Summer 2017 Wrap Up

My posts haven't been nearly as frequent as I intended them to be. Honestly ever since I graduated things have felt in free fall and I guess my hobby (being thins blog) has suffered because of it. Baby steps to get everything in order but that hasn't stopped me from seeing movies so here is an update:

Alien Covenant (3/5)
Not as ambitious or provocative as Prometheus but still a ideal way to sate a thirst for heady Sci-Fi horror.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (3/5)
John Hughes inspired reboot delivers fresh take even though its best ideas are consolidated to its opening and closing acts.

War For the Planet of the Apes (5/5)
Personally driven war epic cuts out the war to create one of the leanest and most brutal Science Fiction films in years.

Dunkirk (3/5)
A technically masterful motion picture...just don't expect to remember names.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (1/5)
Character and dialogue, Mr. Besson, those are more important then what we see on screen.

The Emoji Movie (1/5)
Soulless what did you expect...better then Despicable Me 3 though.

Logan Lucky (3/5)
Dry at times but who can turn down a heist with great characters?

Leap (1/5)
Wow, so Emoji movie isn't even the second worst animated film of the year.

Home Again (1/5)
I haven't like any of miss Myers works so far, unfortunately the streak continues with her daughter.

American Assassin (2/5)
The first 30 minutes are great! The next 90...not so much.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (1/5)
Biggest Disappointment of the Year

The Lego Ninjago Movie (2/5)
Easily the worst Lego movie so far but, much like Power Rangers, better then it had any right to be.

Summer Movie Reviews So Far

Summer has been great but obviously I haven't been writing on my blog as much as I said I would. I still plan to write more but nevertheless here is a quick run up of movies I have seen thus far.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2/5)
A Guy Ritchie movie with Guy Ritchie isms that don't match up well.

Pirates of the Carrabean: Dead Men Tell no Tales (1/5)
A horrible adventure movie that confuses idiocy for fun.

Baywatch (1/5)
Too dry to be called a comedy, too stupid to be called a satire.

Wonder Woman (4/5)
An excellent war film that combines the strengths of First Avenger with a sturdy thematic backbone.

Captain Underpants (3/5)
A surprisingly intelligent and funny family film that makes the most out of its premise

The Mummy (1/5)
Is it an action movie, is it a horror film, its neither its exposition, Ahhhhhhh!

Cars 3 (3/5)
Sure its odd, but I guess its the best movie a "Cars 3" movie was going to be.

Transformers: The Last Night (1/5)
Legitimately the most terrible, cinematically dysfunction film I have ever seen in a theater.

Baby Driver (4/5)
An original film with a high octane script exerting as much personality as the songs that score the action

Despicible Me 3 (1/5)
Pointless. Somethings wrong if my favorite part of this film was the minions.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2

The MCU has Another Awesome Mixtape                          5/5

Epic/Personal
     Puts on a show but the stakes hit close to home

Soundtrack
     No surprise here, but I'm impressed how well implemented the songs are

Thematic
     Themes of re-connection and undisclosed emotions resonate throught the film

Standout
     Almost all the guardians are great but Rooker's Yondu and Russll's Ego that standout this time around

Funny as all Hell
     While not as organic as the first guardians, your simply not human if you don't laugh at all in Vol.2 

Rotten Tomatoes 82%                                  Cinemascore: A

Let me begin this review by stating that while I would agree the first Guardians of the Galaxy is the better movie, I enjoyed Vol.2 more. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is a flawed film, more so then its predecessor; its plot is at time non existent, the humor is very hit and miss, some characters even get left behind in the action (I'm looking at you Drax). However where as the first Guardians implemented the marvel formula to introduce some of its universe's best characters and showcase them comming together, Vol.2 thrives in the obscurity, demanding its viewers attention both when it want to make and joke and also when director James Gunn has something more substantial to say. For the first time since perhaps the first Iron Man, it would seem Marvel head Kevin Feige has given full confidence to his director to construct and execute an original narrative. The result is a summer movie that showcases splashes of an action blockbuster and auteurist film-making; Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is the largest departure form the winning MCU formula yet, which is much the reason I love it so much.

