"Ghost in the Shell" Review

Title: Ghost in the Shell

Directed by: Rupert Sanders

Written by: Jamie Moss, William Wheeler, Ehren Kruger

Year: 2017


I was very late to watching the original Ghost in the Shell, having only seen it in preparation for this live-action adaptation. I found the 1995 anime feature to be very ambitious and quietly engaging. It certainly requires future viewings on my part to get a more concrete opinion, but I did enjoy it and admire its boldness. Now, this live-action remake sets out to do things a little differently. Is this jump to reality a ghost of its former self?

In the future, cybernetic enhancement among humans has become a common trend. As such, one person has taken advantage of this by hacking into people's minds and controlling their actions. The Major must track down this individual and take him out, all while grappling with the fact that her entire life might be a lie.

Unquestionably the most noticeable aspect of this film is its visual style. The animation depicted a vibrant but lived-in world full of color, akin to the environments found in Blade Runner. This version manages to capture the same look and atmosphere to an astonishing degree. The world illustrated in the film is hypnotic and alluring, encapsulating the audience in a highly detailed science-fiction. Ghost in the Shell is a gorgeous looking motion picture with dazzling color schemes and remarkable lighting (it seems that 2017 is a great year for cinematography so far).

The visual effects are equally impressive, with the extensive CGI blending in seamlessly. The diegetic world is highly advanced and made memorable through superb special effects work. There are many instances of creative and imaginative ideas being channeled through the CGI, especially when it comes to the Major's thermoptic suit, which allows her to become invisible. Ghost in the Shell is a delectable feast for the eyes that is backed with amazing visual effects.

Scarlett Johansson heads the film as Major Mira Killian, which is a bit of a name-change from the animated version (Motoko Kusanagi). Johansson owns the role with both a commanding presence and a subtle performance. The Major has a very cold personality, which means the task of making her a likable protagonist is all the harder. But Johansson pulls this off with apparent naturality, a credit to her acting capabilities.

Pilou Asbaek gives a fantastic portrayal of Batou, who is the Major's cybernetically enhanced partner on her missions. Asbaek captures the humanity of the character perfectly, which is the most important aspect. Batou's humanity is arguably the soul of the original film, and is used to counterbalance the Major's robot-like behavior. The rest of the cast includes a wildly strange but antagonistic Michael Pitt, and a well-utilized Takeshi Kitano. The minor characters that populate the rest of the world are mostly forgettable, but service the plot efficiently.

As for the story, it is faithful to the original in many respects. The first half of the film follows the original's plot in a broader sense. There is an unseen villain causing trouble in the city and the Major is tasked with discovering the criminal. Many of the story beats from the animation carry over to this live-action counterpart. For example, the opening scene plays out similarly to how it is depicted in the anime, with just a tad more action. Another instance is when the Major and Batou are chasing down a suspect, which climaxes in a massive but shallow pool of water. Not only is this the best scene in the film, but it is also consistent with how it appeared in the 1995 picture. The story in the first half of the film is solid in execution and similar enough to the beloved animation to still be recognized as the same property, while also throwing in its own singularities to create a different flavor of the well-known brand.

However, it is with some of these changes that Ghost in the Shell suffers its greatest drawbacks. The film adds an extra storyline concerning the Major's past in an attempt to flesh out her character. In many regards, this does work. In the original, we knew next to nothing about the Motoko, which helped to emphasize her cold nature and robotic enhancements. This film however, tries to focus more on the humanity of the character while still acknowledging her completely cybernetic body. In some respects, this does make Mira a more three dimensional character than Motoko was.

But the problems lie within the storytelling itself. Contrary to the source material, this film goes a very clichéd route with a few of its plot threads. While this 2017 remake does offer more character depth for the Major, it does come at the cost of a well-trod story. The idea that Mira's past was taken from her and that she goes on a mission to learn about who she truly is is a storyline that has been done dozens upon dozens of times. As a result, the remainder of the picture comes off as familiar, but in all the wrong ways.

The villain is another weak point. In the original movie, the antagonist was abstract in a sense. Its motivations probed at bigger existential questions about the difference between machines and humans leading to a more thought provoking product. By contrast, this modern film's criminal is much simpler, with his evil deeds being chalked up to a classic revenge tale. It is disinteresting to say the least. Furthermore, the fact that both the Major's past and the villain's story take over the second half of the movie severely downgrades the film.

Ghost in the Shell has a hefty amount of merits, but its faults severely weigh it down. The visuals are splendorous and mesmerizing; the performances from the core cast are great all around; and the first half of the film is engaging. The film falters in its second half, when its new concepts and ideas tale the helm, steering the film in a very trite direction. Though the changes from the 1995 anime do provide some positives, most of the original content works against the premise of the film, leaving this to be an enjoyable and gorgeous, but conflicted flick.

Grade: B-

"Kong: Skull Island" Review

Title: Kong: Skull Island

Directed by: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Written by: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly

Year: 2017


The original King Kong is undoubtedly one of cinema's finest achievements. The effects were well ahead of its time and the story wrapped its audience in a world of pure fantasy unlike anything before. As such, it has been remade, referenced, and parodied countless times (the price of being iconic). But this latest variation is going about things very differently. Kong: Skull Island looks to connect to a wider monster universe, which includes 2014's Godzilla and will lead up to an eventual fight between these two Goliaths. Is this film of kingly worth, or too concerned with franchise-building?

In the early 70s, a team of soldiers, explorers, and scientists band together for an expedition to an uncharted island. However, their arrival upsets the resident protector; Kong, a massive ape. But it seems that Kong might be the least of their worries, for there is a far greater danger that lies beneath the surface.

