So why the hell is Boss Baby higher than Ghost in the Shell on Rotten Tomatoes?!?

Saban's Power Rangers

Go Go Grounded Rangers                                                    2/5

Soundtrack
     While the main score is regrettably forgettable, at least the movie has a couple good tracks along the way

Well Acted
     The five actors playing the rangers are clearly giving it their all

Super Hero Story
     Hey look Fant4stick, Power Rangers did you better (add that to a ever growing list)

Crowd Pleaser
    Look at that beautiful A on Cinemascore

Rotten Tomatoes 47%                                  Cinemascore: A

So surprise surprise, Power Rangers is actually kind fun. It's by no means a great movie, its bearably a good one, but it is an enjoyable ride and its main cast of rangers are all likable in their own way (maybe with the exception of Jason but 4/5 is still an 80%). To say I was actually excited when the rangers put on the suit for the fist time is the highest praise I can give to this movie, I never liked the power rangers and selling from the beginning was going to be an up hill battle. That being said, with any movie my goal is to be as objective as possible, I check my expectation at the door and try to have as much fun as possible. My verdict: while Power Rangers stumbles around scene to scene, the movie and its stars have enough charm and and confidence to carry its ridiculous premise and sell itself as an honest fun time.

The premise of Power Rangers is pure and simple, uniting five teenage "outcast" into becoming the titular rangers and stoping Rita Repulsa from destroying the world. As super hero origin stories go, this is pretty cut and place, but it's not about the template its about the execution. Power Rangers walks the line from grit to campy, grounding Angel grove as a midland mining town (while simultaneously a fishing port??) while not being afraid to portray Zordon (Cranston) as a giant head. Most of the films action highlights come late but they're more than worth the wait.

Power Rangers strength is behind its five main characters. Jason (Montgomery), the red ranger and the teams leader, is a jock with the perpetually for getting into trouble. Kimberly (Scott), the pink ranger, is trouble teen dealing with high school drama. The blue ranger is on the spectrum, the yellow ranger is gay, the cliches go on and on but each actor portrays their character with confidence and charisma making each ranger ooze with personality on screen.

There no arguing here whether Power Rangers  is a great movie or not, its passable, but its a fun passable that succeeds in all the areas it needs to. If you were a fan of the series, you will like Power Rangers. If you didn't care for the series,  like me, but are a fan of fun, I'll be it flawed, movies, then there might be something here to sink your teeth into.

A Renaissance in Horror

Over the last couple of years, there has been a significant shift in the quality of horror films released in a standard year. While I'm not too much of a horror fan myself, sometimes even I can't shake the desire for a good scare, or a morbid thirst to be disturbed. Typically, horror films are released wide every few weeks, often they are critically panned, scoring relatively low on both rotten tomatoes and cinemascore compared to their competition. However this trend has decreased dramatically, 2016 alone saw the release of close to a dozen horror films that contradicted this history. Why is this the case? Has the greater audience demand for quality horror outweighed the box office sucsess in studio eyes, or is there something deeper going on? Lets dive a little deeper and discuss.

Before we discuss the rise to prominence the horror genre has enjoyed, it may be best to discuss its fall from grace after the 1980s. After John Carpenter sparked the horror genre with new classics like The Thing and Halloween, the horror genre seemed to dry in quality whereas the quantity never seemed to change. Horror is a cheep genre, it doesn't require the stuntwork and spectacle that action does, nor does it require expensive sets or high paid actors. Horror is a genre of small returns and even smaller investments and its worked well for the genre. Studios like Blumhouse have modeled their entire production around the nature of horror as a low cost high returns genre. However, due to the low cost of investment and consistent quantity of horror movies, many turn out nothing more than cheep scares and tired genre cliches. A low budget does not mean a movie will lack in quantity, many times the opposite is true, but you would have to be blind not to notice the correlation.

