Reviews

If the recent bout of comedies has taught me something, it's that a movie can be funny, good (on its merits minus the comedy), have a likable cast... but if the promotional marketing doesn't entice you in believing that the comedy has at least two of those three, then it's unlikely to gain any traction or attention. Because we were graced with a red band trailer, we would know exactly what kind of comedy it would provide. The plot felt basic enough to not expect Academy-level storytelling, so it is all up to that cast. We have dogs. Do you love dogs? Combined with the comedy, this may be just the movie for you.

I don't want to oversell things too much, as what you see in the red band trailer is the kind of comedy that you get. Jokes are surface level with sex, drugs, and plenty of foul language, mixed with plenty of dog antics. You might not laugh the hardest you've ever laughed, but it just makes sure that you laugh enough plenty of times. Jokes aren't ever cringy, just crude/try-hard enough to keep the smiles permeating. Somewhere is a PG-rated version of this that could exist, and I don't know if it would bring enough "laughs" or "good story" with the love of dogs to bring in the masses, so clearly Lord & Miller knew their selling point was to bring on the filthy.

The sell for me however was the dogs. I know that if we had the choice to hear dogs' thoughts we'd prefer not to, but we have ways of communicating for them ourselves and this movie does exactly that. Because they do, for dog owners and dog lovers out there, this can bring certain emotions that'll make you want to go home, hug your dog, and reassure them that they the greatest joy of your life. For all of the moments that bring you levity, somewhere Sarah McLachlan may be lurking around in your mind singing "Angel" and reminding you that dogs (and many other domesticated animals) tell us everything about what they're feeling without saying a word, and a raunchy slapstick comedy such as this one does so easily in about 90 minutes.

I never saw The Adventures of Milo and Otis or the live-action version of Lady and the Tramp, and I fast-forward through those other dog food commercials where they use CGI to open their mouths, but color me amazed when you have a film with animals as the stars. Half of the time I was watching, I sat there wondering how they achieved the shots that they wanted. It's quite adorable to think of these dogs as a cast of actors and they are trained to do certain things on command when the word "action" is called; in fact, this brings me back to feeling bad for some of the pooches when you put a funnel on them or shove them off of a couch for the sake of our entertainment. There are times where I'm sure they use visual effects trickery outside of mouth movement, but for the most part it seems you are seeing real dogs do real action. Speaking of which, I almost feel there would be a unique innocence if they didn't bother to move their mouths, so they speak more in "thought" than anything else. I think it would've worked just fine to anthropomorphize them a little less. That's neither here nor there, but it would save them on budget if they gave it a shot and it should still have good effect.

Will Ferrell was in where I find him best: portraying a fish-out-of-water character. In this case, a dog being a stray for the first time. Jamie Foxx was hilarious, but Randall Park as Hunter was my favorite and will probably be the most for others as well. Rob Riggle seems like an obvious choice to voice a dog but I felt his was a little more out of place, though he's not in it much to matter. Will Forte plays our main human character, and is the perfect jackass to motivate our strays. In fact, any time humans were around they really did help bring together that wholesome touch that remind us about the connection that makes dogs special as our best friends. This movie isn't written with tons of heart in mind, but in its very own nature you will find it if you care for our canine comrades as much as I do.

To bring it all together, it's funny enough without splitting your sides and cheats by throwing animals in your face as the cast, and yet because it is short and simple it is effective. They could've contained themselves more on the R-rating, but they have my blessing as a comedy if they think it'll make the audience laugh. This works, and I enjoyed myself.

That lasted 169 minutes? I had no idea. The time just flew right by.

Chad Stahelski does not pull any punches (or engage the safety) at any time in this gun-fu epic. Combat scenes are not moments so much as they are entire acts. The amount of stunt choreography that everybody had to synchronize to was rather incredible, and they continue to find more ways to entertain us with kills, kill types, use of weapons, locations, teamwork, etc. I caught myself smiling for minutes on end several times while watching it.

Of course though, as I said, they really lean into it. I'm sure this has been true of previous films as well, but it is very apparent that John Wick should virtually die in every scene that he is in. Whether it is how he is attacked or how they fail to attack him at the right times, he goes at every foe like the bear in The Revenant with full adrenaline and no signs of slowing down no matter what he is hit by. And again, I think if you look hard enough you will find enemies who have clear shots and choose not to take them because of plot armor, but you can forgive it enough if you're rewarded with a longer take or overall longer action sequence. What I really loved was how many of these scenes took place at night with dazzlingly lit environments all around, and the music in every scene kicks as much *** as what you see on screen. I had pondered over why John Wick doesn't have a video game yet, but if they ever make one I have decided I'd like one of those top-down shooter games (similar to The Hong Kong Massacre, and if not maybe like the GTA:SA MP rampage style).

I acknowledge this franchise for what it is now, but I still pine for some of the missing components that I don't know if it'll ever be able to bring back. After watching John Wick, fun as it was, I found myself interested in seeing a prequel when he was the Baba Yaga in his prime, taking missions rather than being hunted. Even still, at least in that movie he was absolutely feared. In Chapter 2, I still found him heavily respected, but it was in that movie that I realized there would probably be a repetitive formula to the narrative and movie/action structure (which still has yet to break). In Chapter 3, there only lived assassins and they would go after him without hesitation, which did is not how I felt the world breathed the first time around. They continue down this path in Chapter 4, while opening the universe more to different characters breeding their own kind of loyalty. They are all insanely fun to watch, and you see the cogwheels of the John Wick universe spinning with the future Continental television show and the Ballerina movie spinoff. Where they remain faulty though is even with the existence of civilians during fight scenes, they act as droning NPC's like nothing is happening around them, or they aren't there whatsoever. It is clear that this is not our world that this movie takes place in, but rather a parallel one.

I mentioned the introduction of new characters in this world, and you can't not bring up Donnie Yen when talking about them. He steals each and every scene that he is in, and it's crazy because you wonder how a character like his could thrive in such a world but you absolutely believe it when you watch it. I will absolutely take more of him and Rina Sawayama. She isn't featured as much, but she makes use of every second that she is in front of the camera. There are plenty of others (such as the great Hiroyuki Sanada), but the point remains that Wick is relegated to this greater universe with characters who-good, bad, or for themselves-are ones we can actually root for in any fight. Keanu Reeves is understandably less nimble at his age than the others (and it's either bad acting or he really has taken on this John Wick role in his line delivery to hilarious new heights), but he and Stahelski have found a groove that still makes him the most impenetrable force around, to the point that I go back and watch the action scenes in The Matrix Resurrections and wonder what happened there. I didn't love one particular character in their big fighting moment(s), but they go for versatility and I have to give them that much.

March has had an incredible run of theatrical films, and John Wick: Chapter 4 is no different. You will lean forward during the action which there is plenty, and if I'm one to go off of you will not feel the runtime. There is an end credits scene as well if you're able to stay for a moment longer. I would love to go back and see this one again.

Scream VI moved far away from Woodsboro and into New York City, which really opened up the world in many ways. Yes, Scream 3 took place in Los Angeles, but even then it still had a "You can take the movie out of Woodsboro but can't take Woodsboro out of the movie" vibe with it, likely because Wes Craven remained in the director's chair. With Scream (2022) being directed by new folks, you felt the aesthetic difference but it still had Woodsboro as one of the stars, so now removing it also displaces that attachment we had for so long.

This movie is also completely absent of Sidney and Dewey, though it had Gale Weathers in spades. I know that Neve Campbell was out for contract negotiation purposes, but kind of like Creed III and the Rocky character I believe that peppering her in for the sake of it would've taken away from the two-hour film that they wrote in the first place, adding her just because they could. Money aside, it's perhaps the only way that fans weren't serviced this time around, and for that I say fine. I do expect her to return for the next film though, especially if it ends up being the final film.

The meta commentary this time around is about movie franchises, and one aspect of that includes subverting expectations. While watching it I didn't think they did this a lot, but upon my reflection I realized they kind of did it in one big way where perhaps one could fault the movie for it until they realize that was the subversion all along. There is a bit of an incompleteness to this aspect though, and I'll reserve judgment as to whether it was a good or bad decision for when the seventh film will come around. A lot of the rules sounded a bit like a mesh of what Scream 2 and 3 offered though, and a lot of Scream VI had narrative feels to Scream 2, which absolutely makes sense being the sequel to the requel. Since Scream 2 is my favorite of the franchise, I wasn't mad.

There was also something introduced in Scream (2022) which was fresh, neat, and worth developing for anything that comes afterward. It is a majorly explored theme in this movie and I'm glad that they did not shy away from it, but I do not think it developed too much. This is where the ambition seems to be more in practice rather than execution, kind of like a dunk contest where you know the athlete has the ability to do that big one with the potential chance of failure it but plays safe for now with some other cool flashy dunks. Because there are more sequels along the way and I don't know if it will land if they go for it, I'm just glad that they didn't abandon it and will give them the benefit of the doubt for putting it on reservation.

The Scream films have a lot of things going for them in the entertainment department including kills, comedy, and mystery that is shrouded up until its reveal as you play guessing games the entire time. As far as kills go, many are great but many don't linger too long. There isn't necessarily a problem with any character being safe (as one of the rules states), but I think people will find a line where what used to be mortal wounds may not be the case anymore, and this movie can tiptoe that line if not cross it. Even still, they are unflinching in who they want to kill and/or how, and I am all for it. I think this movie had an overall very serious tone, but when sprinkling comedic relief it worked quite well. I tend to laugh more than other audience members though and this was no exception, but the writers know how to engage us at the right time and remind us that we are in the Scream universe.

As far as the mystery goes, just remember that it is one thing to guess who it is, and another to nail the motive, or at least piece together how Radio Silence left clues leading up to the reveal. Clearly anybody shown on screen beforehand is a suspect so if you point a finger at the right time then you have a shot, but I don't think you get all of the credit unless you can get the other two parts. Even though I had a light suspicion confirmed because of what led up to it, enough was thrown at me otherwise to get off the trail and forget my earlier curiosities, and I absolutely did not line up the motive until it was revealed (looking back I probably shouldn't have missed it). It certainly wasn't my favorite reveal of the six films initially, but the motive helped alleviate things to say that it worked better for me than Scream (2022).

I mentioned that this movie is separated from the other films by not having its main character or location, so how did they fill that two-hour runtime? With the core four (their term, not mine) of Sam, Tara, Mindy, and Chad from the previous film, and although I haven't re-read my review I know that one problem I had with that movie was that I led myself to believe Tara (Jenna Ortega) was going to be the star until they literally said out loud that it was Sam (Melissa Barrera), and I found Tara way more interesting than Sam in the movie so it felt a little disjointed. It seems that I am not alone in this matter. Now that Ortega is basically the new "it" girl replacing Anya Taylor-Joy or Florence Pugh in some respects, it would have been a shame for all audiences if she didn't get more screen time and things to do, but it would've been a slap in the face to rewrite their lead and throw Sam under the bus meanwhile. What they decided to do was excellent: developed Sam to be much more interesting and brought Tara alongside her for equal billing. Everybody wins, and I like Sam much more than I did in the last film.

Chad and Mindy also seemed to earn that core four status and are hopefuls to survive when watching this. Many new characters felt expendable without too much struggle, so with that I'm leaning on not introducing too many in the next movie with some they can choose from who survived this time (which of course includes bringing back Sidney). I have thoughts on where they can go with it, but I'll let them choose and I'll be open to any creative decisions. This franchise could have gone stale a long time ago (and for many it already has), but I like what they throw into the mix when I know I couldn't do any better, so I have to give them credit for that.

