Opiniones de slicedbread117

Coming off the heals of the (current) 4th highest-grossing film of all-time, Ant-Man and the Wasp (AATW), much like its 2015 predecessor, following "Age of Ultron", is given the strenuous task of following up the MCU's biggest film to date. And again, like Ant-Man, it provides a wonderfully soft cushion to break the metaphorical fall of the MCU after it climbed to the very top and jumped with "Infinity War". It shows issues no doubt, but it's just the rebound of simple, lighthearted fun that was needed.

And that's where it thrives most, in its accessible, while still unique entertainment value. The sequel does its job by building on the original, making room for fun, varied action sequences, driven by the unique powers of our titular characters, doubled by the addition of Wasp (Evangeline Lilly). Director Peyton Reed really played around with the shrinking and growing powers of both Ant-Man and the Wasp, crafting some super fun "now you see me, now you don't" action. The CGI has the look and detail of an Avengers-level film, coupled with eye-catching costume design and artistic direction, it supplements the film's action nicely. AATW also provides some of the best comedy in the MCU. There's hilarious scenes that kept the mood light and my smile brimming, as Reed utilizes forms of slapstick comedy with Ant-Man's powers and an often-malfunctioning suit to create some of the funniest moments in the entire franchise.

This sequel proves again that not every superhero film has to have life and death implications, that there are great small stories to be told, especially inside Marvel's connected universe. That's just what Reed aims for and largely succeeds in with its narrative; smaller in scale, more personalized and easy to digest. It's at heart a character-driven MacGuffin story surrounding genius Hank Pym's (Michael Douglas) homemade lab, as a trifecta of groups, including our heroes, aim to get their hands on it for their own personal reasons. Set to a beat of classic Marvel-comedic tones along with a pinch of sci-fi elements, we have a smaller, easy-to-grasp plot while still delivering on intrigue. And while it's not huge in scope, Reed and his writing team find clever ways to connect the story to the larger MCU, while still staying self-contained, not resorting to a world-ending plot line. We get to see expanded usage of the Quantum Realm, a subplot which lends an extra mysterious sci-fi element, an aspect much welcomed into the film and something we haven't seen the last of for sure. Lead character Scott Lang/Ant-Man's (Paul Rudd) decision to aid Captain America during "Civil War" left an enormous impact on his personal life and the lives of others. I love how the outcome of that film is still having a trickle-down effect on the main characters, that we're seeing those stories being told (i.e. Black Panther, Homecoming).

On the flip side of its story, AATW does show its occasional flaws. The Marvel template of filmmaking has been vastly expanded on in the past couple of years, taking a tried-and-true formula and molding it into new genres and adventures. This film is structurally the safest we've seen since "Doctor Strange", maybe since the first "Ant-Man". A structure that often benefits the film, as it does with nearly all MCU outings, but at times the weariness of the "original" Marvel formula can be seen here, playing many story elements safer. The film gets off to a rather slow start, there's a lack of action and pacing in the first act that puts a damper on the flow for a while. As good as the characters are (more on that soon), the plot creates a redundancy to both sides coinciding together, who seemingly could easily set aside their differences to help each other, but the story demands they remain enemies to include the cat-and-mouse chase to continue the story. Small mishaps no doubt, but like Ant-Man himself, sometimes the smallest things stand out the most.

Character development has been a staple of the MCU ever since it kicked of in 2008. We get some awesome recurring characters with equally as wonderful acting performances. There's tight chemistry that binds it all together, creating likable characters to root for. Leading the charge is Paul Rudd, whose charisma, charm and terrific humor shines through in his third outing as Ant-Man. Evangeline Lilly gets a hefty increase of screen time here and rightfully so. Her character development is well-fit and Lilly gives a solid performance as Hope van Dyne/Wasp. Veteran Michael Douglas, like in the first film, delivers another great act; he's taken the great writing of Hank Pym and ran with it, displaying excellent emotion and wonderfully witty humor. The supporting cast is rounded out nicely with the solid addition of Laurence Fishburne as Hank Pym's former colleague, Bill Foster, who's involvement deepens the lore and the story at hand. But the supporting cast's icing on the cake is Michael Pena (Luis), who again steals the show with his fast-talking humor and hilarious flashback narration scenes.

We've witnessed the recent eradication of Marvel's so-called "villain problem" (Vulture, Hela, Killmonger, Thanos) and while AATW doesn't necessarily present of villain "problem", the main marketed villain, Ghost, is easily the weakest we've seen in a while. It's almost hard to call her a villain. That title more appropriately is held by black-arms dealer Sonny Burch (Walter Goggins), a fairly bland and unoriginal antagonist himself. Ghost, even with her cool powers and desperate motives, wasn't compelling enough to become emotionally attachable. Her background story just isn't gripping, and there's no reason to care about her motives. I enjoyed that it wasn't about the threat of our heroes being killed by Ghost, and that wasn't ever the intent with her the character, but her presence doesn't invoke enough urgency to take that step into becoming a legitimate villain. Adding salt to the wound, actress Hannah John-Kamen's debut in the MCU as Ghost was disappointing. Not enough emotional complexity from her performance bogs down the character into becoming that less-interesting character, which is also due in part to lackluster writing.

There's a simplistic ideology to AATW that makes it, at time, seem slightly "cookie cutter". But Reed and Marvel doesn't let the sequel fall to the wayside by injecting lively personality into the film. Big (yet so small), unique action sequences, laugh-out-loud comedy and a cast of lovable, fleshed out protagonists. It's not too big nor too small; Ant-Man and the Wasp is a splendid, snugly fit inside the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe.

8/10

If anyone ever wondered what a Transformers movie with dinosaurs would look or feel like, here it is. Jurassic Park's legacy is without debate; it's one of the most acclaimed films of all-time and 2015's Jurassic World, in my opinion, was a worthy re-entry back into the classic franchise. So how does Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (FK) stack up against those two films? How does it relate to a Transformers movie? All hat and no cattle, frosting without a cake, a funhouse mirror image of what this franchise aims to be.

What's different in this review, is that first I must talk about the trailers and marketing campaign of Fallen Kingdom, which isn't an aspect that should have hardly any effect on the film itself, but it does here. FK basically loses all credibility for practically ruining most of its greatest moments by spoiling them in the trailers. Now, one could say don't watch the trailers, simple. But when you're sitting in a theater before another film and the second or third trailer for FK comes on, you don't have much of a choice. And regardless, trailers are made to tease you into wanting to watch the rest of the film, not give away its best moments. I had to address this, because it's a recurring problem throughout the rest of the review.

Fallen Kingdom's story structure reminds me of a huge hoagie that starts off looking promising and then just completely falls apart as you eat it. We're initially presented with a simple premise; dinosaurs exist on an island which a volcano will erupt on any day, and mankind must decide whether it's in their best interest to save them. It's a safe, if not kind of lazy way to get our main characters back running through a jungle, but in real life, this would actually be a compelling storyline. And for what it's worth, the first half of the film did feel a little bit like a Jurassic Park story, which I can't deny is fun to watch. But that narrative dies faster than the idiot guy from the opening scene, however, when things take a "unexpected" turn as the plot shifts, leading to our first trailer buzzkill. The entire first plot twist moving into the new main narrative is completely spoiled in the trailers, from Owen's (Chris Pratt) Velociraptor, Blue, getting shot, to Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire screaming "it was all a lie!" and then the ensuing footage of bad people selling dinos to worse people, the unveiling of the new big-bad dino, the Indoraptor (totally unnecessary), and the ensuing home-invasion-style hunt, and that's pretty much the entire plot. If only it played out so neatly. Fallen Kingdom has a severe case of dreadful pacing; the film spins off into pointless subplots that draw attention away from its main story, and these subplots truly have no justification or development. FK can't always seem to keep its head on straight, it runs around more than the characters on screen.

Where Fallen Kingdom's story really goes wrong is in its second half story featuring a generic cardboard cutout villain wanting to sell the dinosaurs for other buyers to use as weapons while our antagonist makes a few million bucks. Its bland, dry and worn out. The film becomes way too confined in its setting, no variation and no room to breathe unique ideas. Director J.A. Bayona tries to explore new territory in the franchise's storytelling, which I give credit for, but there's no room to explore stuck in an evil-lair-mansion for more than half the movie. The confined spaces do, however, make for one of the most positive aspects of the film. Fallen Kingdom delivers some of the best utterly tense and somewhat frightening moments seen since the original Jurassic Park, and that's a big thumbs up. Many moments had me drawn into the film, even if most sequences become unbearably predictable thanks to the trailer spoilers. FK still is able to build suspense and keep you engaged in several areas. Unfortunately, the humor to balance out the welcomed intensity is basically non-existent or terribly forced, with the best moments being shown off in the trailers yet again. The writing from Derek Connolly and Jurassic World director Colin Trevorrow along with the vision of Bayona is way too overconfident, trying to jam together a compelling screenplay which instead turns into a sloppy romp over two hours.

Where the story is viewed as more of a mixed portion of the film, the cast of characters and their writing is what truly stands out as the ugly duckling in Fallen Kingdom. Not one single character, with the occasional exception of Owen, is intriguing in the slightest. Even Jeff Goldblum's return to the franchise was a shameless marketing plug, his lines in the film almost entirely can be found in the trailers word for word. I wouldn't have cared at all if any of the characters died in the film, everyone is just filler for a movie that works best when dinosaurs are in focus, yet another Transformers comparison. The human cast is dumbed down, unconvincing and emotionally disengaging. Alongside Owen and Claire in their quest are two tag-along interns from Claire's new dinosaur rights movement group, Zia (Daniella Pineda) who is at least of use in the film and Franklin (Justice Smith) the supposed comic relief turned into the absolute worst character in the entire franchise, annoying me to the point of wanting to plug my ears and gauge out my eyes. Least of all exciting is the aforementioned main antagonist, Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) who takes the easily foreseen twist from the good-hearted heir to Jurassic Park's creators to the mustache twirling, cliched capitalist with zero moral fiber and a lame agenda. The dinosaurs of the film actually do receive strong characterization, you care for them a heck of a lot more than any of the human cast. This does provide some heart in a film brimming with distress, a small shot of adrenaline for an overall stale set of characters.