Kong: Skull Island roars onto the screen with an exciting prologue that gives the audience a little taste of the titular character before shifting its focus back to the humans. Speaking of humans, there are quite a number of them to mention. John Goodman is addicting to watch as the determined and slightly menacing believer in mythical creatures. Tom Hiddleston does great work as a notorious tracker/hunter by the name of Conrad (an obvious reference to the author of Heart of Darkness, which inspired Apocalypse Now, which in turn heavily influenced this film). Brie Larson elevates her character with a strong performance and sure-handed conviction.

Samuel L. Jackson taps into his usual routine to deliver a lovingly abhorrent villain, who is a bit deeper than a first glance would indicate. Toby Kebbel is unfortunately plain as one of the soldiers, but he delivers in another aspect of the film that I will touch upon later. John C. Reilly plays quite the risky character from a tonal point of view. He is the kooky comedic relief, which could have gone sour so easily. But Reilly is able to effortlessly make the character work and manages to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the picture.

While the performances from the ensemble cast are commendable overall, the characters themselves are quite shallow. There are a few attempts made to flesh them out a little, but they often fail to connect. The subplot involving Kebbel's character fails to resonate, and Larson's protagonist has zero characterization beyond being an anti-war photographer. The majority of the crew are cardboard cutouts with little substance to latch onto. Goodman, Jackson, and Reilly are the only ones that receive any sort of successful character development.

The lack of character depth is most likely a result of this film being a B-movie; and to its credit, the picture is fully aware of its standing. It knows that it is a big budget popcorn flick, but damn does it aim to be the best B-movie it can be by expertly using its available resources. Though lacking in character development, the interactions between the explorers are engrossing to watch due to the actors having such great chemistry; so much so, that when the second act rolls around (devoid of much action or thrills) I found myself completely engaged with the story and learning about Skull Island and its lore.

Much of that is probably due to the fact that this film is marvelous to look at. The eponymous region is wonderfully realized and brimming with imaginative concepts. The creatures that inhabit this lush environment range from enormous moss-covered oxen and towering spiders with bamboo-like legs, to a giant insect seemingly made entirely of wood (notice a common theme?). The antagonistic and questionably named skull-crawlers are the least impressive of the creatures, but serve as a credible threat and elicit a menacing presence. The set design is also top-notch, with the native village being a particular strong point.

In addition, the movie was filmed in glorious fashion, with creative, crisp framing and exquisite long shots. Kong: Skull Island has a very distinctive style that is made obvious within the first few minutes. The credits are styled like vintage camera footage and the Vietnam War was a clear inspiration, as it plays a significant role in the picture. But perhaps the best aspect is the use of color-grading. The film alternates between various striking tints, each one evoking a different mood. From grimy greens and overwhelming reds, to bodacious blues and sun-bathed yellows, Kong: Skull Island is indisputably masterful in its execution of color-grading and using it as a means to progress the story.

But now onto the main event; Kong. In order to fit into this larger monster universe, the iconic ape received a major upgrade in size. The titan gorilla now towers at a staggering 100 feet, dwarfing his predecessors. The CGI work overall is exceptional across the board, but Kong looks especially good. His movements and behavior are brought to life by Terry Notary and Toby Kebbel through performance-capture technology. They both do a fantastic job at portraying the beast. Kong's screen-time is divided evenly and appropriately, escaping both overexposure and dissatisfaction. He is the most impressive factor of the film, and rightfully so.

Kong's enormous strength is displayed in several fight scenes. There are not too many action sequences involving the oversized ape, but the ones that are present are certainly memorable. The way he "welcomes" the foreigners is both invigorating and brutal. And even when Kong is not on screen, the action surrounding the humans is equally thrilling and well-handled. But without a doubt, the climactic final battle is the main takeaway of this picture. Rather than obscure the action with a bunch of shaky close-ups, the film elects to showcase the fight almost exclusively in medium and long shots, allowing the audience to become completely enveloped and understand the scope of the situation with clarity. The concluding slobberknocker is indescribably entrancing and exhilarating., and a killer way to end the film.

Kong: Skull Island makes for ideal escapism and provides plenty of high-caliber, blockbuster action. The cast is terrific and well-rounded; the quickly paced story is more enthralling than expected; the sets and visuals are standouts; the direction is impeccably stylish; Kong is a sight to behold as well as a technical marvel; and the action is always intense and well-crafted. The characters are as hollow as the island for the most part; there are a few moments of hammy, clunky dialogue; and it is not the most poignant of films, but that does not stop the picture from being consistently entertaining. Warner Bros. seems to have gotten a foothold in establishing its monsterverse without having to dedicate this film to franchise-building. If you are in the mood for a solid action/adventure flick, Kong: Skull Island is more than up to the task.

Grade: B+

"Logan" Review

Title: Logan

Directed by: James Mangold

Written by: Scott Frank, James Mangold, and Michael Green

Year: 2017


In my opinion, the X-Men franchise has been on the upswing ever since X-Men: First Class hit theatres in 2011. I feel that First Class, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, Deadpool, and Apocalypse are all great movies and shining examples of the comic book genre. However, the latest film in the franchise, Logan, seems to be going about things very differently, presenting itself as a hard-hitting drama much like The Dark Knight did in 2008. Is Hugh Jackman's final turn as Wolverine a sharp and fitting end, or a dull stab in a new direction?

The year is 2029, and mutants are nearing extinction. Logan has aged and his healing abilities are not what they once were. He must care for a deteriorating Charles Xavier who is slowly losing his mind. However, an opportunity to escape the world arrives in the form a little girl, Laura, who is also a mutant. With an evil organization chasing after her, the trio is now on the run, with Logan having to come to terms with his own mortality.

Before I talk about the film itself, I find it absolutely necessary to mention the trailers. Logan had a perfect marketing campaign in my eyes. Both of the trailers are two of the best I have ever seen. The scenes that were shown gave you a slight taste for the film, hinting at the tone without revealing anything major. There were no title cards or text stating how important the film was with such cliché lines like "one last time" or "his true destiny." Instead, we were shown the title and the release date, allowing for the images to stand on their own. And the musical choices were nothing short of perfect, possibly being the best part of the marketing. Flawless.