Chase scenes were brought back. That is a very general term though, as I don't just mean running away from Ghostface in the heat of the moment. I mean a set piece that is introduced, lingers, and with the combination of a slow-burn pursuit or a phone call against the fantastic Roger L. Jackson GF voice, takes its time for a kill to happen or be eluded. I certainly can name two scenes that I would've edited down for time and unfortunately they are in these chase scenes, but only by a minute at most. Going long the other way in response to not really having any of this in the last movie almost seemed appropriate, and it is a staple in the franchise that badly needed to return.

For better or worse, Scream VI falls victim to a lot of fan service, and I am referring to the Reddit crowd. Sometimes it is by giving them what they have asked for, and sometimes it is by actually responding to criticisms or theories, perhaps even by confirming/debunking them in dialogue. The trailer (which I did not watch beforehand) shows some of the fanfiction upfront, and of course the great thing about a franchise like this is that it has a meta commentary of the characters being fans of their own Stab movie franchise so it doesn't feel out of place. Even still, it is not something you would have seen penned by Kevin Williamson or shot by Wes Craven, so if you align Scream (1996) with this movie there is a massive disparity in its evolution, or devolution as some would put it. If Scream wasn't so self-aware this would definitely be a movie that has jumped the shark at this point. I get why they can do it here and even without watching the trailer I buy it, but much of it still feels like fanfiction.

I think the servicing, subversions, reveal, and omission of Sidney are the four biggest negatives moviegoers will bring up about this movie, or at least those who like the previous films and have an expectation for liking this one. I rank Scream VI high up the list after a first-time viewing, very much nearing the first film. I do think I have to see what the next sequel does to cement its ranking better (currently 2, 1, 6, 5, 4, 3) because there are parts here and there that are not yet complete from a storytelling perspective, but this was a good time at the theater and I will be seeing it again before it hits UHD. The horror genre is alive and well, this franchise thrives in the slasher subgenre and continues picking up momentum, and whether you love or hate it I think you can respect its existence as a recognizable IP that can keep strong for six films (and a TV series) where most everybody will pine for #7. The best part is they have the hottest name in the world right now, I believe they have a clear direction on where they want to go, and outside of negotiating with Campbell they can get the next one out cheaply and quickly. Bring it.

Aneesh Chaganty (original film's writer/director) did not return to the chair or for the screenplay, but he did co-create the story and editors for Chaganty's two other feature films co-wrote/directed this screencast of a flick. To the unaware, everything on screen has to be created completely from scratch which is impressive in its own right, but to make it flow into an engaging film is something else entirely and they have been two-for-two so far.

On top of this, I think the editing/dynamic showed a lot of lessons learned from the first film, and the story better complemented these aspects as well. For one, the supporting actors were much better than the first film (whether on screen or just on call). For another, Searching centers around a dad computer surfing in a fish-out-of-water way, which although was funny it was good to watch a teenager do it this time around and know what she was doing every step of the way. It made the pacing more frantic for sure, but it allowed more things to happen overall.

They also kept a score in the film, knowing this isn't a completely found footage kind of concept and embrace a lot of the cinematic elements that they can throw in. I'm wishy-washy on this, because as these films provide a lot of verisimilitude you can lose some of it when they remind you that you're watching a movie. I felt like keeping the score in made some moments feel less "realistic," but it definitely kept things pretty intense as well. I think this was definitely more intense than Searching overall, but again it may have been at the cost of overall realism as they had to reach for certain plot points at times.

What is nice about these films is every answer can be found if you look hard enough. It is great attention to care and detail that not every mystery film does, but since these are completely created from scratch these films pre-plan it out very well.