The plot to Guardians of the Galacy Vol.2 is hard to discuss mostly due to its absence throughout the movie. The majority of Vol.2 centers around its iconic team splitting up, Rocket (Cooper/Gunn) and Groot (well Baby Groot now)  to recover a bounty while Peter (Pratt) and the rest go off with Ego (Russell) who claims to be Peter's ancient and long lost father. Much of the rest of the plot unfolds as each group hits different road blocks giving the whole film a feeling of spontaneity and discourse. Rest assured there is an end game in sight, but part of the fun of Vol.2 is that it feels it can go several different directions throughout its nearly two and a half hour run time, for some this may be come across more tedious but for myself, I was completely invested and ready for any sharp right the movie was teasing of making.

The strength of the Guardians movies, and by extension the entire MCU, comes back to the characters. The Guardians are a blast to watch and Gunn works their dynamic in whenever he can to give the audience all that he can, this is a summer movie after all. But what makes Vol.2 so special is Gunn's direction; his attention to detail both in the cinematography as well as in the editing pave the way for thematic payoffs later in the movie. This is a film that rewards the viewer for thinking, and even though it may seem small amongst the fantastic action, its significant and essential to the story Gunn wants to tell. Their are no tie ins here, mentions of the looming Infinity War that the Guardians will play a role in are quiet, this is a personal narrative featuring several core character among an ensemble of attention loving assholes. In many ways that's a weakness, but I believe in the context of Gunn's narrative he uses everything he can to turn Vol.2 dysfunction into a strength.

I need to make one more note of praise involving Vol.2 and so far the entire Guardians franchise so far, the score. I'm not talking about Peter's awesome mixtape, that's great too, but the score composed by Tyler Bates remains one of the best cinematic scores for a major motion picture in recent memory, and I claim he up'd his game for the sequel. Tracks like Gods, Dad, I Know Who You Are, and Marry Poppins and the Rat all implement fantastic use of the leitmotif, provide thematic context and tone, and elevate their respective scenes as well as the characters in them. When I can listen to a track, visualize a scene from a movie and a tear comes to my eyes, that something incredibly special only a score tied to its film can produce. Just a recommendation, if you were going to spend 10$ to get the new awesome mix, consider picking up the original score as well, the two go hand and hand and competently tell Vol.2 story all though audio means.

Marvel has produced several films that I unabashedly adore, and I'm glad to count Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 among them. Its a risk taker, divulging from the marvel formula to deliver, in my opinion, an incredibly special film. It's flawed, but a movie to me is not marked by its flaws but by its strengths. I want to see Vol.2 again and I have already seen it three times. It surprised me by surpassing its excellent predecessor in my eyes, another movie I adore in the MCU, and holds a very important spot as my current #3 Marvel film. Good on you Gunn, good on you Bates.

Catch Up Post

Hi everyone, finals are done and the summer movie season are on the way. Here are a few movies, with their scores, that I have seen in the last month that I haven't had the time to review:

Smurfs: The Lost Village (2/5)
Harmless fun and probably the best Smurfs movie we'll get

Going in Style (3/5)
Fun comedy featuring legendary performers that's surprisingly well directed

Gifted (2/5)
Great character piece, weak drama

Fate of the Furious (2/5)
Exactly what you expect that drags when it get philosophical

Born in China (3/5)
Fantastic cinematography for a nature doc. even if the narration and editing are a bit too much

The Circle (1/5)
A fun critique on New media that forgot to tell a story

Look for my review of Guardians soon.

Ghost in the Shell

Style over Substance Where it Counts                               3/5



Soundtrack
     This may be one of the best scores Ive heard all year!

Cinematography
     Finally a movie that gets slow motion right

Science Fiction
     While its themes are not fully cohesive at time, its the thought that counts with sci-fi 

Rotten Tomatoes 46%                                  Cinemascore: B

While never as smart as it thinks it is, Ghost in the Shell is a competently made adaptation that does justice to the original source material by recreating and reimagine its cyber punk world within the medium of modern sci-fi. It's style over substance 101, but thats not a bad thing when the execution is on point.

