"Good Luck in the New Year" My top 7 films from 2017

2017 is coming to a close. This year I wrote twenty full reviews on a diverse collection of films. I also wrote opinion pieces on past films and movie characters. In total I created 23 posts this year. Before the year closes, I'm going to write one more post about my favorite new films that I reviewed this year. If you would like to read my original review for any of these films, click their title at the top of their paragraph. Without further ado, here are my seven favorite films from 2017.

#7 Wonder Woman

Out of all the films I wanted to review this year, I was most nervous about writing a review for Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman. Considering how the majority of movies released this year featured lengthy and often overbearing social commentary, I was worried this film would unnecessarily focus more on the importance of our heroine's gender and less on her character and heroics. After the film ended, I left the theatre thrilled that Allan Heinberg's screenplay didn't play the gender card once. It was quite the opposite, as the film found ways to promote all of its character's strengths and flaws in relevant and meaningful ways. Beyond surprising me with its story and memorable characters, my experience watching Wonder Woman was the most fun I had at a super-hero film all year. This film is a win for DC, a win for audiences and a win for showing people that even if your film has an agenda it does not need to be forced or pushed. Sometimes a film can be great all on its own, and because Wonder Woman embraced this it is a film worth watching and rewatching even after 2017 concludes.

#6 Moana

John Musker and Ron Clements, the writer and director duo of The Princess and the Frog, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, have added another Disney classic to their repertoire, and this one's in 3D. Moana is the story of a brave young woman who was born on an island. She's willing to fight sea monsters and sail with demigods all to save her world. The only problem is she has no idea what she is doing. It's a unique adventure about the importance of heritage, courage and identity. Auli'i Cravalho debuts as the voice of Moana, and she has impressed me with her power house singing voice and performance conviction to match it. Dwayne Johnson acts alongside Cravalho, as a formidable and humorous demigod with some equally impressive musical vocals. What makes this film stick in my mind more than anything else are Moana's visuals. As the film consists of multiple naturalistic elements (the tide, the grass, the ground) animating this film was not an easy task. Within seconds of looking at this film it is clear the animators did not ship out this film with mediocre visuals. They put incredible effort into Moana's scene scapes and beautiful oceans, in order to make them look as stunning as their technology allowed. Along with a few catchy songs with some well developed lyrics, Moana is an adventure I will continue to sail back to again and again.

#5 Fences

The first film I reviewed this year was an adaptation of August Wilson's famous Pittsburg play, Fences. Before the film was made, many directors deemed the play "unfilmable." Denzel Washington had none of that, and thanks to his efforts and impeccable direction August Wilson's play is now a heartfelt and emotionally ripe feature film. Starring Washington himself, Viola Davis, Stephen Henderson, Mykelti Williamson and Russell Hornsby, Fences is a brilliant showcase of charismatic performances and real people. The line delivery, emotional subtext and painful pregnant pauses are powerful here, and the masters of all three of these are Washington and Davis. Seeing these two interact as an 18 year married couple is the primary highlight of Fences' experience. This is the story of a family; a story full of pain, passion, good times, bad times and all the uncertainties in-between. Complimented by Washington's impeccable direction and accented with Wilson's unforgettable script, Fences rings true. It will continue to ring true day by day and year after year.

#4 Logan

2017 has been a year of firsts and lasts. In the world of cinema, this year featured Hugh Jackman's last performance as the Wolverine, a role he's been playing since the year 2000. For Jackman, there was no better way for his character to go than in James Mangold's Logan. In the world of X-Men movies, there is no other film as desolate and intense as this. By treating his film as a western, instead of a tropic super-hero film, Mangold has allowed these well known movie characters to breathe and bleed in a new and untamed way. Across Logan's vapid and hopeless wastelands, Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen and Boyd Holbrook give life to the film. Each of them brings a performance that will pull out an audience response, upon any one of these character's deaths or salvations. Full of raw dialogue, visceral confrontations and violent howling blood, Mangold has written and directed a compelling and iconic Wolverine story; one that will forever influence the mythos of X-Men and all new super-hero stories to come in 2018 and beyond that horizon.

#3 Hacksaw Ridge

In this year where it seemed so many people were bent on taking the world apart, director Mel Gibson created a biopic about one brave medic who wanted to put a little bit of it back together. Hacksaw Ridge is the incredible true story of World War II veteran Private Desmond Doss. In a world that told Doss to stand down and fall in line, this young man believed what was right and stuck to his guns, by never firing one. Doss religiously followed the Bible's teachings, and because of his beliefs he wanted to join the army as a medic where he would never have to pick up a gun. Doss' story is a unique piece of history, and the film based on his story is remarkable. Like Doss the humble hero, this film is a humble portrayal of his life. Where the film could boast of Doss' life, the screenplay shows Doss giving thanks to God's strength. Where the film could show national approval for the image of the U.S. military, it takes a step back to show these soldiers as human beings, and so it honors them and the reasons why they fought. Complete with a heart wrenching score, an undaunted screenplay, and powerful performances from Andrew Garfield, Teresa Palmer, Sam Worthington and Vince Vaugh of all people, Hacksaw Ridge is an awe inspiring humane film. Every time I have watched it, this film has proven it is one Heaven of a war film, because it certainly ain't Hell.

#2 Silence

Out of all the films on this list, I fear to think of this one. Martin Scorsese's Silence is an epic about two Catholic priests and their trials in 17th century Japan. Father Rodrigues, played by Andrew Garfield, and Father Garupe, played by Adam Driver, are on a mission to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and bring salvation to the people of Japan. How little they know, for to seeds of faith, Japan is a swamp. While it would have been easy for Scorsese to illustrate Japan is a vapid and vile land, Silence's masterful cinematography and mesmerizing locations show Japan as a gorgeous landscape that audiences may not be able to take their eyes from. In addition to this the film's editing and sound design are engrossing. Silence's score is composed of cicadas, waves, rain, wind, and foreboding drums and distressing pipes. These naturalistic sounds are a haunting reminder to viewers that terrible tribulations are coming for them, and there is nothing they can do to stop it. By the time a viewer allows one of Silence's many questions to enter their thoughts, they have been consumed by Silence's story, and this film will linger long in their thoughts after the years end. Silence is a spiritual thriller. Watching it demands a strong will and belief. This film has tried my spirit every time I watch even a clip from it. I am hesitant to watch this film again, though I feel compelled that I should watch and be tested by Silence at least once a year.

#1 La la Land

Ever since I heard Just Hurwitz's musical compositions in January, I have been singing and dancing to them anytime the moment arises. Since I saw the purple painted skyline of what Sebastian calls "the city of stars," I have not been able to walk by a lamppost without feeling the sudden urge to sing and tap dance. Since I have experienced Damien Chazelle's original technicolor cinematic musical La la Land, I have seen cinema with a new dream like perspective and have developed an open appreciation for the storytellers from Hollywood and around our globe. Every time I watch La la Land I discover something new, a greater truth illustrated in its screenplay, a deeper meaning within a song's lyrics, a reference to another film, a subtlety in Ryan Gosling's performance, a highlight in Emma Stone's portrayal of Mia's growth and development, a set piece or prop that has significance behind its reappearance, or a new experience from my life that gives me greater connection to the characters and draws me closer into Chazelle's story. I've seen dozens upon dozens of films this year, and few of them have been able to capture a moment, a balance between reality and fantasy, quite like La la Land has. It is visually captivating, poetically written, emotionally resonant, musically appealing and always worth watching. This one's for the fools who dream, and will continue dreaming in 2018.

