heights.

There are quite a few cameos here, including the Stan Lee one, as well as a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene.

*Obviously, not the band. Excellent movie, though.

Thoughts on Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Next up in the "Marvel-thon" is the first solo movie for a character introduced in Captain America: Civil War, and that is Spider-Man: Homecoming.

After aiding Tony Stark in the fight against Captain America, Peter Parker returns to Queens. He's trying to balance being a high school student and a crime fighter. Under Tony's guidance, he wants to prove that he is worthy of becoming an Avenger. Tony suggests he stay close to the ground and be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a cleanup crew has been using Chitauri scraps from the Battle of New York to build and sell weapons so they can provide for their families. As Peter tries to prepare for Homecoming, this new threat escalates to where he will be pushed to his limits.

What Worked: The majority of the cast is really good. Tom Holland continues to be the best Spider-Man to date, showing that he feels the conflict of having a double life. He looks like a kid who still has a lot to learn.

The conflict not only takes a toll on him, but also on his Aunt May, who is often concerned for him. This version of her is portrayed by Marisa Tomei. Although she is younger than previous actresses who have played Aunt May, considering Peter is 15 this time and in high school, casting someone her age makes sense. She ends up being an excellent choice because she is able to show that concern on a fair, but firm, level with Peter. She also gets one of the funniest lines in the movie.

Tony Stark, being the mentor-type character here, has that same amount of concern, but on a stricter level. He realizes Peter has a lot to learn, and sometimes, that means he has to intervene. He's in the movie enough to where he comes in when necessary. Making him that type of character actually works, and Robert Downey Jr. by this point is Tony Stark.

This movie also has one of the better MCU villains: Adrian Toomes / Vulture, played by Michael Keaton. You can actually connect with him because he's not trying to destroy the city or take over the world, but rather trying to help his family however he can. He makes for a pretty awesome villain.

There are more villains aside from him, but they do not try to overshadow him. They are part of his crew, with the same motivation, and that's it.

Now for some of the supporting cast. Jon Favreau returns as Happy Hogan, and he has some funny moments. Then there's Laura Harrier as the love interest Liz, who has good chemistry with Tom Holland.

There is one character that people may find annoying, and that is Jacob Batalon as Ned, Peter's best friend. He's a better comic relief character than Darcy Lewis from the first two Thor movies. However, I can understand if some find him annoying more than funny. He at least has a purpose, though.

For the technical aspects, one of the biggest positives is the approach to the movie. Since this focuses more on Peter's time in high school, the best way to make it believable was to have it feel like a high school movie, particularly those John Hughes would do. There's even a reference to one of his films in here.

The humor works very well. It's not rapid-fire where you might be laughing so hard you miss a line of dialogue; it's more spread out.

The effects are great here, especially with Vulture's look and some of the new implementations into Spider-Man's suit.

This also has some of the best action in the MCU, like the ferry scene that's reminiscent of the iconic train scene from Spider-Man 2.

Aside from those, the standout is the score, like it was with Doctor Strange. Coincidentally, both were scored by Michael Giacchino. As if the references to Spider-Man lore weren't fan service enough, the score manages to have a certain Spider-Man theme in it. Listen closely as the Marvel Studios logo is coming up at the beginning of the movie.

What Didn't Work: I really only have two major issues, both of which involve characters. One is Zendaya's character, Michelle. Her performance is fine, but the character does not have much significance.

The other is one where I can see why the changes were made, but they just do not work at all. That character is Flash Thompson, played by Tony Revolori. Rather than being the jock that Flash is typically depicted as (which is how bullies were often portrayed in older media), this Flash is based more on how bullies are depicted now. That change I can understand, but it is not executed well, and his dialogue just makes it worse to where it's cringeworthy at times.

They don't impact the story too much to where it hurts the movie, but they could have been developed better.

Aside from that, I don't have any problems.

Overall: Spider-Man: Homecoming shows that re-introducing a superhero that has been on the big screen before can work with just mentioning the origin story and focusing on something else. It has a fresh feel to it with a lighthearted tone (and humor to match), a hero and a villain that are both relatable, and great action. This is easily the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2.

Spider-Man: Homecoming may not be a perfect movie, but it does live up to its title. Spider-Man has been done justice, and he's back where he belongs: within the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe.

There is a Stan Lee cameo (probably the funniest one in the MCU since Ant-Man), as well as a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene.