‘Blade Runner 2049’ is a pretty-looking film with one terrible ending

*The second review I did for The Examiner.  I’m not particularly fond of this one.  I didn’t even include a paragraph about Philip K. Dick’s great influence as a writer!  Anyway, here you are.*

If movies were only judged based on visual presentation, then today’s review would be nothing more than 500 words of, “go see this movie right now.”  Unfortunately, there is a certain thing about “Blade Runner 2049” which needed more work; the story.

Directed by Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival”) and written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, “Blade Runner 2049” is a direct sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1983 film, “Blade Runner.”  The movie follows ‘K’ (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner, special police officers that hunt down rogue replicants, who discovers a deeply-hidden secret about the history of the replicants (the “race” of androids made of organic matter designed for specific services).  Both films are adaptations of Philip K. Dick’s famous novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”

There is little else I can reveal about the plot without giving away anything vital.  Well, anything the trailers haven’t already spoiled (they definitely should have not revealed Harrison Ford’s involvement).  In any case, this movie does require a lot of patience from its audience, which is good.  “Blade Runner 2049” is not the fun, action-packed, “Star Wars” type of science fiction that typically dominates the genre.  However, when a filmmaker chooses to tell this type of story, one that is very visual and quiet, taking its time to develop the world and characters, there simply must be an excellent payoff at the end.  “Blade Runner 2049” does not have that payoff.

What makes this critical storytelling error even more disappointing is that the first two acts are amazing.  The set design, Roger Deakins’ gorgeous camerawork, colors, and the music blend together to create a beautiful spectacle that completely made me forget I was watching a movie.  Ryan Gosling is also excellent.  He gives a largely emotionless performance (which is necessary within the context of the story), and there are a few choice scenes that showcase his abilities as an actor.  Because of this, ‘K’ is one of the most sympathetic movie heroes of all time.  The audience watches him search endlessly for the truth, as well as how it affects his philosophy.  It’s the kind of head-scratching stuff you’d find in a “Matrix” film.

The movie falls short once the third act begins.  In addition to an underdeveloped villain, the final 40 minutes drops a “big reveal” which makes a good chunk of the first two acts completely unnecessary.  In a nearly three-hour-long film, the worst thing the film can do is waste the viewer’s time.  Imagine nearly graduating, but right before the semester ends, it is announced that all graduating seniors need to re-take their generals.  It makes no sense, infuriates everyone, has little point, and turns what should have been a great ending into a waste of time.

Again, “Blade Runner 2049” has two wonderful hours of intrigue, suspense and character, but the last 40 minutes ruins a good portion of it.  Considering that the ending is the last thing the audience sees before leaving the theater, it dampens the entire experience.  An experience that does not live up to it’s predecessor.

Blade Runner 2049 gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a C+.

Update-College Move-In/My Thoughts On: “The Dark Tower”

Oh boy, it’s finally that time.  In four days, this guy will be moving into a dorm and will be earning his BA in the next three years.  To be clear, I have been in PSEO courses for the past two years (earning college credits in high school in order to skip the obligatory general courses required for a degree).  I commuted from home and had much more time to watch/review movies.  Since this is my first semester for real, there will be fewer posts.  This is due to a combination of: getting used to the new schedule and setting, not having my car (it would be a hassle to take it with me), and the lack of a job.  I’m not broke, and the school has a bus so there will be a few reviews here and there.  When in doubt, check my “About” section for the most updated version of my schedule.

You may have noticed that the website has not changed, though I said there were a few things I wanted to change in the last update.  Well, a lot of it has to do with the fact that this website costs me nothing.  I would have to pay a monthly fee to have complete control over design and presentation; but since I don’t have a job, and do not get paid for these reviews, it will stay this way for a while.  Sorry (unless of course you don’t mind how it currently is).  Now let’s get to the main attraction.

The Dark Tower is the newest entry into the “disappointing Stephen King adaptation” genre (along with The Shining Mini-Series, Dreamcatcher, Maximum Overdrive, Thinner, Lawnmower Man, and The Langoliers).  Of course Mr. King’s legacy has brought us some of cinema’s most famous stories like: Shawshank Redemption, Misery, Stand by Me, Carrie, and Kubrick’s The Shining.  Considering that he’s published over 250 novels, short stories, etcetera, Hollywood will squeeze every last penny out of his bestsellers.  Today, we have The Dark Tower, a film so standard, so lazily-executed, you’ll forget it 1 hour after leaving the theater!

The main problem with The Dark Tower is the utter lack of detail.  You know how Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings (the story that was supposedly impossible to adapt) into movies?  It was not by pure luck that the end result was near-perfect.  The books told of fantastic battles, memorable characters, and one heck of a universe!  The Dark Tower shares many of these traits: multiple books, loyal fanbases, both stories are fantasy epics, and their film adaptations were both highly anticipated.  Only difference is that you could see the effort and love behind every scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The Dark Tower felt like it was written by a Sony computer, shot by a hummingbird, edited by a cocaine addict, and directed by a coffee table.  This is an enormous shame because the marketing was great.  The two leads looked cool and the action sequences promised some stunning visuals.  In reality, the characters are blander than bread, the PG-13 rating ensures that all the potentially awesome violence is gone, and the story is a compilation of fantasy movie clichés rather than an original story.

Despite the short runtime, the pacing is boringly slow and there are more “talking head” scenes than you would ever want in a Stephen King adaptation.  When the action does show up, it’s only slightly less generic than Power Rangers (2017).  The aforementioned neutered rating prevents any real impact, the camera does whatever it wants, and the actors, much like the audience, look uninvested.  The story is even worse.  Most of the narrative is a mishmash of King tropes, and all the interesting stuff is not explained.  Who built this tower?  Why are there so few people protecting it?  What is the backstory (and motivation for that matter) of our antagonist?  Where do these alternate beings come from?  None of these vital questions are answered very well, if at all.  The best we get are a handful of references to much better King adaptations in one pathetic attempt at fan service.  For all of you who subscribed to the “Stephen King universe” thing, I didn’t see any overarching plot that connected to any other one of King’s works.  Granted, I haven’t read The Dark Tower novels so the connection could be in the books, but it’s certainly not in this bare bones flick.  The only mildly entertaining things about the film are a few cool slow motion moments and Matthew McConaughey (who you could tell was enjoying every second of screentime).  Unfortunately, that only goes so far, especially when the climax, the final battle between Idris Elba and McConaughey, is the definition of “all buildup, no payoff.”  This confrontation was almost as bad as Batman vs. Superman… almost.

Bottom line, The Dark Tower is a thoroughly skippable waste of time and money.  Quite a shame too, because many potential fans were likely turned off from King’s (supposedly) great magnum opus epic.  As for me, I’m much more apprehensive about the new It film.  The Dark Tower gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a C-.

