Reviews

SPOILER: Let me get this out of the way: Incredibles 2 is a very enjoyable and fun film that will entertain both young and old, and you should go see it.

Having said that, I can't help but dwell on the fact that this film somehow doesn't feel as special as the original.

Perhaps it's because when I saw the first Incredibles film, I was 11 years old, and the superhero phenomenon was just beginning to gain steam (Spider-Man 2 came out in the same year, 2004). But now, I'm 25, have seen way, way more superhero films, and Incredibles 2 just feels like one more good superhero film. It's good, but the original was special, and this doesn't feel very special anymore.

Perhaps this film has been overhyped in my mind. It's been 14 years between films, a long time to wait. They even did an intro video with Brad Bird, Craig T. Nelson, Helen Hunt, and Samuel L. Jackson, saying "We get it, 14 years is a long time, but trust us, it was worth the wait."

Was it, though?

Don't get me wrong: it was very fun to see Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, Violet, Dash, and Jack Jack together on the big screen again. Plus, we got to see what happened with the Underminer!

But, this film's marketing was heavily based on Jack Jack, and the discovery of his new powers. In that, they did a good job, and Jack Jack was pretty much the best thing in the film (in a good way). However, we say this 14 years ago in the short film "Jack-Jack Attack" with babysitter Karli, and to be honest I would much rather watch that than Incredibles 2, if given the choice.

Overall, I liked this film, from its heroes to its villain, whom you see coming a mile away but it's fun to guess just how and when our heroes will figure it out and how they'll stop said villain. Nevertheless, I think this film will be more special to those who can see these films back to back with a young eye. There's plenty for parents to enjoy here too, but for those of us who were kids when the first one was released and had to wait those 14 long years, I think we should temper our expectations and just enjoy the ride (speaking of awesome rides...)

Solo A Star Wars Story had an inherent problem with its concept going into production, as do many prequels: how to show genuine stakes in Han Solo's well-being when everyone on the planet knows he has to be alive for A New Hope and beyond.

This film had a second problem, which plagues many sequels, and has been the fanboy's main complaint since Disney revived Star Wars in 2015: how to make a compelling story and not just be a bunch of tie-ins to A New Hope or the other Star Wars films that have come before.

Unfortunately, and in spite of a valiant effort on a fairly compelling screenplay and Alden Ehrinreich being much better as Han than people feared during filming, Solo falls into both sequel and prequel pitfalls.

Don't misunderstand: at the heart of this film, there is some compelling backstory for Han Solo as a character. Much like Rogue One, this film is not necessary viewing to enjoy Episodes 4 through 8 and beyond, but it is an entertaining supplement to what we already know. The main highlight of this film is the relationship between Han and Kira, played by Emilia Clarke, whom Han loved and was forced to abandon on his homeworld, only to reunite after three years and a lot of history later. Their chemistry is real, and I wouldn't mind seeing more from them.

However, besides Han and Kira, really none of the other characters in this film are given much development besides some throwaway lines. Even Han meeting and getting to know Chewbacca feels somehow rushed and one scene of actual bonding is all we really get between them, and seemingly in the next scene they are best buds. Not the best character development ever.

Finally, I won't reveal anything here, but let it be said that things get explained about Han in the dumbest wink-wink manner ever, and there are plenty of reveals, most being predictable as hell but one which is supposed to be shocking and make fanboys squeal, but me personally? It comes off as a massive WTF moment, and it killed a great portion of the goodwill this film had built up.

So in the end, is this film an utter disaster, as everyone assumed it would be after a very troubled production? No, as there are definitely things to appreciate about it. Does it match up to Rogue One, the only other modern Star Wars spin-off? Nope. For the first time in Star Wars history, where the film is either great (Empire Strikes Back) or horrendous (The Holiday Special), this may be the first true "meh" Star Wars film, and for a franchise as famous and influential as Star Wars, that's pretty disappointing.

They definitely put maximum effort into this second outing of the Merc With A Mouth.

This time around, we find Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) in the position of having to save a teenager from being killed by Cable (Josh Brolin) who has come from the future,. With the help of other mutants, Wade must form the X-Force in order to save this kid's life.

Invariably with sequels, especially comedy sequels, there are bound to be repeated riffs from the first film, and there are. However, the humor of Deadpool 2 is very unique from the first film. While both are very tongue-in-cheek, this film has many elements that work better. Whereas the first film had Deadpool for the most part on his own, this film depends on Deadpool bouncing off the supporting cast, and the results are nothing short of hilarious.

While the supporting cast suffers from a lack of any real character development, especially Domino who really would have benefited from some more backstory and increased chances at chemistry with Deadpool, this film is basically non-stop laughs. Whereas movies like Infinity War use humor to break up a serious story, Deadpool 2 uses a serious story to break up the humor, and it is a very important distinction that pays off in the long run.

I would very much recommend you see this film with an audience, as it is in the group laughter (or cringing) that a large part of the enjoyment comes with this film.

This is it, this is what everything has been building to since Iron Man first graced the screen in 2008. Thanos has come for the Infinity Stones, and it looks like not even the Avengers can stand in his way.

This film had a massive burden to carry: how to juggle the characters from the Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, and Black Panther all in one movie without them stepping on each other's toes for their time in the spotlight. Despite all the odds, the Russo Brothers actually managed to pull this feat off, with every character actually fulfilling a useful role without feeling superfluous.

Where this film shines is in the interactions between characters who have been isolated up until now, much like the first Avengers: Iron Man and Star-Lord, Doctor Strange and Spider-Man, Thor and Groot. The chemistry between these people is what binds this film together into something that even fans of only one character can enjoy among the ensemble.

What really drives the film, though, is Thanos, the man who we have only seen glimpses of in three films up until this moment. This film really strives to frame Thanos in such a way that while you can't justify his actions, you can sympathize, or at least understand, why he does what he does. Plus, it explores the relationship that was only discussed in passing in both Guardians films, namely his status as father to Gamora and Nebula. Their dynamic is among the stronger reasons why Thanoscan be considered one of the best villains of the MCU.