Many site the turning point of modern horror to be 2013s The Conjuring, James Wan's critical and commercial success.The Conjuring unlike typical horror had a modest budget, strong acting taletnt and and a competent director at helm. It saw massive returns, over 300million$ worldwide, and outstanding critical praise with an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. The Conjuring was by no means the only horror movie in years to receive critical praise, nor was it the first to make as much money as it did, but now looking back it would have seemed to be the perfect storm of both.

In the years following more horror movies were released capitalizing trying The Conjuring's success. In 2014 we got It Follows(97%RT) and The Babadook(98%RT), in 2015 The Witch(91%) was released at US film festivals. Last year saw the most concentrated release of quality horror movies in years; 10 Cloverfield Lane(91%RT), The Conjuring 2(80%RT), Light Out (76%RT), Don't Breath(87%) and Ouija: Origin of Evil(83%RT) all scored "certifiably fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Each enjoyed relative commercial success in the domestic box office, Don't Breath in particular was #1 for three weeks in a row.

It's clear that there has been a escalated shift in the horror genre. In just three month 2017 has already seen the resale of two horror pictures that dominated the box office, those being Spilt and Get Out which has a remarkable 99% on rotten tomatoes. I keep bringing up the rotten tomatoes score but I believe they do matter. There seems to be a correlation between higher box office returns and critical praise in the box office return in horror more so than any other genre. Regardless of my thoughts or analysis, I hope this trend continues. Any good movie has the potential to elevate its respective genre, hopes here that we only see it go up.

Table 19

A Rational Drama that's too Shallow to be Significant       1/5


Dramedy
     A comedy with Genre

Original Story
     An original script is always a plus

Harmless
     At the end of the day, Table 19 won't leave any scars

Rotten Tomatoes 19%                                  Cinemascore: NA

Table 19 is a very, very, very superficial movie. In many ways this is a positive, you know exactly what your going to get as soon as film begins, but thats not why this movie is ultimately forgettable. Table 19 is forgettable because it centers around cardboard characters who the movie is convinced are interesting. Quirky characters are often difficult to write, especially in a drama where the bulk of the story is carried by character interactions, and Table 19 falls on its own sword in this regard. Instead all we are left with is a superficial script thats content with selling the illusion of a good feeling, rather than a compelling narrative.

The central protagonist in Table 19 is Eloise (Kendrick), an "eccentric" young woman who just broke up with Teddy, former the brother of the bride who is also her best friend. She is invited to the upcoming wedding, despite the break up, but is unfortunately seated in the back of the reception hall at Table 19 with all the other guest who regretfully responded to their RSPV. What we are left with for the remaining ninety minute run time is Eloise and company trying to standout amongst the crowd and turn their awkward day into a positive one.

Look there is nothing here in Table 19 that I can say that I haven't said in another review before. The film is superficial and bland, deriving resolution from poorly derived conflict as fast as the conflict in the first place. I laughed twice in the movie and one was just because I became convinced somebody let their dog on set and they just left it in the film. Table 19 will constantly try throwing curve balls at the audince to convince its viewers of its false since of depth that anybody with half a brain can pick up on. There isn't much more to say here folks, Table 19 just is not interesting, provocative, or even enjoyable. Trust me, this is an RSPV thats not worth responding back to.

Kong: Skull Island

The King of Skull Island Can't Steal the Show                    2/5

Dat Cast
     Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel Jackson, John Goodman, and John C. Reilly!

Monstrous
     This is a Monster movie not a Horror movie not an Action movie a pure Monster flick

Thematic
     While light, there are undertones questioning the nature of war and its effect on the individual

Standout
    Samuel L. Jackson steals the show in nearly every scene

Rotten Tomatoes 78%                                  Cinemascore: B+

At its best Kong: Skull Island stands right up next to its 2014 counterpart Godzilla minus the awe factor. Both feature a larger than life headline character pulled straight out of Hollywoods past, both feature one terrific standout preformance, and ultimately both suffer the same fatal flaw, the main cast and leads are bland. Tom Hiddleston is bland, Brie Larson is bland. Both sit in headline roles and contribute nothing of significance to the plot. However while this was equally the case in Godzilla, Kong: Skull Island lacks the same sense of scale due to the absence of director Gareth Edwards. Outside maybe four shots (two of which were in the trailers), Kong: Skull Island lacks any sort of bite or depth that elevates it above the standard monster flick.