Thank you to all my readers and all the filmmakers who created these seven incredible films. Here's to the next year of great cinema and great views.

"Mr. Scrooge. How Delightful to meet you, Sir." The man who Invented Christmas Review

The man who Invented Christmas

2/5

Directed by: Bharat Nalluri

Rated: PG

           In the year 1843 one of the greatest celebrities in the world, British novelist Charles Dickens, was sitting in his chambers with a dripping ink quill in his right hand, a clean sheet of paper in front of him and absolutely no new stories inside his mind. Dickens was out of inspiration, out of popularity and slowly running out of money. Then one night, as if fate itself saw it fit, a story came to Dickens in the most marvelous way. It is a story about a covetous old sinner who is visited by three spirits on Christmas eve and how these spirits change this old miser's cold unkind heart into a loving and generous one. Though Dickens originally wanted to title this novella "Humbug, a Miser's Lament," it is far more widely known by its proud best selling title "A Christmas Carol."

           The man who Invented Christmas follows three story lines throughout its brief one hour and 44 minute runtime. The film tells the story of Charles Dickens' early life, his relationship with his father, and how he came to write "A Christmas Carol." Dan Stevens stars as the British word smith himself, Mr. Charles Dickens. Full of wit, eccentricism and dry humor, Stevens brings a portrayal of the famous author so iconic, audience members may find themselves reading Dickens' books adopting Stevens' voice and mannerisms. Playing along side Stevens is Jonathan Pryce as Dickens' foolishly ambitious and everloving father, John Dickens. Pryce's performance is so full of cheer and pleasant humor it makes it difficult for audience members to stay mad at Dickens' father. One last stand out performance is found in Dickens' fictitious manifested character Ebenezer Scrooge, played very well by Christopher Plummer. Plummer's portrayal of the famous miser is as cold as ice, sharp as a flint and calculating as a money lender. There are plenty of other good performances in this film, and they all do their part playing characters in Dickens' real life and playing similar characters in Dickens' fictitious work "A Christmas Carol."

           Though The man who Invented Christmas tells a worthwhile and interesting story, its screenplay is combined of equal parts success and missteps. Since this film attempts to juggle three seemingly separate stories, it is only natural this film's screenplay may at times be impactful and precise and at other times be weak and muddled. This sway of the script is not constricted to only one of the film's three plots, but occurs between all three. No matter which of these film's three plots an audience member latches on to the most, audience members will find scenes that they appreciate and always remember and other scenes they tolerate and eventually forget.

           If this film were about a writer who was not a noteworthy novelist, this film could easily be written off as another run of the mill biographical feature. It is because this film's subject matter is so enticing (it is the story of Charles Dickens, his early life, his relation with his father and how he came to write one of the greatest Christmas stories ever written) that The man who Invented Christmas is worth watching at least once. It might not be worth box office admission, but it is worth renting or watching on home release.

Verdict: The man who Invented Christmas is a unique and well done biographical picture about Charles Dickens and "A Christmas Carol," but it does not offer enough meaningful substance to please less avid fans of the film's source material.

"Let the Past Die. Kill it, if You have To." The Last Jedi Review

Star Wars The Last Jedi

3.5/5

Written and Directed by Rian Johnson

Rated PG-13

           Hope; something all people cling to in their darkest moments. When causes seem lost, old friends appear gone and new rivalries are born, hope for a brighter future, is what brings people through these times. In a galaxy far far away, a band of Resistance fighters cling to this hope on the brink of annihilation. A young woman tries to rekindle hope in an old master. A young son desperately relinquishes hope to embrace hatred and despair. This is the main narrative piece and purpose of Star Wars the Last Jedi that when hope is absent it is impossible to strive for unity, love and light.
           From the start of The Last Jedi all the way to its long awaited conclusion, the narrative's focus is on its protagonists and their opposing views and goals. Rey, played with poise and conduct by Daisy Ridley, is an orphan girl who wants to rise above her past and control what she believes to be her newfound powers. Kylo Ren, played captivating and exceptionally well by Adam Driver, is a torn individual who desires to gather up the pieces of his broken soul but fears to mend or burn them. Luke Skywalker, played by a cold and endearing Mark Hamill, is an old and war weary Jedi master who has grown to resist his old teachings. The Last Jedi's intriguing story is founded in how these three dynamic protagonists' stories are interwoven and how these characters conflict with each other. It is iconic, impactful and emotionally resonant.
           Along with these incredible lead characters, The Last Jedi's rich cast of supporting characters are a varied collection of memorable heroes, villains and most things in between. From the lowliest Resistance maintenance workers to the highest First Order commanders every actress and actor offers a fine and meaningful performance. A few standout performances from this crowd are John Boyega as the cowardly and kind hearted Finn, Kelly Marie Tran as the soft spoken and head strong Rose Tico, Oscar Isaac as the hotheaded heroic pilot Poe Dameron, Laura Dern as the competent and compassionate Vice Admiral Holdo, Andy Serkis as the dominating and devilish Supreme Leader Snoke and the late Carrie Fisher reprising her role as the one and only fearless, bold, loving and vulnerable Princess and General Leia Organa.
           Apart from The Last Jedi's cast, this film also has strong visual appeal. A primary color scheme of pristine whites, powerful blacks and violent reds make up the majority of The Last Jedi's battlefields. These visually stunning set pieces are the backdrops for some incredible battle sequences, exhilarating space fights and palpable light saber duels.
           Though the few battle scenes within The Last Jedi are worth seeing, they are distanced by a lengthy and extensive screenplay. The Last Jedi is the longest Star Wars film to date, running over two hours and 30 minutes. Each story element and character plot point in The Last Jedi is important and utilized in the film's screenplay. This makes The Last Jedi feel like an epic, but the film's narrative weight and emotional impact barely warrant this length. Perhaps upon a second viewing, audience members will find up to 30 minutes worth of unnecessary footage in this film, or it is possible that The Last Jedi truly requires each second of its story in order to efficiently build up its tactful climax.
           One thing that makes recommending this film for theatrical viewing difficult is that it is part of a 40 year old franchise. The Last Jedi is the sequel of Star Wars the Force Awakens and the eighth episode in the Star Wars series. Since The Last Jedi begins immediately where The Force Awakens concludes, audiences would be wise to watch The Force Awakens before viewing The Last Jedi. Unfortunately though, most of the story elements and character continuity from The Force Awakens is disregarded by The Last Jedi's screenplay. This makes The Last Jedi's first act seem to be mostly about Rian Johnson rewriting the parts of The Force Awakens that he did not like. It is not until this film's second act that the screenwriter has the characters where he wants them, but by this point audience members may have lost interest in this story. Those who stick with this story will find its final act to be satisfying and worth the price of admission.
           It is possible, however, that many Star Wars fans will not appreciate or want to see this film. The Last Jedi stands apart from its host of seven other episodes, because The Last Jedi lacks an adventurous sense of fun, enjoyment and wonder that make up the majority of those other films. In place of these aspects are vivid destitute characters, stark battles for survival, bleak shadows of turmoil and the looming presence of death, fear, courage and a single spark of hope. For Star Wars fans looking for a far darker and detailed entry in the series, The Last Jedi may just be the film they are looking for.