If nothing else, Fallen Kingdom does provide some stunning CG visuals to complement its occasional intensity. The dinosaurs look gorgeous, finely detailed as they roar with ferocity. It shows off its big budget with fun, if sometimes over-the-top action sequences, splendid cinematography and then there's still that giddy joy in watching a dino devour a bad guy or witnessing the king T-rex claim his dominancy on screen even for a brief time. FK does give some nice little bits of nostalgia for long time viewers to chew on as well, always a welcomed touch to a long-running series.

Fallen Kingdom could maybe be best described as if you were to look at a picture of a pool from a resort, all glimmering on top, perfectly blue as if it couldn't be real. But then, you were to dive in and find nothing but sewage and grime, almost drown, only to pop back up to see the beautiful view on top. Rinse and repeat. It can be a fun ride with several thrills and big-budget CGI, cool looking dinosaurs and a scarcely engaging plot. But don't fooled, it's all style and no substance, all bark and no bite.

4.5/10

*This review is coming from a viewer who has not read the original book, this review is based solely on the film adaptation.*

At first sight, Ready Player One (RP1) might resolve as "classic Spielberg magic", and in many ways you'd be right. The entertainment value is undeniable. With nostalgia in full flight, RP1 is an enormous, bombastically fun pop culture extravaganza. But underneath the beauty lies a beast, a beast of often sloppy storytelling, alarming plot holes and more, leaving Ready Player One more as a one-night stand of fun than as a serious long-term lover.

Again, I cannot deny the simple fact that RP1 is down right fun. As long as you haven't been living under a rock for the last 40 years, there will be some sort of movie, game or musical reference to tickle your fancy even a little. Centered around the Oasis, a virtual reality video game of the future, inhabitants can imagine whatever they want inside the game, leading to an endless stream of glorious cameos from fictional characters from every facet of entertainment you could think of. The in-game setting of the film is fantastical, it's loaded with nostalgia, Easter eggs, pop culture references, etc. The atmosphere of the Oasis itself is engrossing, from the unique locations to the vastly populated worlds, it made me feel as if I was part of this massive virtual universe along with everyone else in the game. The CGI is so dynamic, I, like the characters in the film, was hooked on always being in the Oasis, it gave me a level of connection to the movie that was vital to draw me in, and the heavy, yet brilliantly creative use of the CGI did just that.

Where RP1 thrives most is when the story focuses itself inside the Oasis. The simple yet wondrous quest at the forefront of the Oasis makes for the best storytelling, because it's just that, simple and wondrous, like a video game of early days. It's magical, charming and ridiculously fun. Meeting new characters inside the Oasis, exploring the virtual world, it made me feel like the game and everything inside was real.

Now on the flip side, when the film strays away from the virtual world and cuts to the real one, things can get real ugly. Of course, I knew the entire film wasn't going to be set in the Oasis (not that I would've been opposed), as there had to be real-world implications to make the story feel more tangible. There are some interesting subliminal messages regarding the future of video gaming and social media to be thought upon, but largely the narrative direction in the real world is borderline horrible. The plot outside of the game can become so slow and boring, in contrast to the Oasis, it's like watching paint dry compared to attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. The pacing is often painful, with the second act just begging to get itself over with to get to the "final boss" third act (which is exhilaratingly fun).

The plot holes are prominent, several characters in the real world are not half as exciting as they are in-game, and it leads to distorted imbalance that distracts from RP1's true storytelling strengths. When RP1 moves away from the imaginative, simplistic narrative structure of the journey inside the Oasis, it's like an entirely different, much less original or engaging film. The story is really like 'Beauty and the Beast', the Oasis and the real world. Except here, there's no redeeming value inside the beast, it's just bland, shallow and uninteresting.

RP1's set of characters are much like its story, either incredibly unique and fun, or, well, not so much. On one hand, you have some great characters both inside and out of the Oasis. Lead character Wade Watts, aka Parzival, is the stand out by miles, even though his development is rushed and sometimes lackluster. Wade is the beaten down, underdog hero you can't help but root for. His out-of-game story might not be too gripping, but he's still the David versus the goliath that is ultimately heartwarming, and actor Tye Sheridan fits and plays the role splendidly. Other than, at times, Wade's main love interest Samantha, aka Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and occasionally main antagonist Nolan Sorrento (nicely played by Ben Mendelsohn), the characters in the real world don't hold a candle to their Oasis counterparts. The virtual reality presents such a richer connection to the characters from their design to their in-game accomplishments, the supporting cast is simply 1000% cooler in the Oasis. Wade's best friend Aech, Simon Pegg's portrayal of Ogden Morrow, even the creator of the Oasis himself, James Halliday, are all more interesting, more aesthetically pleasing virtually than in real life.

When RP1 tries to be a character driven film, its characters ultimately suffer. Trying to give backstory to some of the supporting cast outside the Oasis seemed like a waste of time. It was necessary for the primary characters, Wade, Samantha and Halliday, but for smaller characters, it hurts the pacing and the wonder, leaving some characters much less enjoyable than others.

The acting itself was all around decent. I mentioned Tye Sheridan's fantastic lead performance, as well as Ben Mendelsohn's solid antagonist acting job. Veteran Mark Rylance gets a special shout out for his portrayal as Halliday and his Oasis-equal, Anorak. Rylance is charmingly awkward and lovable in the role, and uses the awkwardness to deliver funny dry humor as well. T.J. Miller is funny enough in comedic relief as I-ROk, the super awesome-looking secondary antagonist, but his character often felt miswritten to fit Miller's comedic style. Simon Pegg does well as Odgen, Halliday's partner, and Olivia Cooke is okay as Samantha. Here's an unofficial approval of acting prowess to the CGI team for bringing the likes of The Iron Giant among numerous others to life on screen, the movie wouldn't have been the same without them.

This is the ultimate celebration of pop culture. Yes, I can nitpick all day about structural flaws that plague good movies from being great movies, but I know at the end of the day, RP1 is supposed to be fun, and for the most part, it really is. Yes, there are major inconsistencies with engaging storytelling, proper pacing and character writing, but that's all outside of the joy that is the Oasis. Just like the game itself, it's a whole new world in there; the virtual world is bursting at the seams with ludicrously entertaining pop culture cameos and Easter eggs, vivid CGI that draws you in, and a sense of simple storytelling wonder and adventure that reminded me of my first movies and video games. Steven Spielberg might not have crafted a masterpiece that will be re-watched over and over by everyone who sees it, it's not that type of film. But at its core, Ready Player One entertained enough to put a big, nerdy, nostalgic smile on my face.

7/10

Imagine you're watching a classic Disney fairy tale, like 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'Snow White'. Now take that formula, and mold it to fit a mature tone, a 1960's Cold War setting, with unique lead characters and a touch a supernatural fantasy. Sounds a little bizarre, right? The Shape of Water not only proves the odd mix of elements can work, but does so with an exclamation point, creating a surprisingly outstanding work of film.

The Shape of Water is, at heart, an adult fairy tale. Director and writer Guillermo del Toro's vision for this film is a never-before-seen take on the established fairy tale format which has stood the test of time for countless decades in film. Narratively speaking, the film doesn't necessarily innovate in terms of story progression in this particular genre. The main plot movement is still fairly standard for a love story, and the ending is easily predictable. But it's the exemplary presentation of a completely new way to experience this genre that makes The Shape of Water special. Instead of watching the love story play out between two stereotypical human leads, we see a female mute, and a strangely charming amphibian-type creature in the lead roles. As odd as it sounds, it just clicks. The structure of del Toro's script is filled with ingenious dialogue and terrific pacing, giving so much room for the heart to dive into the story and its characters.

Subplots are present but not distracting to the primary narrative, they help deepen the tale and give it some room to breathe occasionally. The grimmer Cold War espionage setting weirdly blends incredibly well with the romantic fantasy tone, invoking a feeling of danger and security all at once. There are sequences of daring moments, keeping you engaged, then it streams effortlessly into a cleared, heart-warming scene. It's an unusual but greatly inviting feeling. So again, while I can't say the story itself is anything revolutionary, its del Toro's brilliantly flowing dialogue mixed with an exclusive set of tones and characters that propels this age-old storytelling formula into stardom.

Del Toro is a brilliant storyteller, no doubt, but it's the underrated elements that give The Shape of Water its heart and soul. The film is backed by a simple, yet emotionally attaching score from Alexandre Desplat. The subtle and innocent sounding music is so in sync with the tone set on the screen, it gives another layer of depth to be consumed. It may not be a blockbuster action epic, but the cinematography and overall production value is superb, from the scenery to the wowing view of Amphibian Man's design. Smart little nuances cause the soul of the film to thrive and del Toro and his crew get additional recognition for that.

As romantic movie duos go, this one may just take the cake in terms of pure abnormality, but it also might take the cake as one of the best. There's Elisa Esposito, a lonely mute janitor trapped in a life of isolation and Amphibian Man, the out of place creature being used for research at a top-secret US facility. The charming nature of Elisa is written extremely well, its easy to develop a love for the character who seems so innocent, and in her motives, which are just to find happiness in the company of others. The writing of Elisa is splendid, but actress Sally Hawkins deserves monumental praise for a delightful performance, especially in the role of a mute. Hawkins uses facial expressions and physical language to convey her emotions expertly, so well that there's little effort from a viewing standpoint to become attached to the character.

Opposite Hawkins is Doug Jones who is excellent playing the role of Amphibian Man. He isn't necessarily unique in the way that we've seen his character type before; the outcast creature inconsiderately being beaten down, with a character on the opposite side that sees through a frightening exterior. But his mysterious origins and subsequent powers give a defining trait to the character, and it's his interactions with Elisa that make the character work. I didn't expect, but would have loved to see more background development for Amphibian Man. His mystical roots crack the door open for larger storytelling, but for this smaller contained story, what we got was all we needed.

Hawkins and Jones lead the charge for the cast but with two lead characters who don't speak, a rock solid supporting cast in vital, and it certainly is here. Octavia Spencer brings her charisma to the role of Zelda, Elisa's work friend, a character that Elisa feeds off and becomes incredibly likeable, as with most of Spencer's roles. Richard Jenkins is equally as charming as Giles, Elisa's housemate, and the two have fantastic dialogue. Giles also gets a subplot of his own, which pans out satisfyingly in the scope of the main story. Michael Shannon rounds it out in the antagonist role of government agent Richard Strickland, and Shannon is awesome. The character's writing does at times feel a bit dull or rudimentary, but Shannon's rousing performance gives the danger this film needs to counter its romantic charm, he's excellent in the role.