As for the film itself, Logan sets out to be a depressing and heartbreaking character piece for the Wolverine, and a sendoff for Jackman. The picture sees Logan slowly dying because his adamantium skeleton is poisoning him, while also causing a degenerative effect on his natural healing factor. This is a clever way to make an otherwise immortal character vulnerable. Also important to note is that Logan is, first and foremost, a western. The way the characters are written and the themes the film deals with are all highly common in the western genre. This is made even more apparent when the 1953 classic Shane appears on the television. Logan is very much the Unforgiven of the superhero genre, with both films sharing incredibly similar traits and subverting their respective categories.

Jackman has played the titular character for 17 years now, making this his most iconic role. This picture also marks the final time Jackman will be donning the famous claws; and what a film to end with. Jackman gives the best performance I have seen from him, overflowing with emotional resonance and undisputed commitment. His passion for playing Logan truly transcends the screen and affects the audience on a deeply spiritual level. The external notion that this is Jackman's final time playing Wolverine certainly plays a part in the film, as it immediately instills a sense of sadness in your mind. Opposite him is the esteemed Patrick Stewart, reprising his role as Charles Xavier. Much like Logan, Charles is not in the best of health, succumbing to seizures that unleash his dangerous telepathic powers. Stewart gives his best performance as the professor, emphasizing the character's grief and weariness over the current situation in a devastating manner.

However, this film also introduces us to some new characters, the most notable being Laura, played by Dafne Keene. The young Keene makes her cinematic debut in stunning fashion. The character of Laura calls for an extensively physical performance, and Keene blows this qualification out of the water. Her ability to hang with such heavyweights as Jackman and Stewart and even steal the scene from them on more than a few occasions (all without saying a single word) is beyond noteworthy. Boyd Holbrook portrays the main antagonist who goes by the name of Donald Pierce. Holbrook evokes a magnetically despicable presence that plays to the character's favor. What could have been an easily forgettable villain is instead bolstered by great dialogue and a strong performance on Holbrook's part.

James Mangold, who also directed 2013's The Wolverine, is at the helm here. You can tell Mangold's storytelling was a bit restricted in The Wolverine, mainly because of the PG-13 rating. However, with Logan, the R-rating has liberated him. I am not saying that excessive gore and profane language make a good movie, but it can certainly elevate the material, and that is exactly the case with Logan. This film is brutal in its portrayal of violence and uses swears and f-bombs naturally. This all aids in enhancing the bleak mood of the story, and Mangold has crafted quite the tale.

Taking inspiration from the "Old Man Logan" series of comics, Mangold expertly paints a gritty, dystopian future where mutants are essentially an endangered species and the familiar faces have aged drastically and tragically. The setting is a character in itself, and is an excellent backdrop for the powerful character study contained within the 137 minute runtime. The film has Logan face his impending death in a decidedly complex approach. Although he is experiencing excruciating pain, he does not care whether he dies. However, he continuously struggles to protect those few that he cares about, giving his life purpose even when he seems indifferent to his fate. Logan's mortality was certainly a focal point for The Wolverine, but here it is taken to the next level, illustrating the character at his most vulnerable yet also at his most ferocious. The savagely hypnotic action sequences are perfectly juxtaposed with the slower, poignant character moments.

This movie is very much about the smaller moments. Moments like when Charles and Logan are discussing family, and the former repeatedly asks "What did you do?" or when the main trio is having dinner with newfound friends and all three are smiling (a rarity in this film) are minor scenes but muster up a massive presence. Instances like these where not much is said but so much is conveyed are abundant throughout the picture. There is definitely a hefty amount of dialogue, but Logan prioritizes visual storytelling and its characters over all else. You know you have a gripping story when the characters and plot are more impressive than the action, which is nothing shy of excellent by the way.

The film has the appropriate amount of action scenes; enough to satiate the audience, and enough so that they do not overshadow the story. The movie opens with Wolverine tearing down some thugs in cold-blooded and bloody glory, immediately setting the stage for future fights. Later on, there is a well-handled and white-knuckled car chase. But the action highlights are when Wolverine goes into berserk mode and shreds everyone in sight, especially when teaming up with the young Laura, who shares his mutation and badassery. Another aspect I wish to compliment is the variety of the action; no two sequences are alike, which helps keep the kinetic beats fresh and interesting.

This movie prides itself on its dramatic story and underlying emotions, and rightfully so. Without question, Logan is the most emotionally resonant superhero film made to date. The relationships between the characters and the tragedy visually told in the backgrounds is all masterfully evocative. Do not be fooled by the label "superhero movie" or "comic book film"; this picture is tearjerking when it wants to be. It will punch you in the gut and then twist unflinchingly. The film aims to be memorable in powerful ways, and not a single misstep is taken in achieving that goal.

One benefit of posting this review quite late is that I am able to comment on the black and white version of the film known as Logan: Noir. In short, it is even better than the original. This version is drenched in a chrome coating that emphasizes the desolate landscape and dismal tone even more than the colorized format did. The lighting also seems to receive an upgrade, being much more noticeable and more indicative of certain themes, as well as just making the film look absolutely gorgeous. Certain scenes even feel completely different despite being unchanged. This desaturated variant of the film is better in every regard, with one exception. The blood in the action sequences is not as noticeable, making them only slightly inferior to those in color when it comes to showcasing brutal violence. But I think it is a worthy compromise.