Verdict: Star Wars The Last Jedi is a dark epic with powerful lead performances, a memorable supporting cast and impactful moments of conflict, but its extensive length and heavily detailed screenplay can make this journey a bit of a slog.

"I don't think she has a Flaw" Thoughts on Star Wars' Rey and her Character

SPOILERS for Star Wars The Force Awakens

           One element from J.J. Abrams' The Force Awakens has been on my mind, since the first time I watched it and throughout my subsequent viewings. This is the film's weakest story element, the character of Rey. This is not to say that Rey is a weak individual. On the contrary, Rey is a strong willed scavenger, pilot and fighter. Throughout the film Rey appears indestructible. Though she lands herself in two bad situations, accidentally releasing the rathtars and getting herself kidnapped by Kylo Ren, her single minded determination gets her out of these problems with little difficulty. Rey even teaches herself about the force and is able to harness this unseen power that she had little to no knowledge of. This is what makes Rey a weak character. She appears to have no flaws.
           This is often a primary point I highlight, when I converse with friends about The Force Awakens' best and worst story elements. As the most memorable Star Wars protagonists' all have flaws that lead them into irreversible turmoil (Luke's trust in his own power led to him losing his right arm, Obi-Wan's vainglorious pursuit to become a Jedi master made him neglectful of his Padawan's training, Finn's fear of standing up and fighting for what is right leads to him almost abandon his friends), it seems fitting that Rey should also have a character flaw. If Rey has a character flaw it will give her more humanity as a person, believability as a fictitious character and credibility as a worthwhile role model.
           I have been watching and rewatching and talking with people about The Force Awakens with the hope that I will find Rey's possible character flaw. I have had no success. Now my search concludes, Daisy Ridley, the actress playing the character of Rey, has given her answer. In an interview with comicbook.com Ridley was asked what her character's biggest flaw is. Ridley quickly responded, "I don't think she has a flaw." Ridley says Rey's lack of flaws is a good thing. In her interview Ridely stated, "I was actually having this discussion with my dad, because I was like, you know, people go to the hair dresser to get their hair done, people go to the gym to get their bodies done. You can always work on your stuff, just if you can't see it. You can work on jealousy or anger or whatever it is...So I don't think that's a flaw, I think it's room for growth." Ridley also went on to say that one of Rey's possible flaws, her stubbornness, is not a hindrance for Rey or any other character in Star Wars. Ridely stated, "I think anything that might be the thing that people go *scoffs* with kids, if they're stubborn, if they're willful, serves her very well in this film. So I don't think that's a flaw."
           Of course, Rey's character has to have a flaw, as no human is or ever will be perfect. Since Rey's character is destined to fail in certain areas of her life, where are her failures? If she can accomplish anything she sets her mind to, where does she fall short?
           Perhaps Rey's greatest flaw comes from the fact that she has yet to fall short. Perhaps because Rey has yet to fail herself or others in a horribly irreversible way, she believes she cannot fail. She is able to continue to believing in this flawed view of herself, because it is more than supported by her circumstances. Any disaster she has gotten herself into, she has made it out with relative ease. If Rey's character is without flaws, then she cannot represent humanity, be a believable fictitious character or be a credible role model like many of the other Star Wars characters surrounding her.
           Though it is unfortunate that Rey's character is a weak story element in The Force Awakens, her character has time for development. My hope is that in Star Wars' next installment, The Last Jedi, Rey will be illustrated as an imperfect human being in need of help, growth and rescue, like all human beings.

"I have Discovered the Truth, and it is Profoundly Disturbing." Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Review

Murder on the Orient Express
3/5

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh

Rated: PG-13

           High on top of the cold and unforgiving mountains of Eurasia, the Orient Express, a symbol of luxury and excellence, lies on its side derailed. Inside the train's dining car 12 passengers sit in silence in the harsh light of electric lamps; exchanging accusatory glances and then hiding their fearful faces. In the first class coach are three people, M. Bouc, the esteemed director of the Orient Express, a dead body, murdered in a bloody frenzy, and the great Belgian detective, M. Hercule Poirot. This scene makes for a riveting mystery and an enjoyable time at the theatre, but in this film it is unable to impact or effect its viewers.

           In Murder on the Orient Express Sir Kenneth Branagh stars as Agatha Christie's famous Hercule Poirot. Purveying his magnificent moustaches and an equally massive theatrical presence, Branagh's performance is engaging and compelling. Along with one memorable and charismatic performance, comes a diverse ensemble; each actor and actress suiting their role to the best of their abilities. A few stand out performers are Johnny Depp as the cold and commanding gangster M. Rachett, Daisy Ridley as the lovely and upfront governess Mlle. Debenham, Leslie Odom Jr. as the charming and brazen Dr. Abuthnot, Michelle Pfeiffer as the sultry and seductive Mme. Hubbard, Josh Gad as the amusing and aloof M. Macqueen, and Judi Dench as the indomitable and frightful Princess Dragomiroff. Though each of these accompanying performers does a good job portraying their character, their characters do not play well off of each other. It is as if each actor and actress, aside from Branagh, thought they were performing a one person show.

           Murder on the Orient Express also boast of impressive technical aspects. This film's visuals are engrossing. The train's production design is immaculate, and the film's deep blue color scheme is aesthetically pleasing. The camera's movements through this set are free spirited like a bird. This often creates curious camera angles inviting audiences to examine familiar scenes from new perspectives. Though these shots are beautiful, they do not flow well from one to the next. It is jarring jumping from one gorgeous long take to the next, and the camera's flamboyance can only distract viewers from the film's story for so long.
           Viewers need to be distracted from the story, because the film's screenplay suffers from the performers' and visuals' similar shortcomings. Though the screenplay's dialogue is at times humorous and yet also lends itself to dreadful tragedy, it feels dishonest to the presented characters and their inner secrets. It is almost as if there are far more poignant phrases characters want to say, yet they hold back and say only what sounds good on face value. There is little depth in the film's dialogue, so the characters feel like personas in a murder mystery and less like a tangle of strangers finding themselves caught in a web of deceit.
           Even though this film suffers, It is clear Branagh and his team have exerted great effort to make this film an interesting adaptation. It is also clear Branagh's team did not have much communication with each other. The biggest downside with Murder on the Orient Express is that each scene is remarkable but when they are combined in this manner they are lackluster. The film has good aspects, but its poor synergy diminishes the story's weight and impact. Audiences will enjoy this film while they are watching it, but after they leave the theatre most will ask themselves what was the film's greater purpose. This places Murder on the Orient Express in a unique predicament, where the film is worth seeing in a large theatre but it is not worth watching or owning on home release.

Verdict: Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express features good performances and remarkable individual scenes, making it a worthwhile time at the theatre but only for enthusiastic moviegoers.