"A fairy tale for a troubled time". This was the description of the film given by del Toro himself, and there's no better way to put it. It treads into familiar storytelling ground in terms of a romantic love story, but totally reinvents how we look at it. Darker fantasy tones mix with pleasingly pleasant characters, none more so than the leads themselves, to create a fairy tale we really haven't seen before and it's absolutely wonderful. Guillermo del Toro finally earned his Oscar wins with The Shape of Water, a truly unique, unequivocally rewarding fairy tale.

9/10

Fans have been begging for years to have Marvel bring the world's first ever black superhero to life on the big screen, and Marvel finally brought Black Panther into the massive Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) through 2016's 'Captain America: Civil War', a film which showcased how flawlessly Black Panther could work in film. It was clear that Marvel had a new hit character on their hands, but with the release of Black Panther, I don't think even Marvel had any idea the social impact the film would create. Black Panther (BP) is more than a studiously entertaining superhero film, more than another superb entry into the MCU; Black Panther symbolizes a prominent political statement, a celebration of culture, an enormous racial representation in superhero films and does it all while delivering one of Marvel's most enjoyable films to date.

Marvel could not have chosen a better director/writer than Ryan Coogler, who pieced together a story like none we've seen before in the MCU, a story which is as firmly grounded and thought provoking as it is entertaining. The revelation of the fabled fictional city of Wakanda kick starts the entire story and the film uses its main setting as a vessel into the overall narrative and the characters which inhabit it. Wakanda is truly like a character of its own. The believed-to-be third world county holds a nearly endless supply of the world's most treasured resource, vibranium, which is literally the centerfold around the entire plot and Coogler uses the fictional country to his advantage. Wakanda is easily one of the most enthralling settings I've ever seen in a superhero film and the story feeds off it greatly.

The main narrative oozes with profound themes, exploring real-world issues like isolationism, the costs of colonialism and more, while delivering the exceptional spectacle of a fantastical adventure/fantasy film. There's the insanely advanced technology and superpowers, but it's running through a still somewhat primal, strongly traditional country, and Coogler mixes these elements to near perfection. The movie progresses at a stellar pace, providing well-executed plot twists along the way and eventually bringing its story full circle in a satisfying fashion. There's still sprinkles of that classic Marvel humor, but with a grounded plot, there's more commitment to serious storytelling which is a huge welcome after 2017 was full of comedy-heavy Marvel films. Black Panther is sincerely a tremendous three acts of engaging storytelling and Coogler deserves a great deal of praise for executing such a captivating story.

Black Panther boasts a set of characters more interesting and engaging than arguably any MCU film before it, a strength which propels BP's story to the next level. We see T'Challa's story arc that was launched in Civil War continue here, the struggle of becoming the next king of Wakanda while wrestling with potential division in his own country. T'Challa is a complex, expertly-written lead character whose portrayal by superstar Chadwick Boseman is full of dedication and swagger. Following this dazzling outing, Black Panther is one of the MCU's best characters without question. Opposite T'Challa is a villain who arguably climbs into Marvel's top three villains thus far. Erik Killmonger presents one of Marvel's most emotionally engaging villains yet. Killmonger's story is equally as interesting as any other character; he presents understandable motives and is a grounded, realistically written villain for our current real world. Michael B. Jordan delivers a spectacular performance as T'Challa's nemesis, the stand out character of the whole film.

Black Panther separates from other recent superhero films by giving its main character a true loyal alliance to feed off, which is where the aforementioned set of characters come into play. Wakanda's all-female special force leader, Okoye (Danai Gurira), T'Challa's tech-genius sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) and his ex, now Wakandan spy Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o) not only lead the way of a rock solid supporting cast but help give even more proper representation of powerful women in the MCU. Each character is formidable and simply entertaining, and all played wonderfully by their respective actresses. What's such a true victory for BP in the character department is that the auxiliary characters run even deeper. The star power is overwhelming; Sterling K. Brown, Winston Duke, Daniel Kaluuya, Angela Bassett and Forest Whitaker all are simply eccentric. As secondary characters, they may not get loads of screen time, but these characters all fill Wakanda to make it, and the movie, feel alive and full of an actual culture.

Even further, Andy Serkis is vexingly gripping as Ulysses Klaue as his narrative thread continues from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Martin Freeman is a delightfully heartwarming surprise, reprising his role of Everett Ross. This stunning company of rounded, enticing characters is a vitally underrated aspect of Black Panther, and the acting cast is one for the ages.

It's easy to stay brief while discussing action and visuals in Marvel films, since their track record is one of the best in those departments. Black Panther is a visual treat. The astounding mix of traditional African culture and futuristic technology found in Wakanda make way for a show stopping atmosphere, filled with eye-popping colors and superb costume design. The CGI is gorgeous and even better with the mix of Marvel's amazing practical effects. More impressive to me, however, was the audible side of the film. MCU movies always have a solid, if safe score to work behind the acting but BP takes a great stride towards more recognizable scores. Like the visuals, the mix of traditional African drumming through djembes among others with the modern hip-hop of Kendrick Lamar, is emotionally riveting, giving intensity to the action scenes. Said action sequences are nothing short of fun; anchored by uniquely written situations and high-level choreography, the action is simply a blast.

This film has it all. The gloriously stunning atmosphere of Wakanda provides an enthralling visual and audible experience which is equally immersive and unique. From the top billed position to the supporting cast, there's not one weak link in the set of characters, which is loaded with premiere acting talent all the way through. Director Ryan Coogler makes his mark not only on the MCU, but on the film industry with a thematic story, which celebrates culture and delivers a down right fun and entertaining superhero flick to boot. With Black Panther, Marvel Studios continues to prove that the MCU is like a fine wine whose films only are getting better with age, and this adventure to Wakanda will stand the test of time as not only a spectacular superhero film, but as a legitimate, effective societal statement.

10/10

I never in my life would have thought that the release of the first live-action Justice League film would not have me up in arms with excitement. But even with the stellar 'Man of Steel' that kicked off the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), the three atrocities of film that have followed over the last two years have made that never-having thought a reality. Even with nearly zero interest and the lowest of expectations, getting my own opinion is a must for these films, and there's always a sliver of hope that DC can right the ship that is this mess of a franchise. Not to my surprise, Justice League (JL) met my incredibly low expectations with ease, producing yet another abysmal film and proving that the DCEU is still stuck in a state of desolation.

You could say Justice League is an apparent result of two directors and two visions, because, well it is. Initial director/writer Zack Snyder, whose vision for the DCEU has utterly destroyed the franchise, had to step away for personal reasons, leaving Avengers director Joss Whedon to fill in the blanks. This dual vision pulls the film apart, creating a tug-of-war feeling between Snyder's story and tones and Whedon's. For better or worse, Warner Bros. should have made the executive decision to either have Whedon fully execute Snyder's original intents, or to completely scrap it in favor of Whedon's ideas. Even if Snyder's full cut would have made it through, at least it would have had a consistent tone. The divisiveness creates a misdirected narrative which is unoriginal, unfocused and ultimately bland. DC can't seem to hit the sweet spot of proper pacing either, as JL continues the trend from 'Batman v Superman' of an incoherent, poorly edited script, which in turn for me, was often simply boring. I'm not sure who's green-lighting the story decisions at Warner Bros., but this script is another completely uninspired narrative full of plot holes and an enormous lack of vision, but the greatest tragedy of all, is the writing of the characters.

When I think of the Justice League, there's one thing that immediately comes to mind before anything else; a team of seven iconic, defined and developed characters at the forefront. JL has many flaws, but hands down, its dearth of compelling, well written characters is the wound that cuts deepest. The writing of just about every character is deficient. They lack, sophistication, lack depth, with little heart to make you care about them. There was little to invoke any sort of inspirational, emotionally engaging response to the characters, which creates major disconnect and in turn gives a response of weak interest. Most characters weren't given proper screen time, or enough meaningful screen time, while some side characters (Commissioner Gordon, Mera) were awesome but wasted in their DCEU debut with no room to develop them, since there wasn't even enough room to develop the main characters. Worst of all, nearly every character felt hopelessly dumbed down. Batman was turned into a comedic Tony Stark rip-off, Flash is given too many corny one liners to count and though I wasn't a huge fan of Wonder Woman's solo outing, she felt infinitely more empowering than she did here.

What's not missing is sincere acting talent, but most of it is wasted on the dreadful writing. Some of the actors do their best with what they got; Ezra Miller (Flash), Henry Cavill (Superman) and Jason Momoa (Aquman) are still enjoyable while other high-level stars like Amy Adams, Jermey Irons and J.K. Simmonds are sorely unused on screen. Ben Affleck seems as though he's already given up playing a compelling Bruce Wayne, a major downgrade from his admirable performance in BvS while Ray Fisher's portrayal as Cyborg was terribly one-dimensional.

The absence of proper character development can be traced back to DC's initial decision to seemingly rush their franchise's progress to play catch up with Marvel's success. While Superman and Wonder Woman have had their own films, JL proves that well known characters can't just be thrown together without the audience having any reason to care about them, and have their movie sell on namesake alone. It's shameful, because there are bright spots. Most notably Superman, who, when he's actually in the movie, is accurate to the comics and is easily the most enjoyable character. Aquaman and Flash have moments of humor and awesomeness, the former more so than the later, but no dedicated story arcs to provide anything of substance. Had they gotten solo films before this team up, that could've panned out much differently. Batman falls under the same category. His character direction is the most disappointing by far, and as my favorite superhero of all time, he was lackluster. We hear about Batman's 20+ years of crime fighting before JL, but how beneficial would it have been to this franchise to see some of those stories with appearances from other characters before this film. It would have added a level of character development and chemistry that DC just doesn't have. The absence of a seventh member is a dagger as well, with no dedicated Green Lantern being a noticeable hole in the team, but in retrospect, his addition could have further convoluted the script.