Where this film falters, however, is when it repeats the mistakes previous Marvel films have made. Two films come to mind when discussing this film's issues: Avengers Age of Ultron and Thor Ragnarok.

Firstly, this film is really funny. The jokes are hysterical, especially the deep callbacks to previous films and the natural way they come about. There's nothing wrong with being funny. The problem comes in, much like it did in Thor Ragnarok, when the humor ends up coming at inopportune moments and it kills the dramatic tension. This is especially bad when characters discuss immensely serious matters, and a joke come in and lingers for so long, as if to reassure the audience "hey, we're still having fun, right guys?"

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is the problem with stakes. Coming into this film, one of the big questions on everyone's minds was would one of the main characters die in this film. After all, a couple of the main actors, especially Chris Evans, have stated their run as their Marvel characters were coming to an end. And without getting into details, this is the same problem as with Age of Ultron. When the script calls for the main threat as something that will potentially destroy all of the Avengers, you know it won't happen for one basic reason: Disney wants to continue to take your money from these immensely popular films. So, they know they can't do anything too serious otherwise they risk cutting off their cash flow.

Nevertheless, despite these problems, it is worth seeing this latest Avengers film, especially for its setup of things to come. It's not the best Marvel film by a long shot, but maybe it didn't need to be.

At the heart of this adaptation of Ernest Cline's 2011 novel is a fairly simple premise: the real world sucks, but a virtual reality world called the Oasis allows people to forget about reality for a little while. For Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), that concept is enough. But there are others who want the Oasis for themselves, and still others fighting to stop them, with virtual consequences spilling out into the real world.

The mainstream appeal to this film, at least based on the advertising alone, is the nostalgia vibe that permeates this film, like so many other films and TV shows these days. And this is certainly a reference-laden film, what with the main character's vehicle of choice being a certain time machine.

However, aside from all the references is a story of a struggle between the little guy trying to keep a good thing going and maybe improve on it for the benefit of the people and an evil corporation who sees only profit in their world, and will do anything to claim the throne.

The key lies in the storytelling, and for the most part this film actually manages to tell a well-paced story that gives just enough technical details to keep you going but doesn't bog itself down in minutia. Though the film does sometimes go out of its way to indulge in a reference, most of the time sticking the landing, the fact is it comes dangerously close to going overboard in its treatment of pop culture references, especially if the same fact is repeated several times in the span of a few minutes.

The main disadvantage of this film is when it leaves the virtual world and enters reality. We as the audience bond to the virtual avatars of our main characters, and beside the villain, who we see more in the real world than the virtual, we see relatively little of our protagonists in the real world, which is a good thing sine the actors and actresses, though competent, really don't engender any lasting connection between character and viewer.

Overall, I would say this film is best appreciated on the big screen, but probably not at full price. Be prepared to do some Googling if you didn't live through the 80s.

Pacific Rim Uprising has all the hallmarks of a sequel to a film that wasn't originally meant to have a sequel, but because the original made enough money and had enough public support for a sequel, the studio didn't know exactly how to continue the story, and this is what we got.

Essentially, this film is both a second chapter to and a retread of the original. Ten years after Gypsy Danger closed the breach that the Kaiju were coming from, the son of General Stacker Pentecost, Jake (John Boyega) is forced to resume his father's work and face a renewed Kaiju threat that has the potential of wiping out the world.

At first, this film attempts to forge a new direction. There's a more jovial and self-aware tone, we see smaller, home-made Jaegers going up against the more familiar big boys, and a scrappy new protagonist who seems to have some genuine personality (Cailee Spaney as Amara Namani).

The bond that begins to develop between Jake and Amara is the one genuine highlight of this film, and it does resolve in a satisfying way. However, as Uprising turns more formulaic and relies more and more on the gags and banter of the first film, it really turns into a yawn.

Character development is even more lacking in Uprising than the original Pacific Rim. The original got away with this because it only focused on about five main characters. Uprising tries to give a sense of camaraderie between a group of Jaeger cadets, but aside from Amara, the others are entirely forgettable and interchangeable, especially when they all wear helmets.

Ultimately, this film tries too hard to recapture the lightning in the bottle that was the original, and in the end in more ways than one it comes off feeling like a bad rip-off of Independence Day: Resurgence, which was itself a bad rip-off of the original Independence Day. Best to remember what good there was in the original Pacific Rim, and leave this one to the bargain bin.

This is the one... this is the movie that will break the curse of all video game movies being terrible. So it has been said with every new video game film for the past decade or so. The last one that was supposed to be "The One" was Assassin's Creed, and it flopped badly.

This film? Well, I don't think it quite breaks the curse, but it shows there is light at the end of the tunnel.

This is, of course, a reboot/prequel to the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider films starring Angelina Jolie, themselves based on the 90s console games. It was said when the games first came out, and it holds true in this film as well: Lara Croft is basically Indiana Jones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, both Indy and Lara have a certain amount of charm in their personalities, as well as fulfilling arcs in their first outings (no pun intended for Indy there). In the case of Indy, his arc was going from a cocky and smarmy archaeologist who learns to respect what is beyond him.

In Lara's case, we see her struggling to deal with the disappearance of her father seven years earlier. She is seen as a woman trying to make an existence as far away as possible from the legacy of her name, for in order to embrace her legacy would mean declaring her father dead, so she lives in denial. However, she finds clues that lead to a message from her father that lead her to an island full of danger, both from the past and the present.

First the positives. This film actually has some fun elements to it, but the movie doesn't really hang a light on them in order to get a laugh and move on. The fun and humor feels organic and in service to the story itself, which is full of action and danger.

The action scenes in the beginning feel somewhat contrived, but are more at home once Lara reaches the island. The trailer shot of Lara leaping across the wing of a disintegrating plane wreck on a river is one of the more thrilling.

Also, our film's hero Lara does not seem invincible. She often gets bashed around significantly, and her injuries play into the film as it goes, much like John Wick and how his injuries play into the action later on.