No doubt followers of mine have gotten tired of my repeated use of this phrase over the past few years, but Logan truly is one of the best superhero films ever made. Last year, I gave Captain America: Civil War the distinction of being in the top three of the genre. But I must revoke that title and award it to Logan instead. This picture has wonderfully three-dimensional characters; outstanding performances; an impactful and appropriately depressing story; beautiful cinematography and fitting music; spectacularly bloody action sequences; an ethotic presence unlike any other film within the superhero genre; and sends off Jackman and Stewart on the highest of notes. This is not only a brilliant example of what the comic book genre is capable of, but also a fantastic western in its own right. A triumphant masterpiece.

Grade: A+

"Get Out" Review

Title: Get Out

Directed by: Jordan Peele

Written by: Jordan Peele

Year: 2017


Last year, the comedy duo composed of Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele released their first feature film, Keanu. The film was meant to play to their strengths as comedians, but I found the project underwhelming as a whole. Now, Peele has branched out to create a film of his own, and this one seems far outside his wheelhouse. A horror-thriller coming from a comedian?

Chris' girlfriend Rose is taking him to her home so that he can meet her family. However, he is a little worried because he is black while she and her family are white. Upon meeting the parents, Chris feels welcomed and everything seems comfortable. However, strange things begin happening and Chris is forced to question his own safety.

Peele appears to be far outside his element given his previous body of work. However, Get Out is a well-crafted and fresh picture in an era where franchises dominate the theatre. Peele proves himself to be a more-than-capable director with streaming originality and a sure-handed vision. Every aspect of the film comes across as purposeful and does not give off the air of a debut artist. This is an exceptional outing for the freshman director, showcasing both his storytelling abilities and displaying a unique style.

Daniel Kaluuya is the lead in this movie and he is absolutely excellent. He imbues Chris with a personality that radiates from the screen, making him a very likable protagonist. Allison Williams does a great job playing Rose, and she really amps up her performance when the third act rolls around. The rest of the Armitage family is portrayed very well by a creepy Bradley Whitford, a chilling Catherine Keener, and a kooky Caleb Landry Jones. But perhaps the most memorable performance comes from Lil Rel Howery who plays Rod, Chris' friend. In the midst of all the creepiness and eeriness, he brings a sense of reality in a humorous manner. Howery is a riot and makes for an instant crowd favorite.

Get Out features a wholly original story and continues the streak of solid horror/thrillers from last year. There is an interesting mystery surrounding Rose's hometown and the people that live in it. The opening long-take immediately sets up the film's tone wonderfully, displaying a blend of comedy and tension. Moving at a brisk pace thanks to its initial intrigue, the film reveals information in bite-size pieces so as to keep the audience hooked. The movie relies more on small clues and hints than big reveals, although those are still present.

The film retains a sense of uneasiness and impending dread throughout its runtime admirably. Peele preys on the inherent fear of a situation common to most people and takes it to the next level. Every moment of levity is counterbalanced with several perturbing scenes to keep the viewer's hopefulness at bay. I think the picture's best example of this comes in the form of a game of bingo. From the first moment you can sense that something is off, from the way the game is being played and how it is shot. A little bit later, something occurs that changes how the game is perceived and is one of the movie's major focal points, turning an innocent and harmless game into something quite frightening.

The cinematography features some great examples of creative framing, and I already mentioned the awesome opening shot. Aside from that however, there is nothing really special about the camerawork. The scenes of "the sunken place" are rather simple in approach but highly effective, emanating a helpless, claustrophobic air. Music seems to be used minimally, but when present adds to the atmosphere. The opening and ending songs stand out especially because of their primal feel.

Though the story is unlike anything I have seen in a film before, I thought it was unfortunately predictable. I found myself one or two steps ahead of the story beats all the way through to the finale, which certainly lessened the bigger moments for myself. Another complaint I have against the film is the social commentary clearly present. The message itself is outlandish, though admittedly darkly humorous. But Peele feels the constant need to reaffirm this theme whenever he gets the chance, thus beating the audience over the head and detracting from the solid diegesis.

Get Out is an impressive thriller with plenty of meritable qualities. The acting is appreciable across the board; the story is entirely original and superbly engaging; the atmosphere and mood of the picture are perfectly captured and portrayed; Peele's direction is stellar; and the third act is a heart-stopping, visceral experience that needs to be seen. While I did find the plot to be predictable and telegraphed from almost the beginning and the social commentary to be overdone, I can still highly recommend this flick. Get Out is a winner and has me curious as to what Peele will do next.

Grade: A-

"The Great Wall" Review

Title: The Great Wall

Directed by: Zhang Yimou

Written by: Carlo Bernard, Doug Miro, Tony Gilroy

Year: 2017


While everyone was caught up in the controversy surrounding this picture, I found myself more intrigued by it because of the talent behind the camera. Zhang Yimou is known for producing visually stunning films. The promotional footage showed us some great imagery, but the story looked questionable. Can this film's creative aspects overcome the controversy, or is it walled in by a muddled story?

 Two Western wanderers come across the Great Wall of China and are taken prisoner by the army that guards it. However, they inform the army that there are large creatures headed towards the wall. Now, the army must fend off the ancient beasts to protect China.

Matt Damon is a world-class actor, there is no doubt. However, he is rather underwhelming in this feature. He gets the job done fine, but there are many times where it seems as if Damon is not giving it his all. Playing opposite him is Pedro Pascal, who is decidedly more emphatic. He engages with the material much more, and he and Damon have some great chemistry. Jing Tian is very compelling in this film, as her character is wary of the Western strangers and has dedicated her life to guarding the wall, never having seen the outside world. Tian works well against Damon and carries a great deal of this movie.

Andy Lau plays the strategist for the army that watches over the wall, and he does well enough to leave an impression. His character is quite cliché, in that he is at odds with Damon's character (the outsider) until he proves his worth. But Lau makes this stereotype more watchable. I had no idea that Willem Dafoe was in this film so I was taken aback when I first saw him. He portrays a quiet and mysterious character who could be friend or foe. Dafoe effectively creates an inveigling atmosphere for the character that functions well in the story.