Then there's the villain. Steppenwolf is the definition of a lifeless cardboard antagonist. Generic motives, the cheesiest of dialogue, and by God, the worst eye sore I've seen since Dr. Doom in the latest Fantastic 4 film. He's presented to be a big bad but isn't entertaining or threatening in the slightest. Steppenwolf makes Malekith from 'Thor: The Dark World' look good, and that's really bad. Not boasting a meaningful set of characters, primary or secondary, buried JL before it could even get going, and as far as Cyborg goes, let's just say he's not only the worst hero in the movie by a long shot, he's one of the worst heroes in superhero movie history.

Batman v Superman may have been a hot mess of film, but one thing it had going for it was high-octane action scenes. Justice League, for the most part, can't say the same. There are some cool action sequences no doubt. When the team works together, especially with Superman, it's at its best. There's also an awesome but quick flashback battle scene and an impressive underwater action section that makes me more excited for the upcoming Aquaman film. But at large, most of the action was sluggish and some characters (Batman, Cyborg) were underutilized. The third act in general just didn't deliver the action on the level a film of this grandeur should. What's most shocking, however, is the baffling awful CGI. Like, ridiculously bad. It starts right off the bat with Superman's mustache removal, which was laughably terrible and a major distraction through the film. I already touched on how awful Steppenwolf looked, the backdrops and atmospheres looked thoroughly unconvincing and then there's Cyborg who sticks out worse than a sore thumb, whatever that analogy might be. Batman and Superman look amazing in costume and it delivers minor appealing spectacle, but even with a massive budget, JL is not aesthetically attractive whatsoever.

I love DC at large just as much as Marvel. The Dark Knight remains my favorite film of all time, and I discovered a new-found love for Superman following Man of Steel. But the DCEU is in chaos. Iconic characters are being put to shame, a potential juggernaut franchise with excellent acting talent is being wasted with deplorable writing and decision making. Of course, I want to see DC movies succeed but at this point, the best option seems to hit the reset button. Justice League has slim moments of redeeming entertainment value, but overall represents a shining example of almost everything that is wrong with this film universe. The DCEU is a broken franchise, a tidal wave of misery, and Justice League is the latest to suffer from its wrath.

3/10

*This review is coming from a viewer who has not seen the original anime, it is solely based on the live-action film.*

I'm an enormous fan of the science-fiction genre, the futuristic style, the technologically advanced atmosphere, etc., so Ghost in the Shell seemed right up my ally. There's some moments to be enjoyed, some story to explore and some great visuals, but by the time the credits were rolling, Ghost in the Shell showed it's as dull as it is pretty, devoid of any legitimate depth or feeling.

The film immediately presents a simple, but intriguing futuristic premise, very Blade Runner-esque, which was a bonus for me despite the obvious similarities. As the movie progresses, the plot thickens slightly and remains faintly engaging, but never once did it pull me in to the point where I was dying to see the next scene, the next revelation. The plot twits were underwhelming and the pacing was sluggish. I found it difficult to become invested in the main narrative, despite the more enticing setting and atmosphere. This is largely due to the disconnect between the main plot and the film's set of characters, between the two of which never develop any kind of profundity, never resonating with the emotional side of the story.

This is where the film suffers the most, the writing and portrayal of pretty much every character in the film. The characters are all lifeless and shallow, not an ounce of emotion was sparked during even the most serious, heartfelt scenes. This issue is twofold; one, the writing, which gives the characters corny and uninspired dialogue. And two, the acting. Every role, including lead actress Scarlett Johansson's Major, is nothing more than a cardboard cutout, bland as can be. There's no believe-ability in hardly any of the dialogue, the delivery of most lines are boring and unexciting. Ghost in the Shell tries to create characters to care about, but the execution was a complete misfire.

What the film lacks heavily in writing, character development and acting chops, it somewhat makes up for with some cool action sequences and eye-popping visuals. The cinematography is quite wonderful, and the sci-fi setting paves way for equally wonderful atmospheric tones, centered around the futuristic style. Despite her less than admirable performance, Scarlett Johansson's Major is fun to watch during her big action scenes, and the supporting characters, notably Major's sidekick Batou, deliver on helping make the action scenes feel exciting.

Anime to live-action adaptations are always a tough cookie to crack, and though I have not seen the original anime, I have a feeling there was a lot missing to this live-action version. Ghost in the Shell is a prime example that amazing visuals and some high-powered action scenes can't hide ugly writing, terrible characters and truly awful acting. The movie's title is, in the end, a perfect way to describe it; there may be a gorgeous looking shell on the outside, something to keep you distracted, but on the inside, it's nothing more than a ghost, hollowed out and baron, devoid of an identity or a soul, and this holds Ghost in the Shell back from being much more entertaining than it ended up.

5/10

Most fans would agree that Thor, thus far, endured the weakest slate of individual films in the MCU, and it's hard to argue that. The original Thor was truly a great origin story for the character, and even though it's sequel, The Dark World, was a decent second act, it certainly lacked that certain pizzazz that makes MCU films so engaging. Welcome to Thor: Ragnarok, a film that completely re-invents the character and the Thor franchise as a whole, creating one of Marvel's best movies to date.

So what makes Ragnarok so different, and in turn, so great? The big change is the complete 360 turn in tone and atmosphere that the first two Thor films set; moving away from Earth, ditching the love interest sub plot, and taking itself way less seriously all open up the creative juices, crafting a colorful, explosive, wildly humorous buddy-cop-style romp in space, changes that evolve Thor into a much more interesting character and create a more entertaining film all around. Some will look at Guardians of the Galaxy as a major influence to Ragnarok's style, and this may be partially true. But director Taikai Waitia was given creative freedom to craft Ragnarok mostly in his vision, and this was the change Thor needed, regardless of the similarities to GotG, which, after all, was a tremendously entertaining flick and one of Marvel's best, and now, Ragnarok is no different.

Ragnarok's main story focuses on Asgard's end of days, the arrival of the villainous Hela, and Thor his MCU-staple brother Loki fighting to stop all the aforementioned. The plot seems like it will stay the course of your traditional Marvel film, but takes a terrific turn by sending Thor and Loki to the planet Sakarr, while Hela is left to impose her will on Asgard. Bringing the Asgardian brothers to Sakarr opens a pathway to wonderful storytelling, including everyone's favorite Incredible Hulk into the mix as a main character and sprinkling elements of the acclaimed 'Planet Hulk' story line that fans have been clamoring to see on screen. The narrative bounces between Thor, Loki and Hulk on Sakarr and Hela on Asgard, all which is balanced and paced very well, a trend continued through most Marvel films. Ragnarok's story never once felt dull, it kept me intrigued and excited to see the plot progression, a story that doesn't slow down for a bit.

The bountiful cast of characters is no doubt another pillar of what makes Ragnarok so enjoyable, and the cast themselves were all outstanding. The stars of the show (Thor, Loki and Hulk) are all massively enjoyable; there's dazzling action, strong chemistry, deep character development and plenty of brilliantly hilarious dialogue between the three to run the show for the entire film. Chris Hemsworth was given plenty of room to exercise his comedic chops for this one, giving a newer but still awesome take on the God of Thunder, while Mark Ruffalo's Hulk is better than ever in Ragnarok, getting a huge character upgrade, making Hulk more exciting and layered.

Along the stars are delightful new characters to welcome into the vast MCU. The likes of Valkyrie, Grandmaster, Korg and last but not least, Hela, all reset the previous mold fitted to the Thor franchise, injecting more life and energy into what was a formerly rather dull cast, and of course, add even more heavy star power to Marvel. Hela is the latest Marvel baddie to be judged on the MCU's "villain problem" a problem I don't see at all here. Hela is an intimidating and fierce villain, cunning and strong, and the amazing acting prowess of Cate Blanchett leads the way to having a legitimate female villain, a win for fans and the film industry. Some more dedicated screen time would have benefited Hela for sure, as well as more time for the likes of Heimdall and Skurge, but overall Hela, in my eyes, continues the trend of increasingly well-produced MCU villains.

The action is classic Marvel. Colorful, bombastic action sequences are everywhere, highlighted by state-of-the-art CGI, beautiful atmospheric tones and a fun soundtrack lead by one of the greatest rock songs of all-time, Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", which just makes the action scenes it's in so much more fun. If you're looking for high-octane action, Ragnarok has got you covered ten times over.

The only dislike that sticks out to me is the sometimes miss-timed and overused comedy. Ragnarok undoubtedly thrives with its change of tone to include more humor and wackiness, but there's no question that there are a few noticeable points where the humor was taken too far, or completely misfired. This flaw causes hiccups in scenes that probably shouldn't have been taken lightly, a flaw that kept me from always taking the film seriously, something I wanted a little more of.

Some will complain that Ragnarok was too crazy or not gritty enough, but it was clear that this franchise was desperate for a shift in tone and Taikai Waitia delivered. Ragnarok not only completely changes the name of the game of what to expect from a Thor film, it does it with a bang. The set of characters and their actors were fantastic, the story was engaging and well paced, the action and humor were a total blast, etc, etc, etc. Thor: Ragnarok is simply down right fun to watch, and I couldn't ask for anything better than that.

9.5/10

Boy did I ever love reading Captain Underpants as a kid, and now as an adult, I couldn't be happier that a movie was finally made. Anyone should know exactly what to expect from this movie; silliness and potty humor, and if that's your cup of tea, than as a child or adult, you'll get a kick out of Captain Underpants.

It's going to take a specific sense of humor to enjoy Captain Underpants, at least for adults, but personally, I was cracking up for most of the film. What really surprised me was that director/writer David Soren, along with screenplay writer Nicholas Stoller, were genuinely dedicated to the source material. The source material might not seem like a big deal as a short children's book, but it's refreshing to see a film even as wacky as this use its source material devotedly and have the finished product come out great. The movie has a litany of hilarious potty humor jokes, and pokes fun at itself, but the real humor was in the more adult-laden innuendos. Just the little things like funny wording or clever dialogue that made it, at least for me, that much funnier. The younger audience is sure to enjoy this most of all, with silly and simple comedy at the forefront. Clever jokes and wonderful commitment to the original books make this comedy genuinely funny.

I'd like to make a short point that the animation is surprisingly amazing. It's clean, sleek and aesthetically pleasing, a real strength of the film.