Scarlett Johansson plays front in center in Ghost in the Shell as the Major, a cyborg with a human brain who is employed to Section 9 to up hold the law (Im starting to see parallels to Robocop). The plot comes a knocking however when a cyber terrorist named Kuze (Pitt) starts crossing off high level officials of Hanka Robotics. As the Major gets closer to Kuze, she begins to realize just how similar they are, and that the real enemy might be someone else entirely.

Ghost in the Shell is a very well directed film. Cinematography is on point, the editing tight but free enough to allow each shot to breath. The hyper capitalistic world depicted in Ghost in the Shell is terrifically realized, and the only time when the cinematography drops is during one of the films few action scenes, one of which involves a strobe effect I suspect hiding poor stunt work. Fortunately Ghost in the Shell is more sci-fi than action film, and though the cometary is relatively weak for the genre, it still makes it's self coherent enough to follow with ease. Aside from the cinematography and world design, Ghost in the Shells strongest attribute is its soundtrack, a gorgeous compilation of sudo techno rhythm orchestrated by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe. Perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall Ghost in the Shell due to its abysmal opening may be that the distribution of the original motion picture soundtrack has been canceled as a result.

Ghost in the Shell will not be the best science fiction film of the year, nor is it the best movie in theaters right now. Ghost in the Shell is however an extremely ambitious visual adaptation of the original Manga, one that evokes more feeling than thought, and that alone is why I think I enjoyed it enough to recomend it. Complimentary to many of the platters offered at cinema's right now, Ghost in the Shell offers something a little bit different, a dish thats a little light in quantity but appetizing none the less and worth taking a bite.

Analog Vs Digital Film

With the rise of Twenty first century technology, including the spontaneous arrival of new platforms that influence the creation of new mediums, there has been a notable shift in the film industry away from industry standards. For decades, Hollywood has remained faithful to the implication of film, even against the rise of video in the 80s, as the mainstream medium format for wide released entertainment; that standard is no longer the norm. Almost every modern wide release "film" is shot with a digital camera, and distributed through digital means. Naturally there has been abhorrent outcry from a very small minority of cinema goers but the average movie fan remains blissfully unaware. What are the faults of digital "film," if any at all? Are there any noticeable advantages to the new format, and why has it become the new norm of mainstream film. The following are my thoughts.

There is a clear and evident reason digital "film" has become the standard for Hollywood cinema, it's the same reason why the same studios make movies in the first place, money. Film (actual film) is expensive, every shot is another imprint on a limited role, every reel another investment and that doesn't even consider distribution. Natural film gives credibility to the saying "time is money," the same just can't be said for digital. Digital film does not require the patience of its predecessor, each take becomes a megabits rather than an permeant imprint in silver halide, allowing the director the freedom to shoot as many takes as he or she needs. Digital film is a breeze to edit compared to traditional film, trading out hours of cutting and sticking for an editors software. When you added it all up it's a no brainer why digital film has become the new standard of cinema, from production to post to distribution every facet of the digital format is cheeper compared to analog. I can't really blame Hollywood for it's incorporation, it is a business after all, but today there are more films being released then ever before and much of that is directly tied to wild accessibility of digital cinema.

Of course, as the case with all new media, digital film hasn't been incorporated by everybody with open arms. Many filmmakers to this day refuse to work outside of analog format, trading in long hours and additional expenses for the "purity" of analog film. But is there a noticeable difference between the formats? James Cameron, one of digital cinema's earliest advocates would disagree. In a blind study with one of his friends, Cameron displayed two identical clips asking which one he thought was "better," his friend chose the second clip. When asked why he chose it he told Cameron the imperfect quality of the print reflected the materiality of the medium, indicating it was film and clearly superior; Cameron responded that both the clips were shot digitally. Even traditional film's strongest advocators have a hard time telling the two formats apart, digital has advanced so far that the line between itself and its predecessor is blurred.

