"The Mummy" (2017) Review

Title: The Mummy

Directed by: Alex Kurtzman

Written by: David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman

Year: 2017


Universal's horror monsters will always be near and dear to me, as I grew up on the classics from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. The Mummy (1932), is a masterpiece, combining horror and romance in a dream-like experience. The Mummy (1959) (from the Hammer run), is a thrilling tale that equals the original. However, the version that most people are acquainted with today is the 1999 version of the same name. While not particularly good, it does have a fantastic atmosphere and several fun, adventurous moments. I was quite stunned when I heard the news that Universal would be dusting off its old icons for a new run. Does the resurrection of this decades old franchise pay off, or should it be called a wrap already?

The tomb of Princess Ahmanet is discovered and taken aboard a plane for research. The plane crashes, but Sergeant Nick Morton miraculously survives, having been cursed by the mummy princess. Now, Nick is on a mission to stop Ahmanet from restoring herself to her full power.

While I appreciate Universal's trying to bring some of its most well known characters back to the mainstream, this attempt is a colossal mess. The story is needlessly convoluted, with far too many moving parts. There is the main plot, the romance, a side story involving visions of a dead man, and of course the "franchise establishing" organization Prodigium. The film is juggling too many things and consistently drops the balls. The movie is not focused enough and suffers from an identity crisis, frequently shifting between being an action movie, a horror flick, and a comedy. A sense of unity is sorely lacking.

I love Tom Cruise, but I feel that he is horribly misplaced in this picture. His style does not match that of the movie and as a result, does not evoke the right vibe. Annabelle Wallis is fine, but leaves little to no impression. Jake Johnson, whom I have nothing against, is terribly unbearable. His character seems to have accidentally walked onto the set from another film. Russel Crowe is perfectly cast as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Now, what they do with the character is a different story, but Crowe is fitting as the mild mannered doctor. Sofia Boutella is another excellent casting choice. Again, the character is not fully realized, but Boutella excels in these bizarre, supporting roles. The makeup and costuming for the titular character further enhances Boutella's performance and is easily the highlight of the picture.

The genre-jumping that this movie performs is so confusing and disjointed that I'll have to address each aspect separately. The action set pieces, though perhaps not always suitable, are well handled. Cruise carries these out with his usual enthusiasm and there more than a few impressive sequences. The comedy is completely out of place. The first joke of the entire film sets the bar very low, and no joke surpasses it. And for a film called The Mummy, there is surprisingly little horror on display. I can think of only two scenes. However, those are the two best scenes in the film, one involving the princess killing night workers and the other an armada of rats led by an absolutely creepy corpse.

On top of the multiple, pointless storylines, the film spends far too much time setting up a larger universe for future installments. Though not all bad, (I do like the idea of Dr. Jekyll being the gateway for the other monsters to appear), the already haphazard pacing comes to a screeching halt. The movie would have been serviced better with a simpler plot and a strict focus on the the mummy herself.

One of the most interesting things to note is that if you listen to director Alex Kurtzman speak in interviews, he has a great understanding of what makes these monsters so enduring; they are all tragic characters (except for Dracula of course). This information leaves me stumped as to why this picture turned out to be so misguided. As an action film, it has great moments but is cluttered with too many plot threads. As a comedy, the movie sports an absent sense of humor. And as a horror flick, the scary moments are almost non-existent. The Mummy is a grand symphony where most of the instruments are out of tune, an astounding case of missed potential.

Grade: C-

"Cars 3" Review

Title: Cars 3

Directed by: Brian Fee

Written by: Kiel Murray, Bob Peterson, and Mike Rich

Year: 2017


The Cars films have never been Pixar's strongest productions. In fact, they are often viewed as the weakest in the Pixar library. But the marketing for the latest sequel showed a more serious story, hinting at a less goofy film than we are used to from the Cars movies. Can this series get on the right track, or is it too late to turn around?

As the years have passed, a new generation of racers has taken over the sport. Following a terrible racing accident, Lightning McQueen is forced to retire, the last of the older racers. After a few months have passed, McQueen has recovered and is eager to to reclaim his title, but he will need help to do it.

Something immediately apparent with this picture is the significant upgrade in the animation quality. When compared to other Pixar features, Cars and Cars 2 had a glossier, more simplistic visual style. The level of detail was never really focused on. But with this third movie, the animation has taken a different turn, looking more realistic and it is fantastic. A lot of this has to do with the evocative lighting, creating a tone that befits the story.

Speaking of which, I am impressed with the direction the story went. Gone are the cheap gags and childish antics of the previous two pictures. At the center of this film are the themes of aging, retiring, and pushing past your limits. The new era of racers has successfully edged out the competitors of old, but McQueen will not give up so easily. McQueen's inner motivation and memory of Doc (who has since passed away) drives him to regain his former status. The story is affecting because of how relatable and authentic it comes across. This is the first Cars movie to actually be about something and not come across as simple entertainment.

Owen Wilson is able to shift his performance to make Lighting's character fall more in line with the story's tone. Wilson capably makes Lighting come across as an endearing and empathetic personality. Kristela Alonzo juxtaposes a more downtrodden McQueen with her energetic portrayal of the lovable Cruz Ramirez, Lightning's trainer and spiritual coach. Cruz is hands down the best character in the franchise since Doc, sporting an infectious personality and a wonderful relationship with the main character.