However, that last point leads into some of the flaws with the film. While Lara does show strength in overcoming injuries at times, at other times she barely bats an eye as bullets whiz by or tunnels are disintegrating around her. This back and forth between realism and video game-ness breaks the illusion and can hamper the tension in certain scenes.

The villain too, feels underdeveloped, which is often the case in these films, but mystery is built around a hidden backer of the villain's actions who, once their identity is revealed, left me thinking "Ooookayy..." It really didn't feel earned by the build-up.

Finally, while Alicia Vikander's Lara Croft does grow on you eventually, she spends the majority of the movie in either one of two expressions: screaming and grunting in pain or blank stare. Even in emotional scenes, would it have killed her to muster up a tear or two? It felt like she lacked range, and the early parts of the movie suffer for it.

Overall, though, despite these flaws, I would say definitely go see this film in theaters. Don't make this film a flop too, because it shows genuine potential for video game movies to become better than they have been, and this progress should be encouraged.

Let's hope Rampage doesn't go the other direction.

We finally get a peek behind the curtain at the mythical Wakanda, a nation and its protector the Black Panther, that have been hinted at and built up since Age of Ultron (or even earlier, if you count the Easter egg in Iron Man 2), and while this film does not fail to provide us with great action scenes and vibrant culture scenes, as well as probably the most interesting Marvel villain since Loki in Killmonger, I can't help but feel slightly disappointed.

Don't get me wrong: every scene with Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa is near perfect, both inside the Black Panther suit and out.

His story in this film picks up a short time after the events of Captain America: Civil War, where his father King T'Chaka was killed in Vienna, and T'Challa must ascend to the throne of Wakanda. But, other forces are pushing him in a darker direction, and he must choose what kind of a king he must be.

The film shines whenever we get to see T'Challa interact with his fellow cast members. Whether it be with Forrest Whittaker's character, Zuri, an elder statesman and friend of T'Chaka, or T'Challa's sister Shuri, played beautifully by Letitia Wright, Chadwick Boseman seems to have good chemistry with just about everyone.

The film also boasts a great villain in Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger. While his performance may feel only a hair more than one-note, his character development and motivations are some of the most compelling in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Much like Loki, the conflict derives from a family connection. Unlike Loki, his cause is something you can actually see yourself supporting to some degree.

Where this film falters, at least in my view, is in the seeming lack of character development in almost anyone else in the film. Aside from T'Challa, his friend and ex-lover Nakia, played by Lupita Nyong'o, is the only one who has an easily identifiable character arc. Everyone else seems to stay in their own little bubbles, which is fine for some, but those who probably should have developed but didn't is a little frustrating.

Also lacking is the seeming paint-by-numbers of the whole thing. The action scenes are impressive and there are the occasional jokes that land almost always, but it just feels a little too self-serious in its delivery, and when it tries to be light-hearted or semi-silly (mainly the scenes with Andy Serkis's Ulysses Klaue) it's jarring to say the least, mostly because it feels very forced.

Nevertheless, this film is without a doubt a culturally important film, and true to form the Marvel Cinematic Universe has yet to produce a truly bad film. However, I still rank Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the first Iron Man ahead of this one.

The story of the Horse Soldiers, a group of twelve Special Forces soldiers who were sent into Afghanistan in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks to lay the groundwork for the Taliban's downfall, forced to ride horses against tanks and rockets, is an extraordinary tale of heroism against inconceivable odds and a proud moment in the history of our armed forces.

While this film tries, and mostly succeeds in retelling these events, there's just something off in the way the whole thing is packaged.

First off, there's the characters, mainly the three big names: Chris Hemsworth as Captain Mitch Nelson, Michael Shannon as Chief Warrant Officer Cal Spenser, and Michael Peña as Sergeant First Class Sam Diller. Their motivations and development is done only to the bare minimum, with Hemsworth being the only one with a true character arc. Of the other nine soldiers in the team, only three or four actually get their names spoken more than a couple of times throughout the film.

The main supporting character is Navid Negahban as Afghan General Dostum, who provides most of the character drive for Hemsworth's Nelson to change. He has a couple of powerful moments, but he is sopposed to be portraying one of three Afghan commanders who are fighting the Taliban, but also would fight each other if the chance arose. This conflict is only brought up in passing, though it is built up multiple times.

Then there's the main reason the story of the Horse Soldiers is so extraordinary: the fact that these twelve soldiers and a few hundred Afghan tribal warriors had to face fifty thousand Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, facing off tanks and artillery on horseback.

The battle scenes are well shot, with only a handful of scenes with excessive cuts. The final horse charge is especially well done and feels earned. However, they don't seem to convey these overwhelming odds as well as they could.

With all of this being said, this film leaves me with the same feeling that World Trade Center (2006) did. Both of these films portray events and people under extraordinary circumstances accurately, more or less, but it just feels like those involved in both films were just going through the motions, trying to replicate feelings around events that may never be able to be truly replicated.

All in all, 12 Strong is a thoroughly average depiction of extraordinary events, not bad but not great. You're probably better off reading the book on which this film is based.

If you found Lincoln to be a moving film about a great historical figure played by a respected actor doing some of his best work, with great emotional resonance at its core, then you will find the same things in Darkest Hour.

This film centers around Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill, and focuses on his first three weeks as British Prime Minister in May of 1940, when nearly the whole of Europe has been conquered by Nazi Germany, the British Army is being forced to the sea at Dunkirk, and there is the very real possibility that Britain will be left defenseless.

Oldman shines in this role, and the makeup team did great work transforming him into Churchill. Truly, he is a chameleon in any role he lands. There are great emotional stakes at work in this film, as it is made clear that Churchill is an older man who has a very particular style, and often struggles to get certain thoughts out in a coherent and convincing manner.

While props must be given to Kristen Scott Thomas who portrays Clementine Churchill, the truly standout supporting role is Lily James as Elizabeth Layton, Churchill's secretary, who often conveys great emotional weight using only her eyes and her posture. Her scenes alongside Churchill are the best in the film.