"Point me in the direction of whoever's ass I have to Kick!" Thor Ragnarok Review

Thor Ragnarok

1.5/5

Directed by: Taika Waititi

Rated: PG-13

           The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is extensive, and it is slowly building towards its climax, Avengers Infinity War (2018). Within this franchise's nine years of existence, audiences have seen great heroes team up with unlikely allies, take on hordes of evil and laugh and cry all the way through it. In the MCU's new action comedy Thor Ragnarok audiences will receive more of the same...but worse. This sequence of events that appeared on a screen in front of a viewer's eyes, otherwise known as a movie, provides lack luster entertainment, unstimulating visuals and little to no impact.
           Thor Ragnarok's most entertaining element is its characters, or rather its collection of walking and talking warriors that have their own quirks. Thor, Chris Hemsworth, is a brazen and brutish battler who wants to save his kingdom from the evil Hela, Cate Blanchett. Loki, Tom Hiddleston, is a conniving and charismatic combater who defeats his enemies through tricks and fakery. Valkyrie, Tessa Thompson, is a fierce and frigid fighter who drinks to her heart's content and won't take back any insult or injury. The Hulk, Mark Ruffalo, is a hearty heavy lifting hothead who speaks in broken English and breaks his challengers' backs. Based on these descriptions, it is expected that audience's should spend the majority of their time watching these people fight each other and various bad guys. While this is somewhat true, as there is enough fighting in this movie to keep a person in their seat with their eyes open, every battle is against a CGI opponent. Since the bad guys our heroes are unleashing their might upon are mostly computer generated faceless mobs, the impact of every punch, slam, kick, slice and smash is nullified.
           Other than a few interesting moments in this movie, Thor Ragnarok is not fun. The movie's dialogue is at moments comedic, but its primarily unenthusiastic and bland. The visuals in this movie are colorful, but the production design's color palettes are not emotionally rich. The villain is overpowered and worthy of being defeated, but it comes to a point where it does not matter how she will be defeated. All that matters is when, because that will signal the end of the movie. In addition to this Thor Ragnarok's orchestral score is forgettable and the movie's pacing is choppy and might make the story difficult following. The most effort this movie put forth was in its action scenes, but they are all fake and poorly choreographed. It is difficult separating each battle from another or recalling how someone took down their opponent. For all this movie's physical traits, it lacks an emotional center and the mental competence to make the movie impactful and worthwhile.
           There can be some enjoyment had with this MCU entry, but it mainly comes through knowing the backstory and previous character development that occurred in earlier entries. To best understand Thor Ragnarok's basic plot audience members should watch Thor (2011), The Avengers (2012), Thor the Dark World (2013), Avengers Age of Ultron (2015), and Doctor Strange (2016). It appears impossible for any new MCU entry to be watchable in its own right. The MCU shall eventually crumble under its own weight, and when that time comes only this franchise's best titles will be remembered and revered. It doesn't seem likely Thor Ragnarok will be amongst the chosen. As Thor would say, this movie is "not worthy."

Verdict: Thor Ragnarok is a poorly executed semi coherent sequence of events about a group of hotheads who take on a CGI army, and the movie lacks emotional impact and worthwhile entertaining value.

"I Hope you're Satisfied with our Product." Blade Runner 2049 Review

Blade Runner 2049

2.5/5

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Written by: Hampton Fancher and Michael Green

Rated: R

           Writer's express their worldviews through genres, and science fiction is the most apt and malleable gateway for a writer's thoughts on the world around them. Through the technologically advanced worlds in science fiction, screenwriters have illustrated their thoughts on policies, social issues and generalized norms. In 1982 Hampton Fancher employed this genre, combined with film noir, and wrote the screenplay for Ridley Scott's critically acclaimed Blade Runner. 35 years later, Fancher and director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival 2016) have revamped Scott's vision to reflect their new worldviews. Based upon Blade Runner's science fiction themes and environment, Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 inhabits a new atmosphere with an original narrative tackling a wide variety of social issues and ambiguous situations.
           Blade Runner 2049's story is an unexpected narrative approach for a science fiction block buster. It is an investigative look at what defines humanity and what lies the world foolishly believes. Because the film's narrative does not have the gravitas of other science fiction block busters, Blade Runner 2049's story can feel sluggish and monotonous. Though the story covers a wide variety of topics and social issues, the film's narrative does not successfully interweave these concepts into a coherent ideology. This does not mean the film does not feature compelling scenes. The action sequences are unflinching, the romantic moments are sensuous, the dialogue is fascinating, and the story is intriguing, but the film's decision to treat all of the story's themes as ambiguous entities makes the film an overall unrewarding experience.

           What keeps this story somewhat engaging and worth watching is its main protagonist. Officer K. is a Blade Runner charged with the task of hunting down and retiring replicants, artificially made people. Ryan Gosling portrays this standout character with a brazen charm and razor sharp subtlety. This seasoned actor is able to show his character's thoughts and beliefs through the intensity and gentleness in his eyes. It is clear every twitch of his face; every curl of his mouth; every flare of his nostrils; every step he walks speaks K's inner emotional conflicts and mental competence as the lead hero of Blade Runner 2049.
           Accompanying Gosling's performance are actors and actresses Ana De Armas as Joi, Robin Wright as Lieutenant Joshi, Sylvia Hoeks as Luv, and Jared Leto as Niander Wallace. Though all of these performers suit their on screen personas, their line delivery and idiosyncrasies can become predictable and eventually unstimulating. These performers play their parts well, but their character's inert natures give them little room for exploration and discovery.

           Along with this considerably immobile cast of characters, Blade Runner 2049 is comprised of a vapid and tiresome atmosphere. While cinematographer Roger Deakins provides shots with adequate composition, they have little variety. His shots seldom include camera movement and only depict one shade of color. There are no hue gradients in Deakins' color pallet, and as such his shots feel lifeless and inactive. The best element in this film's visuals is its lighting design. It is wondrous watching character's slowly cross a massive corridor, as a golden light illuminates their path with each step they take. It is an impactful part of this film's aesthetic, and it does not attract attention to itself. However, an element that demands attention is this film's score. Hans Zimmer ,musical composer, tries to add energy to Deakins' devoid scenes, but he does so with overbearingly loud drones, inconsequential ethereal synthesizers and harsh bass drops. All of Blade Runner 2049's atmospheric pieces gives this film a unique look and feel, but make the film an unengaging experience that would be better watched on a home viewing screen.

Verdict: Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 features a top notch performance from Ryan Gosling and excellent lighting design, but its slow paced story told through devoid images and stagnant color palettes and characters makes this film an ultimately unrewarding cinematic experience.