Admittedly, the premise of this film is quite intriguing, offering an alternative purpose behind the building of the Great Wall of China. But it appeared as if the movie was not supplied with a story to go along with this idea. After having watched it, I can say that this is true. There is little plot beyond defending the wall from monsters. That would be fine if The Great Wall were aiming to be a simple popcorn flick, but it is not. There are attempts to tell meaty stories but most of them fall flat or lack substance, save for one. The picture is underscored by the theme of trust, with this topic being addressed multiple times by Damon's and Tian's characters. I feel this motif is presented surprisingly well and actually has a satisfactory pay off by the film's close.

Furthermore, the first act of this picture is actually extremely entertaining. The opening is quite suspenseful and the exchanges that occur between the Westerners and the soldiers are captivating. The first major battle that takes place at the titular location is well-helmed and enthralling. There are many creatively choreographed action beats utilized to make the fight even more engaging. It is also great to see how differently the two Westerners and the Nameless Order fight when defending the wall.

However, when the second act rolls around, the pacing comes to a grinding halt without warning. There is a long period where almost nothing significant happens. This part of the picture is filled with empty dialogue that neither builds upon nor strengthens anything. It is talking for the sake of talking. As a result, it feels as if this movie could have have been trimmed to a much shorter cut. And the third act is simply a mess. The action is not nearly as appealing because it lacks the imagination present at the beginning of the film and the viewer is not invested enough in the story to care what is at stake.

From a technical perspective, The Great Wall is a proficiently made film. The production values are exceptional and the movie looks fantastic overall. The indoor lighting is particularly impressive, as is the camerawork. There are several shots that show off the scale of the Great Wall in an appropriately epic, cinematic manner. Another feature that really stands out is the costuming. The colorful armor is hypnotically ornate, and the different colors serve a purpose within the realm of the film.

However, there is one technical aspect that does falter tremendously: the visual effects. The design of the creatures looks very original, but that means nothing if the visual effects cannot deliver. The monsters lack detail and it feels like the effects were unfinished. This is especially apparent in wide shots that showcase the entire army of beasts, where it simply looks like a blurry sea of green movement. In addition, there are some exterior shots of the wall and of China that appear very cheap, which takes the audience out of the experience.

The Great Wall is a gorgeous looking movie with a great start but a weak middle and a sloppy finish. The acting is fine for the most part; the action at the beginning is invigorating; the theme of trusting others is expressed intelligently; and the picture is artful from a visual perspective. A thin story, poor pacing, and underwhelming conclusion weigh this film down significantly, to the point where I cannot recommend watching it. It has its moments, but not many.

Grade: C

"John Wick: Chapter 2" Review

Title: John Wick: Chapter 2

Directed by: Chad Stahelski

Written by: Derek Kolstad

Year: 2017


John Wick came as a major surprise to everyone. It reinvigorated the action genre with stylized fighting techniques and proved that Keanu Reeves can still be a kick-ass lead. The first film was deceptively complex and even had a resonant emotional core. Naturally, the sequel had some high expectations to meet. Does this film fire on all cylinders, or has all the excitement been wicked away?

John Wick has completed his revenge against the Russian mob that stole his car and killed his dog in the last film, and is now seeking solace with a new dog. However, he has been forced to perform a task by someone to whom he owes a debt and finds himself thrown back into the life he wants leave behind.

Keanu Reeves brings a significant amount of emotional heft to the role of John Wick. He was endlessly watchable in the first film and the same applies here. He has a distinct manner of delivering dialogue that comes across awkwardly, but matches the character and makes him all the more menacing. The most impressive part of Reeves' performance is his commitment to the stunt-work. Reeves performed the majority of his stunts, which is not only admirable, but more rewarding for the viewer. He truly is one of the great action stars and he proves it in what might be his greatest performance.

Riccardo Scamarcio makes for a terrific villain. He is utterly despicable with a cold, relentless air surrounding him. His character is given a strong motivation and Scamarcio has a great back-and-forth dynamic with Reeves. Laurence Fishburne has but one scene in the picture, but his charismatic acting makes him more memorable than his screen time would suggest. One cast member I am glad made a return is Lance Reddick, who plays Charon, the concierge at the Continental Hotel. Reddick is delightfully professional, and his stable and cool tone of voice is such a magnificent contrast to the bloody action. I could watch an entire film about this character checking various assassins in at the hotel. Last, but not least, is Ian McShane, who reprises his role as Winston, the owner of the hotel. McShane is, once again, a great addition to the cast, and his character's relationship with John is always interesting to watch.

In the first picture, John is motivated by the death of his dog and the loss of his car. Once again, John is drawn into his old life but for different reasons. In one sense, he is forced to pay off a debt to an old friend. But in addition to this, something has been taken from him, setting him on another revenge mission. The plot points are similar enough to evoke the same feeling and tone as the first film, but different enough to have this movie stand on its own as a separate and original story. Both elements of the main plot are intriguing, as John is placed in a position he does not want to be in, but must complete his task in order to carry out his vengeance.

The action was the main selling point of the previous picture. The filmmakers have developed a newer style of fighting affectionately referred to as "gun-fu" that gives the series its own distinct identity. The graceful yet vicious combat makes a triumphant return and it is just as good if not better. The gore comes in gallons and the creative fighting combinations are always awesome to behold. There are numerous fight sequences, each one distinguishable and exhilarating, that are worth the price of admission.