Kong: Skull Islands is a period piece, featuring the expedition to the uncharted Skull Island headed by John Goodman in the early 1970s. Shortly after arriving, the military escort is ambushed by the islands king, Kong, a giant ape who can crush the military helicopters with his palm. The team is seperate and two separate groups, one headed by Hiddleston and Larson, the other by Goodman and Jackson, must reconvene in order to escape the island lost in time and save themselves in the process.

Kong's charm is its B movie premise, and its smart enough to know what it is. Unfortunately for it, Kong: Skull Island is not a B movie, its one of the biggest movies to release in its respective month. Kong pays homage fairly competently to much stronger films, such as Apocalypse Now, but is nearly complete void of basic character development and a since of tone. The one exception to this lack of development would be Jackson's character, who's arc follows that of a man seasoned by war looking down into his twilight years. Kong, when he shows up, makes for good fun but nothing that justifies the 150million$ it took to realize him making the whole expierence a resounding meh. Kong shows up in Skull Island as much as Godzilla did in his movie, but rather than delivering with a bombastic ending much of Kong's scenes have sadly been spoiled in trailers. One final note, not every monster needs to appear with a jump scare, the skull crawlers yes absolutely but every single monster on the Island, no mater how big appears out of nowhere with the familiar jump scare noise. After the seventh time or so I got sick of it.

Kong: Skull Island will be passable for many who just want a B-movie but ultimately I was disappointed. Tom Hiddleston is just as forgettable as Johnson in Godzilla, the editing is poor, the action is passible when the tinted filter isn't overwhelming the screen, The monsters are spontaneous when theres no need for it, and Kong may be the best part but only during the brief moments he's on screen. I'm disappointed by Kong: Skull Island not because its bears the same flaws as monster movies before it, but because its possesses none of the strengths. 

Beauty and the Beast

Sure its a Rehash, but its a Gorgeous Rehash                    3/5


Musical
     As advertised, all the familiar songs are here as well as some well preformed new ones

Set Design
     The Castle, the halls and even the town is all jaw dropping

Expertly Casted
     Emma Watson as Belle, Evens as Gaston, McGregor as Lumiere and McKellen as Cogsworth all own their roles like they were born to play them

Standout
    Evermore, the new song sung by Dan Stevens, is one of the best new additions

Rotten Tomatoes 78%                                  Cinemascore: A

You probably have already decided if this was something you were interested in seeing, and judging by the +170million$ opening Disney has no problem with that, but its hard to approach a movie thats essentially a direct remake of the original. A good movie is a good movie, never mind the circumstances of its existence. Since Beauty and the Beast is a shot for shot retelling of the Disney classic it is striped of much of the original's depth but the quality and fun remains preserved. What elevates Beauty and the Beast above the original is personified in the film's suburb set and costumes design. Visually this film is superior, however considering its direct transition to live action it is crippled dramatically with pacing issues, pacing issues the animation could be forgiven for.

Im not going to bother explaining the plot with this one, its "a tale as old as time" so I'm assuming you know the details. If the trailers failed to do the trick, Beauty and the Beast opens with a shot for shot adaptation of the song Belle much like the animation sung competently by Watson. However as the film goes on its flaws become all the more apparent as a direct result of its pure adaption. Pacing is difficult in any movie, and depending on the story the pacing needs to accelerate or decelerate in order to best accommodate the scene. Animation is naturally very fast paced; disney in particular animates with bright color pallets, breathing life into their characters and invoking excitement and empathy. With animations, fast cuts and fades are common and the film moves scene to scene. However in standard filmmaking, this kind of pacing can be jarring. Almost every scene in Beauty and the Beast ends with a fast cut, and fades in-between time make thematic since but pull the attention from the screen. This is where direct adaptation is not the best idea. The film tries to compensate for this since of pace by adding more behind Gaston and the Beast but its clear this was a patch for the larger problems.