Thanks for understanding my transition into college life; I’ll get back to reviews once everything is sorted out.

Top Ten Christopher Nolan Films

If you’ve viewed Christopher Nolan’s IMDb page over 50 times, like me, then you’d know that Dunkirk is his tenth feature-length film.  This means no one has been able to make a proper Top Ten list.  Many of you will think I’m crazy for pre-writing a top ten list in anticipation for a new release (I started this thing last month).  To them I say, “Since I’m not making any money off of this, I might as well have fun.”  Anyways, today I am going to rank each respective film from one of the-hands down-best directors of the millennium.

Rules/Notes:

• There will not be a synopsis for most of these films.
• There will be no spoilers in this list.
• This list is determined by: 80% overall quality and 20% my opinion.
• Please watch every one of Nolan’s films so he never stops making movies.

No more delays, let’s begin.

 

#10 – The Dark Knight Rises (Grade – C)

Let’s start out this fanboyish countdown by saying that I really don’t like this movie!  Bear in mind, Mr. Nolan is incapable of producing anything resembling garbage, and the effort is clearly on screen.  The action sequences are well-choreographed, the scope of the movie is huge, and the music added so much emotion to every scene.  That said, the performances are awkward, it has more plotholes than The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and the social commentary was akin to a pretentious high schooler’s first social studies essay.  Some believe The Dark Knight was never meant to be a trilogy, and when you compare The Dark Night to its sequel, you can see the difference in quality.  Still, the action is jaw-droppingly cool, so it’s not a complete waste of time.

 

#9 – Following (Grade – B)

One year after releasing his short film Doodlebug (which is worth checking out), Nolan wrote, directed, produced, shot, and edited his first film, Following; about a writer who follows random strangers around to gain inspiration (until one of his targets, a criminal, shows the man his operation).   While many have said there’s nothing special about this movie (considering what the director would go on to make much better stuff), but Nolan unlocked his inner Robert Rodriguez by doing most of the work himself.   Might I say, the end result is very pleasing.  The black and white film allows for some interesting camerawork, and the pacing, while slow, builds to one stellar ending.  This low-budget gem has made it into the Criterion Collection for a reason, and is a must-see for fans of the genre.

 

#8 – The Prestige (Grade – B+)

In late 2014, a very young, and even more naive, Erick was about to do his weekly routine of ironing clothes while watching a movie.  Obviously, my attention would be more concentrated on the scalding-hot piece of metal near my fingers, so I’d typically watch something that didn’t demand much attention.  As it turned out, The Prestige was a bad choice.  After the first 2 minutes, I knew this movie was going to require the audience’s complete cooperation.  Figuring the black slacks could wait, I sat down and restarted the film.  Two mind-bending hours later, and my understanding of cinema as a whole was changed.  At that moment, Christopher Nolan became one of my favorite filmmakers.  Now that I’m older, and have studied the art form for a while, I can properly appreciate the work.  This movie does so many things right, like casting David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, treating the audience (and the subject matter) with maturity and intelligence, having Michael Caine say the word “prestige,” there’s a lot to be found with this movie.  It’s an excellent period piece drama/thriller that will require a few trips to the Internet in order to fully understand what the heck that ending was.

 

#7 – Dunkirk (Grade-A-)

I just saw this war film a few hours ago; and I will have the full review out on Sunday.  For now, it is a fine example of passionate filmmaking and attention-to-detail.  Nolan uses a very traditional approach to this one, and it pays off for the most part.  The performances felt real, the narrative is respectful (if not a bit sanitized), and the suspenseful scenes are rattling.

 

#6 – Batman Begins (Grade-A-)

In preparation for this list, I watched a butt-ton of videos on Christopher Nolan.  One video in particular puts my writing skills to shame, and ironically, it was an essay about Batman Begins.  Strange.  Well, better to try and fail than regret not taking the chance.  Batman Begins is a masterpiece of storytelling, and revived the superhero genre by treating its source material in a mature fashion.  This movie features some of the best exposition any screenwriter could ever ask for, and it all balances out with moments of action, complex characters, fine performances, and an engrossing tone.  It’s one of the three pre-2010 superhero flicks that started the superhero craze, and it shouldn’t be missed.

 

#5 – Insomnia (Grade-A-)

Did you know that this is the only Nolan-directed movie that he didn’t write?  Did you also know it’s a hallmark of subtly, suspense, cinematography, and acting?  Insomnia is one of those purposefully quiet productions that-while major critical hits-typically bomb at the box office (like Take Shelter or Donnie Darko).  In keeping with that genre, Insomnia is a feast for cinephiles.  The plot is simple, two detectives are sent to Alaska to search for the man who killed a 16-year-old girl.  What unravels is Nolan at his most ruthless (by the way, this film’s rated R).  First off, my gosh, the acting is fantastic.  This has to be one of Al Pacino’s most sympathetic roles of his career.  He struggles to find this killer while also dealing with his own personal issues, Hilary Swank is supportive, but also very intelligent, and Robin Williams…this is one of his most authentic performances.  There is little to no humor in his character, but what he brings to the table is one of the most impressive breakaway performances in history.  His dialogue is limited, but every second of it is incredible.  Forgive me if this all sounds rather vague, I am nowhere near the level of intelligence that this movie is on, so it’s difficult to explain how well it’s made.  Despite this, it is one heck of a film for anyone looking for underrated classics.

 

#4 – Memento (Grade-A)

“Okay, so what am I doing? Oh, I’m chasing this guy. No, he’s chasing me.”  There are so many brilliant moments in this brilliant movie.  Memento catapulted Nolan into critical acclaim much similar to M. Night Shyamalan with The Sixth Sense.  Meaning they both did something narratively that audiences had either never experienced, or weren’t expecting.  In the case of Memento, the story is told backwards.  This movie was unbelievably risky, as it easily could have alienated viewers, but pushing the boundaries of storytelling is one of Nolan’s best skills, and this psychological thriller is a fine example.  As far as second features go, this one feels like it was made by an archaic master rather than a newcomer because the quality of the filmmaking is top-notch.  Not only is Wally Pfister’s camerawork oozing with atmosphere, the constantly uncertain tone keeps you on the edge of your seat as the story unravels.  Speaking of amazing things, Leonard Shelby is one of the coolest protagonists in film history.  Guy Pearce is at his best in this film, his character design is like something out of a comic book, and his motivations make him a very sympathetic hero.  It’s one of the most original movies you’ll ever watch, and the mere idea of remaking it is asinine.

 

#3 – The Dark Knight (Grade-A)

Oh, stop crying just because the second best superhero movie of all time is #3.  If it were not for the last 10 minutes (the Joker should have died, and Batman didn’t have to take the fall for everything), it would be higher  Also, don’t be upset because Unbreakable is better than The Dark Knight.  We all know why this movie’s awesome.  Heath Ledger is the best Joker of all time, it was nominated for more Oscars than any other movie about grown men in goofy costumes, the practical effects drop jaws, and the script is packed with more smart commentary than a season of early Simpsons.  On a filmmaking scale, you could study ever frame for 5 minutes and get enough out of it to write a film report.  The Dark Knight proved that superhero movies could be dark, better than their predecessor, and make bank (over $1 billion to be precise) all at the same time.

 

#2 – Interstellar (Grade-A)

Ever noticed that this guy has a talent for titles?  Even though I’ve given this movie its own-somewhat crappy-review and talked extensively about it in the Study Scores list, I could go on forever with this one because it makes me so happy!  Oh, there are problems, but this movie requires faith from the audience to stick with it for the 3-hour runtime.  Those who do are greatly rewarded.  Many people think this was the point where Nolan ignored common sense and just wrote whatever complex nonsense came into his mind.  Whew!  That was difficult to type in and of itself.  Forgive me audience (and any future employers who may see this), but these complaints are pure balderdash!  The amount of research I put into this movie rivals that of college essay finals!  One of the factoids I came across explained that Nolan did his dang research about space, black holes, and other sciency things I can’t pronounce before writing a movie where Ron Woodroof saves humanity.  Guy’s, he knows what he’s doing.  Even if (which is a pretty big “if”) the story doesn’t grab you, the visuals definitely will.  Interstellar features some of the most impressive CGI and sets of our time.  It also features one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores.  I won’t deny, there is a bit of filler, but what’s excellent (like the action scenes) is truly magnificent.  When people talk about spiritual successors in film, Interstellar is the true sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

#1 – Inception (Grade-A+)

“I try to be all about story.” – The greatest storyteller in Hollywood today

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie (nothing of any consequence that is).  Every single thing about it works so well!  The effects (both practical and CGI) are convincing, the action sequences are creative and exciting, the actors have charisma, the ideas are interesting, the plot is original, the emotional element is strong, the music is intense, and it should have won Best Original Screenplay!!!!  Pardon me… I just can’t stand the Academy some times.  For someone to tell me they didn’t enjoy this monument, leaves me in a state of bewilderment.  Sure, everyone loves The Dark Knight, but Inception is the perfect summer blockbuster.  Action sequences that actually entertain, characters that you like, and a script that doesn’t treat you like a statistic.  I’m greatly inspired by this movie if you couldn’t tell.  It’s actually my favorite movie of all time, and for good reason.  Nolan knows where the movie starts and ends, and once the story (which he was apparently working on since Memento in ten years earlier) is perfected, the rest runs like clockwork.  You could watch this movie countless times and learn something new each time.

 

Ahhh, now that was fun!  Whether or not you like Nolan’s approach to filmmaking, you cannot deny that he has consistently delivered high-quality stuff.  The guy simply hasn’t made a bad movie, and I don’t think he ever will.  Now that being said, I’m going to go to bed, have an awesome dream inspired by Inception, and watch a lot of movies tomorrow!  Goodnight and thank you for your time.

“Alien: Covenant” Review

Alright.  I apologize for the lack of posts lately; the complete update to my situation will be out this week.  In the meantime, we have another unnecessary Alien movie to review!  Since I already gave out my opinions on Ridley Scott in my review of The Martian, I can get right into the meat of things.

Alien: Covenant is directed by Ridley Scott and written by: Jack Paglen, Michael Green, John Logan, and Dante Harper.  Stars-Michael Fassbender, Kathrine Waterson, Billy Crudup, and Danny McBride.  Premise-The startled crew of a colony spaceship en route to inhabit a new planet discover much more than they bargained for when a distress signal leads them to a different destination.

If you thought Prometheus was a disappointment, then hold on to your jaw, cause it’s about to drop right off!  Where do I even begin, well, how about the story?  The more complicated these movies get, the more I understand why the original film was so smart.  We’ve gone from “Killer alien in a claustrophobic ship with an unprepared crew” to “Why do humans exist?  Let’s travel out to deep space cuz Guy Pearce says so.  Oh, and there’s aliens.  Can’ forget that.”  Needless to say, I think the franchise has forgotten the “point.”  Either that or the scripts for Blade Runner 2049 and Alien: Covenant was switched.  If so, I can’t wait to see Sebastian from La La Land fight a Xenomorph.  Honestly, this movie is stuck so far up its own butt; I’m surprised it wasn’t written by the Wachowskis.

You’ll notice very quickly that Alien: Covenant forgoes terror and scares for a lot of sciency gibberish and *ahem* philosophy.  Basically, Billy Crudup will spout something Mr. Scott thinks is something Christians would say, and he is branded “insufferable” and constantly beaten down by the reality of science (aka, contrived screenwriting).  You’re not gonna believe this, but I just summed up the movie’s underlying theme in one sentence.  This wouldn’t be a problem if the movie was focused on scaring you rather than talking your ears off.  Now, I understand that (God-forbid) we should be getting more intelligent horror films nowadays, but Alien: Covenant is simply putting all of its eggs into the same flimsy basket.  A basket that promises classic thrills and plenty of terror, but is in fact, very, very empty. Well, except for one particular egg.

I’m sorry, that metaphor was way to Shyamalany.  What I’m getting at is that Michael Fassbender is awesome in this movie.  He was one of the best things about Prometheus, and they give him much more to work with.  Unfortunately, these characters are more asinine than the entirety of TLC programs.  Remember how there were only 8 characters with unique personalities, memorable traits, and interesting actors in the original?  Well, Alien: Covenant has 12+ forgettable, boring, obviously-exist-only-to-die characters.  Only McBride and Fassbender stand out because both actors have charisma.  If you thought those two guys from Prometheus were obvious horror pawns, then prepare to rage (or in my case, be bored-to-sleep) at how many characters show up, speak one expositional sentence, then die.  Not only is this formula tedious to sit through (since the pacing sucks), but it’s an amateur approach to filmmaking, not befitting of the legendary Ridley Scott.  Speaking of which, this movie treats its audience like morons.  Every teen-slasher cliché can be found here, the characters make pants-soilingly dumb decisions, and the “twist” is something you’ve seen in countless other sci-fi films.  Also, what they do to Shaw’s character from Prometheus is… well.  Remember what they did to “wrap up” Will Smith’s character in Independence Day: Resurgence?  Yeah, that’s how disrespectful it is.

It’s really a shame.  I can see the effort behind the movie in the cinematography, sets, Fassbender/McBride’s performances, and F/X, but there’s too much talking, the characters are idiots, and I can only remember being in suspense for 5 minutes in a 120 minute film.  As for Scott, either keep your deep philosophy in movies like Exodus: Gods and Kings and Blade Runner, or talk to me.  I’d love to tell you about a great guy named Jesus Christ.  Alien: Covenant gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a C-.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” Review

I wonder how long it’ll be until Marvel finally kills off some of its main characters.  Only at that point will their cinematic universe truly open to new stories.  I say this because the formulas for the modern superhero movie are slowly making each installment more predictable.  In the meantime, we have a film that screams “capitalization.”  Either that or it’s just a sequel that pales in comparison to its predecessor.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is written/directed by James Gunn.  Stars-Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Kurt Russell, Michael Rooker, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper.  Premise-During one of their adventures (and getting into trouble at the same time), the Guardians learn more about their leader’s (Star-Lord) childhood.

The biggest problem with Guardians 2 is the writing.  No offense to Gunn (whose ideas started the trend of superhero movies having retro soundtracks), but this script needed another brain working on it.  Perhaps you see it differently, but this film felt really awkward to me.  Some of the jokes felt rushed or were not delivered well; especially whenever they try to use profanity (the PG-13 rating neuters some of these jokes).  It’s difficult to phrase, but the movie doesn’t have the flow of the original.  One thing that attributes to that is the terrible cutting.  I don’t know if it was written or edited this way, but there are many scenes that cut away at inopportune times.  For example, Star-Lord is about to learn something critical about his past, but the scene randomly cuts to the subplot involving Yondu.  I wouldn’t mind as much if this was a one-time thing, however, this occurs at least 3 times.  It kinda ruins the moment.  Still, the movie isn’t without its charm.

The cast may actually be better this time around.  That’s because they have much more development.  I don’t know why critics are saying the characters aren’t fleshed out; there are more character-focused scenes than actiony, space ones.  The first movie was similar to a television pilot in terms of character.  We got their backstories, personalities, and some interplay between them.  This movie bumps it up a notch.  The drama is outstandingly affective, and it kept the movie from getting boring.  Bautista, Rooker, and Cooper, especially get to shine with their material.  Which is great considering the action sequences and CGI are way too cartoony this time around (but the sets are fantastic).

Well, that was short.  Sorry if you were expecting 20 paragraphs of in-depth criticism, but that’s really all I have to say.  In essence, it’s not as good as the first one.  Heck, the soundtrack isn’t one-fifth as memorable as the first.  The best comparison I can come up with is the difference between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back movies.  The first was much more fun and action-packed, while the second was darker and focused on the characters.  That said, most people prefer Empire Strikes Back, so I’ll let you decide if time Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is worth your time.  But for me, it gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B.

“Ghost in the Shell” (2017) Review

Originally, I was going to review The Boss Baby, but Murphy’s law wrecked my plans so here we are.  While this movie has been reviewed by freaking everybody, I think my point of view will provide a differing opinion to those who are familiar with the source material.  That’s right; I have not read or watched any of the original Ghost in the Shell manga (or anime, whatever).  That means I went into this movie with absolutely no idea what to expect (aside from the first teaser trailer).  Upon leaving the theater, this was my thought: “That was decent.”

Ghost in the Shell is directed by Rupert Sanders and written by: Jamie Moss, William Wheeler, and Ehren Kruger.  Stars: Scarlett Johansson, Pilou Asbæk, ‘Beat’ Takeshi Kitano, Peter Ferdinando, and Juliette Binoche.  Premise-After an accident, a woman’s brain is placed into a cybernetic body for the use of hunting down criminals.

Not to get ahead from myself, but this movie can be summed up as “an above-average action sci-fi flick.”  The manga may or may not be better than the film, but the general consensus does not like the live-action movie.  As we leaned with the Inferno movie, adaptations should be good in their own right.  Competent storytelling, compelling characters, and excellent visuals are not something that should not be difficult to recreate.  Luckily, GITS has the visual aspect in droves.  The costumes, designs, and color pallet are very interesting.  Stylization this intense is hard to come by nowadays, so I appreciate how they visualized the manga for the silver screen.  What’s even more impressive are the action sequences.  Slow-motion “bullet time” allows the impeccable F/X to impress, even in 2D.  To accompany every scene, we have one of the best movie scores of the 2010s.  If you love Vangelis’ Blade Runner music, Tangerine Dream, or electronica, then you will probably nerdgasm over this Lorne Balfe/Clint Mansell score.  I’m not even going to attempt to tell you how excellent it is, just watch the film (or buy the soundtrack when it’s released).

Despite the technical achievements, the problems of this movie lie entirely in the screenplay.  I don’t know (or care) how faithful it is to the manga, but it’s without a doubt, very clichéd.  We have: a bad guy who bears a shocking resemblance to Amon from The Legend of Korra, corrupted corporate officials, framed police officers, and a whole lot of copy-pasted “robotic sci-fi” genre clichés (like the scene where they wonder what it’s like to feel human).  There are a few scenes that should have been cut, the climax is not as big as it should be, and the symbolism is painfully obvious (what do you know, an American action film with all the subtly of a middle finger to the audience).

The actors are not much better.  Only the great Takeshi Kitano stands out because he takes command of every scene.  Sure, Johansson (btw, they do explain why she’s not Asian) looks pretty, but that does not translate to good acting.  Admittedly, she is mostly robotic, so I don’t expect Viola Davis levels of passion, but something other than “blank stare” would be nice.

There you are, one short and sweet review.  Despite the annoying faults, the entertainment value is pretty high.  There are enough interesting ideas and likable characters to turn this into a franchise.  After all, isn’t that what they wanted to do with it in the first place?  Ghost in the Shell (2017) gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a B-.

“Power Rangers” (2017) Review

I can’t come up with a fresh intro, so here is some context.  I love the Power Rangers shows!  Campy, but fun; formulaic, but entertaining; they serve as very fond childhood memories of mine (S.P.D. and Samurai were my favorite generations).  When they announced a film adaptation, I had the usual Internet response: insta-rage.  Not only did they hire the director of Project Almanac (loads of potential, crappy execution), but the script went through multiple writers before being turned into a 2 hour screenplay that is supposed to set up a universe which rivals that of Marvel.  Well, if Lionsgate wants to milk 6 sequels out of this movie, it better grab the audience’s attention with likable characters, a clever plot, and jaw-dropping visuals.  Or they could just rip-off Chronicle.

Power Rangers is directed by Dean Israelite and written by: John Gatins, Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Michele Mulroney, and Kieran Mulroney.  Stars-Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Ludi Lin, Becky G., Elizabeth Banks, Bill Hader, and Bryan Cranston.  Premise-A group of high school students come across some otherworldly technology and after an accident, come away from it with superpowers.  As per the ususal, now they must save the world.

I should probably preface this review by saying that I don’t recall all the lore and characters from the entire franchise.  I’m not even certain which generation this movie is based on.  However, I know what made the series’ work, and thus, I reside in the section of the audience who grew up with the originals.  In addition, I understand the main concern people had with the movie ever since the freaking costumes were released: “Is it going to take itself too seriously?”  The charm of this franchise comes from the corniness and lighthearted tone.  To turn that into an obnoxiously serious, brooding drama would result in… Batman v Superman (and we all know how well that one turned out).  To make things perfectly clear, being “dark” is not the problem, poor screenwriting is.  How can The Dark Knight be universally praised for its dark tone and adult themes while Batman v Superman is despised for its somber style and gloomy character arcs?  Aside from the fact that Christopher Nolan is an angel from cinema heaven; The Dark Knight developed its characters and didn’t spend half the dialogue setting up future installments.  In the case of Power Rangers, it’s definitely darker than the shows, but they balance it out with plenty of humorous moments.  Unfortunately, the movie isn’t very good at comedy, or action, or pacing, or…

Despite these young actors trying their hardest, the material they’re given is garbage.  I made the comparison to Chronicle because Power Rangers follows its first act to a T.  These characters are extremely clichéd high school stereotypes.  Subsequently, we get to see all the gloriously overdone character arcs and easy-to-write backstories that come with them.  I’m not going to pretend that the shows had mind-blowing characters, but they had plenty of charm.  These guys literally spell out what their main character trait is “I’m insane!”  “What’s up crazy girl?”  “The ‘golden boy’ of our little town.”  It makes for some extremely unengaging characters.  I’ll admit, there is a lot of time dedicated to character development, but what we get is not very original.  It doesn’t help that 80% of the dialogue is painfully bland exposition.

Despite the character faults, the action could make up for it.  Ughhhhhh; that’s where the other half of the problems lie.  While the F/X and costumes are decent, it takes forever for us to actually see the Power Rangers!  You have to sit through 90 slow minutes of boring high school ridiculousness before any cool stuff happens.  Also, the pacing is yawn-inducing, and the camerawork is crappy (ugly Dutch angles, shaky cam, the usual).  What’s especially aggravating is the third act.  More clichés are abused!  We get a fake out death (it’s not a spoiler because you know the movie won’t actually do it), followed by one of the worst examples of “Talking Killer Syndrome” (a term crated by Roger Ebert to describe bad guys who monologue instead of kill), and a very disappointing climax.  The fight choreography is ok and the scale is fun, but the battle sequence ached for more time devoted to it.  Hopefully the sequels are more action-drewn, but this movie never measures up to the potential.  Honestly, it would have been outstanding if it was directed by Edgar Wright.  The source material would be perfect for his style of humor.  He can do action quite well (Scott Pilgrim, Hot Fuzz), and the genre lends its way for clever satire.  Sadly, I ain’t that lucky.  With that, the review is over.

Is Power Rangers an unnecessary adaptation that’s worth your time (like Warcraft or 2016’s The Magnificent Seven)?  Or is it an unnecessary adaptation that you should burn with hellfire (Maleficent, 2016’s Ghostbusters, Assassins Creed, 2015’s Vacation, etc.)?  That is entirely up to you.  In my (packed) theater, the parents looked bored, but the kids were having a blast.  Most critics don’t like the film, but most audiences enjoyed it.  As for me, there was not enough cool stuff to overshadow the blandness.  Then again, I did sit though Monster Trucks and Life (2017) so a film about angsty teens talking to Bryan Cranston’s wall-face doesn’t seem too bad.  Power Rangers gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a C+.

“Life” (2017) Review (SPOILERS)

*stammering in shock*  I… uh, how?  In the name of all things original and competent, HOW IS THIS MOVIE EVEN A THING?!  Alright, I need to slow down for a second; here’s the context.  I watched Power Rangers and I’ve already started the review on it.  For those aching for that review, the movie is essentially 50% crap, 50% cool stuff.   Then I watched Life in search of mindless enjoyment and nothing else.  Surely I can at least be entertained by modern Hollywood right?  Upon leaving the theater, I had more passionate anger than I did with the Ghostbusters remake.  Before we get into the criticism, I’m warning you, there will be a lot of rage in this review, and I’m NOT going to apologize for it.  The incompetence of this movie is inexcusable!  Ok, here we go.

Life is directed by Daniel Espinosa and written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick.  Stars-Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Hiroyuki Sanada, Ryan Reynolds, Olga Dihovichnaya, and Ariyon Bakare.  Premise-After discovering an intelligent, sentient organism in Mars samples, a crew of astronauts/scientists conduct various tests to see if it responds.  When it turns out to be a hostile, rapidly evolving creature, it becomes a game of cat-and-mouse on the spaceship as the crew fights for their lives.

The opening scene shows promise; displaying some decent (but average by the standards set by Gravity, Interstellar, and Rogue One) F/X.  One Brian De Palma-style tracking shot later and our sci-fi clichéachers (i.e. clichéd characters) have been introduced.  The aloof one (Gyllenhaal), the protocol controlling leader (Ferguson), the scientist who treats the alien like his child (Bakare), the joke-maker who’ll die first (Reynolds), the Asian who speaks in technobabble (Sanada), and the other one you completely forgot about (Dihovichnaya).  Your first thought is probably, “Well, the ensemble cast is probably great.”  No.  What he have is a wasted ensemble cast.  I am so sick of the mindset that a great cast can save a movie and/or terrible writing.  Should not the actors be chosen on the basis of how well they can play a specific character as opposed to, “Hey, let’s cast Ryan Reynolds and Jake Gyllenhaal.  They practically add 50 brownie points to any movie they’re in.”  I am 100% sure that, if this movie didn’t have such great thespians, critics would call it, “A generic genre flick whose decent visuals cannot overcome predictable plotting and stolen ideas.”  Oh, we’ve just begun the brutal spanking of this movie.  Let’s get into the story.

In essence, these guys have come across a living cell in Mars samples gathered by robotic scouts.  They nurse the organism back to consciousness (using various sciency things) and all seems well.  They even broadcast an update to Earth, where a randomly selected elementary school decides to name it “Calvin.”  Soon after, things begin to go wrong.  From there, the rest of the movie is; character dies brutally, Calvin disappears, coming up with a plan, plan goes wrong, character dies brutally.  Rinse and repeat.  In between that, we get to enjoy a cliché sandwich topped with idiocy and a side order of plagiarism.

Remember how the crew in Alien was mostly miners/explores?  It made sense that they would not be outfitted for (or expecting) an alien attack.  You could fell the pure terror and confusion.  In Life, some the best minds (as represented by our ethnically/nationally diverse cast) on Earth are up there.  Yet, they find it in themselves to make EVERY DUMB DECISION IN SCI-FI HORROR HISTORY!  It’s pointless to list them off because you, the casual reader, have already guessed some of them in your head.  I don’t care how much stress you’re under, anyone with half a brain knows not to: split up, try to save someone beyond saving, or go into the room with the murderous alien monster!!!   With the exception of the scientist guy, every character that dies does so by sacrificing themselves.  This is one of the many things the filmmakers don’t understand, a sacrifice needs to be built up and done only once.  When every freaking person is doing it, the impact is lost.  It doesn’t help that the pacing is far too slow for this bare-bones plot.