The main story is based mainly on Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Captain Poopypants (the greatest villain name of all-time), whose inclusion makes the film that much more comical. The story is clearly nothing viewers haven't seen before, and as an adult viewer, it's as generic and predictable as possible, but as a kids-focused film, the story is exactly what you'd expect and it works for the young audience. The overall pacing is decent, it should keep young viewers entertained throughout even with a small lull in the second act. There shouldn't be any sort of expectation for some revolutionary story, so Captain Underpants does exactly what it needs to do it terms of plot.

The day the cast was announced I was immediately skeptical of the casting of Kevin Hart as George. Hart has never really impressed me as a film actor, and I didn't think his voice would translate well into this role. Thankfully, I was proved wrong as Hart delivered an awesome voice performance as George while Thomas Middleditch was equally as great in the role of George's best bud Harold. The real gold medal in the cast goes to Nick Kroll as Professor Poopypants, who gives an energetic voice performance as the main antagonist and it fits the character very well. Ed Helms is in the titular role as Captain Underpants along with his alter ego, the cruel and sadistic Mr. Krupp. Helms was great, even more so I'd say as Krupp than Captain Underpants, delivering his lines in convincing fashion for both characters.

I tend to score films in their own categories of level, and with Captain Underpants, the category is kid-friendly and silly. I was truly excited for this film to come out with my childhood memories of the books so prominent and I was not disappointed. The juvenile style of humor may not appeal to some but if it does, the humor is plentiful and very well timed. The sneaky innuendos are down right hilarious, the animation is great, the characters are written well, witty and charming, and the cast is delightful in their respective roles. Captain Underpants sure might be wacky and silly, but to myself, it's a 90 minute run of glorious potty-mouth comedy.

9/10

The film industry has seen plenty of films in the past that use the "buddy cop" (if you will) formula, many failing, but some have seen better fates. So in an action/comedy genre that has seen quite a bit of repetition, The Hit-man's Bodyguard needed a distinction to let it stand out from its own kind, and that variance was marketed as the team-up of Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson. The duo may be entertaining, but it's still not enough to bring the film to a higher level.

The main showcase is of course on Reynolds and Jackson, trying to build chemistry and create comedy gold together. No doubt, the two are highly entertaining on their own levels and are the focus of the film, but the chemistry isn't has stellar as its being made out to be. Don't get me wrong, there is some solid connection between the two, and again, individually both are hilarious, but there was never that defining scene or two that really made their characters bind as I'd hoped.

There was very much an "opposites attract" feeling towards the two main characters, and while Jackson's vulgar hit-man is consistent and often hilarious, Reynolds' bodyguard jumps between a tidy, safe and sound, OCD-style character and a little bit of Deadpool, which doesn't help the chemistry building between him and Jackson. The character writing, I felt, was the blockade keeping the two characters from flourishing more than they do. Reynolds and Jackson work with what they're given and are still the strongest point of the film, without question. They land plenty of great jokes and show flashes of strong chemistry, but it's unfortunately, at least for me, not as strong as you'd think.

There is, as expected, a very generic story put in place, which is corny and predictable but if not taken too seriously, can be a fun and somewhat interesting. The run time is about 20 min longer than needed, sometimes dragging for small stretches, especially near the beginning where the movie takes a while to get going, but picks up in the third act enough to keep the narrative from becoming boring. It's hardly anything that will knock your socks off, but if you loosen your expectations a bit, it's a fun popcorn-flick story.

The Hit-man's Bodyguard is, after all, an action comedy, so naturally the film is packed with both aspects, mostly great, but sometimes fairly poor. The action sequences have some John Wick-style action, with high-octane gun fights and a lot of campy blood and gore that helps make the action entertaining, but occasionally can get super cheesy. The fight choreography is okay, and the car chase scenes are straightforward and predictable, but still entertaining for what they are. I touched on the comedy side for a bit already, but I'd like to reiterate that there is a lot of good, well timed humor, a lot of it made stronger by the classic delivery of Samuel L. Jackson, who is easily the funniest part of the movie.

Along with Reynolds and Jackson, there are a couple other bigger names in the cast, including the ever-so-sinister Gary Oldman, who even in the dullest of stories can provide a intense and threatening villain, which, even without much screen time, he succeeds at here as antagonist Vladislav Dukhovich. More screen time would have been welcomed for Oldman, but the majority understandably went to the main combo. Elodie Yung also appears with a limited role, nothing more than okay in support of Reynolds and Jackson. Not much depth in the cast, as the focus was meant to be on the top billed cast.

To expect anything more than a fun action/comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously would have been a mistake, but that doesn't help cover up some obvious flaws. The dynamic of Reynolds and Jackson help maintain intrigue and laughter throughout the film and the action is often fast-paced and fun, but there's a heavy lack of originality and a just missed spark between Reynolds and Jackson that could've made this team-up one of the best in recent memory. The Hit-man's Bodyguard has plenty of missteps, but is ultimately a decent shoot em' up popcorn movie that will keep you entertained enough to be worth a couple of hours.

6/10

Christopher Nolan. The master visionary whose prestigious reputation alone creates enormous excitement for any film his name is attached to, a distinction that few, if any directors have. Films such as The Dark Knight, Inception and Interstellar, to name a few, are held at the height of standard for the film industry, and now, Nolan can add another to his mountain of masterpieces; Dunkirk.

To put into simple terms, this is Nolan's film, through and through. As the director and sole writer, he crafts his vision of the historic events that transpired at Dunkirk into an absolute spectacle. Nolan's name is the definition of cinematography, and with his dedication to practicality and shooting with film over digital, Dunkirk marks itself as one of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. The scale and authenticity creates an enthralling atmosphere, one that didn't allow my eyes to leave the screen. Few directors can write a film largely devoid of dialogue and still draw you in with its visual display alone, but lo and behold, Dunkirk does just that.

Dunkirk's narrative is thematically entrenched, with Nolan's writing largely focused on the greater, larger story of survival in a time of desperation. As stated, there's hardly any dialogue, you barely get to know the character's names, yet you feel emotionally ensnared throughout the 106 min run time. The flawless movement and pacing between three major settings (The Mole, The Air and The Sea) creates a superb execution of intense storytelling. Every action sequence is heart-racing, with the overwhelming feeling of danger looming in every action scene. Dunkirk is one of the most riveting World War II-set stories in film history, surpassing the likes of even 'Saving Private Ryan'.

As visually stunning as Dunkirk is, the film would be nothing without the unparalleled musical mind of Hans Zimmer. Zimmer's genius is on full display in Dunkirk. The score is nothing short of captivating, with even the simple ticking of a pocket watch (how it was actually recorded) having the ability to drive you to a point of bursting at the level of intensity and anticipation being showcased on screen. The entire audible side of Dunkirk is chillingly wonderful. The roar of a fighter plane, the startling crack of a gun shot, or the massive bang of a sudden explosion all help produce that astonishing atmosphere, the film simply wouldn't be the same without the masterful audio.

Nolan did his research, and found that, like the soldiers trapped in Dunkirk, his actors needed to (mostly) be young and inexperienced to convey that sense of fear to the audience. The cast is genuinely spectacular. There's the veteran anchors of the film such as Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance but its the young up-and-comers that really stand out. Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard and even pop music star Harry Styles all portray their characters wonderfully, largely using their facial expressions and inner emotions to invoke the sense of danger the film presents to the audience. I was moved and felt connected to these characters, a great testament to the acting prowess of the cast.

Christopher Nolan. His top-tier ability has propelled him into levels rarely seen in cinema, a level of legendary status. The vision for Dunkirk was a bold one indeed, but the artistic wisdom and willpower of Nolan fuels the film into a mesmerizing sight to behold, a legitimate masterpiece and what some would consider to be Nolan's magnum opus.

10/10

February 9th, 2015; Marvel announced their partnership with Sony to bring everybody's favorite wall-crawler to the prestigious Marvel Cinematic Universe, leaving fans dying of excitement to get a glimpse of one of the most iconic superheroes of all-time in Marvel's expansive film universe. After getting more or less of a tease in last year's 'Civil War', we finally get our first full taste of Spidey in the MCU, a film that, without question, puts the web-slinger back on the map with what I would consider to be the best Spider-Man film to date.

What sets Homecoming apart from its predecessors arguably the most is its clear shift in tone compared to the previous installments. A change that breathes new life into a character that some would say is getting stale in cinema, while maintaining the core of who and what Spider- Man is and stands for. Homecoming gives us the youngest version of Peter Parker we've ever seen, injecting youth and inexperience into the character, which creates a fantastic coming of age story as we journey through Peter's early days of becoming Spider-Man. What defines Spider-Man, and in turn makes him so iconic, are the choices he must make, like choosing the life he lives as a hero, often putting aside his life as a normal teenage kid. Those themes of choice are powerfully showcased in Homecoming, and Peter becomes so much more intriguing because of this. There is a unfortunate lack of Spider-Sense use but altogether, I was thrilled to see Spidey written properly, especially given the age he is in this film. Homecoming captures Spidey's personality traits perfectly, giving strong character development to Peter and in turn creating a more emotionally relatable character, the best version of the web-head we've seen yet.

With the help of the expert Marvel staff, director John Watts and his writers were able to uniquely re-tool what we've come to expect from a traditional origin story, replacing the scenes that we all have seen before with small bits of dialogue, keeping the focus on what's happening with Peter's story now, almost like being able to tell two origin stories in one film. The larger MCU looms large enough to make its presence felt in the immediate story, but doesn't overtake Spider-Man's individual story, which is full of heart and plenty of humor, all with textbook pacing. The script isn't without some flaws, however. There are some minor plot holes and an apparent major timeline mishap, that, until officially set right by Marvel, will keep fans of the MCU scratching their heads. Besides those minor hiccups, I have no reason not to say that Homecoming delivered a splendid, highly entertaining story, and a superb Spider-Man origin story to boot.