Fortunately Beauty and the Beast makes up for its dramatic flaws with a visual element. Sets like the castle foyer, the West Wing, the ball room and even the tavern are all magnificently realized. Taking advantage of its French setting, the costumes are as eye-catching as possible, emulating sixteenth century Versailles. However even more of a standout was realized with Gaston and his war jacket, or my favorite the Beast in his torn rags. The creators behind the sets and costumes held nothing back bringing about the best reason to check out the remake of this animation classic.

Beauty and the Beast excels in some areas over the original and stumbles in others, but that with all remakes is to be expected. The better version of this story exist in animation, its pacing and style plays to its mediums strengths rather than hindering in. As a study in design the remake triumphs taking advantage of its massive budget and love for the source material. This is not a bad movie by any regards, but there really isn't a point to this review;  If you haven't seen the original, check out either one because their both great movies. Your enjoyment of Beauty and the Beast is completely dependent on your love for the original, if you loved that movie you'll love this one too.

The Shack

The Electric Blanket of Feel Good Movies                            1/5




Thematic
     Outside the obvious commentary, there is a competent message of forgivness (at least until the end)

Crowd Pleaser
    Cinemascore was an A

Feel Good Movie
     Warm and fuzzy with a Multitude of Happy Moments

Rotten Tomatoes 21%                                  Cinemascore: A

The Shack is not as pandering as many of the other faith based films to release in a typical film year, its premise is unique and one of its many message is actually fairly competent and relevant to the plot. However it is also insipidly shot, melodramatically preformed and predictably shallow, accumulating in film thats really, really boring to watch. The tragedy is that The Shack is not a terribly bad story, its just not a well made film despite the context of its existence, and thats what makes this movie ultimately forgettable.

 In The Shack, Sam Worthington plays a father, Mack, who sufferes through possibly the worst circumstances imaginable, the loss of his daughter at the hands of a serial killer. He loses touch with his loved ones and becomes increasingly distant, that is until one day he finds a letter in his mailbox that invites him back to the shack he lost track of his daughter. Upon arrival, Mack is greeted by The Father (Spencer) the Son (Alush) and the Holy Spirt (Sumire) who want to help him deal with his grief and accept them back into his life. As Mack stays the weekend with he holy trinity he learns to forgive the actions of the unforgivable as well as finally come to terms with his fatal loss.

As I mentioned in the intro, the premise behind The Shack is actually fairy interesting and its message of forgiveness in spite of hate is potent enough to leave an impact. There is a great scene showing the consequences of judgement and the spiral of self destruction. Unfortunately the movie often tires to have its cake and eat it too. Often questions are adressed with answers vague and inconclusive. Mack is the central protagonist, its his suffering that resonates on a human level, but the bulk of his inner conflict is resolved simply by trusting God; thats simply not compelling conflict. The movie attempts to be a character study of God when it should have been more focused on being a character study of Mack.

The Shack works perfectly well as a Saturday afternoon feel good flick. In the subtitle to this review I compared The Shack to an electric blanket, thats because its a type of article warmth that does all the "feeling good" part for you allowing you to turn off any sort of critical function and enjoy the movie as it instructs you to do so. For many this will give the illusion of a well made movie but as for myself I was bored for most of its two hour run time, annoyed by second grade cinematography and the bright tinted filter that saturates every shot of this film.