While I believe Cars 3 to be a solid and compelling film, it does not come without its faults. But my major issue with the film sadly occurs at the end. For the majority of its runtime, the movie is structured as an underdog story, one where the protagonist has lost faith in himself. But somewhere in the third act, the film changes pace and becomes a completely different story, and it is within this alternate narrative that the movie focuses its overall message. I am certain that many will not be bothered by this "twist," but I found it unearned and a betrayal of most of the film. The meaning has merit, but there is hardly any substance to support this thread by the time it rears its head.

Cars 3 is a solid entry in Pixar's ever-expanding library. Departing from the previous two films, Cars 3 takes a more personal approach to the story, which, in turn, strengthens the characters. This feels like a more focused project, where the filmmakers knew what they wanted to accomplish and set out to do it. The cast is more than serviceable; the animation has received a bump in quality; and the story is surprisingly affecting, boasting shades of Rocky Balboa (2006). Unfortunately, I believe that the ending is a stark contrast to what the film was setting up, and hinders the final product. I feel like Cars 3 will be one of Pixar's more underrated efforts in years to come, but I greatly appreciate the attempt to actually give a damn, and the results are pleasing.

Grade: B+

"Wonder Woman" Review

Title: Wonder Woman

Directed by: Patty Jenkins

Written by: Allan Heinberg

Year: 2017


The DC Extended Universe has done nothing but stagger out of the gates. The first three films have all failed to gain overwhelming positivity. Though I initially gave Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad barely positive reviews, both have soured in my mind since and would require a rewatch for a final conclusion. And while I still contest that Man of Steel is a vastly underrated movie, it continues to be schismatic amongst critics and audiences. Can Wonder Woman set this franchise on the right path, or is it just another divisive entry?

Set during the first World War, Diana lives with her Amazon sisters on the island of Themyscira. A pilot named Steve Trevor crashes on the island and is taken in by the Amazons. With some persuasion, Steve is able to convince Diana to go back with him to the real world under the belief that she can restore peace.

Patty Jenkins' different style of directing is made apparent from the very beginning. Wonder Woman dials back on the DCEU's notably desaturated look, which is especially obvious during the Themyscira scenes. The luscious greens and blues are truly refreshing. But when the desaturation is present, it works to portray the desolate wartime feel. In addition, Jenkins takes the story in a very lighthearted and optimistic direction, which is reflected by the beauty of Diana's home island.

The picture features some great cinematography, but there is an excessive amount of slow motion. Slow motion can be used in several ways, such as to highlight violence or add tension to an action sequence. But when it is mainly implemented to make the hero look "cool" repeatedly, the trick becomes old quickly. Honestly, this is one of the film's weakest aspects.

Gal Gadot reprises her role from Batman vs. Superman as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. Gadot is a formidable physical actress. Her facial expressions are impressively telling, and the way she carries herself matches the character. However, I still find her line delivery to be wooden. While she has improved, Gadot continues to read the script quite flatly. Chris Pine, playing Steve Trevor, is highly charismatic and appreciable. Pine is able to pick up some of Gadot's slack. Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are great, though only in minor roles. David Thewlis is also strong, but he underwhelms in the third act.

As I mentioned earlier, the story has an optimistic vibe. Diana's child-like innocence and sense of goodwill is infectiously charming and illustrates a good message. The background setting of The Great War works perfectly as a foil to Diana's upbeat personality. Even in the bleakest of situations, Diana's undying hopefulness inspires those around her and transcends the screen. That might sound hokey and cheesy, and it is. But the themes are handled with maturity and earnest that you cannot help getting on board with the idea. Jenkins was heavily inspired by Richard Donner's Superman from 1978, and it shows wonderfully.

Despite a fabulous first two acts, Wonder Woman does suffer from a number of flaws that mainly arise in the third act. The film has three villains: Ares, Ludendorff, and Dr. Poison. All three of them are weak. Ludendorff and Dr. Poison are under utilized and cartoonish at times. Ares comes as a surprise at the end of the film (though the reveal is very obvious) and with his entrance, the final act becomes a CGI fight fest. In addition, the inclusion of Ares betrays the movie's intelligence. Throughout the picture, Diana is consistently blaming mankind's warring nature on the God of War. Near the end, she realizes that the fault was that of man himself; that we are capable of malicious intent on our own. Diana's faith in man is broken with this realization. But when Ares reveals that he has in fact influenced the behavior of humans, this brilliant message is thrown out the window to make room for a one-on-one confrontation that the movie did not need.

Another issue I had was with the moral at the film's conclusion. Although the movie handled its mawkish themes expertly, Jenkins does stumble at the finish. In short, the ultimate moral of the story is love conquers all. This could have been approached in a subtle manner, but the filmmakers go for a head-on tactic that comes across as schmaltzy and corny. I have no issue with the lesson, but rather how it was taught to the audience.

However, I have to commend Patty Jenkins on how she tackled the implicit social commentary. With a female-led superhero flick, talks of feminism are inevitable and unavoidable. But Jenkins has crafted a film that acknowledges Diana's strength as a woman without pushing a strong feminist agenda or without making men seem inferior or distasteful. In fact, the issue of gender inequality (due to the period setting) is hardly brought up, welcomingly so. The movie tells the story of a model hero that just so happens to be a woman, rather than promoting this heroine because she is female. Wonder Woman is not just an idol for women, but for all of us, telling us to be the best versions of ourselves and doing the right thing when we can.