"I'm gonna put the Show back in Chauvinism." Battle of the Sexes Review

Battle of the Sexes

1/5

Directed by: Johnathan Dayton and Valerie Faris

Written by: Simon Beaufoy

Rated: PG-13

            On Thursday September 20, 1973, over 90 million people across the world tuned into to one sporting event. Men and women alike watched the game of the decade in the Houston Astrodome, where over 30,742 spectators gathered to watch former 1939 Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs, 55, take on World no. 1 Billie Jean King, 29. The momentous match between the lobber and the libber was hailed as the "Battle of the Sexes." This incredible true story of friendly competition, the press's power, and people's desire to prove once and for all which is the better sex...is not in this movie. Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical look at modern day USA through the perspective of a warped and considerably forgettable biopic.
           The only decent aspect of this film, and primary source of its humorous, dramatic, and relationally impactful scenes is Bobby Riggs, played by comedy genius Steve Carell. In real life Bobby Riggs was a gambling addict and a hustler who portrayed himself as a chauvinist pig on television. Steve Carell nails this role and Bobby Riggs' unique sense of humor. In his efforts to blatantly show how men are better than women at tennis, he plays with ridiculous handicaps, and dresses up in silly costumes. It is amusing watching this 55 year old play tennis with a frying pan, walking three large dogs, and wearing a little-bo-peep costume with his own herd of sheep.
           Billie Jean King is played by a soft spoken Emma Stone, and the camera intently shows off her spotless complexion. Billie Jean's theatrical portrayal is not characterized beyond her ability to play tennis, which is rarely shown on screen, and her relationship with her husband and the woman she is cheating on with him. The story does not take necessary time illustrating Billie Jean as a strong hearted and worthwhile protagonist. By the time the battle between her and Riggs begins, audiences may find themselves rooting for the misogynistic showman, which should be this movie's opposite intent.
           What greatly diminishes Billie Jean's chances for character development is her forced romantic infatuation with her hair dresser Marylin, played by a plastic Barbie doll faced Andrea Riseborough. These awful scenes seem to take up more than 75% of this movie's runtime, significantly diminish the plot's pacing, and appear to be constructed in a way that conveys unnecessary intimacy with as little effort possible.
           The directors chose to display Billie Jean and Marylin's sexual attraction, through psychological direction. The cinematography in their scenes consists of extreme close ups on make-up  covered faces, and provocative shots with free floating movement, but little substance. According to an interview with  "Ney York Times'" the directors' goal was to mimic what is known as "the autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR). It's when people talk in a certain tone [and] elicit a sensual response." While these scenes have the ability to provoke uncomfortable arousal from audience members, they fail to create tenderness and deep rooted passion between the characters. Billie Jean and Marilyn's romance focuses on superficial biological desires, rather than greater unconditional love, the kind that makes a character heroic and noteworthy.
           In addition to these lack luster sexual scenes, this movie is hypocritical of its message. In Battle of the Sexes the obviously villainous Jack Kramer, founder of the Association of Tennis Professionals, claims women cannot play tennis as well as men, because they crumble under emotional pressure more than men do. This movie could have easily disproven the claim, by showing a heroic Billie Jean King overcome all obstacles and challenge Bobby Riggs with a level head and an optimistic spirit. Unfortunately the movie does not do this, and instead plays into Kramer's words. In the movie Billie Jean's unnecessary romance clearly messes with her head, and is shown as the main cause of her losses on the court and her emotional strife. Meanwhile Bobby Riggs' wife divorces him, he suffers from a gambling problem, and his oldest son does not appreciate him, yet Bobby Riggs plays tennis like a champ with a can do attitude. The film also deliberately points out that if Billie Jean left her husband and followed her misguided heart, then she would be able to win more tennis matches and be happy. If this movie was showing Billie Jean as a strong willed protagonist who did not let her romantic life get the best of her, then her domestic life would not have had a pronounced negative effect on her athletic skill or competitive attitude. It is sad that this movie puts supplemetary effort into heroically parading the male pig, and then tries to persuade audiences into believing that the writer and ditectors cared more about the hairy legged feminist just because she had the most screen time.
           Battle of the Sexes is one of the most appalling bait and switches in biographical cinema. This movie's advertising claimed the film would be a well directed and uplifting story about gender rivalry and its affects on the athletic environment. It is disgraceful how a story with such magnitude, popularity, and open power for change was mutilated into an unbalanced self righteous pat on the back for men and an awkward side hug for women.

Verdict: With its one good character being the showy antagonistic chauvinist pig, Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical waste of an iconic historical event and box-office money.

"No Shark Attacks, while someone's on the Toilet." Netflix's Death Note Review

Netflix's Death Note

1/5

Directed by: Adam Wingard

Rated: TV-MA

           "Death Note" is a manga (Japanese graphic novel) written by Tsugumi Ohba and illustrated by Takeshi Obata. Releasing its chapters on a weekly basis in Shonen Jump magazine, the series began in 2003 and concluded in 2006. Upon its completion, studio Madhouse adapted the manga into an anime. By then, "Death Note" had a received critical praise, sold millions of copies, and became a national phenomenon. Years later, the producers at Netflix believed they could tap into this series' appeal, and so on August 25th, 2017, Adam Wingard's TV movie Death Note was released unto the world. It is, however, an appalling disaster.
           Netflix's Death Note is neither a meaningful adaptation, nor a memorable new story based on the limitless source material. While the first three chapters of the manga (or first three episodes of the anime) inspired a few of the movie's inciting scenes, the rest of Netflix's Death Note seeks to create its own original, although misguided, storyline. Light Turner, played by an uptight Nat Wolff, is an uninteresting loner in a high school in Seattle, Washington. One overcast day he finds a Death Note, a notebook with the ability to kill anyone whose name is written in it, as long as the users request follows all 100 plus of the Death Note's rules. With this new found power, Light decides to do nothing with it, until the death god, Ryuk, portrayed by an unnecessarily nasally Willem Dafoe, convinces Light to use the Death Note and kill his personal enemies. Afterwards, Light uses the Death Note to impress his cheerleader crush, Mia Sutton, played palely by an always moody Margaret Qualley. Together, after the two of them delight in some obligatory sordid high school fantasies, they decide to use the notebook to kill off criminals, terrorists, and convince the world that they are a god.

           While this may appear to be a somewhat enticing premise, the movie's execution is neither coherent nor entertaining. The screenplay is comprised of forgettable lines, and more than three lackluster plot twists. The movie cycles through a barrage of conflicting genres. It starts as an excessively bloody horror flick (similar to 2000's Final Destination), becomes an overbearing gothic romance, turns into an uninspired mystery, and ends as an over the top melodramatic comedy (this last one may have been unintentional). As the plot progresses, it feels inclined to invite a slew of characters. When characters are introduced, it is done without sufficient exposition. This makes what could have been an intriguing lineup of personas, into a string of flimsy one dimensional archetypes.

CGI Ryuk (Willem Dafoe)

           Along with the story's meager execution, the movie is atrocious from a technical standpoint. The editing is a grab bag of wipes, fades, and poor cuts. Gaffs, such as disappearing props, costume mistakes, and basic continuity errors, are visible throughout the movie's runtime. Most of these errors are obvious, and could have been easily cut from the finished product. Perhaps the editors thought these mistakes would go unnoticed, due to the movie's pitch black aesthetic. Scenes are poorly lit with a mixture of heavy handed neon glows and unflattering darkness. The costume designer also saw it fitting for characters to wear all black outfits. Often times, performers seem to be nothing more than floating heads. The only character silhouette standing out in this gloomy atmosphere is Ryuk. However, Ryuk's CGI physique is animated so poorly, the lighting is used to hide his cheap character design. He only appears feasible when he is obscured by shelves, or blurred out by the camera. The few moments featuring Ryuk's carelessly animated face, remind audiences of this movie's fakery and devoid world.

Light Yagami and Ryuk (Takeshi Obata)

           Beyond all of these glaring flaws, Netflix's Death Note fails to capture the heart and blackened soul that made Ohba and Obata's manga an engaging page turner, protagonist Light Yagami. In the manga, Light is an acknowledged genius, placing first in national exams. He is a gifted individual, with two loving parents and an adorable sister. He is also bored. When the Death Note falls into Light's possession, he uses its power to kill thousands of the world's criminals, through unnatural heart attacks, and in time people begin hailing him as a god, Kira. "Death Note" hinges on Light's cunning plans, talent at dodging suspicion, and moral aptitude to use and dispose of his close allies. He is a corrupt antihero, and one that millions of people unnaturally root for and read about countless times. His abandoned morality begs readers to question their own sense of justice, and ask themselves what they would do if they found a Death Note.