Just as good as the action is the cinematography in this feature. The camerawork complements the inventive action set pieces and never resorts to cheap techniques to obscure poor stunt-work. The delicately choreographed fight scenes are given proper treatment with a camera that pulls back to showcase the full scope of the action. But what I found even more impressive was the lighting. John Wick: Chapter 2 is one of the most creatively lit films I have ever seen, with a vast variety of colors being implemented in stylish fashion. The movie hardly conforms to a realistic lighting scheme, instead preferring to imbue each scene with experimental hues that highlight the innovative action. In addition, the climax of this film takes place in a hall of mirrors, which has been a cliché for countless years. However, the cinematography is so inventive and original that it overcomes this overused setting and makes it feel fresh again.

Another little point I would like to bring up is how the franchise handles its subtitles. I absolutely adore the way subtitles are presented in these pictures. The words are flashed across the center of the screen as opposed to being relegated to the bottom portion and are embellished with a slick font. This slight touch of creativity goes a long way. As for flaws with this film, the major one I can pick out is in the ending. The film has a great conclusion, but there is a moment that defies our suspension of disbelief. Learning about this secret civilization of assassins and how they have their own services such as a hotel and cleaner has been wonderful fun. But there is a moment in the ending that goes way too far and betrays the alluring nature.

John Wick: Chapter 2 continues this new franchise with vigor and conviction. Keanu Reeves has found a role that suits him perfectly, giving what might be his best performance; the story is familiar enough to feel comfortable, but different enough to be its own work; the action is animated and stimulating; and the cinematography is outstanding. The series has established a unique world with an underground organization of professional assassins. Learning more about this world is always intriguing. There is a moment at the end that is too overblown, even for the rules laid out within the diegesis, but it does not detract from the experience too much. All in all, John Wick: Chapter 2 is a solid action flick unlike many others.

Grade: A-

"The Lego Batman Movie" Review

Title: The Lego Batman Movie

Directed by: Chris McKay

Written by: Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John                                        Whittington

Year: 2017


The Lego Movie from 2014 is one of the most surprising films I have ever seen. I thought the picture was going to be an incomprehensible mess and a cash-grab more than anything else. But the movie turned out to be a highly enjoyable comedy-adventure, backed with a great script and wonderful animation. So this time around, I was looking forward to The Lego Batman Movie. However, we have seen the atrocity that happens when you take a side character and give them their own movie (looking at you Minions). Does this continue on the strong building blocks laid out by the first film, or does it fail to click together?

After his evil plans were thwarted by the Batman once again, the Joker is dead-set on proving to the Caped Crusader that he is the hero's greatest villain. Meanwhile, Batman must come to terms with the fact that he is alone in the world and perhaps he is not as happy as he seems.

Will Arnett reprises his role as Batman from The Lego Movie and he is exceptional. This take on the Batman character embraces all the jokes and exaggerations that have surrounded him for the past few years, including his persistence at being alone and his self-absorbed personality. Arnett highlights these characteristics terrifically. Although Arnett's voice work is great, I am not a fan of the interpretation as a whole. I find this iteration consistently entertaining, but some bits about it, such as his love for beat-boxing, are a little too far-fetched for my liking. But if you liked Batman in The Lego Movie, then you will surely love him here.

Zach Galifinakis is surprisingly good as the Joker. This version of the character is more in line with the one from the early Detective Comics issues, albeit with a more modern sense of humor. Galifinakis' voice perfectly matches the character and was an unexpected high point for me. I actually think Galifinakis' Joker is better than Jared Leto's from Suicide Squad. But I found the standout character to be Robin, voiced by Michael Cera. They have made this Robin so adorably charming and an effective foil to the respective Batman. Cera's soft vocals, coupled with the character's general excitement and optimism, fuse wonderfully to produce an enticing and delightful incarnation of the Boy Wonder.

Rosario Dawson plays Barbara Gordon, and she turns out a good performance. Her banter with Arnett's Batman is frequently comical and Dawson manages to give Barbara a unique identity. Rounding out the main cast is Ralph Fiennes as Alfred, Batman's butler. His voice is remarkably suitable for the character, making the deadpan humor all the better. I still would have preferred to see Fiennes as Alfred in a live-action movie, but this will have to do. Overall, this is a solid cast and it sounds as if everyone is invested in the material and having a blast recording the dialogue.

The story itself is comedic in concept, yet it falls in line with Batman lore. The Joker is trying to convince Batman that he is his greatest adversary. This seems like a plot that would pop up in Batman: The Animated Series. This portion of the story allows the Joker to meet various characters that are more than happy to help him take over Gotham City. This half of the story is consistently engaging and offers some great side characters. I will not spoil who they are, but I will say that you should brush up on your cinematic (and television) classics.

The other half of the story, which focuses on Batman, is also good. Batman is at odds with the newly appointed commissioner, Barbara Gordon. Her methods conflict with Batman's, which causes a great deal of tension between the two. In addition, Bruce Wayne has mistakenly adopted Dick Grayson and Alfred is forcing him to spend time with the young lad. This side of the plot has Batman wrestling with his loneliness and constantly wanting to work alone. The theme stressed here is the importance of family, which is ironically fitting. It is a good message and it culminates well in the end, but I did take issue with some of the execution.

The idea of Batman being a loner has been a present concept within his most recent iterations. As such, it is bold to make the moral of this story about family, which, oddly enough, takes the character back to his roots. However, the film does beat you over the head with this virtue throughout the picture. There is a lack of subtlety, as everything is told directly to the audience. For instance, there is a moment that harkens back to a photograph presented very early in the film. The connection is clear and effective, but then the film cuts to the photograph we saw earlier to further cement the link. This type of hand-holding discredits the audience. I understand that the main demographic for this movie is children, but I would give them more credit. And if they do not comprehend it the first time, then they will certainly find something new about the picture when watching it at an older age.