Wonder Woman is a really good addition to the current DCEU and seems to have won over the majority of viewers. The double fish-out-of-water story is remarkably well-done; Gadot has improved since her last appearance; the themes and morals are fitting; and the film is jubilantly sanguine and unapologetic about that. Patty Jenkins' direction is the best element of this feature and the main reason for the film's quality. Though hampered by an unbalanced third act, poor villains, unnecessary over usage of slow motion and several other factors, Wonder Woman succeeds in what it aims to achieve. Man of Steel is still the superior film, but that should not detract from the success this movie has garnered. But I do think Wonder Woman has become a highly, highly overrated film. Nevertheless, this is an enjoyable and impenitently compassionate picture.

Grade: B+

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales" Review

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Directed by: Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg

Written by: Jeff Nathanson

Year: 2017


Here we have a franchise that refuses to die as long as it turns a profit. Who knew that a blockbuster based on a ride would spawn a five-film series? The first Pirates film, The Curse of the Black Pearl is a great adventure flick. At best, Dead Man's Chest and At World's End are dismissive fun. But I think that On Stranger Tides is utter garbage. Although, with promising teasers, I walked into Dead Men Tell No Tales with low expectations and the slightest of hopes. Can this latest nautical adventure save its saga from sinking, or is it dead in the water?

The ghostly Captain Salazar and his crew have escaped their cavernous prison and are now killing every pirate they come across at sea, searching for Jack Sparrow to exact their revenge. Jack needs to find Poseidon's trident to deal with the renewed foes, but he will need the help of some unlikely heroes.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: yes, Johnny Depp is excellent as Jack Sparrow. And yes, it is the exact same performance he has been doing for years, be it a Pirates film or otherwise. Truthfully, Depp is a world-class talent, and his Jack Sparrow is an iconic character. But after five movies, the act has gotten old. Joining him are series newcomers Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario. The former plays Will Turner's (Orlando Bloom's character) son, and he is perfectly serviceable in the role. But Scodelario is the more interesting character and turns in a more impressive performance. Geoffrey Rush returns as fan-favorite Hector Barbossa, slipping into the character as naturally as possible. Javier Bardem as Captain Salazar makes for a noteworthy villain, but is unfortunately sidelined for more of Jack's comedic antics.

With each passing film, the stories seem to get more convoluted, and Dead Men Tell No Tales follows that trend. I feel that the first two flicks hit the perfect balance of fictional history and fantasy. But the last couple have overextended in the latter department. I can buy the ghost pirates, but the inclusion of Poseidon's trident, the ship that essentially eats boats, and other variables have pushed me over the edge. In addition, I just didn't care for the direction of the storytelling. There was no investment felt and the climax is too over-the-top. Of course, there were interesting moments scattered about, but nothing consistently gripping.

The only part of the plot that really hooked me was the flashback detailing why Salazar seeks to kill Jack Sparrow. This was handled very well. Not that I wanted to know how Jack came into possession of the Black Pearl (named the Wicked Wench at the time), but it provided some excellent world-building and lore. More grounded stories like that would benefit the franchise. It proves that we don't need some ludicrous plot MacGuffin to grab our attention; just good stories.

One thing I cannot fault this film for, or any other picture in the series for that matter, is its production values. The atmosphere and environments are terrifically realized and transport the viewer to the picturesque Caribbean effortlessly. The sets are impeccably made, with great attention to detail. The visual effects for the ghost pirates seem a little unfinished, but ironically that works in the film's favor. This grants the specters an other-worldly appearance. The de-aging effect for the young Jack Sparrow sequence is also well done.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales had potential, but wastes it at almost every turn. The franchise has substituted the subtlety of its first film for bombastic action set pieces (which are not half bad in this latest movie) and tangled, overambitious plotlines. Though the cast is actually very good all around and it is always nice to be transported to this wonderful world, this newest feature fails to reignite the fire that burned so brightly in 2003. The overly elaborate and excessively fantastical plot is unimpressive and it feels as if we have tread these waters before, and no amount of vicious ghost sharks will distract me from that. Being no more than mediocre dumb fun, I suggest you steer your ship in another direction.

Grade: C

"Alien: Covenant" Review

Title: Alien: Covenant

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: John Logan and Dante Harper

Year: 2017


The Alien franchise has a notably divisive fanbase. It is generally agreed upon that Alien and Aliens, the first two installments, are cinematic classics. On a personal note, those are two of my favorite films. Alien 3 has created passionate enemies and dedicated defenders. Alien: Resurrection and the Alien vs. Predator flicks seem to be hated by most, and Prometheus, the precursor to this newest picture, split the viewers once again with its philosophical angle and lack of Xenomorphs. With more eponymous creatures involved this time around, can this film win over die-hard Alien fanatics?

Taking place 11 years after the events of Prometheus, a colonization crew aboard the ship Covenant is seeking a new planet on which to live. Along the way, the team receives a message from a nearby planet that is seemingly hospitable. They are not prepared for what they are about to find.

Ridley Scott, I believe, is one of the greatest directors to have ever graced Hollywood. His films consistently impress on a visual level, especially in the realm of science fiction. His vision is brought to life beautifully here, and each shot is immaculately composed. A cinematic painter, Scott makes Alien: Covenant look absolutely stunning. The environments are lush, but haunting and foreboding, telling a story all by themselves. In addition, the visual effects are great, with the Xenomorphs looking excellent and fluid in motion.

The cast is well assembled, each of them contributing to a set of grounded characters. Katherine Waterson makes for a strong female lead without being a Ripley rip-off. Billy Crudup portrays the new captain of the crew effectively. The character is interesting because his religious beliefs put him at odds with the rest of the team, but the film really should have explored this much further. A surprising highlight was Danny McBride as Tennessee, an exuberant and determined fellow. McBride works well as an emotional focal point and as a more lighthearted area of the film.

But it is Michael Fassbender's spellbinding dual performance as the androids David and Walter that truly steals the show. David was the best part of Prometheus and Fassbender has not lost a beat since. Despite being played by the same actor, the characters are easily identifiable by their dialogue and mannerisms, much of which must be credited to Fassbender. His generosity and stalwartness make Walter instantly likable. But the actor's cold and methodical take on David gives the film its real chills. One of the industry's best doing his best.

As for the story, the plot can be divided in two. The first half bears a striking resemblance to the original 1979 picture in its execution. It captures the fear of the unknown and the feeling of helpless isolation wonderfully. The scenes when the characters are first exploring the lifeless planet are seeping with intrigue, mystery, and omen. Many hints as to what has happened are laid out for the audience, but none of it is explained until the second half. This first act is flat-out fantastic, if a little familiar.

Where the first half of Alien: Covenant is reminiscent of Alien, the second half is more similar to Prometheus, once again introducing philosophical and moral inquiries. Mind you, I think Prometheus is a really good movie. But in this case, I found the "meaning of life" aspect of the film to be quite muddled. The last movie set up a storyline where the Engineers created the Xenomorphs as a weapon. But this movie kind of retcons that idea, altering it and providing a different origin for our favorite alien. There are one or two other inconsistencies like this one that make the story in the second half hard to follow. In fact, the entire plot line concerning the Engineers from the previous film is dropped almost completely. The pacing during this part of the story is another problem, as it slows down dramatically but lacks significant tension to compensate.

As for the Xenomorphs, they were a bit disserviced in a way. You see, they have not attained their final evolution yet (the alien that has been heavily promoted is actually a protomorph due to lifecycle changes, but it ultimately makes no difference), which is fine. However, as the creatures are evolving, one of the characters wants to treat them kindly and there is a scene where the neomorph (the white one) is portrayed as a potentially gentle animal. I understand that it is meant to add layers to the nearly 40 year old alien, but the Xenomorph does not require layers. It is the perfect killing machine and that is why it has instilled fear in us over the decades. Furthermore, the Xenomorph spends too much time in the light. Much of the appeal and terror that comes from the beast is how it lurks in the shadows and in places not easily visible. By showing the Xenomorph's full body for extended periods of time, the filmmakers have devalued its presence.

Aside from that, the Xenomorphs remind the audience why they are such a prevalent horror icon. The deaths are appropriately gruesome, showcasing tons of blood and utterly painful fatalities. There are several sequences that will leave the viewer watching behind their shaking hands. The final act is riddled with suspense and nail-biting action. Though it contains an incredibly obvious plot twist, the final 20-30 minutes are exhilarating and give fans the Alien film we have been waiting for. Aiding this is Jed Kurzel, the film's composer. Kurzel has constructed an eerie and nostalgic score that resembles Jerry Goldsmith's music from the first feature. Magnificently done.

For being a sequel to Prometheus, Alien: Covenant oddly abandons some of the former's storylines. Nevertheless, this newest installment sets out to blend Alien with Prometheus and it works far more than it fails. The cast is great, with Fassbender captivating the audience in one of the best performances of the year; the visuals are gorgeous; the Xenomorphs have several shining moments; David is a fabulous villain; and there are some truly horrifying scenes. However, the pacing and storytelling in the second act become slow and confusing, respectively; questionable decisions detract from the aliens and the film's deeper meanings; and the overall plot is admittedly familiar. Though a solid entry to the franchise, I cannot help but feel slightly let down by this picture. Still, with a rousing third act and a cliffhanger of an ending (even if it was forseeable), Alien: Covenant will have you leaving the theatre wanting more, for better and for worse.

Grade: B

"Baywatch" Review

Title: Baywatch

Directed by: Seth Gordon

Written by: Robert Ben Garant, Justin Malen, Damian Shannon, Barry Schwartz, and Mark Swift

Year: 2017


I am letting you know now, I have no attachments to the source material of this film whatsoever. I have never seen the television show Baywatch, though it was massively popular during its syndication. But, I doubt that being familiar with the show will have much of a bearing on the quality of this picture. Does Baywatch represent its origins admirably, or does it drown in this sea of blockbusters?

Mitch Buchannon leads a time of lifeguards that patrol the local beach. However, some shady business is taking place on their territory. Going against the police and stepping out of their parameters, Buchannon and his team investigate the matter.

I'll get straight to the point; this film is horrendous. I was not expecting much, but I had hope that some quality would shine through. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Baywatch lacks charm, humor, and identity, instead providing forced and stale jokes, and an un-involving story. The emergence of the film's title at the beginning instantly warns you as to what kind of movie you are about to watch; an egotistically over-the-top comedy that fails on every level.