I mentioned Alien earlier, but not the fact that this movie is a rip-off.  Some critics defend Life by saying that it took inspiration from Alien as opposed to directly ripping it off.  Actually, that is only our nostalgic minds that tell us every horror movie in space is automatically a rip-off of Alien.  I don’t think anyone else has pointed this out; Life is a rip off of John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982).  From discovering an alien that was trapped in the ground of a planet, to said alien being extremely difficult to find/kill, to the secondary conflict being “We cannot let this thing get to the rest of humanity.”  Nice try director of frickin Safe House, I noticed the uncanny similarities, and I don’t tolerate them.  Speaking of The Thing (one of the best horror movies in history), that movie worked because the alien had a weakness, and the characters didn’t give it a non-terrifying name.  Throughout the bloated runtime of Life, the characters keep reminding the audience that Calvin is near-indestructible and keeps evolving (minus points for treating the audience like idiots).

Now we arrive at the last third, and this is where I decided to review it over Power Rangers.  Throughout the film, I was waiting for that scene in most horror survivors where the characters come together and formulate a plan to kill the monster.  Obviously, Calvin cannot be killed with fire, or the emptiness of space, so it looks like it’s going to be a battle of wits (which would have been an excellent way to take the narrative).  After all, the characters told us that Calvin is intelligent at least 20 times.  For whatever reason, it takes until the last two survivors to come up with a clever trap.  Yeah, yeah, they had a few attempts before the climax, but the only plan that actually has a chance of working is the one made by Gyllenhaal (let’s be honest, you only see the actor, nor the character).  He and Ferguson are the only two left, the ship is running low on oxygen, and Calvin is still around.  Gyllenhaal then tells Ferguson that he will lure Calvin to escape pod A with oxygen flares (Calvin requires oxygen) where he will trap Calvin inside with him, jettison the pod, and manually fly it away from Earth.  Ferguson will take escape pod B and attempt re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere.  Unfortunately, their pods fly off course.  Ferguson’s pod malfunctions and she flies off into deep space, and Gyllenhaal lands on Earth with Calvin who appears to be creating a nest inside the pod.  Ferguson screams, and Gyllenhaal shouts “No!”  as a wide shot shows us some fishermen boats coming towards the pod accompanied by Jon Ekstrand’s (taking lessons from the Mica Levi school of long chords) loud score.  Cut to black, and we’re treated to the song “Spirit in the Sky” (can we stop using this dang song in movies?).

Alright, where do I freaking start?  To start, of all the things that go wrong, the pods hit random debris as they fly.  Earlier, another ship collided with their vessel, and the result was some debris being sent into space.  However, the exact moment when the pods hit the debris is far too coincidental, especially since the rest of their flight had no issues whatsoever.  But what really gets me is the ending.  From the get-go, I knew this wasn’t going to have a happy ending (again, Life is very clichéd), but this screenplay is so bad, my dad (who saw it with me) came up with a better ending.  “What if Gyllenhaal wanted to take the alien to Earth?”  Think about it!  From the start of the movie, we know he doesn’t like other people.  He’s about to set a record for most days in orbit, and he has taken on more radiation than the human body can handle (implying that he will die soon).  In addition, some of his last words to Ferguson are “I belong up here.  You think I want to go back down to those 8 billion mother***ers?”  Heck, he dislikes humanity because of war, mistreatment, and overpopulation.  Bringing the alien to Earth could have been his way of “cleansing” it and starting anew.  Not only is that a ballsy, jaw-dropping twist, it would have eliminated the debris plothole (instead, he would have pushed Ferguson out into space as re-entered the atmosphere), and his character would have been much more interesting.  If done properly, the audience would have never seen it coming!  Ugh!  Such wasted potential!

*listens to Hans Zimmer’s S.T.A.Y. and cools down*  Alright, to be fair, I may be demanding perfection from a movie that, for better or worse, is basic entertainment.  This is a problem of mine; I don’t classify many movies as average (which is the reality) and instead go for the extremes.  Despite this, I want to believe that we are beyond the action nonsense of the 90s and the space obsession of the 70s.  We are now in a much more story-driven era where audiences have matured and expectations are higher.  This is why I hate the term “popcorn flick” it’s an excuse for a movie to be dumb so long as it doesn’t offend you or be too serious.  Life doesn’t know if it wants to be mindless fun, or dramatic sci-fi.  Because of this, I cannot enjoy it.  The writing isn’t intelligent enough to be moving, and the horror elements are stolen.  Even the one thing that could have given the film an identity of its own, the aforementioned twist, wasn’t there.  My Power Rangers review will be out on Thursday, but for now, Life gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a D.

“Monster Trucks” Review

I expected 2 things from this movie: either a surprisingly heartwarming adventure film, or a stupidly-entertaining, cheesy, clichéd mess.  I got the latter.

Monster Trucks is directed by Chris Wedge and written by: Derek Connelly, Matthew Robinson, Jonathan Aibel, and Glenn Berger.  Stars-Lucas Till, Jane Levy, Barry Pepper, Rob Lowe, and Danny Glover.  Premise-While drilling for oil, a company unearths subterranean creatures with strange abilities.  One of them escapes to a junkyard manned by Tripp (Till), a down on his luck engineer who yearns for a life outside of his dull hometown.  When he discovers the monster, they quickly become friends, and Tripp modifies his custom built truck to house the creature.  But the corporation does not want any knowledge of these monsters to reach the public, so they hunt down Tripp’s new friend.

Did that sound like an incomprehensible (if not familiar) premise?  That’s because Monster Trucks is one of the ridiculously clichéd movies I have ever seen!  I left the theater shocked in disbelief of what I just watched.  Time to rip apart a once-respected director’s disasterpiece.

This film was produced by Nickelodeon Movies (whose production credits include Good Burger, Rugrats Go Wild, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, Barnyard, and The Last Airbender), and loosely based off of the toys and famous trucks.  I say loosely because there is little to no connection to the actual monster truck toys or the real thing.  At best, we get a 3 second clip of Grave Digger (I think) on a box TV, but that’s it.  Instead, ugh, we get actual monster trucks.  One of the reasons I saw this trash was because of Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger.  These guys have turned stupid premises into great movies before (the Kung Fu Panda trilogy).  Heck, they wrote Trolls, another toy-based cash grab, and even though it was a bad film, the amount of lore and attempts at charm were decent.  I cannot believe how lazy the writing and direction is, so I guess we’ll just have to go over why.