Where the film falters is in the pacing, which does tend to drag in the middle a bit. Also, if you go into this film knowing nothing about the historical context of the players involved, then certain character motivations will be left either unexplained, explained in passing, hard to hear, or explained very clunkily in an obvious manner, such as Churchill's involvement in the Gallipoli campaign in World War I.

That aside, though, you should see this film simply for Oldman's performance, which is stunning, and he is most deserving of at the very least an Oscar nomination for Best Actor.

At the end of the previous Star Wars film, we were given the ultimate tease and pseudo-promise: Luke Skywalker would train Rey to become a Jedi and she would eventually lead the Resistance against the First Order.

The Last Jedi does not take us down that path, at least not the way J.J Abrams set it up, and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is hard to figure out.

This film starts out within a day or so of the ending of The Force Awakens, and if you didn't watch that film within a day or so of seeing The Last Jedi, some things will seem a bit jarring and abrupt.

Nevertheless, the film perseveres with three main storylines: Rey, on the island with Luke, Leia and the Resistance in pursuit by the First Order, and Finn trying to find help for the Resistance.

These three storylines do tie into each other by film's end, but none really give any satisfaction or closure. Things just seem to happen, twists occur whenever the plot needs them to, and for a film that was supposed to be much darker than The Force Awakens, akin to The Empire Strikes Back, there is an awful lot of "comic" relief, and what dark subject matter there is isn't particularly dark.

I can't say that this film is bad, far from it. There are definitely some excellent plot twists in the film, great character development on the parts of Rey and Ben Solo/Kylo Ren, and it's a pleasure to hear Luke actually speak this time!

However, I can't say this film is the best in the Star Wars saga either. Somehow, it seems to just be harping the same notes as previous Star Wars films, not to the same degree as The Force Awakens, but enough to make you ask how much is actually original.

All in all, I would say that in the "definitive" ranking of the Star Wars films, this slots somewhere between Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith. Definitely check it out, but don't set your expectation so sky-high.

The original Jumanji was supposed to be a one-and-done film, even though it teased the potential for a sequel. Many voiced trepidation at the prospect of a sequel after all these years later, and after the tragic death of original star Robin Williams, there were valid concerns about whether this sequel could be both a good movie and a fitting sequel and tribute to what had come before.

I am glad to report that it fulfilled all expectations.

The film relies almost entirely on its star power, and it has that in spades with the likes of Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Karen Gillan, and Nick Jonas. Where the charm resides, though, is the actors playing against their types through the means of real-world to video game body switching: The Rock embodying a nerdy hypochondriac, Hart an all-star jock, Gillan a shy insecure reject, and perhaps most brilliant of them all, Black housing a she's-all-that pretty girl. Together our four teenage protagonists get sucked into the video game incarnation of Jumanji, a jungle land that is threatened from the typical video game threat, and our heroes must do the usual video game tasks in order to beat the game and return to the real world, all without getting killed in-game, which will get them killed in real life after three lives.

The film thematically treads the same sort of ground that other teen movies tend to cover, mainly the stereotypical high school tropes get thrust into a situation that forces them to work together to correct each other's flaws and by the end they return to their 'normal' lives as better people.

What the film does different in the body-switching is that these tropes are transferred onto adult actors, people who each have tropes of their own, and the way that each actor gets to play against their type is definitely what makes this movie so fun.

On the flipside, like a video game, the villain is very one- dimensional, and while the narrative isn't necessarily harmed by it, it does stand out as something that's lacking, wishing that the villain was more than just 'I will kill you because reasons'.

Also, the character introductions in the real world at the beginning of the film feel very forced, as in we all know they end up in the game, and the reasons they get into the situation feel very convenient, as if the writers could not find an elegant means to get these four people in the same place in front of the game console at the same time, so they just threw them all together.

These are fairly minor nitpicks, as the pace of this film is fast, it doesn't really drag at all, and while they do repeat a joke or two, it doesn't step over the line into annoying. All this makes for a very fun film, definitely worth your time this holiday season, and after once it gets released on home media.

While there's no cringe-worthy dialogue akin to Will Smith saying "So are we some kind of Suicide Squad?" but this film as a whole toes that line between awesome and passable.

This film fulfills the promise made by Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne/Batman at the end of Batman v. Superman: to bring together the other meta humans of Earth to fight a threat greater than any one of them could face alone. However, if you thought the character development of the three other heroes besides Wonder Woman was lacking in BvS' email attachments, it doesn't get much better in this film.

Yes, we see Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry/Aquaman, and he definitely rejects the lame stereotype his character has been weighed down by for decades. Yes, we get to meet Barry Allen/The Flash, and Ezra Miller does a fun take on the character to complement the job Grant Gustin has been doing on the CW show. Yes, we get to finally have a proper look at Victor Stone/Cyborg, and for Ray Fisher's first major film, he does a pretty good job.

The problem lies with the fact that this film can't shake the feeling that it's just an inferior version of The Avengers. Unlike The Avengers, though, where each main team member had its own film to flesh out their character and motivations and build towards a villain the whole while, this film came before that stage. Wonder Woman had her fantastic origin story, and Heny Cavill's Superman had his film as well, but all the other heroes have yet to be fleshed out properly, and it shows.

The action is by far the best aspect of this film. It's what I expected going in to this film, mainly great action and just enough plot for the change in scenery between fight scenes to make some sort of sense. We get that, and it's great.

The problem then comes from the plot itself, specifically the villain Steppenwolf, who is the main catalyst for the formation of the Justice League. Never mind his name alone brings to mind magic carpet rides being born to be wild, the full CGI character looks terrible for a big budget film. Plus, while his motivations are explained, barely, and full of clichés, his minions the Parademons fall into the same category as Enchantress' minions from Suicide Squad, a disposable CGI army to distract the heroes before facing the main enemy. Their creation, from the bodies of fallen enemies, holds fantastic promise but is never utilized.