Light Turner (Nat Wolff)

           Director Adam Wingard answered this hypothetical question with Light Turner. This unimpressive high schooler uses his Death Note to impress a girl, and force people to believe he is a god. He also delights in writing unique and grotesque murders in his Death Note. While this makes Light out to be an edgy and disturbed teenager, he also exhibits traits contradicting this viscous side. In frightful moments, Light immaturely panics, childishly screams, and makes impractical demands of those around him. The movie wants to amend this by showing off Light's potential brain power. It does this through flashbacks showing how Light improbably predicted a fatal scenario, and showing what he wrote in the Death Note in order to run away from his fate. This makes Light's few moments of supposed planning into to tropic dues ex machinas (an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel: Oxford Dictionaries) It is hard to root for this obnoxious protagonist. The majority of viewers will hope Light meets a fate similar to the gory deaths he has inflicted on others. Considering the movie follows his exploits and character development (or in this case lack of), the story's impact rests on him. Regrettably, Light Turner lets the movie fall, crashing down like an over bloated CGI Ferris wheel.

Verdict: With flat characters,  a hollow screenplay, unflattering camera work, and poor execution of an ingenious premise, Netflix's Death Note is an ungodly adaptation of a brilliant manga.

"You can practically see it from here, Home" Dunkirk Review

Dunkirk

4/5

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Rated: PG-13

           British director Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedentedly realistic depiction of the British forces' treacherous evacuation from Dunkirk beach. It is about the soldiers' struggle for survival on the beaches, the civilian yacht sailors' attempts to rescue them, and the spit fire pilots' dog fights against incoming German bombers. Audiences are thrust into this situation with minimal exposition. There is one shot of opening text, and then the film continues, and it does not stop. This impending ticking clock is exemplified within the film's soundtrack, as the musical motif of a pocket watch's ceaseless second hand. Time is not on the soldiers' side. They cannot waste a single moment, or it may be their death.
           What makes Dunkirk a realistic depiction of these events is the director's choice to not use computer generated air planes, ships, or locations. Nolan shot the majority of the film on Dunkirk beach and the English Channel. All of the air planes in the film were working replicas and restored WWII fighter planes. Most of the ships used in the film were the real life ships that made the perilous journey to those beaches in 1940. According to an article on the Evening Standard Nolan casts over 6,000 extras and supplemented the rest of the people using cardboard cutouts. Because Dunkirk utilizes realistic special effects, vehicles and locations, it features some incredibly haunting audial art. The pervasive overbearing sounds of gunfire, motor engines, whizzing bullets, crushing tides, and soaring fighter planes immerse audiences in Dunkirk's claustrophobic war zone.
           Though there are a few well known actors in the film, Tom Hardy, Fionn Whitehead, Harry Styles, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, and Kenneth Branagh, Dunkirk's humanity shines through its hundreds of thousands of unnamed terrified faces. There is no overarching romance or character drama to pacify audiences from this experience. Nolan places audiences in the mindset of the 400,000 soldiers desperately attempting to escape their faceless enemy in the skies. The only protagonist is life, and its antagonist is impending death. Survival is victory.
           Much like Nolan's previous films Dunkirk has a unique chronemic structure. Dunkirk relays time's passage through three separate narratives. Each story in the film begins with the start of the film, but they each take place over a different amount of time. The narrative concerning the soldiers on the beach covers the span of one week. The narrative of an old father on the sea covers the length of a day. The scenes depicting spit fire air planes in mid air combat spans an hour. Though the jarring transitions between these three interwoven time lines may be enough to momentarily jolt audiences out of the film, it is not enough to overcome the wave of sights and sounds that make Dunkirk an unforgettable cinematic experience.

Verdict: Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedented haunting retelling of the British evacuation from Dunkirk beach, and it submerges audiences in a world of sound, fear, shock, and survival.

"Peter, You're Young. You don't know how the World Works." Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Spider-Man: Homecoming

3/5

Directed by: Jon Watts

Rated: PG-13

           The latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is here, and with it comes a familiar face, but a whole new adventure. Spider-Man: Homecoming is the coming of age story about a boy, Peter Parker. He's a nobody at his high-school. The girls ignore him, the bullies don't even think he's worth their time, and he is a big science geek. Aside from all this, Peter is running around the suburbs of New York, as the one and only Spider-Man. He's not a noteworthy hero, though, like his mentor Iron Man, as Peter mainly stops small crimes, and casually helps out the people of New York. Seems like Peter has little to do and worry about, until one fateful day, when trouble ruptures the city. Brave Peter steps in to help out and save the day, but he might be too far out of his league on this one. Can this kid man up in time to save Manhattan from a new threat, or will Peter's attempts at herodom have him fall flat on his face?

          Spider-Man: Homecoming's story is complemented by its fascinating characters. Tom Holland gives a spectacular performance as the Marvel character, Spider-Man, and also offers a heartfelt and vulnerably human portrayal of Peter Parker. The screenplay does a good job letting viewers in on the growing pains of his life and the gradual changes of his mindset. It makes audiences want to root for him, see him develop as a character, and hope everything turns out well for him in the end. Additionally, Michael Keaton gives a gritty and terrifying performance, as this movie's main antagonist, Adrian Toomes. His onscreen presence screams danger, and yet Adrian remains composed. Because of the pure antithesis between these two characters, they play incredibly well off of each other, and it's thrilling when the two of them are together onscreen. Aside from these two, there are plenty of high-school characters in this movie. Accompanying Peter Parker is his one good buddy Ned, played by Jacob Batalon. For how uncool Peter is, Ned makes him look cooler than a frozen Captain America. Some viewers may find Ned is a hilarious addition to this movie, while others may see him as unnecessary and overbearing. As is the case with the majority of the jokes in this movie, the audience's amusement depends on their sense of humor and expectations.

          What separates Spider-Man: Homecoming from other Marvel movies is the age of its main characters. The movie primarily takes place within Peter Parker's high-school, and centers around the characters and relationships he creates there. The school in the movie gives an accurate impression of a modern high-school, and can give people who have been through senior high a sense nostalgia or dread. The scenes within the high-school are mostly comprised of inside jokes, which high-school students should supposedly understand. Along with this primary location, the age range of the main characters lowers this movie's maturity level. Aside from featuring few low brow jokes and vulgar insults, Spider-Man: Homecoming's immature nature detracts from this movie's potential impact. This movie does not offer a great amount of substance or depth. Even the movie's action scenes have been toned down to accommodate for Peter's teenage years. He is not an adult, so he will not deal with any adult themes, suffer from any unchangeable consequences, or perform many heroic feats.

           Beyond all of this, there is a big problem audiences may have with Spider-Man: Homecoming and also future installments in the MCU. This cinematic universe has become akin to a TV series, instead of a film franchise. It is nearly impossible for a new entry in the MCU to be a stand alone film. Each next movie in the MCU not only requires that audience members watch the previous movie, but are also aware of the lore around characters and events in the MCU. To fully appreciate and understand Spider-Man: Homecoming audience members will have to see Iron Man (2008), The Avengers (2012), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and Captain America Civil War (2016). There's a lot of enjoyment to be had watching Spider-Man: Homecoming, but not without first doing the required homework.

Verdict: Spider-Man: Homecoming is a fun movie, if a bit immature, with two great lead performances, and it gives audience members in on its jokes and lore a sense of satisfaction.