Within the first 10 minutes, you know the movie is going to be a predictable mess.  Our first encounter with the main protagonist tells you he is your average, generic, pretty tennager who wants to leave his crummy little hometown (has this cliché seriously been around since the 40s?).  He has a bland, loving mother (Amy Ryan), and a stepfather (Pepper) he doesn’t get along with (reason-nonexistent).  Tripp is an outcast at high school, but finds solace in working at a junkyard, where his boss Danny Glover (who cares what the character’s name is) will occasionally give Tripp car parts so he can build his own truck.  We then cut to a generic oil company run by a generic, evil, rich white guy (Lowe) who doesn’t care about environmental risks.  After discovering possible sub aquatic life where they are drilling, Lowe demands that they continue.  Predictably, they unearth 3 creatures, and capture 2 while the third escapes.

If you couldn’t tell, everything about this movie is a cliché, especially the characters.  Tripp’s mom and Glover don’t get any development, Lowe is a caricature, and the supporting cast is even worse.  There is a female student, played by Levy, who enters the plot to help out Tripp with his homework (now that’s character motivation).  Of course these two planks of wood have to get together (even though they have as much chemistry as Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in By the Sea) then save these monsters.  Unfortunately, most of their scenes amount to filler.  Whenever this girl contributes to the plot, she’ll say something like, “My dad has tools” or “My dad has an empty barn that he never looks inside of.”  All this girl does is provide Tripp with Dues Ex Machina’s!  What is really annoying is that they do this at least 4 times!

Oh gosh I haven’t even gotten to the acting in this movie!  Everyone is atrocious!  Till is awkwardly strange, Ryan/Lowe/Pepper aren’t even trying, Glover has 3 minutes of screentime, and Levy is… just the worst.  Wedge must have been absent for every one of her scenes, because it’s almost like she doesn’t know what acting is.  Everyone in this movie has given good performances in the past, but that’s what happens when your script is sewage.

There is a reason why I chose not to make this a spoiler review.  Judging from the sound of laughter in my theater, I can say that little kids will have a blast with it.  Not to say you (someone over the age of 14) should waste your money on it, but there is an audience that likes it.  You could probably predict every scene up until the climax.  Speaking of which, the third act (which is oddly similar to that of Starman) thoroughly defenestrated any suspension of disbelief that I still had.  The CGI is terrible from the start, but it really shows in this climax, it contains a poor use of the Wilhelm scream, physics are abused, and the ending is incredibly cheesy.  That’s it, we’re done.

Monster Trucks is not one of the worst films out there because it’s not insulting, nor offensive, just absurdly stupid.  It’s the type of movie that you would watch on a Friday night with your buddies, dollar store popcorn in one hand and alcoholic (I prefer H2O) beverage in the other, and let the belly laughs ensue.  It may not be as confusingly entertaining as The Room or Birdemic, but trust me; it’s in the ballpark.  Monster Trucks gets Guy’s Guru Grade of a D.

Top Ten Best Movies of 2016

I don’t know what to write here, so let’s just talk about some dang good movies!

 

Rules: This list contains movies from 2016 that I have watched in their entirety.  Whether I reviewed them or not doesn’t matter (links to the movies I have written about will be provided).  Only theatrical releases can be on this list.  The grades I gave them in their reviews do not matter; it is a comparison of the best movies form last year that I saw.  Finally, this is my list, with my opinions, and my praise, so enjoy!

 

#10 – Zootopia

Yes, that “rules” paragraph was copy-pasted from my other list (problem?), but here is a movie without a shred of redundancy.  My opinion has wavered over how rock solid the commentary is, but one thing is certain, Zootopia is a clever look at society with the charm and likability of a Disney renaissance film.  The characters (if they are not a stereotype) are brimming with personality, the voice acting is amiable, and the animation is some of the best 3D has to offer.  Zootopia is overrated, but for very good reason.

#9 – The Lobster/Swiss Army Man

What is dis?  Two movies for one spot?  How dare I!  It’s my list, so roll with it.  I was in a major state of hopelessness before I watched these movies.  I really needed to see something original to combat the slew of pandering garbage.  I was excited and apprehensive to see both of these films because their trailers left much to the imagination.  I’ve been meaning to talk about both of these movies since I first watched the last year, but other things took priority.  By now, you probably know the plots of these movies, and you should watch them if not.  What’s fascinating is how eerily similar they are.  Both are love stories, they each have fantasy elements, they both have a 7.1 IMDb rating, neither of them follow “traditional” writing, and they were both incredible refreshers in a crappy film year.  The casts are given a lot to work with, the soundtracks are magnificent, and the oddball humor almost always hits it’s mark.  Most critics prefer The Lobster and most audiences prefer Swiss Army Man, but as far as this Internet nobody is concerned, they are equally original, equally entertaining, and equally important.

#8 – The Magnificent Seven

Many a time has passed when I fantasize about Vincent D’Onofrio’s Jack Horne entering reality, hunting down the people who gave this movie a poor rating, and asking them in a half-friendly tone (while brandishing an axe), “Now why did y’all have to do that?”  Is that normal?  Can you blame me?  The Magnificent Seven is one of the best action movies of last year, but it is quite possibly the most underrated gem of that year.  The performances are memorable, the action is brutal, the score is incredible, the cinematography is resplendent, and the mere fact that this movie is not only the rare, “remake of a remake,” but one that manages to be good as well… it’s awesome!  This is Antoine Fuqua’s best film since Shooter in 2007.  And yet, people still call it a worse remake than Ghostbusters 2016.  For those of you who believe that, refer to this list, then this review, then get your brain checked out.  Don’t give me that look; this is a list of movies that I love.  Of course I’m going to defend them!  You get the point, you’re in for some great action when you watch this movie.

#7 – Kung Fu Panda 3

I spent at least 30 minutes debating the order of this movie and the next one on the list.  After re-reading the reviews, thus recalling why I love both of them, I still can’t decide.  I’d put them both in the same spot, but I already did that with The Lobster/Swiss Army Man, and I don’t want to annoy you that much.  Let’s just say that #7 and #6 are interchangeable.

Oops, almost forgot to talk about Kung Fu Panda 3.  I still stand by what I said in the review, “Kung Fu Panda is one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time!”  I cannot think of a film trilogy that improved each time.  Return of the Jedi isn’t as good as its predecessors, nor was Temple of Doom or Dark Knight Rises, and the individual films in the Toy Story and Lord of the Rings trilogies are equally great (at least to me).  I am thoroughly triggered over the Oscar snubbery of this film.  There was not an animated film that looked more beautiful than this one.  Nobody will agree with me, but while Kubo and the Two Strings was detailed, Sing was colorful, and Zootopia was wonderfully designed, the visual appeal in Kung Fu Panda 3 (especially during the spirit world sequences) is not to be missed.  The animation is backed by likable characters, progressive writing, and upbeat humor.  I don’t know what they’ll do with the next movie but I have confidence in this team.  Their effort shows through the finished product, which is entertainment with a big heart.