John Wick Chapter 2

An Action Film Fans Long Lost Love Letter                      3/5

Action Packed
     Give it some time to build, Once Wick starts going theres no stop

Sound Design
     Guns in this Movie sound like guns, and its beautiful

Gravatas
     There is an element of scale and awe in John Wick thats absent from other action blockbusters

Certified Fresh
    90% on rotten tomatoes puts Mr. Wick in a very exclusive club

Rotten Tomatoes 90%                                 Cinemascore: A-

John Wick: Chapter 2 proves its predecessor was no fluke. Honestly its a shame I haven't gotten this review out sooner considering its cycling out of theaters in the coming weeks, this is a film that deserves to be seen in theaters considering home video just wont do it justice. Wick is loud, the action awe-inspiring, moving ninety miles between one of its signature gun-fu sequences to a nail biting car chase, to a knife fight and so on. If you have any love for the highest quality stunt work, or even just a well shot fight scene, put John Wick Chapter 2 on your radar right now and find a theater near you thats still playing it, you won't regret it.

Chapter 2 finds its title character shortly after the events of the first movie as Mr. Wick (Reeves) finally tracks down the car stollen from him by Iosef Tarasov. John returns home with his new Dog, but one does not simply come back to the type of work Wick excels in only to leave it again. A former associate of Wick's, Santino D'Antonio, arrives on his doorstep to demand a favor. Reluctantly Wick has no choice but to heed his demands forcing him back into the game for one more hit. What follows is a spectacle of stunt work seemingly only director Chad Stahelski.

When all is said and done, John Wick Chapter 2 meets the same standard of the original, trading in a faster first act for more payoff in the third. Chapter 2 is more thematic than the original, exploring themes of damnation and consequence while still maintaining the since of fun and self awareness that makes its creative world so unique. Keanu Reeves is a national treasure, an action directors ideal student, and his face is in nearly every frames as he lays down a shit ton of ass. The action takes a step up in the sequel, while there isn't any standout sequence such as the club scene in the first, every gunshot and every bone break make the chest pound with excitement. If the stunt work is the heart of the John Wick franchise then its sound design would be the muscle that thrust the weight of each action beat with pulsating bang.

I don't understand people who demand you turn off your brain in order to enjoy a movie, I don't want to turn off my brain, talking and analyzing movies is why I write this blog. John Wick doesn't want to turn off your brain. It does't try to be a thinking mans movie with long plot strings and character depth, but it does execute its action with the utmost care. Each sequence, no mater how many bodies are dropping, is filmed like art. When the guns are out its the stunt work, effort and cinematography that stays with you and thats why John Wick deserves all the attention it gets.

Logan

A Worthy Finale to One of Cinema's Most Tragic Heroes    4/5

Thematic
     Appropriately so Logan addresses themes of Mortality and Empathy

Standout
     Hugh Jackman is fantastic but Patrick Stewart broke my heart

Tragedy
     From the opening frames Logan introduces you to its unforgiving world

Dramatic
     The Performances in this movie are all as sharp as they come, especially from the three leads

Certified Fresh
     Not since the Dark Knight has a comic book movie scored so high on Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes 92%                                  Cinemascore: A-

Upon Logan's conclusion I turned to my friend to inquire his thoughts to which he told me where as so may comic book movies are about a hero with a human side, Logan tells the story of a human with a hero side. I agreed. Logan is not like any comic book movie to have released in this new golden age thus far, in fact its prestige rivals much of the Hollywood blockbuster tradition. Instead of conforming to a predetermined formula to stir up a healthy profit, Logan defies any preconceived notion on what a genre film should be. Logan transcends the comic book genre by functioning well enough on the foundations of its characters while simultaneously propelling head first into a narrative of grief and brutality.

In the year 2029, the mutant species has gone virtually extinct. Logan (Jackman), aka the X-Men Wolverine, is living south of the US border caring for his friend Charles Xavier (Stewart). Xavier is losing himself to age and is prone to seizures which freeze the minds of anybody who doesn't share Logan's unique healing ability. Eventually however Logan and Charles get tangled up with a young mutant, Laura (Keen), who shares Logan's signature abilities and ferocity. To protect Laura from the Revengers who want to take her, headed up by Boyd Holbrook, Logan and Charles travel across the countryside to deliver her safely to a safe haven referred to as "Eden" in North Dakota.