If you enjoyed the style of comedy that permeated The Lego Movie, then you will feel right at home here. Much like the first film, the jokes are flying a mile a minute, and most of them stick the landing. The Lego Batman Movie will keep a grin on your face for the majority of its runtime. The film is very self-aware and knows exactly what it wants to be. The best way I can describe it is that it is a child-friendly version of Deadpool. On that note, the best jokes are when the film pokes fun at Batman's cinematic history. Viewers who are familiar with Batman's various appearances in movies will get the most out of the humor, as the film rewards the loyal fans. This movie references the shark repellent from Adam West's feature in 1966; that is how in-depth these callbacks are.

Unfortunately, the rapid humor is not balanced perfectly with the slower, more emotional moments. The Lego Movie did this very well, but in this latest installment, the pacing can slow down significantly. It also does not help that these slow moments are when the film chooses to hammer in its message with little grace. As such, the pacing as a whole is uneven and could have been bettered with a little bit more time in the editing room.

The animation is, once again, top notch. This franchise has developed a style all its own, using computer generated visuals to simulate stop motion animation. This technique adds a breath of originality to the animation genre and allows these movies to stand out. The action is especially impressive. The fight sequences and major battles are exhilarating, with so much detail thrown at the screen yet easily detectible to the eye. The film is littered with vibrant colors and polished models that are very appealing. In addition, the countless facial expressions employed with the characters is astounding.

The Lego Batman Movie serves as ideal, escapist fun. The voice cast is terrific; the plot is engrossing and strangely fitting; there is a good moral that is expressed; and the animation remains of the highest quality. The film tends to batter the audience with its message and the pacing suffers as a result (particularly when contrasted with the quick humor). Also, your enjoyment of this picture will depend on how much you liked Batman from The Lego Movie. Though I found him to be a good character, he was hardly my favorite, and there were times in this film where I thought he was a tad obnoxious. But The Lego Batman Movie makes for a good watch, no matter your age group. The flick is frequently hysterical and the numerous jokes about the Batman mythos are too good to pass up. If you are looking for a wholesome, fun time at the cinema, then this is the film for you.

Grade: B+

"A Dog's Purpose" Review

Title: A Dog's Purpose

Directed by: Lasse Hallstrom

Written by: W. Bruce Cameron, Cathryn Michon, Audrey Wells, Maya Forbes, and Wally                               Wolodarsky

Year: 2017


When I first saw the trailer for this film, I honestly thought it was a joke. A dog that reincarnates and lives different lives? Give me a break. It sounds like the sappy material you would find in a half-cooked novel. And as it turns out, the movie is in fact based on a book. A well received one I might add. As a dog-owner, I felt that I would at least be invested a small amount and decided to give this flick a chance. Is this a furry good time, or were the filmmakers barking up the wrong tree?

This film tells the story of a dog named Bailey, who grows a loving attachment to his owner, Ethan. Eventually, Bailey dies and is reincarnated as a different dog multiple times throughout the film. While living these various lives, Bailey attempts to discover his purpose in life. Based on the novel of the same name.

Josh Gad lends his voice to Bailey through his numerous incarnations, and I have to say that Gad captures the general personality that we associate with dogs. The script calls for a highly inquisitive and helpful, although not too bright, character, and Gad delivers this on every level. His intonations and highly energetic voice fit Bailey wonderfully and harken back to Doug from Up. Unfortunately, I cannot grant the same praises to the human cast. Bryce Gheisar plays Ethan at his youngest. Gheisar does a decent job, but he fails to leave a lasting impact.

KJ Apa portrays Ethan in his teenage years, alongside Britt Robertson who plays Hannah, Ethan's love interest. Both Apa and Robertson are especially bland in this feature. There seems to be a little bit of chemistry between them, particularly in their earlier scenes, but their dynamic as actors falls flat. It does not help that the script is not in their favor, with cheesy and clunky dialogue needing to be spoken. Dennis Quaid and Peggy Lipton play these two characters in their old age. Though they are slightly better, even these veteran actors cannot overcome the awful script they are forced to work with.

As I stated earlier, I found the premise of this film to be ridiculous. Now, after having watched the film, I can say that my initial suspicions were correct. This picture is burdened with an unpolished and amateur script that calls for every cliché in the book. You have the two lovers meeting at a fair, the dog eating something that someone else needs, a montage detailing the growing romance, the works. But the human dialogue is painful to listen to, which makes this film feel much longer than it actually is.

What I will say that works to this film's credit (in a sense) is the idea of the multiple lives. Though the concept is quite silly (would this not be better suited for a cat, nine lives and all?), it does provide a story that is constantly being refreshed within the film. I think the most interesting story, and the one that deserved way more time dedicated to it, was when Bailey was a police dog. However, the schtick does get old and having to watch this dog die more than once is a low-blow to the audience, but a bold one.

Sticking to a positive note, there is a great deal of humor in this film that works well. Most of the good jokes come from the misconceptions that Bailey has on life. For instance, he thinks his job as a police dog is a sort of game. One of the best moments is how the film attempts to explain why dogs chase cats; the dog is trying to teach the cat how to be a dog. It might sound strange, but it works well in the movie.

A Dog's Purpose is an incredibly muddled flick. Though Josh Gad is truly entertaining as the voice of Bailey, making the comedy in the movie functional, there are few redeeming qualities to warrant a watch. The acting is stale and bland; the script is clumsy and cliché; and the film's gimmick, though it prevents the plot from getting too boring, becomes tiresome quickly. This will probably end up being one of my shortest reviews, but there is almost nothing to talk about. The film lacks substance. I think I have figured out what the main issue with this picture is; this is a television movie that has been playing in cinemas. It has all the same trappings and trademarks as a cheap-entertainment TV special, but because it has been playing in cinemas it is being held to a higher standard. Though not an unwatchable film, A Dog's Purpose does little more than pass the time, and not in the most enjoyable of ways.