The type of laughs that the film aims for are cheap, employing gross-out tactics, cliché interactions, and awkward, lame gags. The absurdity on display overshoots humor, achieving foolishness. The film parades its self-awareness far too much and attempts to offer tongue-in-cheek comedy, but due to the nature of the jokes, none of this comes across well. Furthermore, the movie tries to use star power to its advantage, but this proves to be another unsuccessful aspect.

Speaking of star power, Dwayne Johnson heads the cast with his larger-than-life persona. Johnson portrays Mitch, who is in charge of safety on the beach. Opposite him is Zac Efron, playing Matt Brody, an apparent wink to Jaws. Matt is a self-absorbed former Olympic swimmer who is joining Mitch's team. The two are charismatic icons in the film industry, but even their lure cannot save this picture. The banter between Matt and Mitch is filled with stock lines and tired phrases. The rest of the cast does nothing to benefit the movie, but this is not entirely their fault.

Most of the issues with Baywatch come from a script level. I am surprised that the screenplay made it past a rough draft, quite honestly. The dialogue is akin to a grindhouse feature, and the story is more ludicrous than needed. The film also carries a pretentious air about it, seemingly proud of its asinine attempts at comedy, which only makes the movie more infuriating to watch.

The funniest thing about Baywatch is how the film mirrors one of its lead characters, Matt. Matt comes to the team with a legacy, much like how this movie is based on a popular television program. Matt is an entitled and narcissistic person, just as this flick feels like a vexing, self-righteous production. Baywatch is void of good humor, good characters, good story, and any semblance of effort. The cast can do nothing to make such an awful script work, the massively long set-ups for ineffective punchlines are painful, and the 116 minute running time is punishing. Avoid at all costs.

Grade: F

"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" Review

Title: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Written by: Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram

Year: 2017


There have been countless films made about the legend of King Arthur. Of all those films, I have seen none, unless you count Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Regardless, my view count has increased by one with this newest take on the classic story. Is this film the chosen representation of King Arthur's tale, or simply another pretender?

As a child, Arthur is separated from his father and raised by prostitutes. He grows up to be quite the warrior and eventually finds out the truth about his lineage. Now Arthur seeks to claim what is rightfully his from his tyrannical uncle, Vortigern.

Charlie Hunnam stars as the eponymous hero and he brings an off-kilter snarkiness that surprisingly works. Hunnam employs a special swagger, making Arthur a more interesting character than your basic hero. The same cheekiness can be found in the actors who portray Arthur's friends, with Aidan Gillen and Djimon Honsou among them. However, beyond that, Arthur's group of rebels have little to no character; simply personality. Jude Law fittingly chews the scenery as the villainous Vortigern. As the antagonist, he is easy to hate, but lacks any real substance. Law gives him plenty of presence, but the character seems under utilized.

Guy Ritchie is one of Hollywood's most unique directors. His trademark bombastic and quick-cutting style appears as an odd choice for a medieval fantasy. But, against all odds, Ritchie's direction matches this story well. His swift camera movements give the film a kinetic vibe during simple dialogue sequences, and some of the framing is impressive. This is modern directing meets classic folklore, and the two blend together far better than expected.

However, the editing really botches the storytelling. Even with a running time of 126 minutes, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword feels like a film that was heavily trimmed down. Plot-important elements are relegated to flashbacks executed in an Eisensteinian montage manner, akin to some of Ritchie's other projects (Sherlock Holmes (2009) and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)), and the technique feels clumsy here. It is as if the film is put on fast forward during key scenes, but plays at regular speed when things get dull. This format of editing is very jarring and poorly handled.

Furthermore, this film is a drag. The story unfolds exactly how you would expect and there is very little intrigue. It is difficult to care for the characters and the stakes are never investing enough for the audience. Even most of the action sequences lack any sense of thrill. The picture moves from scene to scene without purpose. That is what makes King Arthur: Legend of the Sword so disappointing; it has some fresh new ideas for a very old tale, but the final product is simply bland.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a movie with great ideas and visionary creators, but manages to be hollow and drab. The performances from Hunnam and Law are good; Ritchie's directing is shockingly beneficial; and the music is pretty good. The song "The Devil and the Hunstman" is easily the best thing to come out of this film. The weak script, rabid editing, and substandard storytelling sadly overwhelm this feature. A well-intentioned, but uneven and boring attempt at retelling a famous legend.

Grade: C

"Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" Review

Title: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Directed by: James Gunn

Written by: James Gunn

Year: 2017


Back in August of 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy came on the comic book/superhero scene and blew most people away, myself included. I still believe that the first film is among the MCU's strongest entries, and a great deal of that has to do with the fact that it felt more like a James Gunn picture than a studio production. Gunn returns to direct the second installment, but can he recapture the magic that made the first film so unique?

Following the events of the first film, the Guardians of the Galaxy are now famed heroes and carry out tasks (but not without pay, of course). While making an escape from a deal-gone-south, the team is rescued by a man claiming to be Peter Quill's father. But in the midst of getting to know this mysterious man, several groups are hunting the heroes.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is intriguing to analyze because there seems to be no main plot. The film is composed of a series of sub-plots that eventually culminate in the third act to create a single storyline. This has two large effects on the film; first, this form of storytelling allows for the characters to be explored further and be expanded upon; second, it gives the movie a lack of central drive. I would like to focus on the latter effect first. Though the picture is heavily enjoyable, I found myself wondering what the point of the story was multiple times. The film meanders throughout a majority of its runtime without a main objective to guide it. As a result, when the main plot finally reveals itself, it comes off as abrupt and forced, an unfortunate consequence.