In short, this film is good in that it is fan wish fulfillment done properly, and has some great character moments between action sequences. I for one can't wait to see the solo Aquaman film. How much of the witty banter throughout is due to Joss Whedon taking over for Zach Snyder we may never know, but it is a welcome addition and blends in seamlessly.

If you were let down by BvS and Suicide Squad but Wonder Woman had you crying for joy, this film will land somewhere in between. Check it out and see for yourself, but just know it's a dent in the DCEU's seemingly upward trajectory.

As with any film centered around a mystery, there's a thrill in following the evidence, trying to figure out the whodunit and the how. If you go back to it afterward, you may find a new tidbit here or there, but the original thrill is gone.

Such is the case with the latest adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel.

This is a beautiful film to look at, as are many modern films, and it is fun to immerse into the period of the 1930s, especially the details of the crime (which revolve around a case that is based on the real- life murder of Charles Lindbergh's baby in 1932), and the mystique of the Orient Express, for as one character muses, how fascinating it is to see a group of people with nothing in common but the shared need to go from one place to another, forced together, never to see each other again.

The characters, too, are interesting portraits of the many types of personas familiar to the era, with the most stereotyped personified in director Kenneth Branagh's portrayal of detective Hercules Poirot. Like the critically acclaimed 1974 adaptation of Christie's novel, this film assembles an all-star cast to fill the roles of murder suspects, including Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Judy Dench, Josh Gad, Willem Dafoe, and more.

The film expertly weaves the tapestry of the crime and the many, many red herrings that are left by the murderer, as well as Poirot's attempts to establish a motive to explain the crime. At each turn he finds links, but something eludes him until the grand reveal at the end.

However, it's that grand reveal where the film can feel a bit lackluster, especially if one already knows how the story ends, for as best as I can tell, this film does not add an new twists or surprises to the original Christie story, and when the reveal finally happens, not only does it feel somewhat underwhelming because it seemed perfectly obvious all along, but the motivations is played without a sufficient amount of weight.

That's not to say that the reveal wouldn't be powerful to someone unfamiliar with the particulars of the story, but for someone who is, this film's replay value is essentially nil.

However, this film's brilliant performances and dry wit throughout makes this film enjoyable for anyone with a taste for mystery and wonderful theater, for this film feels more like a traditional play than a film, and it's the better for it.

X-Men Apocalypse was wrong: the third film in the franchise isn't always the worst.

Thor (2010) was a perfectly doable, if average, origin film and served the purpose of introducing the character in time for The Avengers. Thor: The Dark World (2014) wasn't terrible, but it was very disappointing and bland.

Thor: Ragnarok, on the other hand, is just the kind of film to get audiences to like an Avenger other than Tony Stark or Steve Rogers.

Directed by Taika Waititi, this film gets an injection of the cosmic vibe from James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy films and uses it to go crazy and have some fun showing how bizarre the universe can be.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has had his hammer shattered by Hela, Goddess of Death (Cate Blanchett) and been banished to a world where he is enslaved and forced to fight for his survival. Now, he must assemble a team to save the people of Asgard from Hella's evil reign and the oncoming apocalypse, Ragnarok, with a little help from Hulk (Mark Ruffalo, with extra Hulk voice time for Lou Ferrigno).

As a comic book film, this checks all the correct buttons for a conflict that has serious stakes yet with enough levity to balance out the deadly threats the characters face. It genuinely feels like anything can happen, and often unexpected things do happen.

This is obviously a tonally different film from the first two Thor films, looking and feeling more like a Guardians of the Galaxy film. The fact that this is much more of a success than the first two films may mean that more levity may be in store for future Marvel films.

However, with a film with this much humor, while the majority of the jokes land on their feet, it does sometimes tend to inject a funny moment when more seriousness is required, and this can be emotionally confusing and ultimately undermining the stakes set earlier in the film.

Also, there are some major family conflicts that get introduced quickly, brushed aside for large stretches, and then barely brought up again before being forgotten an instant later. Some shattering revelations are not given the proper impact that they are due. Out of the film's weaknesses, this feels like the most disappointing, as these themes could and should have done more to balance out the film's serious-funny dynamic.

Overall, though, this film does a lot for the franchise in that for the length of a film, much like the Guardians films, the audience can largely forget about the overarching MCU timeline and events and focus on the story at hand, and while it has its deficiencies, this is still a fun film and one that will probably be the fun crescendo before the probably overly serious Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War films.

If you take a look at the best sequels out there, you'll find that they don't spend an inordinate amount of time retreading old ground at the expense of the story. Rather, a good sequel builds off of the previous film and, if done correctly, not only reinforces the previous film's themes and message, but adds upon them in a meaningful way.

Blade Runner 2049 does this correctly, and you don't even have to have seen the original to enjoy this film.

Set thirty years after the events of the original film, Blade Runner 2049 focuses on Agent K (Ryan Gosling), a replicant blade runner tasked with hunting down old models that aren't programmed like he is, namely to obey.

He stumbles upon a mystery that threatens to unravel the status quo between humans and replicants for good, and through much detective work, he finds himself in the company of Deckard (Harrison Ford), a man living alone with the demons of his past.

What the original film did was brilliant in that it explored the human condition without preaching the right answer to our faces, rather it let us ponder the questions it posed so we could come to the conclusions ourselves.

This film also poses important questions about humanity, about what qualifies as true feeling, and what the basis for a soul is, but also explores the prospects of science and human ambition, and what happens if it is left unchecked.

These themes are explored beautifully by characters on opposite sides of the spectrum, from Jared Leto as Wallace, the man who picks up the mantle of the Tyrell Corporation, to Ana de Ames as Joi, a holographic woman who is K's companion and who longs to be more than an incorporeal image.

It cannot be denied that this film is a visual masterpiece, every bit on par with Ridley Scott's original.