Grade: C-

"Split" Review

Title: Split

Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan

Written by: M. Night Shyamalan

Year: 2017


M. Night Shyamalan has had an infamously rocky career. He seemed to be the next great director with The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs. However, his quality as a filmmaker continued to drop with each successive film after this period. Recently he put out The Visit, which was quite well-received and many marked it as a good start for his comeback. Does this latest film return Shyamalan to his high status, or will it leave the audience divided?

Three teenage girls are abducted by a man who has Dissociative Identity Disorder. The girls do not know why they have been kidnapped, but their captor appears to have a greater purpose for them. With 23 distinct personalities living in one body, this kidnapper is completely unpredictable, and it seems that a 24th is on its way.

More than anything, Split serves as a showcase for James McAvoy's acting talent. McAvoy is absolutely captivating, giving a career-best performance as Kevin and cementing himself as one of the greatest actors working today. His ability to so fluidly shift between the different personalities simply with facial expressions is unbelievable. He is able to make the different characters incredibly distinct and evokes a different tone with each one. Barry seems like a nice enough guy, but Dennis is a cold and menacing presence. Patricia is a creepy mother-like figure, and the nine-year-old Hedwig is a wild card. If for nothing else, watch this movie for McAvoy's performance as it truly is magnificent.

Not to be overlooked though is Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey, the protagonist of the piece. Taylor-Joy is slowly crawling her way into the limelight with strong smaller roles, and I think this is the movie that will put her on the map. She gives a powerfully understated performance that escalates throughout the picture. Casey is a very well written character, too. The audience is left wondering why she acts the way she does, but as the film progresses we slowly learn more about her and it culminates in a surprising and effective way. Also good is Betty Buckley as Kevin's psychiatrist. The scenes she has with McAvoy are always interesting and Buckley brings a sense of the genuine to the movie.

The movie begins almost immediately, and by that I mean there is hardly any build-up or background to the story. The kidnapping is the first thing that occurs, and that structure works well for the film. The tension is present from the start, as is the intrigue. This picture may be deemed as an exercise in horror, but it is a thriller more than anything, and also a mystery film. The majority of the film is spent trying to uncover exactly what Kevin's personalities have planned for the girls and why he kidnapped them. This hooks the audience and holds onto their attention throughout the film's duration.

But if there is one thing this movie excels at, it is generating tension. It is as if a rubber band is being stretched at both ends with each passing minute, growing tighter and tighter, and you never know when it is going to snap. Split becomes more intense with each scene, leaving the audience short of breath until the very end when everyone can finally exhale. A lot of the suspense comes from the unpredictability of McAvoy's character. You are never sure which persona is safe to be around and the amount of surprises in the film will catch the viewer off guard.

M. Night Shyamalan's direction is immaculately appropriate for this feature. He has gone back to his roots, producing a spellbinding thriller and employing unique camera techniques. The cinematography complements the closed and narrow sets, creating a claustrophobic and tight atmosphere that transcends the silver screen. The camera will track at a sluggish pace to further draw out the tension, and there is no shortage of odd framing, evoking an air of unease. Another great feature of the cinematography is the lighting. Usually, rooms are lit by a single color or hue, thus emanating a particular mood that effectively seeps into the mind of the viewer and allows them to interpret a scene in a certain manner.

Shyamalan's decision to incorporate a hint of comedy in this movie was brilliant, as it successfully provides occasional moments of levity while simultaneously amplifying the unsettling environment. Hedwig, though a chilling and uncomfortable character, is given some gut-busting lines that strangely fit the film. In addition, the movie is slowly paced, which works for the most part because it helps to drag out the suspense. However, there are times when the story is moving too slowly. The film always had my interest, but some moments felt unnecessarily long, which faulted the pacing slightly.

While on the topic of flaws, this would be an appropriate time to bring up how exposition is handled. There are two instances where the film shamelessly speaks directly to the audience (or close to it) to provide important information. The first is when the therapist is speaking to a lecture hall about Dissociative Identity Disorder. Not only is the dialogue not furthering the plot, but it is also clearly intended for the audience. This could have been done in a more creative manner, like during one of Kevin's sessions, which they did earlier. The second time is through the use of a computer. The computer lists all of Kevin's identities in handy video formats. However, the videos are supposed to be journal entries. So then why is there only one video for each personality? Should there not be multiple? Also, the information given in these videos could have been handled much better and played a more relevant role. In the next paragraph, I will be discussing the outstanding ending to the film with spoilers in mind.

*SPOILERS AHEAD* I was not prepared for this film's conclusion, and not in the way you might think. The movie's final moments reference the events of Shyamalan's second film Unbreakable, which came out in 2000, with Bruce Willis making a cameo as his character from that picture. I did not feel comfortable reviewing this movie until I did my cinematic homework; namely, watching Unbreakable for the first time. After doing so, I can appreciate this ending much more. Shyamalan proved to be ahead of the superhero curve with Unbreakable, and now he has shown that he understands what makes a cinematic universe so enthralling. Furthermore, the ending changes the dynamic of the entire movie, prompting a re-watch almost instantly. In addition, the twist about Casey's being raped by her uncle actually saving her in the end was a master stroke of genius. And the final scene with her contemplating the thought of going back to her uncle after being "rescued" was done in expert fashion.

*SPOILER FREE* Split marks an extraordinary comeback from M. Night Shyamalan as a director. The film is endlessly thought provoking, chilling, and thrilling, never allowing the audience to take a break. James McAvoy turns out his greatest performance yet; definitely the highlight of the picture. Anya Taylor-Joy makes for a terrific protagonist and the complexity of her character enhances the story ten-fold. The cinematography elicits a suitably creepy and unnerving atmosphere and the story is magnetically engaging. The pacing can dip too far in a couple of places and the exposition does hinder the film's intentions and ingenuity, but overall, Split is a tremendous triumph. Not only is this a fantastic Shyamalan picture, but it is also a wonderful January movie, which is quite the miracle if you are unaware.

Grade: A-