Logan is often not an easy movie to watch. The action is brutal and unrelenting, the dialogue, while always excellent, often has the characters reminiscing when things weren't so bleak. But among the fog of darkness and uncertainty that surrounds the central characters, there is always a bright glimmer of hope that binds these characters to their cause. Logan's unwavering care for his broken friend and mentor Xavier, and Xavier's empathy for Laura all emphasize the humanity buried in each of the protagonist. Its this humanity that elevates Logan above many other modern films, and under all of this oppressive weight Jackman portrays Logan as a survivor who despite all the hurt he's suffered through, maintains the slightest slimmer of optimism anyway.

Logan is first and foremost a character piece headlined by some of the strongest performances ever preformed in a comic book movie (rivaling even Heath Ledgers iconic Joker from The Dark Knight). Jackman captured a side of Wolverine never seen before, or at least not to this magnitude. Stewart, on the other hand, is on a whole new level; his performance in Logan may be the best he has ever done. Also noteworthy is newcomer Keen as the almost animistic Laura, conveying more in a gaze then most kids her age do with a well written script. Mangolds strongest contribution to Logan are the performances he pulls out of his actors, and I will not be surprised if we are still talking about Jackman and Stewart come next January.

Logan faults are few and its triumphs are clear. For many I suspect, Logan's unrelenting tone and brutality may be to much to considering viewing, but I would strongly encourage seeing Logan regardless just for the performances alone. Logan shines in its quiet moments, begging you to take a breath right before it breaks your heart. It's a film that uses brutality to empathize the strength of the human spirit, and it takes a heart ticker than Logan's adamantium skeleton to feel nothing for the characters onscreen. It's a can't miss cinematic experience, one that deserves to be heard for no other reason other that it exists.

Fist Fight

Ice Cube V. Charlie Day Meets Expectations but is Only Ok 2/5



Funny
     There are plenty of gages to keep the chuckle fest rolling 

Standout!
     Ice Cube. You know what your getting but what can I say, the guy knows comedy...also the fight!

Thematic
     Believe it or not the movie as a theme represented with solid character development

Rotten Tomatoes 32%                                  Cinemascore: B

First let me apologies for that title, just because I can rhyme doesn't mean I should. That being addressed Fist Fight is fairy decent comedy, depicting the events that befall between Charlie Day as a squarely English teacher and Ice Cube as Ice Cube (as a teacher). When Andy (Day) rats on fellow history teacher Strickland (Ice Cube) on the last day of a classes, he is challenged to an after school brawl as a result. Soon the whole school catches wind of the fight pressuring Andy to fight, but in true Charlie Day fashion he takes every measure possible to make sure the fight doesn't happen. As the day inches closer to three o'clock, Andy realizes that his fight with Strickland may be inevitable and must grow the backbone to face his advisory before its too late.

The set up here fairly clever, and the movie makes the most of it's runtime to focus on it's main character Andy (Day) and the growth of his eventual back bone. There is actually a surprising amount of depth behind both Andy and Strickland's character, especially for a typical comedy. Both start out at as the typical stereotypes you would expect to them to be playing, but as the film goes both undergo reasonable development as a result of the impending fight. Charlie Day in particular goes from unbearable to despicable to all around likable within the span of the 90minute run time.

Sadly this plus works both ways. For the first half of the film your enjoyment will largely depend on your tolerance for Charlie Day. While he isn't as annoying in this film more than any other film, the script is saturated by his actions as he is strung along as the main protagonist. Charlie Day just isn't likable, or even funny for most of the films run time. And thats another negative, Fist Fight is funny but its never split your gut funny or even laugh out loud funny. This isn't so much a negative but it defiantly doesn't add any points in its favor.

Overall Fist Fight is a decent comedy with a solid message and some chuckles here and there. Charlie Day was a little to much for me in the first half of the film but Ice Cube does a good job in picking up the slack when he can. As far as comedies go, you can do far worst then Fist Fight.