What faults there are lie with the length of the film (2 hours 43 minutes, and it feels it, especially towards the end) and with the music. While powerful and evocative of the original soundtrack, for every time it conveys an emotional gut punch, there's another time where it's really only there to be a loud noise, and it can get annoying at times. A little more restraint on the horns would have been appreciated.

Nevertheless, this film has everything a film buff would want, and even if that's not you, it's definitely worth a watch as an intellectual think-piece to discuss over dinner with friends.

I will admit, I don't know as much about this time in history as I feel like I should. Plus, with many "Based on a True Story" movies, it can be hard to tell sometimes what actually happened or what was compressed or exaggerated for a movie moment.

But if even half of what happened in American Made is true, then it would still be a fantastic story, and Doug Liman did an excellent job bringing it to life.

Tom Cruise plays Barry Seal, a pilot for TWA who is recruited by the CIA to take reconnaissance photos of Central American militants during the late 1970s to early 1980s. However, his life gets more interesting/dangerous/lucrative when he gets roped into working for Pablo Escobar smuggling drugs, and eventually transporting weapons to the Contras of Iran-Contra infamy.

These events play mainly as a stage setting for the story of Seal as he juggles all of these things while trying to provide a good life for his wife Lucy, played by Sarah Wright, and their children. It presents an interesting dilemma: does Lucy trust Barry, even if it means building a fantastical rich life only to have it potentially crumble away?

Indeed, Doug Liman does a great job showing the chemistry between Cruise and Wright, and in that is the film's strength.It also has fun with the narrative structure, with Seal essentially narrating his exploits through recorded tapes after the fact.

Where the film sometimes slides is when it has to stop dead and explain just who all the players are and what the significance of these events is. Sure, at first they can be funny in their presentation, and as someone who doesn't know a lot about these events it can be helpful, but it tends to interrupt a fun scene at a critical time, killing the mood a bit, and it breezes on to the the next scene without a chance to bring that mood back.

Overall, I would say that this film is a fun historical drama with plenty of good-natured humor to keep it afloat, and even if some things may not have actually happened, you don't care because everyone involved is having fun as well.

This movie feels familiar, and on two counts it is.

The Golden Circle is the sequel to the unexpected success story Kingsman: The Secret Service, which was a humorous satire of spy movie tropes with serious undertones mixed in. It knew when to be serious and when to be so serious it was funny. That, combined with some excellent cinematography, made The Secret Service a thoroughly enjoyable film.

The Golden Circle has all of these things as well, but while still fun it just comes off feeling like a lesser imitation of the original.

Which is where the second count of familiarity comes in: 2017 had another one of these sequels repeat the same formula with lesser results, namely Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Curiously, both original films (Kingsman: The Secret Service and Guardians of the Galaxy) premiered in 2014 with both sequels coming out this year.

Now, that's not to say that Guardians Vol. 2 wasn't fun, and The Golden Circle has plenty of fun as well.

The film finds the Kingsman on the receiving end of a ruthless Julianne Moore as Poppy, a leader of a drug cartel who wants all drugs to be legalized. Her leverage: her drugs will kill all of its users, of which there are hundreds of millions worldwide. With the Kingsmen's UK resources destroyed, it's up to Taron Egerton's Eggsy and Mark Strong's Merlin to team up with the Statesmen, the US intelligence service featuring Jeff Bridges's Champ, Channing Tatum's Tequila, and Halle Berry's Ginger Ale.

There are fast-paced, well-shot action scenes throughout, as with the original Kingsman, the standout being the taxi chase at the beginning. The dialogue is fun, but it hits a few sour notes along the way, especially in its parodying of a certain political figure which comes off as ham-fisted and forced.

The pacing of this film is a problem. At 2 hours 21 minutes, it definitely feels too long, especially when there are one too many big set pieces that feel like they should be the stage for the finale but end up being not.

Finally, there's a right way and a wrong way to do callbacks to the previous film in a sequel. It's OK to be overt, as long as it's balanced with other, more subtle references as well. Unfortunately, The Golden Circle tends to pound you over the head with callbacks, including literally splicing in footage from the first film in reference to characters who are supposed to be important, but for the life of me you can't possibly remember where they popped up in the first film unless you watch it right before seeing this one.

Overall, I would say that there is nothing truly objectionable about this film (although throwing in lots of F-Bombs doesn't automatically equal comedy), but this film may just serve as a reminder of a much more solid film that came before it rather than standing on its own merits.

David Leitch co-directed John Wick before directing Atomic Blonde, and based on the trailers that were released there was a definite comparison in terms of the action scenes.

I love John Wick, it's action scenes are superb and the quality of the film overall is excellent. However, if John Wick is a perfect solo violin performance, Atomic Blonde is that solo violin with a perfect concerto on top.

Seriously, aside from the obviously great action scenes, which just goes to show how it's done in terms of quality over cheap thrills, Atomic Blonde improves the one thing that holds John Wick back: its plot.

Let's face it: for all of John Wick's technical greatness, the plot was a little shallow at times. Not so for Atomic Blonde, which populates the screen with rich and layered characters even beyond Charlize Theron and James McAvoy's awesome performances. I would single out Sofia Boutella, who if you were let down by her turn as the latest Mummy, will be genuinely surprised at how compelling she can be as an actress.

The plot, in short, revolves around spy craft in Cold War Berlin, with the events framed in the week before the Berlin Wall was opened. A crucial bit of information has fallen into unwanted hands, information that would be devastating if it got out, and Theron's character Lorraine is sent in to retrieve it by any means necessary.

However, not all is as it seems, and that is as far as this summary will go, because the previews for Atomic Blonde gave very little indication as to what direction the plot would go, instead banking on the awesome action scenes. I'll admit, I went into this expecting somewhat shallow plot but great action, and I was better off for it and you will be too.

Seriously, AVOID SPOILERS before seeing this film, you will be rewarded.

If there are any faults to this film, I would have to point to the soundtrack, for while it is a great collection of '80s era songs, it almost goes into Suicide Squad-levels of overboard, at one point a new song is played every couple of minutes. Most of the times it worked, but it toed the line in spots.