To get into a bit more detail, the Sovereign race, who are introduced at the start of the picture, end up sticking around for the whole ride. They worked well as a way to reintroduce us to the characters we grew to love in the last film. But the Sovereign add nothing to the plot and only appear when it is convenient. The main villain is multi-layered and captivating to watch, but because of the structure of the plot, their actions in the final act feel rushed and the villain can even come across as a bit goofy.

Another issue I had with the film was the tremendous amount of expository dialogue. On more than a handful of occasions, the film will take a moment to put the plot on pause and explain something the audience needs to know. This is fine when Mantis is relaying information about Ego's planet to the titular crew, for example. It works within the diegesis here. But there is a scene where Yondu begins explaining his past to Rocket, when nobody asked him about it and it bears no relation to the story at that time. This movie stops too many times to deliver exposition to the point where it gets irritating.

But as I mentioned earlier, the structure of the picture allows for countless character moments and rich development unlike anything we have seen in previous MCU movies. The Guardians were already some of the strongest personalities in Marvel's cinematic roster, but here they shine even brighter. This also goes for some of the new characters introduced in this installment. Most of this is done through brilliant pairing. Peter and his father have several touching interactions; Gamora and Nebula get plenty of sister bonding time; and Yandu and Rocket make for both a tragic and comedic combo.

Moving on to the cast, Chris Pratt returns as the lovable Star Lord, with his signature comedy and charm back in full force. Zoe Saldana reprises her role as Gamora, the stern assassin of the group and the straight-man in the comedic dynamic. Saldana continues to excel as the character and because Gamora is given a significant story this time around, Saldana has plenty of material to work with. Dave Bautista is massively entertaining as Drax the Destroyer, however I found the character to be quite mishandled. Aside from two minor action stunts and a deeply moving emotional moment, Drax is strictly used for comedic relief, which works far more than it fails. But I found this restriction bothersome because Drax is supposed to be a formidable fighter and ultimately does nothing of worth. In addition, the film overplays his foolishness to a vexing degree.

Vin Diesel voices Baby Groot and, though a minor role from an acting perspective, Diesel's vocal inflections give the anthropomorphic tree plenty of emotion. Bradley Cooper, once again, knocks it out of the park as Rocket Raccoon. Cooper nails the line delivery and his comedic timing is phenomenal. Kurt Russell is a welcome addition to the cast as Ego, Peter's father. His magnetic presence blends perfectly with the motley cast of characters. Karen Gillan turns out a more resonate performance as Nebula, and Pom Klementieff's Mantis is an enjoyable, lighter part of the film. A surprising highlight of the picture is Michael Rooker as Yondu. Yondu's story arc is a captivating one, and Rooker's performance is fittingly impactful.

Though well-made films, the cinematography in the MCU often lacks style or pizzazz. The first Guardians movie was much more vibrant and memorable with its camerawork, by contrast. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is the first motion picture to be filmed with the Red Weapon 8K camera, a high resolution and efficient new piece of tech. The camera, coupled with some inspired cinematography, makes this film standout amongst its MCU brethren, with popping visuals, gorgeous color blends, and many poster-worthy shots. Additionally, the visual effects are top-notch. Nothing looks out of place and the de-aging effect applied to Kurt Russell's character is seamless.

One of the most appealing aspects of the Guardians films is their soundtracks, comprising of pop hits from decades past. This is a defining quality that the first film used to great effect, as does this follow-up. With great selections such as "Come a Little Bit Closer," "Lake Shore Drive," and "Mr. Blue Sky," I feel that this soundtrack is superior to the first. The musical choices were implemented very well, especially "Southern Nights." My only real gripe is that "Fox on the Run," which is on the album and in the trailers, is nowhere in the film (a nitpick, of course). But Tyler Bates' epic score should not be forgotten. I think watchers should take more notice of his work within this series, as he has probably composed the best scores for the entire franchise.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is an interesting addition to the MCU canon, especially when compared to its predecessor. I fully believe that by the sum of its parts, this sequel surpasses the 2014 original. The characters are the central focus and are explored extensively; the quippy humor is still fresh; the score and soundtrack have seen an upgrade; the cinematography is glorious; and the film is consistently entertaining and a great deal of fun. However, as the old saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Because of the oddly framed story and excessive exposition, as a whole, I think Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 falls short of being deemed better than the first flick. Still, this is a highly enjoyable and quality picture with a surprisingly tear-jerking ending.

Grade: B+

"Life" Review

Title: Life

Directed by: Daniel Espinosa

Written by: Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese

Year: 2017


Life was a film that I sought out because of the marketing. On its own, the premise is intriguing but nothing new. The trailers hinted at a film that could make the most of its genre trappings and seemed to lie on the high-brow side of the spectrum. I found the simplicity of the title refreshing, and reminiscent of how contemporary viewers must have viewed Ridley Scott's Alien upon its release. Also, I think the official poster is brilliant, representing the film accurately. Does this film breathe new life into its sub-genre, or is it dead on arrival?