Moonlight v La La Land: Who's really Best Picture

History often forgets the movies that best won best picture in favor of another film that was overshadowed that same year. In the 70s One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest won over Jaws, in the 80s Charriots of Fire beat Raiders of the Lost Arc. Continuing in the 90s Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan and finally last decade A Beautiful Mind beat out Lord of the Rings. My point here isn't that any of these movies were better than the films that one best picture in their respective year, rather that these films went on to make a larger pop culture impact than the film they lost to. I love Cuckoo's Nest, but Jaws changed the hollywood landscape and you'll be hard pressed to find anybody who hasn't at least heard of Spielberg's masterpiece. I believe for better or worst La La Land will follow the same trend in spite of Moonlight winning best picture. Moonlight may have been the better movie but La La Land is the one more worthy of being celebrated and therefore remembered.

Comparing both movies each side by side, both worthy of praise and both contend fiercely in a shortlist for my favorite movies of the year, but with all that said Moonlight is the better movie. If you read my review then you'll know I thought there were no standout performances in Moonlight, instead every actor elevates each other actor elevating everybody in the picture; its hard to pick out a best preformance when they are all equal powerful in their own way. La La Land on the other hand does have its standouts, Emma Stone gave the best single performance of the year and the cinematography is nothing short of classic. La La Land is best represented as a brilliant cinematic tribute but Moonlight demonstrates mastery in all technical and dramatic elements.

So here I am saying Moonlight is the better film but La La Land deserves best picture, what sort of bias do I have for stating my logic. Well it goes back to my thoughts from paragraph one, La La Land is celebrated by audiences and cinephiles alike, it message and medium is multigenerational and universally significant. Moonlight, while boldly designed and expertly executed, has been viewed only by a fraction of the population who has seen La La Land, and while the popular film isn't the film that should take best picture, there is something to be said of a movie that resonates within pop culture as apposed to a movie that is isolated from it. My hope is with time more and more people will get to expierence Moonlight now that it stands amongst giants, but my expectation is that it will forever live in the shadow that La La Land has casted. In the end however, like most of my thoughts, time will reveal to us the answer. Should Moonlight resonate with me and others many years later than my resentment should subside, only the test of time can tell.

March is Booming!

Within the next couple weeks big budget blockbusters such as Logan, Kong: Skull Island, Ghost in the Shell, Beauty and the Beast, Power Rangers, Life, The Belko Experiment, and the Boss Baby all come out across the country in major motion picture cinemas. When did March become so packed? With a cinematic line up like this, March sticks its neck into the summer blockbuster season, and it seems more and more studios are taking notice. How and why did March become such a packed movie month, is this good thing, and can we expect this trend to continue in years to come? Here are my thoughts.

Summer movie Blockbusters dipping into March isn't as "new" as you may think. In 2007 300 debuted to 70million$ when it open in march,  three years later Burton's Alice in Wonderland made 115million$ on its opening weekend. The Hunger Games broke Alice's record in 2012 with 150million$, one of the largest opening of the year, holding its record for another 4 years before being dethroned by Batman v Superman at 166million$. From 2007 to 2016 there has been a steady increase in opening box office for the month of March that parallels the summer season. While it is true much of this increase is as a result of general inflation, specifically in the hollywood production model, its still worth noting the overall sucess many studios have had by opening in March.

As of right now, Logan is tracking to open at 70million$ this weekend. Beauty and the Beast is tracking even greater at an estimated 120million$ with many analysts suggesting it could go higher. Kong: Skull Island and Power Rangers both have the potential to open over 50million$, if that is the case and both Logan and Beauty and the Beast meet there predictions, this could be the largest domestic gross for the month of March thus far. With such sucess, this could encourage studio to invest more into March, the beginning of their financial year, leading to more and more blockbusters releasing beyond the summer months.