This however isn't enough to detour some of today's strongest film makers away from the medium. Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson have all remained resilient to change, preferring to stick to the traditional formats of cinema whenever they can rather than its cheeper ones. In my opinion, why should they? Each of the directors listed above are exceptional filmmakers, they should be free to design their film in any way they see fit. Even major studios are embracing the outcry for traditional, most noticeably Disney who has committed filming its new Star Wars trilogy to adhere to fan desires.

In the end its not the format that makes the movie but the movie itself. There are clear advantages to digital film, including cost and higher frame rates, with minimal lost in quality, however if a filmmaker or studio chooses to stick to traditional film that should be their choice to make. There is no reason for the massive backlash to digital film, without it cinema wouldn't be booming like it is today.

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.

Best Picture Nominees and Ratings (2016)

So the Oscars are here and within the next couple hours we'll know what 2016 film the academy votes best picture. It's a bit last minute but here are my quick scores for each of the nominated films:

Arrival (4/5)

Fences (3/5)

Hacksaw Ridge (5/5)

Hell or High Water (3/5)

Hidden Figures (3/5)

La La Land (4/5)

Lion (3/5)

Manchester by the Sea (2/5)

Moonlight (5/5)

Enjoy the Show!

I love Cinemascore

Last week I did a piece on Rotten Tomatoes (RT) and why I prefer it over other review outlet such as Metacritic and IMBD, which is why its only appropriate to talk about its polar opposite online site, Cinemascore. Let's be clear from the start, while I think Cinemascore is important as a critical outlet and many times will use its scores to recomend movies to others, I prefer and agree more constantly with RT. However just because I prefer one does not mean the other is inferior, Cinemascore is drastically different from RT, collecting data in a way that contradicts critical tradition but corresponds largely to popular opinion.

Cinemascore surveys audiences on opening night across the country, using the card you see above. Movies are rated on a 4point scale, much like a student is, and demographics are carved out based on gender and age. By late Friday night (usually 11pm-2am), Cinemascore will post a letter score on its site for the movies that released that week, and distribute its demographic data to studios and theatre chains. Under this model, general audiences are provided with limited data but studios and distributors are provided with sufficient data in order to estimate the movies preformance and appeal in the weeks to come.

There are certainly strengths to Cinemascores data collection model, some of which I would consider more relevant to general movie goers I see everyday. Too often I hear how the critics are wrong, they're "out of touch" or predisposed to dislike movie before they see it. I tell people that this just isn't true, critics come in all types and ages just like the movie going audience. The big difference is that it's a critics job to see every movie, even the ones they don't want to see. Because of this, critics have a much broader opinion on what makes a good movie good, not a more accurate opinion. If somebody who goes to see ten movies a year, pays to see Fifty Shades Darker with their friends, statistics would suggest he or she will like the movie considering they are predetermined to enjoy dark romance films. Statistics would also suggest he or she saw Fifty Shades of Grey (the first one) considering Fifty Shades Darker is a sequel. Continuing on the stats form last week,  Fifty Shades Darker scored a 9% on RT but a B+ on Cinemascore. While critics, and myself, tore apart the film audiences who the movie was marketed to enjoyed the movie almost enough to award it an A. This examples proves that just because a movie is critically panned, doesn't mean it won't be enjoyed and even loved.