#6 – Doctor Strange

Superhero movies cannot grow old as long as Marvel keeps churning out exceptional stuff like Doctor Strange!  From the acrobatic choreography, to the charming cast, to the philosophy, to the incredible production quality (i.e. makeup, F/X, costumes, and sets), everything is impressive.  You’ll notice that there are many movies on this list that could be considered “basic entertainment,” but that is perfectly acceptable.  There seems to be two radical thoughts on how “deep” movies can be.  Either “every movie is mindless entertainment,” or “everything has to be Manchester by the Sea levels of emotionally complicated.”  There is such a thing as a lighthearted action flick with some character or moral depth.  There can also be a serious movie with a decent helping of fun action/comedy.  One of the finest examples of this is Raiders of the Lost Ark.  If you think about it, the whole point of the movie was to stop the Nazis (the freaking Nazis!) from getting their hands on a weapon that would allow them to take over the world.  Clever writing and Steven Spielberg’s direction gave the movie more of a “fun adventure” tone, despite the many aspects of it that are not meant for kids.  On the surface, Doctor Strange is a thrilling spectacle of magic, but the developed characters all have very adult reasons for what they believe in.  Bottom line, if you want a superhero flick with the excitement of a summer blockbuster but with the attention to detail of a character piece, Doctor Strange is your movie.  After all, there will be plenty of mature movies now that we are in the top 5.

#5 – La La Land

We wanted a movie with style.  We wanted a movie with originality.  We wanted a movie with effort.  In response, we got La La Land, a beautiful throwback to the musicals of the past.  I never explained how bad of an experience I had at the theater when I watched the movie.  It was… very unpleasant.  After watching more reviews, clips from the film, and listening to the soundtrack on repeat, I’ve grown to like it more.  I still don’t think that “fantasy” thing near the end should have happened, but La La Land is still a feel-good musical with irresistible actors and a soundtrack that is just as great as everyone says.  It’s a movie that sparkles with style, delivers pure entertainment, and radiates passion/effort.

#4 – Hidden Figures

This one has grown on me over time.  The cast brims with talent, every character’s dialogue is intelligent, the score is wonderful, and the pacing is really good.  It felt like I had endured the amount of time the women in the movie did.  When justice is served, it felt earned.  The lighthearted tone mirrors the movie’s most valuable asset… a sense of hope.

#3 – Captain America: Civil War

In a world when audiences across the world are massively disappointed by one of 2016’s biggest misfires (Batman v Superman), Marvel will release a film (no, an event) that will remind us that superhero movies can have compelling story arcs, characters with character, mind-blowing visuals, incredible fight choreography, and a perfect balance of comedy and drama.  To those who have been picking apart every single word in the script, aren’t you taking this superhero movie (that doesn’t’ take itself that seriously) too seriously?  I really like Daniel Brühl’s villain, he had a plan that is legitimately intelligent.  The tension between the 10+ main characters (I’m still amazed at how well they wrote everyone) created more suspense than waiting for the airport scene (that takes really competent direction), and of course, the freaking battle sequences alone make life worth living.

#2 – Hacksaw Ridge

It came down to a tough decision between this move and number 1.  Hacksaw Ridge is one of the two movies of 2016 that drove me to tears (the other was Patriots Day, specifically the ending).  There are so many things this war drama does right… only the direction of Mel Gibson could have done it.  Andrew Garfield shines (as does the rest of the cast), the character’s actions support the message, the technical aspects are a spectacle, and that M.M.M montage cannot be forgotten.  This movie spends it’s time setting up the compelling characters before throwing them into the horrors of Hacksaw Ridge.  It is very hard to watch this movie, but the amount of care and respect that went into it is awe-inspiring.

 

Honorable Mentions

• The Conjuring 2

A sequel that ups the characters as much as the production quality, The Conjuring 2 has the dramatic heft to support the terrifying story.

• Southside with You

Why wasn’t this nominated for any Oscars?  Seriously, Parker Sawyers and Tika Sumpter are spot on, their relationship progression felt natural, the time period is captured very well, and the movie doesn’t focus purely on politics.  As far as romances go, it’s one of the best.

• Barbershop: The Next Cut

After Barbershop 2: Back in Business, this movie had very little to live up to.  But under the competent direction of Malcom D. Lee, a fully-utilized cast, fast-paced humor, relatable characters, and engaging social commentary, The Next Cut became the best film in the trilogy.

• Arrival

I never got around to reviewing this one because I couldn’t’ form an actual opinion.  One (or four) thing’s for sure, the story is original, the visuals can’t be beat, the score is chilling, and it requires you to use your brain.

• Nocturnal Animals

This is one of the most elegant movies I have ever seen.  The score (especially “Wayward Sisters”) is beautiful, Tom Ford’s vision is remarkable, the performances (especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Shannon) are excellent, and the story is intriguing.  Nocturnal Animals is one experience you won’t soon forget.

• Loving

It suffers from Jeff Nichols trademarked slow pacing, but Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga’s performances are unbelievably endearing.

• Deepwater Horizon

Top notch technicals are really second to the incredibly respectful direction, intense acting, and genuine drama.

• Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

It has plenty of issues, but the climax is awesome, the characters are likable, and the presentation is amazing.

• Manchester by the Sea

This movie wasn’t meant for me, but I still appreciate what it accomplished.  It’s a superbly acted drama about regular people (something we don’t get enough of).

• Lion

The first third is quite boring, but the second Dev Patel (congrats on the Oscar nomination man, you deserve it) arrives on screen, the movie gets better and better.  Not to mention Nicole Kidman’s heartbreaking acting and a tear-jerking climax.

• Sing

Sing is one of the most innocently enjoyable films I’ve seen in quite some time.  Energetic animation backs up extremely likable (and perfectly casted) characters, completed with a terrific soundtrack.

 

#1 – Hell or High Water

While Hacksaw Ridge was tear-jerkingly dramatic, Hell or High Water is a slow-building, character-driven film about family, banks, old age, regret, and morality.  I can’t describe how detailed the screenplay is.  I’m’ looking forward to Taylor Sheridan’s Wind River because this guy knows what makes any compelling movie… characters.  In Hell or High Water, there is the black and white law, but there are also desperate people who have to break that law to survive.  None of the awards for this movie truly tell you how exceptional the cast is.  Chris Pine and Ben Foster have incredible chemistry, as do Jeff Bridges and Gil Bermingham.  There is such an attention to character in this movie, it is amazing.  This is the type of mature, important film that was so sorely needed in a year of “junk food movies.”

 

There you have it.  We went through a crappy film year, but made it out (as we always do).  I appreciate each and every one of your viewership.  There was more than one personal challenge for me last year, but when I get notified that “X liked your post,” it tells me that someone listened, and it motivates me to work harder.  – Erick