Nevertheless, in the category of movies that blew my mind, just for surpassed expectations, this film rockets to the top of the list.

After seeing it, I understand completely the campaign to see this in IMAX.

For one thing, there's actually very little dialogue, so the meat of the film consists of the sights and the sounds. And they paint a pretty grim picture with some traumatizing sounds.

And that's exactly the point.

What Christopher Nolan has done is essentially recreate the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, remove most of the dialogue (as well as the gore, after all it is PG-13) crank up the soundtrack, and reverse the film so the men go into the water instead of coming out.

As a student of World War II history, I understand the situation of the men stranded on the beaches from an intellectual standpoint. What this film has done is what Saving Private Ryan did for D-Day: give the event real emotional stakes, which is what it needs.

The British have basked in the victory of the rescue of their army for decades, but here on the other side of the pond we know very little as a society, probably because no-one has made a movie about it until now.

This film has succeeded in making the disaster and the miracle come to life.

As with any film, there are things that aren't quite right. For instance, it's a good thing there's so little dialogue because almost all of it is bereft of emotion in its delivery (perhaps a commentary on the rattled nerves of the men?).

Perhaps the main oddity of this film is how it portrays events. There are three different story lines interwoven 1. The men on the beach, 2. The men on the boats (really one boat, captained by Mark Rylance's character) coming to save the men on the beach, and 3. Two British pilots, one of whom is played by Tom Hardy, protecting both the men on the beach and the men in the boat. Their stories are not shown in chronological order, and if you don't catch on to this in short order, you may be left confused for much of the film. Did it need this gimmick? You be the judge, but I'm going to say probably not.

All told, this film's take on an event that Americans know little about may be imperfect, but it is sorely needed to show the desperate situation these men faced, and we should think about the possible consequences if those 338,000 men hadn't made it off the beach.

Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar.

There's no getting around the power of his performance in this, the conclusion of the prequel Apes trilogy of films. In Rise, he portrayed the character of Caesar as a fast-maturing ape who was learning to grapple with his human side. In Dawn, we say that humanity firmly take hold after what was left of his peaceful ape habits began to fade.

Now, in War, like Darth Vader, his goodness is in constant battle with his darker side, and the result is at times chilling but also heart- warming to see the good shine through once again.

This Apes film is unique in the prequel trilogy as it mostly centers on the plight of the apes rather than the humans. In the previous two, we saw humanity as being on the short stick of its own arrogance, and the survivors learned to co-exist.

Now, humans are shown through the lens of warriors only, specifically that of the Colonel played by Woody Harrelson. While his subordinates get the obligatory expendable-soldier treatment, the Colonel is a far more complex character who, while you condemn his actions, you understand his motivations, truly the kind of villain that good writing is capable of bringing to the screen.

On the Apes side, with the exception of a couple of expendable characters with little to say about them, all of the characters we are introduced to are well fleshed-out and have interactions that contribute to the plot without needless exposition, the way it should be done.

If there are any faults to this film, aside from its length, which by the end did start to feel it once the action ended, there were the references to the original Planet of the Apes. Up front, there are three obvious ones, and of these two are very in-your-face and after the initial reference are said again and again to point it is distracting, but in a movie such as this these are minor gripes.

The original sequels to the original Planet of the Apes were less than stellar, but this capping-off of this prequel trilogy is up there as almost matching the quality of the original, sure to be remembered as a classic in the years to come.

We live in a golden age of superhero films, where we can have not only cinematic universes and iconic renditions of favorite characters, but also multiple iconic performances of the same hero.

Of course, as we well know, Spider-Man has had his up years and down years, so how does this latest visit from our friendly neighborhood web-head stack up?

Well, first off, Sam Raimi's trilogy of Spidey films defined a generation of fans, and after Tobey Maguire's brilliant performances (emo dancing not-withstanding) any actor can only succeed him, never replace. Andrew Garfield's two films, while they had their moments and he did an adequate job, just couldn't stand up to Maguire's legacy.

Now, in Tom Holland's first solo venture, we have a worthy successor.

We all wanted to see more after his brilliant introduction in Captain America: Civil War, and we got it. Set two months after the events of that film, Spider-Man: Homecoming finds Peter struggling to find his place in a world where he is considered a superhero but he's still a high school sophomore, with all the social awkwardness that comes with it.

Juggling between his high school friend Ned's incessant fanboying after he discovers Peter's secret identity (it was in the trailers), his neighborhood crime fighting turned serious with the appearance of Michael Keaton as Vulture, and his quest to gain approval in the eyes of Tony Stark, Peter Parker has his hands full, and he barely holds it together for most of it until finally things come to a head and we get what we all want from a Marvel film with the added bonus of it being a good Spider-Man movie.

It's only been twelve years since the last really good one!

In short, this film delivers on the patented MCU formula well, with a few twists. Mainly, that this is sort of an origin story without it being an origin story, and it doesn't rely heavily on any characters that were established in previous films other than Parker. Indeed, Tony Stark only appears in three scenes that lasted no more than ten minutes total.

While this film does have issues, mainly the fact that twists are fairly clearly telegraphed and some of the dialogue that is supposed to be purposefully on the nose for comedic value falls flat, they are minor compared to the overall product.

Spider-Man is back, and he is here to stay for a good while longer!

The Mummy has gone through some different phases during its lifetime, from its humble horror roots in the 1930s with Boris Karloff to its campy fun thrill ride with Brendan Fraser.

Now comes Tom Cruise to usher The Mummy into a new era, and for a film that's supposed to kick-off the Dark Universe, a cinematic universe of classic monster icons, it could easily have been a disaster, a just reward for Universal's presumptuousness for thinking it could match the likes of Marvel for cinematic universe-building.

Instead, while it's not without its flaws, The Mummy has some interesting twists and turns that make me want to see how they develop it from this point forward.