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility." Thoughts on the Spider-Man Movies

The First Five Spider-Man Movies

2002-2007 Directed by: Sam Raimi, 2012-2014 Directed by: Marc Webb

SPOILERS

Spider-Man

3.5/5

            15 years ago Marvel Studios released an origin story for one of the greatest heroes of all time, Spider-Man. The Web Head has always been my favorite comic book super hero, and in 2001 I was thrilled to hear that he was going get his own movie. I did not see it in theatres, but I would borrow it from the library and from friends' houses every chance I got. I couldn't get enough of it, until I discovered the wonder that is the special features on disc two. Spider-Man was the DVD that taught me how films are made.
            Spider-Man's mainstay is lead Tobey Maguire's likable performance as the intelligent dork, Peter Parker, who became the most infamous and distraught super-hero New York City has ever seen, Spider-Man. He is funny, abrasive, cool, careless, powerful, and dynamic, and it makes his transition from dork to hero that much more compelling and enjoyable. Accompanying Tobey Maguire's spectacular performance are the two father figures in his life, Norman Osborne and Uncle Ben Parker. Both offer impactful and emotional performances, but for different reasons. Willem Dafoe's Norman is an obsessed businessman whose goal is to be the best and let nothing get in his way. Dafoe also portrays the villainous Green Goblin with over the top creepiness, and a haunting and visible internal struggle. On the other hand, Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben wants to raise Peter to be a man of honor and courage, but also one who takes responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It's great seeing the contrast and similarities between these two father figures, and how their worldviews will shape Peter Parker into the man he will grow up to be.
            I have one gripe with this film. The pacing slows down in the second half, and the story almost comes to a complete halt during the dialogue scenes in the hospital. The characters restate things the audience already knows, it belabors Peter and Mary Jane's possible romance, and it has little comical appeal.
            The pacing, however, picks up during the film's final action sequences. The climax is filled with grit and volatile destruction, as the Green Goblin and Spider-Man fist fight to the death. Punches impact, blood spews, and dust fills the screen. By the end of the battle the two men look as if they were in a war zone.
            Before the film was released, its main tagline was "go for the ultimate spin," which meant this film would feature web swinging through New York with Spider-Man. Each one of these sequences is still fully engaging. Without a moment of hesitation, the camera seamlessly follows Spider-Man through the city, and twists and turns with him around buildings and over street cars. Even though the CGI is rather dated and looks like rubber, the unique movement, fluidity, and speed of the camera still sells the feeling of web swinging freely like Spider-Man. There is also a one minute web sequence at the end of the film, and it is a fantastic way to conclude the first chapter of the amazing Spider-Man's first film.

Spider-Man 2

4.5/5

            Two years after Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie, he released an all new and reenergized sequel. I was excited to see this film in theatres, but that, unfortunately, did not happen. I still enjoyed seeing this film when it was released on DVD, but I find I appreciate it more nowadays. This is a marvelous stand alone film, and one that stands up to the quality and excellence of Marvel Studios' most recent movies.
            The first prominent element in Spider-Man 2 is its phenomenal score. The film opens with an opening web credits sequence, accompanied by Danny Elfman's iconic theme from the first film. The credits are a series of comic book illustrations, by Alex Ross, and they retell all of the great scenes from the first film. It is a terrific beginning, and one that will get any audience member, even Marvel newcomers, in the mood for watching some Spider-Man.
            Tobey Maguire is back as the one and only web head, and his life could not be worse. The screenplay does an incredible job of showing how much is against Peter, and how impossible of a task it is for him to maintain a job at the Daily Bugle, pass his classes at college, take care of his dear Aunt May, try to impress the girl of his dreams, and be Spider-Man.
            The new villain in town is the once proud minded brilliant scientist, Doctor Otto Octavius. Portrayed tremendously by Alfred Molina, the genius doctor goes mad once his fusion experiment becomes a horrific failure, and the fierce metal claws attached to his spine become sentient and manipulative monsters. It is fun watching him battle with Spider-Man, but because of how immensely powerful and psychopathically inclined he is, I find myself dreading when and where he will appear next. He's not onscreen as much as the Green Goblin was in Spider-Man, but when he is, he makes the most of his screen time, with an unnatural charm and a fiendish mind.
            Another amazing character in this film is the fuming head of the Daily Bugle, J. Jonah Jameson. Portrayed exceedingly well by J.K. Simmons, he blends downright abuse and childish insults in a way that remains fresh and wholly hilarious thirteen years later. As a side character, he supplies laughs with a side of anger in a way that compliments the film's narrative.
            Sam Raimi's direction spans a myriad of genres in this film. It's a drop dead farce, to a tragic romantic comedy, into a nightmarish horror fest, and then an ultimate action thriller. As a comedy the jokes are not limited to the dialogue. Most of them are done through sight gags and unique line delivery. As a horror film, it uses suspense to its maximum and delves into some terrifyingly graphic imagery, though this imagery is heavily implied. As an action thriller, it pulls no punches, and fully immerses audiences in its incredible action sequences, complimented by their intricate and fully utilized complex sets. The film portrays all of these different genres with finesse, and the genres do not appear to clash or distract from the story. This not only makes the pacing smoother than the last film, but it also makes Spider-Man 2 far more enjoyable, as the audience is enthusiastically wondering where the film will take them next.
            What distinguishes Spider-Man 2 from other comic book movies is its strong emotional core. This is prominently illustrated through Kirsten Dunst's beautifully charismatic performance as the gorgeous girl next door, Mary Jane Watson. Her romance with Peter Parker does not feel like a cliché "will she, won't she" scenario. It is clear she is searching her heart for what she truly wants, and desperately seeking what is right and pure for her. It is this conflict's resolve that capably concludes this film. As Spider-Man web swings off into the sunset, the film closes with a shadowy atmosphere and raises the question of what things are yet to come.

Spider-Man 3

2.5/5

            Three years later, in 2007, Sam Raimi released Spider-Man 3. With the promise of a darker Spider-Man story, complete with the symbiote suit and Venom, Spider-Man 3 looked like it was going to be the best Spider-Man film, yet. I almost had a chance to see this one, but I had a previously scheduled outing, while my other friends and family saw it. They later told me I was the lucky one, as this movie is unfortunately average at best.
            From Peter Parker's immediate extra campy opening monologue about how perfect his life is, it is evident that the atmosphere from the first two haunting and thrilling films is going to be more lighthearted and comical. This frilly fun keeps a hold on the story, until Harry Osborne shows up demanding revenge, another accomplice in Uncle Ben's murder is revealed, and Spidey turns into a black web suited arrogant abomination. This balancing act of being super family friendly, while trying to tackle darker themes gives Spider-Man 3 an unsteady pace and a nonsensical storyline.
            Spider-Man 3 is the most ambitious of all the Spider-Man movies, trying to take on the challenge of having three main villain characters. This results in multiple exposition and dialogue heavy character introductions. One of these villains is the Sand Man, an escaped convict who wants to save his daughter but accidentally turns himself into a bad guy made of sand. His goals are noble, his luck is rotten, but his character's tender hearted conclusion is justified. The most over bloated and nonthreatening of all the villains in this trilogy is Venom. He has a scary face that he refuses to wear, he cries for no reason, and he is a CGI pile. The last villain in this movie is Harry Osborne, as the "New" Goblin. While his story arc does not feel like a proper conclusion for his character, at least he got two good fight sequences.
            The screenplay never takes itself seriously, which allows audiences to be in on the joke of this movie's more outlandish moments. These moments are separated by this story's juggling act of an unnecessarily large amount of sub plots. It is hard to tell what the primary story is. The film's supposed inciting incident, the symbiote suit's arrival, does not occur, until an hour into this movie. The drama in Spider-Man 3 is illustrated, through melodramatic performances and some bizarre facial expressions. The comedy in this movie is considerably forced, but there are still a few moments offering earnest chuckles. One of them is Peter's emo dance sequences. They are cringe worthy, but they make me smile every time I watch them. His dance in the jazz club is even a great choreographed number, it's just in the wrong movie.
            A bad part of this movie is its use of side characters. J. Jonah Jameson, hilariously famous for his angry outbursts, is relegated to a running gag about keeping his temper down and lowering his blood pressure. It is funny, but it would have been better if his character had at least one angry outburst. Another bad side character is Harry's droll butler, Bernard. He gives a stilted performance, and he did not have a grip on his lines (this is seen in his multiple bloopers). He may also be the worst butler ever, as he chooses to hold onto crucial information that Harry has needed for one and a half movies, who killed his father. He releases this information, but only after Harry's life has been irrevocably ruined. I would fire him.
            Another big issue in this movie is the CGI. Spider-Man appears to have only been matted over shots of New York, instead of web swinging from building to building. Sand Man looks like a character model from The Polar Express (2004), instead of a man made out of sand. The destruction from buildings looks like video game rubbish, instead of deadly debris. These dull special effects bog down the action sequences in this movie, which is a feat all its own, as Spider-Man 3 features some of the most outlandish fight scenes in the trilogy. The big action climax features Spider-Man and Harry Osborne teaming up and taking down the Sand Man, and Venom, and saving Mary Jane. It might not be as exhilarating as other climaxes, but it certainly looks cool.
            Spider-Man 3's poor writing, overdramatic acting, and lack of natural humor will deter certain audiences from even looking in this movie's direction, but with its selection of amusing scenes, decent payoff, its sense of spectacle, and campy emo Peter Parker moments (the infamous jazz club sequence) this movie has its own unique, if unflattering, charm.