A group of astronauts are conducting research in their station when they receive a probe from Mars that contains an unknown life-form. As they begin to observe the creature, it quickly evolves and proves its intelligence, posing a threat to the small crew.

Simply put, the plot of this film is remarkably similar to Alien. There is no other way around it. An alien life-form is brought aboard a spaceship and it continually changes its form and begins killing the crew members? The resemblance is too obvious. Therefore, we must ask the following question: is this film at all unique? Well, yes.

The characters are rather well-realized and certainly mesh well together. Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson lead the cast with appropriately dramatic and human performances. Hiroyuki Sanada, Ariyon Bakare, and Olga Dihovichnaya are good in the supporting roles and feed the team chemistry nicely. Ryan Reynolds surprised me with his performance. Known for his comedy, Reynolds would not seem to fit the vibe of the film, but he injects a necessary dose of the sympathetic into the picture. Though he does not have a substantial part, I feel he was utilized effectively.

The film displays a great use of a claustrophobic atmosphere mixed with abundant suspense. The camera skulks about the narrow passageways creepily and the mood lighting is used to its full potential. By beginning slowly, the movie allows us to become somewhat attached to the space crew and see how they observe this new organism as if we are along for the ride. The first act is handled delicately, much like a balancing act, before everything goes horribly wrong. Once the creature is on the loose, the pacing kicks up and the tension takes center stage. The picture succeeds at keeping you in an uneasy state while also giving you time to breathe with slower moments.

The creature is a well designed creation. It does not appear very intimidating, but the fear factor comes more from its intelligence and how it can keep these scientists on their toes. The way it is able to adapt to any situation transforms this film from a generic slasher flick to a game of chess between the characters and the alien, one opponent always outsmarting the other. It takes the familiar story seriously, but without claiming to be the next sci-fi masterpiece.

With all of that said, the film does play out as your standard base-under-siege story would. You can map out the plot rather easily, but the story is not the focus of the feature. It is the suspense. However, I must commend the final act of Life. The thrills reach their peak and the film is resolved in an admirable and unconventional manner that I feel is enough to set it apart from similar movies in the genre.

At its core, Life is an extremely well-made B-movie. The characters are organic enough to rise above clichés; the mood and setting are fitting and play key roles; the performances are better than the sub-genre would lead you to believe; and the conclusion is expertly crafted. Though the story does not break any new ground, I can recommend this flick to any sci-fi lover. Life is an engaging thrill ride that is smarter than you would expect.

Grade: B

"Beauty and the Beast" (2017) Review

Title: Beauty and the Beast

Directed by: Bill Condon

Written by: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos

Year: 2017


There have been quite a few cinematic iterations of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale dating back to the 1946 French picture. However, the most iconic is almost certainly Disney's 1991 animated feature, which managed to snag itself a Best Picture nomination at the respective Academy Awards. Continuing with its wave of remakes, Disney has now given Beauty and the Beast the live-action treatment. Does this version expand upon the beauty of the original, or is it a beastly abomination?

Belle, the beautiful, resident bookworm of a local French town is taken prisoner by a ghastly beast who resides in an enchanted castle where the furniture and decorations are alive. Though a captive, Belle attempts to bring out the good within the hideous creature, and the Beast is slowly learning that with compassion and romance, he might be able to save himself.

Emma Watson plays the former half of the eponymous duo, Belle. This seemed like an excellent choice upon announcement, as Watson is quite the sweetheart in the eyes of the public. Unfortunately, Watson has the emotional resonance of a plank of wood. Her acting is not stale, but none of the emotional beats connect on her end, and she fails to embody the character of Belle beyond the wardrobe and simple kindness. She is simply a pretty face that sounds like Belle, but doesn't feel like Belle. Furthermore, Watson is not a singer. I say this as a fact rather than an insult, but the character does call for some singing. To her credit, Watson does the best she can, but ends up sing-talking her way through the majority of it all, and it is painfully obvious.

Dan Stevens, on the other hand, is very good as the Beast. The deep, gravelly voice he provides for the titular character is mostly his own work, with little digital alteration, which is incredible. Although he impresses, the same cannot be said for the design of the character. With hands instead of paws and a lack of animal teeth, this incarnation of the Beast is far too human, thus betraying the point of the story. The face is simply that of a man's with excessive fur rather than an ugly creature's altogether. By making him look more human, the filmmakers have nullified the theme of finding the beauty within the beast by already giving him a relatable appearance.

Continuing with the cast, Luke Evans plays the villainous Gaston. He captures what makes the character so lovingly detestable and is one of the highlights of the film, despite not being "roughly the size of a barge." Josh Gad is hit-and-miss as the comedic LeFou. He has a few funny lines, but does not offer much beyond that and often borders on vexing. Disney made a big deal about LeFou's outward flamboyance, and this was a shameful move. At best, LeFou's homosexuality is only teased at, making it seem more like a marketing move than anything else. Rounding out the human cast is Kevin Kline as Maurice, Belle's father. Kline kills it in the role, which has been altered significantly. Kline's performance is where the true heart of the film lies.

Moving on, we have the magical, speaking household items to mention. Ewan McGregor is the charming candelabra Lumière. McGregor dons a fine French accent and gives one of the better performances. Ian McKellen lends his voice to the character of Cogsworth, a stuck-up clock that is wound too tightly. McKellen does the best he can, playing the role well, but he is not given much to do. Lastly, Emma Thompson portrays the motherly Mrs. Potts. Although she is a benefit to the picture, it does often sound like she is trying to replicate Angela Lansbury's performance from the animated film.