Cinemascore's strengths may make it more relevant to audiences and studios, but when considering the circumstances of its collection there are several flaws to it's accountability. For one, Cinemascore tends to skew relatively high in its scoring, with many if not a majority of movies being awarded an A or A- as its cumulative score. This is a result of audience bias; as discussed above somebody who is choosing one movie over a variety of others is predisposed to like said movie regardless of its critical reception. I love Marvel movies, and if you read my blog you will notice no marvel movie I have reviewed has been given anything less than a 3/5 (a positive score by my standards). Two even scored a 5/5 and I have only ever awarded ten 5/5s since 2014. Now I fully stick by my ratings and I argue to the death to defend them, but I'm not ignorant to my own biases. The second reason for this skew has to do bias in the critical skills of the individual. On this site I try to make my ratings as clear as possible (I even did a post a little while back), but different people judge on different scales. My brother for example like to rate movies on a scale of 1-10, where 7 is an average movie. This is completely valid, movies are subjective therefore so too must be the measurements we use to compare them, however as a result we tend to have very different scores even if we similar opinions on a movie we watched. I may say after the movie is a 3/5 but he may say its a 8/10 even though we like it the same, as an outsider looking in however you would determine without a doubt that my brother liked the movie more than I did. Cinemascore does not and cannot account for this bias even though I know it exist, again this isn't necessarily good or bad but is absolutely an explanation for the skew in Cinemascore ratings. The last account for this skew is the simplest to explain, Cinemascore survey's audiences on opening night. There is no audience more predisposed to enjoying a particular movie that the audience that pays for a ticket in advance for an opening night screening.

For these reasons I structured my own way to interpret a movies praise based on Cinemascore. Movies that score an A or the exceptionally rare A+ are donated with the emblem "Crowd Pleaser" in my reviews (although I sometimes award A-'s depending on the reception of my own screening). B+ is mainly positive with a mixed majority, and B and B- are even more mixed than that. When I see any sort of C it's immediately considered a fail, most of these are horror pictures or drawn out dramas that don't quite hit their mark. I have only seen a D once, I remember shivering a little. Fs hardly ever happen, in Cinemasores history only about ten movies have received an F.

Cinemascore accurately determines an audiences reception to the movie by surveying the audience responses on opening night. It's data can be highly relevant for the studio who puts out the movie, the theatre chains that show it, and the movie goers who go to it, but it does have its flaws. Cinemascore often varies for more critical sites like RT; movies that are critically panned may score well with audience and some movies that are critically praised can turn audiences off. I love Cinemascore because it shows a drastically different side of the movies lovers world, one that is equally significant and dually noted by all parties that make and distribute the films we see.

The Great Wall

Formulaic Epic Bores In-Between Action Scenes                    1/5



EPIC
     Armies and monsters clash in fantastic fashion

Behind the Scenes
     One of the first of hopefully more collaborations between Hollywood and Chinese studios

Defy's Genre Trends
     There is more to the "White Savor" plot here then it first appears

Rotten Tomatoes 35%                                  Cinemascore: B

The story behind The Great Wall happens to be more interesting then the movie itself. The product of a collaboration between Hollywood and Chinese director Yimou Zhang, The Great Wall is the most expensive undertaking for a Chinese studio with a whopping budget of 150million$. But this isn't the place to talk economics, how is the movie and was the money well spent? Unfortunately, while I completely endorse collaborations between Hollywood and foreign directors like this in the future, I have to admit I did not enjoy The Great Wall due to it's boring characters and it's tendency to rely on the most common genre cliches.

The Great Wall stars Matt Damon (kind of) as a western mercenary William, who stumbles into a army occupying the Great Wall while searching for black powder, the not so mystical substance that can open any lock. While there he gets caught up in a ancient war between the Nameless Order and a race of monsters referred to as the Tao Tei. As the war rages on Damon must find his place in the army all while Commander Lin (Jing Tian) must find a way to defeat their ancient enemy once and for all.

There are several key ingredients lacking in this movies recipe that keeps it from maintaining its relevance shortly after its exceptionally long crawl of credits. For starter the CGI is bad, like PS2 early 90s bad. For a movie that has a budget of 150million$ this just isn't acceptable, even if the studio has little practice with it. On a more major note it's central characters are bland, possessing barely more than the typical genre traits. Damon fumbles around contributing little to the overall plot (which is more of a statement on the films design then its plot structure but thats a post for another time), and the films second lead, Lin, is exactly what you expect her to be minus the fact she's a woman. The Tao Tei, while creatively designed, don't make for a threatening or compelling antagonistic force, and most of the human characters and plot points are equally one dimensional. I understand in monster movies the monster is rarely a compelling character but theres nor reason why the army of lizard dogs couldn't be scary at the least.