The Amazing Spider-Man

1/5

            Not even ten years, since the original trilogy finished, was it forcefully rebooted for a new audience. It is, however, an unjustified and forgettable reboot that was clearly only made to produce money. I avoided this movie, until I watched it in preparation for seeing the sequel in theatres.
            The Amazing Spider-Man is a shoddy, choppy, and off putting mess, and it pretends to be cool and original. Peter Parker starts the movie off learning about his powers through accidents and three different Bing searches. Then he goes on a revenge streak to find his uncle's killer, while a super villain is being created somewhere. After a while, Peter stops looking for his uncle's killer, never bothers to look for him again, and decides to solve mysteries, and save New York City. Only in the last thirty minutes of this movie do any action sequences happen, and they are not even choreographed or directed well. They also do not look convincing, because they are made of 100% fully fake CGI.
            The characters are a bit of a jumble. Andrew Garfield portrays Peter Parker as a punk who gets dates, skateboards, and still gets picked on. Also, Andrew Garfield unnecessarily stutters through all of his slightly romantic lines, and ruins his attempts at having some appeal. Portraying the role of Peter's lover is Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. It's understandable why Peter likes her, but, she is not dynamic. The relationship between her and Peter is not cinematically interesting, and it never goes past "I like you, because you're Spider-Man, and I saw you shirtless" status. The worst character performance in this movie is Martin Sheen's lack luster portrayal of the most famous dead uncle, Ben Parker. He does nothing noteworthy, while he is alive, and he is inadvertently killed by Peter's secret love for chocolate milk, and the unfortunate coincidence of conveniently getting shot. I don't miss his character, and I don't think his death added any emotional weight to this movie. In addition to this, the main villain, the Lizard, is not consistent or intriguing. He starts off as an obsessed scientists who wants to regrow his arm and help humanity, but then he becomes a megalomaniac who wants to turn all the people of New York into lizard people. This is an unjustified and contrived conclusion for his character arc.
            The weirdest part of this movie is how it attempts to feel edgier than the first three Spider-Man movies. Instead of one radioactive spider getting on Peter, it's a whole swarm. Instead of having fun discovering his powers, Peter begins to shake and moan as a series of spiders jump scares assault the audience. Instead of having Peter be a dork, he's a social recluse who skateboards and picks on bullies (which makes him a bully). Instead of having Peter fight the Lizard in a super villain showdown, Gwen spends more time running from him in what appears to be a scene from Alien (1979). Instead of honoring his promise to Gwen's father, saying he would leave Gwen out of his life for her own safety, he betrays this promise, and even tells Gwen the best kind of promises are the ones "you can't keep." He basically told her, if we get married, it's not going to be "till death do us part."
            Beyond all of this The Amazing Spider-Man is not fun. There are no decent web sequences. All of them are choppily edited, and make the audience feel separate from Spider-Man, instead of in on the action. This is not how a Spider-Man movie should feel. The pacing is all over the place, and logic and clear motivations are often disregarded for the sake of pursuing what would be more popular in the early 2010's. In theory this movie reboot should work, but not without good direction, interesting performances, an enjoyable screenplay, or a sense of comic book fun.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

2/5

            Out of all five of these Spider-Man movies, this is the only one I saw in theatres, and I regret that it was my first. When I saw it I found moments that I liked, moments that were disappointing, moments that should not have been in this movie, and moments that would not work in any movie.
            Starting with the positives, a genuine improvement this movie has over its predecessor is its use of music, provided by Hans Zimmer. As the movie progresses various characters develop themes that change with them as their character transitions. None of the orchestrations are memorable, but at least they are distinct from each other. While some of the music choices in this movie are distracting and off putting, such as Electro's dubstep, at least they are attempting to convey the characters' inner psyche.
            This movie has three different villains within it, and a later promise of four more in the next (inexistent) movie. There is the Rhino, Electro, and the Green Goblin (but it's Harry, instead of Norman). Less villains would have not only streamlined this movie, but it would have also made the featured villains far more compelling and potent. Jamie Foxx's Electro is a horrendous super villain. While his motivations and background are obvious, they do not explain why he has a sudden desire to be evil. The movie wants to make audiences believe that his motivation makes sense, but once one thread in the tapestry of his character is reasonably questioned, all the other threads follow and unravel on the floor. The best villain in this movie is Dane DeHaan's twisted performance as the Green Goblin. His transformation from sudden businessman and Peter's closest friend, to warped human being and insidious killer is clear, fascinating, and one of the few things worth seeing in this movie.
            The screenplay is still a mess, but it is an enjoyable mess. There are one too many unnecessary sub plots in this movie, such as Gwen and Peter's contrived relationship troubles, and Peter finding out about his parents' secret service work in an underground subway station via secret coins in the back of his dad's old calculator. If these scenes were taken out of the movie, the plot would remain relatively unchanged. It would also be shorter, and therefore better. Similar to this movie's predecessor, logic is ignored, but it is not done to pursue what is popular. It is done to pursue what is fun and cool to look at. This is especially beneficial in this movie's action scenes. While two of them are mainly a hodge podge of super powers and CGI, the last battle features a unique set piece, the clock tower, and well done combat acrobatics. It is good payoff, after everything else this movie throws at audiences.
            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not a good movie, but it has some good moments. Aside from Dane Dehaan's scenes, there are good comedic moments. Andrew Garfield and sally Fields, who plays Aunt May, have some good back and forth banter, where Peter is trying to hide his identity. There are also heartfelt moments between Spider-Man and this kid who might be his biggest fan. These few and far between scenes make this train wreck watchable, but only if it's running in the back of a room, while something else more productive or worthwhile is happening.