Usually the problem when talking about any Marvel film is the villain. Spider-Man has one of the top rogues galleries among superheroes, and Marvel had a golden chance to deliver a compelling villain, and sure enough, they did. Vulture was finally brought to life for the first time on the big screen, and Marvel capitalized. Vulture is given solid screen time, appropriate development and a large enough impact on the story and to Spider-Man's character to leave a lasting impression. He looked awesome, had some wonderful action scenes and was the center of a major twist in the film, which gave some shock value and emotional weight behind the character and the overall narrative. Shocker also appears as a small side-villain and is handled well for a secondary antagonist. Vulture earns his mark as one of the better MCU villains thus far for sure, simply said.

I don't need to go on for long about the quality of the action sequences. Fans of the MCU have come to expect top-of-the-line action, including expert stunt work, intense choreography and beautiful CGI, all things Homecoming has in spades. The inclusion of Iron Man only furthers the depth of the action and Spider-Man himself is a joy to watch in the heat of battle, kicking butt wile still maintaining that classic Spidey wit we all know and love.

Every character needs its actor, and Marvel hit an absolute home run with the casting of Tom Holland as our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Holland flawlessly executes his portrayal of a young Peter Parker, expertly seizing the essence of Spidey's witty nature along with his current inexperience and teenage persona. Holland looks the part to a tee, and is simply brilliant as Spider-Man, making the character feel as though he was pulled from the comics. Robert Downey Jr. returns as fan favorite Tony Stark/Iron Man, seamlessly weaving his years of character development through Spider-Man's story. Iron Man isn't overused in the slightest, in fact his involvement only helps the story and helps to build the greater MCU. Michael Keaton dazzles as Vulture, Jacob Batalon is hilarious as Peter's best friend Ned, John Favreau returns as Happy Hogan with a great performance, and stars Marisa Tomei and Zendaya are solid in the roles of Aunt May and Michelle respectively. Some characters, like Peter's school bully Flash, don't stand out, but overall, the supporting cast is great.

Fans will undoubtedly compare Homecoming to the previous Spider-Man installments, but at the end of the day, Homecoming is a completely different take of the web-slinger, and one that should be viewed and praised as its own product. Homecoming delivers on almost every front you could hope for from a MCU Spider-Man film; an exciting, character driven story with added depth by the use of Iron Man, an abundance of classic Spidey humor, a perfect adaptation of Spidey's suit, a gripping villain, a phenomenal acting performance of Spidey and his supporting characters, and most of all, the simple but proper display of the icon that is Spider-Man. Spidey is in the right hands at last with Marvel, and Spider-Man: Homecoming marks a spectacular first entry into what will be years of amazing Spidey films.

9.5/10

To be clear right out of the gate, I decided to see this movie with my brother solely because of how bad and laughable we both knew it would be. Boy was I ever right. Not only does this film plummet the Transformers franchise even lower than Age of Extinction, (which I truly never thought was possible), but Transformers: The Last Knight (TLK) showcases an absolute abomination of film making in general, creating what essentially is a $200 million pile of steaming hot trash, a horrible disgrace to the Transformers name and the film industry as a whole.

It's a tad bit difficult to explain what the TLK is really about, because, well, I don't really know. I know that the Decepticons are looking for another ancient relic on Earth to somehow bring Cybertron back to life, but that's about it. The overall narrative is so clustered with noise (metaphorical and literal), random occurrences, numerous undeveloped sub plots, gaping plot holes, relentlessly forced humor, and atrocious pacing that for most of the film, I was literally laughing out loud in the theater and once shouted, "what the Hell is going on!?".

TLK has the writing depth of an illiterate monkey, and the narrative focus of a child. Trying to understand TLK's story is like trying to listen to a baby complete their first sentence; it's confusing as can be, incoherent and probably pretty comical. I can't even speak positively about the Transformers themselves being cool because the Transformers are BARELY IN THE MOVIE. There is so little Transformer-on-Transformer action, I thought I had just watched a 2.5 hour trailer teasing the big action scenes to come, but all I got was more pointless, unexplained human-lead garbage who run the show in a Transformers movie. The script is a complete mess to put it kindly, a blubbering, babbling heap of uncoordinated crap, and I can't believe it's actually more disjointed than Age of Extinction. TLK goes below the bottom of the barrel, and it's script should be put on trial.

At this point in the dumpster fire that is the Transformers franchise, I feel bad for any poor actor that gets sucked into these films. Mark Wahlberg, a fan favorite of mine, has sunk to an all- time low with his performance as Cade Yeager. Sure the writing of the character, and every character mind you, was sincerely abysmal, but even still, there's no heart, no motive, no passion whatsoever to deliver even an OK performance. Wahlberg was unbearable. Even worse was Anthony Hopkins, whose character was written so poorly I thought it was actually a cruel joke on Hopkins. To see a legendary actor fall to the abyss is terrible, and TLK as brought him, along with any other victims of this plague of a film, to the lowest of the low. Stanley Tucci literally plays a different character than in the previous film and it's just oh so bad, not to mention Josh Duhamel got dragged back into this awfulness again, with his character being just completely and utterly useless. The performance, writing and development of every character was horrendously awful, period.

As Transformers films have gotten worse over the years, the only piece of the movies I have been able to write positively about are the big-budget action scenes, which at the least, provided some entertainment outside of the unintentional entertainment delivered by the terribleness of the films. However, I can't even write home about the action in The Last Knight. Sure the CGI still looks great, but good grief, the action is limited (when it comes to Transformers actually fighting), graceless and down right bizarre. I have to write about one moment in particular, however. Anthony Hopkins' character suddenly reveals at one point that his cane is actually a machine gun, and his cane-gun prevents Megatron from accomplishing his mission. I laughed out loud and choked on my drink, it was the selling point for me as one of the worst movies I've EVER seen.

I could rant about how bad this movie is for a long time, but at this point, I just don't care anymore. I spent more time thinking about how CinemaSins will lay into the film than paying attention the main story. My hope is that I can prevent any soul from watching this deplorable display of film. Even if you want to watch for how bad it is like me, save yourself and don't. Transformers: The Last Knight is one of the worst films I've seen in my life, it's unfathomably shameful.

1/10

There was some talk a while back about changing the iconic 'James Bond' franchise to instead star a female lead, which made many fans of that franchise (myself included) pretty disgruntled. I thought, "why can't Hollywood just put together an original, bad-ass female-lead action film to stand on its own name"? Well, besides some minor setbacks here and there, Atomic Blonde captured that thought, and better than expected.

Though not the strongest pillar of the film, I like to start most reviews discussing the narrative. Atomic Blonde's story is pretty straightforward; MI6 agent Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is tasked with going to 1980's Berlin in the midst of the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a vital list of information. The majority of the film is set as a flashback, with previous events being replayed through the memory of Lorraine, a safe play to develop an action-spy-thriller story, but one that takes a little too much time to get into, leaving the pacing a shade off. There's not a whole lot of deep character development to leave you feeling connected with any characters, which was a little disappointing, but at least the movie keeps its focus solely on Lorraine throughout. While a little too generic and slow at first, to my surprising delight, the narrative really picks up in the third act, with a couple twists and turns that left me intrigued and excited. The immediate story presented won't leave you in shock and awe, but it's enough to help support the true star of the film, the action.

Atomic Blonde's action sequences are the bread and butter of the film, and rightfully so. The film is highly stylized and brimming with fantastic action. There's deliciously violent and bloody scenes of combat, and some outstanding fight-choreography, all backed by the use of practical effects and stunt work, which is always appreciated in action films to provide a grittier, more realistic feel. There is just enough slo-mo to hit that sweet spot, and the film's score is packed with hit 80's music that helps create that fun, stylized tone. Simply said, the action gets down to business, thriving on intensity and wonderfully entertaining hand-to-hand combat, the highlight of the movie.

Charlize Theron is cementing herself as a legitimate female action star. Her roles in films like Fate of the Furious, Mad Max, and even The Italian Job have helped paved the way for a role such as this; a bad-ass, enticing female-driven action character who isn't muddled down by stereotypes or low quality action. Theron really stands out in the lead role and even though, as previously mentioned, her character wasn't as developed through more background as I'd hoped, she is able to capture the demeanor of a great action star and make the lead role very entertaining.

The supporting cast was good enough. James McAvoy is always a delight to watch and did quite well in this film and some other larger names such as John Goodman and Toby Jones helped give a solid set of secondary characters to keep the talent level on par with Theron's. There's basically zero character development for these characters either, but with the main story set up as a flashback and the focus on Theron, it wasn't too expected.

James Bond might not ever get a female in the lead role, and you know what, that's a blessing to us movie goers. For as long as we have some Hollywood talent that is willing to get original (yes this film is based of a series of novels but I'm talking reboots, etc.), we'll have surprisingly sweet outings like this flick. Sure it's not perfect by any stretch but with intense, stylized high-octane action and an excellent performance from Charlize Theron, Atomic Blonde proves that a female-lead action movie can not only work, but that it can thrive.

7.5/10

One could argue Beauty and the Beast is Disney's most beloved property of all-time. The 1991 animated classic is legendary, with its iconic score and captivating story becoming a staple in pop culture. It's a risky move to slap a remake onto such a profound piece of movie history, but, outside of a few hard bumps in the road, the risk of Beauty and the Beast (B&B) seems to be worth the reward.

Right out of the gate, most remakes are going to be scrutinized for its ability to walk the thin line of honoring the original story, while incorporating new, fresh narrative details. It's no easy task to accomplish. We hear constantly how remakes will honor the original while bringing new ideas to the table, and quite often, it doesn't pan out. Beauty and the Beast is not so much an exception to that history, more than it's acceptable. The age-old tale of B&B is still undoubtedly the main story focus in the modern take, but sprinkles of new plot structure weave through the film, for better or for worse. The 129 min run time topples over the original's 84 min, adding extra scenes, mainly in the first act, to try and liven the character development of some of the film's lesser known characters outside of Belle and the Beast. This is where I felt the film was at its weakest, however. Sure we need introduction to the main story, setting and characters, but it's not until Belle is actually in the Beast's castle that the movie starts to become more interesting. Once we're in the castle, focusing on Belle, the Beast and the objects occupying it, the movie picks up, becomes more intriguing and more endearing. The overall pacing can be described as OK. B&B struggles to tell a rock solid three-act story like it's 1991 counterpart, but if you can get past the added run time, the classic Beauty and the Beast tale is still oh-so-charming.