On the flip side the opposite is also true. If Logan and Beauty and the Beast fail to meet expectations, or Power Rangers or Kong end up as huge financial bombs, this could discourage studios away from opening their films in March. Nothing is guaranteed of course, and a movies box office isn't indicative of its quality, but profits are the net line in Hollywood. When a movie doesn't meet its projection and ends up losing the studio money, the month it was released in becomes a good scapegoat for its failures. While this may not be the first March with gigantic box office potential, it is one of the first in a while that with so many movies positioned to strike it big.

Last year at this time we got 10 Cloverfield Lane and Allegiant, both movies with their own expectations for sucess but not expected to break beyond 50million$. This year we may see a 50$+ million dollar movie every week, each earning great critical praise and on track to meet their projections. Like all things box office, time will tell the significance of this trend moving forward, but for now we can relish in the fun to be had at the cinema's for the weeks to come.

A Cure for Wellness

Original Gothic Horror Story Shocks more than it Scares   2/5

WTF
     You will see where this movie is going, and it will still baffle you

Original
     A Cure for Wellness might be one of the most original horror movies in the past 30years

Slow Burn
     This film takes it sweet time unfolding its layers

Cinematography
    Erotically shot with a composition of long shots, close ups and dutch angle shots

Rotten Tomatoes 40%                                  Cinemascore: C+

I really kinda liked A Cure for Wellness, the original asylum horror picture brings so much fresh material forgotten to the table that its becomes really easy to forgive how blatantly offensive its climax is. This movie is not what I suspected on first recommendation, its not so much a body horror extravaganza as it is a truly disturbing and downright psychotic exploration of the most despicable facets of human nature...its actually kind of beautiful in its sick twisted way. That being said this movie falls on its own sword toward the end, and in the midst of all the lunacy that overtakes this movies slow burn it fails to address many of the potholes it opened along the way. As a profound means of testing your own capacity for human ribaldry, this movie is a must, but as an actual story is concerned this movie is a bloody, bloody mess.

A Cure for Wellness follows one man's decent into madness as he investigates a wellness center in the middle of the swiss alps. When Lockhart (DeHaan) is blackmailed into finding his business superior, Pembroke (Groener), by the board of his own company, he learns Pembroke has been has been attending a short of rehabilitation center in Switzerland with a history as polarizing as its oddly content cliental. Lockhart finds his superior, but Pembroke refuses to leave; to make matter worst a horrific accident makes Lockhart immobile. Injured with a broken leg, Dr. Volmer (Isaacs), the head of the facility, convinces Lockhart to try the treatment to which he agree only to discover whats really going on under the surface of the mysterious wellness center.

As I alluded in the accolades above, this movie is exceptionally shot and very well acted. There is a promising aura to the whole picture, begging for the audience to be patient as its mysteries are shrouded in fog. The score too is also exceptional in areas, adding to the gothic myth of the wellness center. Unfortunately, once you look beyond the movies stylistic edge thats where the holes become more obvious. Many of the promises the movie makes as it gives subtle hints to the audience are forgotten in the third act. Much of the movie would have you believe that our pov character, Lockhart, is in a dreamlike state, allowing the audience to forgive many of the blaring potholes but even that aspect to this film is forgotten toward the conclusion. In addition to the lack of pay off, the central mystery that binds the narrative together isn's so hard to deduce as the movie not so subtly winks at whats really going on. If you didn't get the message "the water is bad" after the first close up on the glass, don't worry, there are another 25 shots that do exactly that (don't worry there is more to the mystery than that).

The long and the short of it is that while I enjoyed A Cure for Wellness, and deeply appreciate what it brings to the table as a modern gothic horror story, it just has too many glaring flaws for me to recomend it to other people. As I write this review, I consider maybe this was the point of the film, and the contrast between the audience and its own diegesis is the exclamation for its dream like phenomenon, but then I remember this contrast is dropped halfway through, and the thematic elements of the dream are drawn to another plot thread down the line. A Cure for Wellness certainly has its ups, but it stumbles on its own logic far too much.