The Great Wall isn't going to be on my top ten worst of the year or anything (unless were in for a really good year), but this film surpasses no expectations. When soldiers aren't jumping off the Great Wall, or when the Tao Tei aren't tearing apart somebodies flesh, all we're left with are the cookie cutter characters. Characters are the foundation of any film, giving weight to a plot by investing our interest and sympathies, but here there is no investment and as a result there is no take.

The Great Wall vs The US Domestic Box Office

Within a month of release The Great Wall, the newest medieval epic courtesy of Legendary Pictures directed by Zhang Yimou and starring American favorite Matt Damon, has accumulated a whopping 245million$ overseas in foreign markets and only ~20million$ at the domestic box office. There is something to be said When a movie like this under perform domestically but thrives overseas. You see it looks like we have another Warcraft or Terminator Genysis on our hand, where the movie practically bombs at the US Canada box office but makes up for it in foreign markets like China, but there are a couple extra layers that factor into The Great Wall circumstance, factors that make it all the more paramount it preform domestically in the weeks to come.

The first major factor that has to be considered is The Great Wall production as a major Hollywood China collaboration, one of the first of its kind. While the Chinese film industry has had a significant presence in Hollywood affairs (and visa versa) there has never been a movie to the scale The Great Wall is in Chinese history. The 150million$ production is paid in part by Chinese money, developed by Chinese film studios and spearheaded by China's most prestigious director, Zhang Yimou, the same man who brought us the opening performance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This project if successful, can open the doors for many Chinese film studios, exerting new and competitive pressure on the modern Hollywood blockbuster.

At 270million$ and growing, its safe to say this movie will be profitable when all is said and done, but it's likely to assume at this point only 10% of all its proceeds will come from the domestic box office, a significant skew in the typical foreign to domestic ratio. Why does this matter? If a movie makes money why should Legendary Pictures care if The Great Wall bombs domestically? The Great Wall is as much experimental as it is an imitation; Legendary Pictures hopes US audiences will consume The Great Wall as they would any other blockbuster. It's no secret that any years most profitable films are always the annual big budget action blockbusters, that's why there called blockbusters. If the same product is packaged but from a different origin point shouldn't it yield the same returns? Apparently not, as it turns out. Unlike overseas, spectacle does not sell as well as it used to in the states. When it does sell it can sell big, but there is a definite trend appearing over the last decade between a movie's domestic take and its overall critical praise. Not all critically praised movies are profitable but a majority of domestic blockbusters are critically praised. The Great Wall got a 35% on Rotten Tomatoes (Not terrible but definitely not great) and a B in Cinemascore (also not great). Movies that get slammed critically don't tend to break out of the cinematic noise, The Great Wall seems to honor this trend, at least at the North American box office. It's a shame too because no matter how much money The Great Wall makes Hollywood is going to want strong returns domestically if its going to green light more collaborations with foreign studios.

The Great Wall will make its money back, but wont make the ripples in Hollywood that director Zhang Yimou had hoped. Film, at least under the Hollywood model, are a business and the safest investments make their money back domestically. This trend is changing but too slowly for The Great Wall to be the first major icebreaker, instead with hope and a bit of luck maybe this film will pave the way for another foreign blockbuster too smash the ceiling holding them back.

The Lego Batman Movie

Everything is Still Awsome                                                3/5

Thematic
     Family and identity are deconstructed her brick by brick

Animated
     Lego Batman maintains the same animation style with the altered frame rate form The Lego Movie

Satire
     Lego Batman has a PHD in batman lore and isn't afraid to show it off

Certified Fresh
    91% on Rotten Tomatoes is a well earned score

Rotten Tomatoes 91%                                  Cinemascore: A-

When first announced I didn't think this was a good idea, but after that the first trailer I knew The Lego Batman Movie was going to be something special. This was Warners chance to spin a postmodern approach to their most treasured character and I was immediately on board. Batman is an egotistical, self centered asshole who fears attachment; Robin a wide eyed impressionable youth who follows batman around like a little brother, Joker desperately desires Batman's validation to their ying-yang relationship, the list goes on and on. What we have here is classic satire, one that knows where to point the finger and laugh, and also when to have a tender moment that speaks to the deeper nature of characters.