The '91 original was a pioneer in animation, boasting one of the more recognizable camera shots in all of animated film history during the ballroom scene. 2017 brings an entire new world of animation and CGI, and whether you like it or not, B&B utilizes it to the extreme. The budget was a clear green light for massive CG visuals, most notably the Beast himself whose design, while at first a little unappealing, eventually grows on you. But the heavy dose of CGI littered throughout the film is tough to accept, even though it is a remake of a fully animated film. I have no problem with how the SFX looked, the movie was visually wonderful, but the sheer amount of it is hard to ignore throughout the entirety of the film.

On the audible side, the iconic B&B score was on full display here. I'll get into more detail about that shortly, so for now, I'll say that the excitement and charm of the score is present, but not always quite as enthralling as the original. The mixing is often unbalanced during the musical numbers boasting numerous people, and it's undeniably hard to recapture the pure wonder of Angela Lansbury's original performance of "Tale as Old as Time", but B&B does the song enough justice with Emma Thompson's performance. The big budget brings assumptions to how well the film will look and sound, and it honestly looks and sounds just great. But there are inconsistencies that hold B&B back from getting to the level of the original.

There's been mixed feelings towards the casting choices for the film, namely mega-star Emma Watson in the lead role as Belle. The bulk of the negativity towards Watson seemed to be in her inability to sing at the professional level you'd expect from a movie such as B&B. While I'll admit it's true that the vocal performances from Watson, along with several other actors, are weak for the standard Disney set in 1991, the overall performance given by the main cast was good enough to warrant the stamp of approval. Watson is solid in the lead role, while Dan Stevens does his best with the screen time he was given as Beast. My stand outs, however, have to go to Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor as Cogsworth and Lumiere respectively. While their time on screen is also too limited, their chemistry was spot on, providing the perfect comedic relief and giving great performances during the famous number, "Be Our Guest". I also enjoyed Luke Evans as the main antagonist, Gaston, but not so much his more-focused-on partner, LeFou, played by the over-hyped Josh Gad. The change in LeFou's character was welcome in the film, but it was the forced screen time and dialogue for the character that just took too much away from what was important to the film's story.

Disney captured lightning in a bottle in 1991 with the original, now legendary Beauty and the Beast. It's not fair, or maybe not possible, to bash it's remake, seeing how the films are similar on many grounds. I had many moments enjoying B&B and would happily watch it again. The story was close enough to the original to pass as enjoyable. The acting, while hurting in the vocal department, was splendid and the chemistry between certain characters was delightful. What B&B lacks is the simplicity of its predecessor. The added story elements, which created the longer run time, and CG- heavy atmosphere leave a dent in the crafting of the film's 'soul', if you will. The musical score just couldn't hold up to the original, and that is such an enormous part of what makes B&B so special. Beauty and the Beast tries hard, maybe too hard, to stand out from the original film, creating a respectable, often enjoyable remake of a iconic film, but even so, comes nowhere near the level of what was seen in 1991.

7/10

We've seen a huge string of 80's/90's kids cartoons re-imagined into modern movie blockbusters recently, ranging from pretty good to worse than could possibly imagine (Transformers 4). Power Rangers is next in line for a big movie remake, and while definitely far from perfect, its nostalgic influence and surprisingly character- development-heavy story gives a better than expected film.

Okay, yes the plot is as generic as anything you'll ever see; it's predictable and cheesy, as expected from a film like this. What you don't expect from said film, however, is for it to focus more heavily on strong character development. To my pleasant surprise, I found myself enjoying each Ranger more and more as their interactions continued on, as extra emphasis is definitely put into each Ranger's individual story arc. By the time they were all teamed up and ready to go go (pun), I felt that they were more of a team than if they had just been thrown together meaninglessly. Some Rangers stand out more than others, but each was written to try and accomplish a meaningful team-up, which gives you something in the movie to connect with, which proves vital since the overall narrative suffers pretty heavily.

Unfortunately, the extra time spent of character development leaves some aspects of what makes a complete film behind. The pacing is way off balance, often going too slow to stay intrigued through the first two acts, and subsequently rushed to almost an extreme in the final act to make up for the lost action time earlier on. There is an alarming lack of action sequences, and while deeper story arcs for the Rangers is welcomed, at the end of the day, you want to see them in action! There's way too much build up to them finally acquiring their armor, teaming up and fighting to keep you excited and entertained. All of this is so unfortunate, because the action really is fun to watch. The CG visuals aren't Avengers-esque, but when the Rangers are finally battling together, it's honestly pretty cool. The choreography is respectable, and the Rangers' Zords are also pretty sweet, but criminally underused.

The cast chosen to portray our favorite Mighty Morphin' Rangers isn't half bad, with some more inspiring performances than others. RJ Cyler easily stands out as the Billy the Blue Ranger, while Becky G. is noticeable for her portrayal of the Trini the Yellow Ranger, an openly gay character in the film, a choice I give props to the writing team for deciding upon, as it gives the Rangers a unique, less generic chemistry. The other actors, Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott and Ludi Lin as the Red, Pink and Black Rangers respectively, are all passable for a film of this caliber. All of the main cast is young and inexperienced, so any award-winning performances were not once expected.

Bryan Cranston, Bill Hader and Elizabeth Banks fill out the supporting cast as Zordon, Alpha 5 and the villain Rita, respectively. Cranston is fine as Zordon, though underused and underdeveloped. Hader does well voicing Alpha 5, and provides most of the film's comic relief. Then, there's Elizabeth Banks' Rita, who was absolutely horrible. The performance was poor, bland and uninspired, add to that the character's abysmal writing and you have by far the worst character in the film. All around though, the main cast was solid, and each give a little extra personalization to their respective characters.

When it comes to these types of films, old kids cartoon remakes, I often say that you can't go into the movie expecting anything revolutionary. Power Rangers may go for a serious tone and fall short in some areas, but nonetheless, it stays standing by providing a deeper element of character development than expected, and exciting, while underused, action scenes. This film most definitely works best as a rooting project, planting the seeds for a franchise that will hopefully produce more intriguing stories and more action, but with the box office sales in the dumps that may never happen. So, it may not be gold, or silver for that matter, but Power Rangers is still a fun pop-corn flick with some room for enjoyment if you dig down deep into your childhood memories.

6/10

Without question, this was Hugh Jackman's movie, from start to finish. No matter how you view it, or who the mantle is passed onto next, Jackman will forever be Wolverine, and this film proves it once and for all. Logan dives deep into the hearts of its viewers, twisting and turning until every emotional string is pulled, and in the end, delivers a superhero film like no other before it; a perfect swan song.

Logan heavily, and fittingly, borrows from Marvel's iconic 'Old Man Logan' comic to tell the story of a grim and desolate future, where mutant-kind is all but extinct. Director/writer James Mangold was finally given all the tools necessary to tell a truly compelling Wolverine story, and arguably the biggest tool in the box was the 'R' rating. It pushes the film into an extremely dark and forbidding tone, which helps carve the movie into one of immense intensity and emotion. The 'R' rating, of course, also allows for studious amounts of gore and profanity, but those elements don't feel like they were added just because they could be, they only added to the atmosphere Mangold created for this film, and in turn helps set the narrative to be nothing short of enthralling. The pacing is spot on, the dialogue is stellar and the emotional weight is that of a moving mountain. I applaud Mangold for his brilliant writing, and subsequent directing, as he was at last able to produce the Wolverine story every fan has been craving for the last 17 years, one of raw emotion, brutality and pure magnificence.

Hugh Jackman has devoted the last 17 years of his career to this beloved character, and now, he leaves it all on the table, giving the performance of a lifetime, one which could seriously garner some looks at an Oscar nomination. The writing of the characters, Wolverine specifically, stand out the most in the gritty setting, because few superhero movies have ever done what Logan is able to do; make the characters vulnerable, make them real and to make you truly care like never before. Wolverine is worn down and beaten, looking for a way out, and Hugh Jackman gives you every reason to want to feel for his character. His action scenes are nothing short of powerful, none more than his final, and the emotion he displays in every aspect is worthy of an award-winning performance. I genuinely cannot express my praise for Jackman enough, he gave it is all.

Wolverine is accompanied by two spectacular supporting characters for most of the film in franchise favorite Professor X and the ferocious X-23. Both characters add tremendous layers of depth to both Wolverine and the film as a whole, with exceptional performances from Patrick Stewart and youngster Dafne Keen, who's X- 23 is an absolute showstopper. The main villain, Pierce, isn't anything too special, but doesn't have to be in a story like this. The core cast of Wolvie, Professor X and X-23 are what drive the film and the performances by their respective actors are outstanding. The father figure that Professor X is to Wolverine and the subsequent father that Wolverine is to X-23 is a deep, touching addition to their characters. This is no-doubt a character driven film, and with Wolverine in the driver's seat, and a pair of dynamite supporting characters, the ability to connect with these characters is real, and that is a treasure few superhero films have ever held.

The film's action is gloriously vicious, showcasing what a hacking from Wolverine or X-23 would actually look like. But it's not just the heavy amounts of gore that make the action so amazing, it's again the feeling that these characters are in true danger and every move they make could cost them their lives, none more than Wolverine himself, whose reduced healing factor forces him into a different mindset that, outside of briefly in "The Wolverine", we've never seen before. He's not invincible, and even with X-23's relentless attacks, he still has to play his cards differently, and it translates into an emotional roller coaster. All together the action sequences and sheer amount of violence were a sight to behold, entertaining and fierce.

17 years it has been, since we first watched a young Hugh Jackman don his X-Men suit. 17 years of stories, character development, action, hardship, humor and emotion, come together to deliver one final journey. The final scene alone may move you to tears, as Hugh Jackman's time as the iconic Wolverine comes to an end. One final epic masterpiece of superhero cinema; Logan.

10/10

No sane person expected Guardians of the Galaxy to succeed at half the rate it did, but it won a legion of fans and earned more than enough box office dough to earn a sequel. Though not quite as magically magnificent as the original, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (GotG2) lives up to the hit that was the original, and in some ways, is even better.

Director/writer James Gunn undoubtedly has proved himself to be one of the most passionate, driven directors in the superhero film genre, and that passion shines through to the film. Gunn deserves all the praise he can get, as GotG2 again delivers a wildly exhilarating, heart warming, hilarious and down right entertaining experience.