Visually, Beauty and the Beast is immaculately made and boasts wonderful production values. Despite looking a tad oversaturated at times, this film is sprawling with beautiful scenery and set design. The highlight of course is the castle. The gothic architecture is superbly realized, evoking an imposing but hauntingly alluring atmosphere with overly ornate decorations and grand scale. The special effects are quite good, but a little hyperrealistic at certain moments. The performance capture done for the Beast is on the same level, fitting in nicely.

When it comes to the music, this variant of the story borrows just about every song used in the 1991 version, as is to be expected. Though lacking the glamour and fluidity of the animation (which is essentially an insurmountable hinderance), the musical sequences are handled adequately, with "Be Our Guest" once again being the standout, along with "Gaston." However, there a couple of new songs added for this rendition of the classic tale. "Days in the Sun" is not all that good, and even worse when taken into context. It is supposed to set up a storyline about the prince's past, but this thread goes absolutely nowhere, rendering it pointless. "Evermore," is fantastic, but has no place in the film. This song details how the Beast feels towards Belle, but seems to only have been included to give the Beast a singing scene. The animated movie handled it much better by employing silence and relying on the Beast's facial expressions and actions before telling Belle to leave.

As for the plot, this 2017 remake is incredibly faithful to its animated counterpart. The two films play out almost exactly the same way, note for note, which is fine for purists but leaves those wanting something different a bit dissatisfied. As such, this live-action film can be seen as an update more than anything else, as there is very little in the way of innovation or originality from a story perspective. However, the new additions cannot be dismissed, such as a more detailed prologue. Ditching the stain-glass windows that opened the animated feature, this film actually shows the events that led to the prince's abhorrent transformation, which I thought was a nice touch that differentiates the two pictures.

Another added aspect is a sub-plot that expands upon the curse that pervades the looming castle. This time around, the longer the curse is active, the more the inhabitants of the castle become more like their transformation and less human. When the last petal from the plot-important rose falls, not only will the Beast and household objects remain as they are, but they will lose their anthropomorphic qualities. On paper, this seems like a well-added layer of tension, but really only works if you have not seen any of the previous movies relating to this source material. Furthermore, this plot point is sporadically mentioned. It is only brought up once or twice not counting the finale, thus making it almost irrelevant in retrospect.

This film also seeks to explore more of Belle and Maurice's past by incorporating a storyline revolving around the mother and her death. The trouble is, it runs into a dead end almost instantly. The information gained about the mother services the plot in no way, nor is the lore provided engaging or enriching. Even worse is the magical item linked to this part of the plot. The enchantress that placed the curse on the castle also left a special book that allows the user to teleport anywhere they want. Belle and Beast use the book to visit the bedroom where Belle's mother died. Everything in this room is left intact, including a plague mask from one of the doctors that treated the mother, even though it has been roughly two decades. But the greater offense comes later. When Belle leaves the castle to save Maurice, she takes Philippe (the horse) and rides to town....instead of using the book to transport herself there near instantaneously. This is easily the biggest plothole in the entire film, and I cannot understand how it made it past the scriptwriting process.

Speaking of plotholes, there are plenty more. For instance, Maurice rides to the castle on Philippe (escaping the ravenous wolves) and gets captured by the Beast. Philippe then gallops back to the town where he runs into Belle, who rides him back to the Beast's abode. She is able to free Maurice who is later shown to have made it back to the city. As I said earlier though, Belle takes Philippe and rides to the town during the latter half of the picture, implying that Philippe was at the castle the whole time. So did Maurice walk back to the town? And how did he evade the wolves?

The enchantress presents yet another issue. She cursed the prince because he insulted and refused her. But when Gaston calls her "an ugly old hag" in the tavern, she does absolutely nothing to him. Was it because he followed it up with "no offense"? Is that enough to redeem Gaston for a lifetime of cruelty? And the conclusion is very poorly handled. In this adaptation, the Beast dies as the last petal falls. But he is able to be brought back to life and restored to his former self because the enchantress just so happened to walk in the room where she had no business being just as Belle admitted her love for the prince. The animated film handled this much better because Belle restored the Beast with an act of love; crying over his apparent loss of life. She did not have to say "I love you," which is directed towards the audience more than anything.

When I walked out of the theatre, I liked Beauty and the Beast. But the more I thought about it, the more it began to crumble. The music echoes the beats of the original (though they do not reach the same heights) and the visuals are worthy of being deemed a spectacle. The performances are rather good for the most part, but Watson is unable to connect with the audience. The additions to the film are either questionable or bad (with minor exceptions), and the plot holes are abundant. There are also a number of laughably bad moments, such as when Belle asks if the prince would ever grow a beard and he growls back; or how Maurice is dragged out of the castle. (Seriously, my friend and I were laughing way too hard at points). I think the problem lies within the animated film; it is considered one of Disney's best for a reason, and a remake was not warranted. This movie offers few things that are new, and the ones that are good are almost insignificant. The 1991 iteration is far superior to this 2017 product. Lacking the charm and magic of the original, this is a hollow, though beautiful, update that proves to be quite divisive.

Grade: C