The story of The Lego Batman Movie adopts the tone of the Lego Movie before it, and its not afraid to show off its quirks along the way. After defeating Joker (Galifalakis) for the countless time, Batman (Arnett) must struggle to remain relevant in a city thats leaving him behind. Gordon has passed on the mantle of Commissioner to his daughter Barbara (Dawson) who dreams of uniting Gotham's police force with the Caped Crusader all while Alfred (Fiennes) urges Bruce to move on and try becoming part of a family again. However when Batman suspects the Joker's scheme may not be over, he must team up with his newly adopted ward Dick Greyson aka. Robin (Cera) to steal a device that would put the Clown Prince of Crime away for good.

So I bet that all sounds a little crazy, well it's suppose to. The Lego Batman movie moves at a breakneck pace, throwing almost everything Batman at the screen without waiting to see if it sticks. Everybody gets a cameo, sometimes the cameo adds to the frantic humor and other times it gets drowned in the sea of one liners and easter eggs. The weakness of Lego Batman is that sometime its too fast for its own good; where some films will spotlight one particular comic tie in The Lego Batman Movie has no such filter, leading to some jokes that hit and many more that earn a chuckle at best.

Thought Lego Batman may move a mile a minute throughout its 90minute run time, its wise enough to know when to slow down and focus on it's narrative. It's at these time where the films thematic threads start to show, emphasizing family and selflessness. The contrast is stark, but absolutely necessary, and just like The Lego Movie before it there are significant moments of sincerity that elevate the narrative above many, if not most, of the modern family movie offerings. The Lego Batman movie may have the pace of a five year old but it has more then enouth wisdom, wit and heart to make up for it in the end.

Patriots Day

Patriots Day Turns a Horror Story Into One About Love Triumph and Trust                                                            4/5

Dramatic
     Exceptionally Acted and Directed throughout

True Story
     Depicting the Marathon Bombing from all parties involved

Ensemble
     Mark Wahlberg, J.K. Simmons, Bacon and Goodman all work together to elevate their performances

Crowd Pleaser
    A+ on cinemascore, a rare and convented mark

Rotten Tomatoes 79%                                  Cinemascore: A+

Patriots Day is the rare film that depicts a recent national tragedy with deft filmmaking, skilled direction and well rounded performances; this is a movie that turns the narrative of a terrorist attack into a story of heroism in the every day citizen. While by no means a happy movie, I smiled frequently in Patriots Day, surprised and excited to see a movie thats both a nationalistic propaganda piece intent on cashing in on modern patriotism (because that's exactly what this is) and an inspirational narrative of grief and cooperation in spite of that grief.

Peter Berg's retelling of the Boston Marathon Bombing follows all the threads of tragic event you heard about on the news and some more you may have forgotten about. Wahlberg plays a cop with the misfortune of being at the finish line as the bomb goes off, Simmons plays the Watertown Police Cheif, others fill in the role as the student who was a hostage and the couple who lost their limbs. We see all angles of the investigation that proceeded in the days to follow including behind the scenes with the FBI and on the streets with the Boston press. Even the two bombers, the Tsnaraev borthers are handled with a medium of respect, depicting them as clearly radicalized grounded by desperation and fear. It's the type of evil you can root against but you can't classify as black or white. I was floored with the amount of respect this material was approached with and delighted by all the angles it juggled seamlessly.

Patriots Day surprised me in all the best ways. I walked in expecting a competent retelling of the events we know with an unhealthy dose of "Go America Go" storytelling, but I was moved emotionally instead. It was intense when it needed to be, dramatic in others, and even heartwarming in small doses. I would absolutely recomend Patriots Day to anybody who is interested, this is the best I've seen nationalist storytelling in a long time. Well done Berg, well done.