In the latest re-brand of the classic franchise, Tom Cruise plays the dapper Nick Morton, an Army reconnaissance officer with treasure- hunting ambitions, dragging along his sidekick Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) into a dubious plan to raid an Iraqi village swarming with insurgents of its antiquities.

What they discover is nothing anyone expected: the long-lost tomb of Amonet (Sofia Boutella), an ancient princess robbed of her birthright who sold her soul to the Egyptian devil and lives again to wreak havoc on a modern world.

On the surface, this film seems to be cliché after cliché, with the usual casual banter between the lead action hero and a love interest with not a whole lot to do (Annabelle Wallis filling this role) and random undead beings chasing our hero from one set piece to another.

However, this film shines in what fills the space in between clichés, such as the inevitable comic relief, Jack Johnson's Vail, who pops in now and again to provide good-natured humor without overstaying his welcome. Also, Ruseel Crowe's character, the head of a secret organization protecting the world from supernatural threats, fills a cliché but provides an interesting preview of what is to come (I can't give his character name, as it would spoil the surprise).

Most importantly, Sofia Boutella's re-imagined Mummy, while fulfilling cliché monster badness, adds a certain amount of depth to her performance that propels this movie in ways that you may not expect, or if you do then at least in a manner that's satisfying rather than eye-roll worthy.

Finally, it's the promise of what can be that makes this film so intriguing. Going into this film, I was skeptical as to whether or not this film could deliver on the same caliber as Iron Man for launching a cinematic universe. Now, I am intrigued by how they are going to deliver on all the teasing they do in one sequence through a vault of artifacts (also, be on the look-out for a blink-and-you-miss-it Easter egg to a previous Mummy film at about the half-way point).

It's not a great film, especially given its propensity for huge time- jumps that have to be explained with fragmented dialogue as to what happened during thousands of years-worth of history.

Nevertheless, The Mummy is a satisfactory launch of the Dark Universe, and I am curious for more.

If we were to rank all of the modern superhero movies, and by that I mean starting with 2000's X-Men, which was the first true modern superhero movie after the glory days of Tim Burton's Batman and Christopher Reeve's Superman, number one would probably have to be The Dark Knight, followed closely by Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Wonder Woman would be third on that list, and since we live in an age overflowing with superhero films, third place is nothing to be ashamed of.

This film is, in a word, epic. Not in the same way as a film like Lord of the Rings is epic, with large scope and breathtaking battle scenes. Rather, its epic feel comes from the great performances and sheer raw emotion Gal Gadot conveys as the titular heroine Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman.

The film takes place as a flashback, beginning with Diana being sent a photo sometime after the events of Batman v. Superman from Bruce Wayne, a photo teased in that previous film, and brings us to Diana's childhood on the island of the Amazons, guardians of the world tasked with one day defeating Ares, the god of war, should he ever return.

One day, Diana sees a plane crash off the shores of her island. The pilot, Steve Trevor, played excellently by Chris Pine, informs Diana of the war going on in Europe, the War to End All Wars aka World War I.

She then embarks on her quest to fulfill her people's mission, for she believes Ares has returned and is at the heart of this war, and if she defeats him, the war will end. Thus begins her transformation into the heroine that would be known as Wonder Woman.

This film had a lot riding on it, mainly because the DC Extended Universe has had to play catch-up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe for the past four years, with Marvel having a five year head start (Iron Man came out in 2008, whereas Man of Steel, the DCEU's first film, came out in 2013).

Therefore, it's all the more impressive that a cinematic universe still in its infancy, and after the relative disappointments of Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad, can produce such a strong origin story of a superhero that many may not know too much about.

Where this movie shines is the chemistry between Gadot and Pine, and the levity that comes from misunderstandings, a common comedic trope but it feels so genuine between these two that it feels fresh.

Also, props to Hans Zimmer, who, while not composing the score for this film, made the unofficial Wonder Woman theme (refer to "Is She With You?" from the Batman v. Superman soundtrack). Whenever it plays in this film, it sends chills down my spine because that means something bad-ass is going to go down. Way to go!

Where this movie may falter is in the inevitable comparisons. There's no getting around the fact that this film, for all of its great qualities, bears much resemblance to Captain America: The First Avenger, due to its period setting origin story, among other things.

Nevertheless, this film is a testament to what the DCEU can be, and I can only hope that Justice League lives up the the very, VERY high standard Wonder Woman has now set.

It can be said that there hasn't been a truly good Pirates of the Caribbean film since the first one, The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Dead Men Tell No Tales is probably the next good Pirates film, but much like Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it probably owes many of its good elements from the first film of its franchise.

Indeed, in this fifth adventure of Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp, both current and a surprisingly effective de-aged version) we once again return to the well of an undead sea crew and a captain with a personal grudge against Sparrow (played by Javier Bardem, but not quite as menacingly as Geoffrey Rush's first time as Barbossa).

Much like the first film, Jack Sparrow is found rather down on his luck, and he must be rescued from the executioner by a Turner (this time the grown son of Orlando Bloom's William Turner) and seek a mystical artifact which will solve everyone's problems.

Let's set one thing in stone: this is definitely not the worst film in the Pirates franchise.

There are many great aspects of this film, mainly stemming from the fact that this is more or less an adventure film with not too much emphasis put on the made-up rules of the mystical elements of the story.

While Depp's Jack Sparrow is still the main man of the film, his role is significantly curtailed with the elements of Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar's motivations and the budding romance of Turner and Carina Smith, played by Kaya Scodelario.

The problems with this film, however, stems from the fact that these two elements take too much of the film away from Depp. He tends to fade into the background while we learn about Salazar's backstory, which has a few cool Easter eggs, but not much substance, and the romance with Turner and Carina feels very, very forced.

All told, even some well-placed innuendo isn't enough to take away from the fact that while this film is a return to form, almost as satisfying when the credits roll (don't forget the tantalizing post- credit sequence) as the first film, but 14 years later, the Curse of the Black Pearl is still king, and this film does not displace it.

Still, this film will definitely leave you with enough of a smile on your face to make the price of admission worth it.