Vol. 2 is very much a character-driven film, with the character development in full effect, diving into more backstory and focusing heavily on chemistry. The main narrative revolves around Star-Lord and his quest to discover his true parentage, and while jumbled and somewhat disjointed in the second act, provides enough of an emotional weight to keep you intrigued.

But it's the characters, fueled by their spectacular writing and chemistry, that take center stage, allowing the audience to connect, laugh with and care for them, and this again calls back to Gunn's amazing passion for creating a rich, extensive franchise. Star-Lord and Gamora share terrific scenes of their "unspoken thing", Drax and newcomer Mantis mesh so hilariously together, and what else can be said about my favorite characters, Rocket and the adorable Baby Groot, who together again form the film's best duo. Yondu is a much better character this time around, Nebula gets more screen time and even with Marvel's "villain problem", the main antagonist Ego is a different take on your classic villain, very much enjoyable. There is enough humor to go around 3 times over, which is mostly great, but sometimes does get repetitive and dull, with some humor on occasion feeling overly forced. Even so, every character compliments each other in some way and the interactions are so entertaining and often laugh-out-loud funny, that you can't seem to get enough of it. The overall story of Vol. 2 isn't anything groundbreaking, but the characters that inhabit the narrative steal the show, and that is GotG2's greatest strength.

Along with its set of phenomenal characters, GotG2 excels in the visual and audible department. The CGI is breathtaking, Vol. 2 is a delight to look at, colorful, exotic and explosive. Behind the gorgeous visuals is the soundtrack, which again provides the movie with a unique pop and attitude that makes it so special. The action sequences are varied and entertaining, the atmosphere dazzles, and the amount of fan service and to the greater MCU is off the charts. Much like the original, if you're looking for pure entertainment, GotG2 doesn't fail to deliver.

I can't forget to mention the cast that portray the characters I spoke so highly of. Marvel's star power is unmatched, with the likes of Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, and Vin Disel leading the pack, followed by Kurt Russell, Michael Rooker and many more, who all represent their respective characters to a tee.

Guardians of the Galaxy was able to able to reach out to fans with its unique set of characters, adventurous and sci-fi setting and hilarious dialogue , all backed by an awesome soundtrack. Luckily for fans of the first, aside from some hiccups in pacing and the amount of humor, Marvel's 15th entry into the MCU once again delivers on every aspect that made the first one a success, getting you hooked on a feeling, and high on believing.

9/10

Suicide Squad sets out to be different from any other "superhero" movie before it, with the obvious difference being that this really isn't a superhero movie at all. A team of villains brought together for exactly what their name implies, and it's a new and interesting take on comic book films, setting a brand new dynamic for story. characters and more; one step forward. However, while the premise is enticing, SS falls short in bringing these new dynamics to a high level, faltering in many aspects; two steps back.

The beginnings of the film are done wonderfully, we're introduced to Amanda Waller, the creator of Task Force X (or the Suicide Squad) right away and get right into introducing the soon-to-be squad, providing great backstory to some of the characters, something the DCEU is desperate for. The mood of the film at the start is slick and bad- ass, and I quickly became anxious to see the whole team assembled. But that's basically where the film starts to fall apart, when the gang actually gets together. The pacing of the plot is set up to succeed, but then falls into a horrible pattern of repetition, loaded with some funny, but mostly unfunny one-liners and too many clichés to mention. It seemed as though director and writer David Ayer was scared to continue exploring the blank canvas he had in front of him, and opted to play it safe in the second half, going into unbearably played out "portal over the city to rule the world" villain plot instead of having the squad execute a more grounded task, which could have provided a much more engaging experience for what this team can do and what they stand for. Overall, the script became bland. The interaction between characters was strong and the continued backstory development was vital, but the absolute lack of continued originality (including the mid-credits scene) and terrible pacing leave Suicide Squad's story as another to be forgotten.

There's plenty of action to talk about, both good and bad. There's some awesome action sequences highlighted by Will Smith's spectacularly played Deadshot, and we even get a couple cool moments from Batman himself in the form of flashbacks, especially when it involves the Joker. There's not an overuse of CGI, and each character's individual powers and traits are fun to watch. My beef with the film's action, is not that there was too much or too little, but how it was executed. Going back to my point earlier, the action was at its best at the gritty street levels, not a bunch of misfits taking down god-like beings. Marvel has a leg up on DC largely because of how closely their characters resemble their comic book roots, and are balanced accordingly during action scenes. But with DC, we have Harley Quinn and Captain Boomerang taking down an all-powerful entity like its nothing. The choreography needs lots of work, most hand-to-hand action was dull and lifeless, and the camera zoomed in heavily to try and offset the lack of said choreography. Casual fans might be thrilled with the action, but any true comic book fan should know that this isn't what SS action should look like.

While the script falls short on many counts, the cast and their characters are the best part of an otherwise mediocre film. The aforementioned Will Smith is easily recognizable as the only Oscar- level actor in the cast, and his performance shows why. Margot Robbie was good, but not great as Harley Quinn. She was definitely fun, sexy and, especially in scenes involving the Joker, displayed that crazy Harley everyone knows. Then there's the unfortunate over- sexualization of her character, to almost extreme amounts. I almost couldn't enjoy the character because I had to get a booty shot every 5 minutes. Harley's backstory is fleshed out better than any other character, and for what Robbie was given, she performed well. Everyone else in the gang has promise, but the likes of Boomerang, El Diablo, Killer Croc and more just couldn't get enough screen time to develop into more fleshed out characters. They're enjoyable on their own levels, but it's hard to invest in a character when there's nothing to invest in.

Then there's the big guy. The Joker finally made his big screen return following Heath Ledger's legendary performance in 2008. Now played by Jared Leto, I am very much on the fence about him. This Joker is a completely brand new take on the character and Leto's very strange portrayal is both intriguing and yet underwhelming at the same time. The character's difference was good yes, but in some ways, Joker's more thug-like treatment and subsequent deliverance from Leto made him almost less intimidating, less of what I expect from the Joker, but again, this is not your traditional Joker. Leto didn't have nearly enough screen time to make a realistic judgment, but there was some great backstory provided in the film, and although I was not overall a fan of this Joker's personality or laugh, Leto's new take and his strong connection with Harley was enough not to make me hate this iteration.

Without question, DC and Warner Bros. are still a very long way away from anything Marvel. SS shows a step in the right direction for DC, in that they're willing to try something new, that character arcs need to be built upon heavily, and that every casting into the DCEU continues to flourish. But SS, much like BvS, takes two steps back with a horribly constructed script, an awful slew of clichés, zero story originality, deficient pacing, unmeaningful action and more. Suicide Squad delivers some good fun, humor characters and action, but make no mistake; expectations were not met at all in this film, and with two critical failures in a row, DC better have some moves fast that can help the DCEU climb out of its current state, a state of uncertainty.

3.5/10

Growing up I wasn't the biggest Star Trek fan, it was all about Star Wars for me. In 2009, however, the reboot of the beloved franchise took my interest to new heights, and its 2013 sequel cemented my newfound love for Star Trek. I came into the theater with high expectations for installment number three, and while there were undoubtedly hiccups and some moments of disappointment, Star Trek Beyond is a good film, continuing the franchise's string of exciting adventures.

One of the first, most noticeable differences in Beyond, for better or for worse, is a new director in Justin Lin, taking over the chair from J.J. Abrams, and a new lead writer in the form of Simon Pegg. The overall feel of Beyond is much more lighthearted, humorous and contained due to Pegg, changes I did not completely welcome compared to the previous two films, which were mainly emotionally- driven and larger in scope. The new approach to storytelling left me internally conflicted. I found myself at times sincerely entertained and other times utterly uninterested. The antagonist, Krall, started as a promising villain but turned weaker as the film progressed, his motives became less clear and his intimidation factor nearly disappeared. Again, Krall is solid towards the beginning, but mediocre writing of the character spoiled a chance of another great villain, like Nero and Khan before him, which bring me to my next point.

The character arcs built across these films are strong, something that wasn't played on nearly enough in this film. Although the characters gel together better than ever on screen, the further development of the characters was stalled in Beyond, and in turn left me a little less emotionally invested in each characters outcome. At large, the story was solid, for sure the weakest of the three films, with noticeable plot holes and clichés, but enough humor, decent pacing and big- budget action to keep the film entertaining as a whole.

The ensemble cast put together for the reboot series has been fantastic to say the least, and in Beyond we see the return of said wonderful cast lead by Chris Pine (Captain Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Zoe Saldana (Uhura) and Karl Urban (Bones). The top billed cast all give solid performances, the largest setback being the aforementioned lack of further character growth, leaving it behind for more quips and one-liners, a trait that becomes borderline annoying from certain character, especially Bones. The supporting cast is equally as solid, and while there's no doubt that each actor is great, there's a sense that most of them weren't as invested in their roles as before, something that could be directed back to the new writing and direction style. I would b remiss to not mention the touching homage to Leonard Nimoy and the rest of the original Star Trek cast, or the life of Anton Yelchin, who was excellent in this film and was taken from the world too soon. All in all, I can't say that the cast was as good as their first two outings, but they weren't bad by any means.

Sci-fi settings are prime chances to introduce enticing new locations, weapons, technology and action, and Beyond did a splendid job keeping my eyes glued during the largest action scenes, with wonderful CGI and a couple of epic space battles that are extremely fun to watch. We've basically traded out the lens flare of J.J. Abrams for the shaky-cam of Justin Lin, which makes some of the up close action less enjoyable, but the majority of the action is either grand space battles or ferocious firefights. The Enterprise and her crew are executed very well in the beginnings of the movie, but its importance unfortunately drifts away later on. The action doesn't get too messy or uninteresting, it's explosive fun, and with added humor sprinkled in, Beyond's action is a different kind of satisfying compared to the last two films.

While it's hardly the films before it, Beyond delivers on many of the quality traits that brought the series to my attention in the first place. No question, there was a shift in feel for this film, however. With new direction and new writing, the less emotionally engaging plot and limited character arc expansion give way to some clear inconsistencies. But even so, Star Trek Beyond is pleasing enough on several levels to plant itself as a worthy entry into glimmering franchise which can only get better from here.

7.5/10