So far I can easily claim this as my favorite film of 2023! I won't say the novelty has worn off seeing this style of film again though, and I will watch these as often as they make them... but for Searching to do it the first time (despite the fact that Unfriended already existed) as well as they did does speak for something that perhaps Missing didn't replicate fully. Both of them contain a great emotional core though and are very engaging watches, and whether or not you see Searching first I highly recommend that you give Missing a shot! (unless you didn't like Searching, in which case you can skip out on it, as this does not break any new ground)

Let me preface this by saying that I don't really love any of the other Thor movies. Ragnarok was actually a massive misstep for me. The slapstick comedy made me eyeroll almost every time out, not at all fitting any progressive tone from the previous Thor or Avengers movies before it. After loving Jojo Rabbit, I thought that every Taika Waititi product that I didn't enjoy was some exception to his excellence, but I shortly discovered that that was the only film I did care to love from him. I started to give up hope, especially after hearing Love and Thunder only adds to the silliness that Ragnarok had.

I'm here to say that the comedy this time around wasn't as maddening for me. Some of it was legitimately funny or at least served a courteous chuckle; it never interfered with the action, the villain, or serious moments; and I think the majority of jokes that fell flat passed by so quickly that I wouldn't even realize it was an attempt at humor unless somebody said it was supposed to be funny (which is never good, but it's better if it goes without a hitch). The Zeus scene was admittedly worst than the Ragnarok levels of 'bad' and really brought the movie down during the time, but thankfully that was the only time that I really felt the brunt end of failed comedy. There were two other running gags during the film -- one involving certain animals which I laughed at the more they appeared, and the other involving weapons which really didn't work except the first time it happened. They even repeat a bit from Ragnarok that I thought worked more this time around simply because it took place on Earth instead of Asgard. Upon re-reading my own paragraph I feel like I may be giving this movie more credit in its humor than I feel it's owed, but I feel this is all relative when I say: "At least it's not as bad as expected or as previously established." I can't see how somebody who loved Ragnarok is only now going to be upset at the knockabout that this movie at times can be.

Love and Thunder introduces Jane as Mighty Thor, and although it was great to see Natalie Portman return, the dichotomy between her two selves with no in-between was very jarring. I guess in a two-hour runtime you have to accept these little nuances to be skipped time to time and she isn't the only character to undergo an immediate change like this, but if you're coming off the Phase One MCU character of Jane who you remember you would never believe she would evolve this persona. I guess that's what happens when your character lives on as you take a hiatus from the universe as an actress, though. Regardless, this story is very Jane-centric and I think it is something that Ragnarok was dearly missing. She helps complete Thor, or at least for a life that Thor pines for. There is a backstory montage showing a relationship between Thor and Jane (almost in an "never before seen footage" kind of way) that displayed more chemistry between them than either Thor or The Dark World bothered to give off. Like I said, very heartfelt.

This actually is a good transition to Gorr, because his origins are also derived from the love of another as well. This movie does that thing that the show House M. D. did (where a patient with a certain quirk delivered thematically for the doctors in the episode), so what was happening with Thor was also happening with Gorr regarding their attachment to the loved ones in their lives. It doesn't play like this for the whole movie, but it is still a present theme. Christian Bale is really good, but I'm not sure if he has enough moments to show this. He both frontends and bookends the film very strongly and shows up here and there with shadowy minions, and he is absolutely a dominant presence every time he is on screen, but I definitely could have had more of him. He is never served as cannon fodder for Waititi's comedy, so his scenes are always serious and impactful. His monologues are very captivating and will get a lot of clicks on YouTube, and the action set pieces with him are very diverse and engaging.

I'll restate that Thor never really was my favorite, and unfortunately it could be because he isn't Earthbound. Any time this character is off of our planet, losing that grounded aspect really takes away from it all for me. Never before had I imagined after seeing the first Iron Man film that we would get to a point where we'd have rainbow bridges and rock-bodied aliens, and that can be detracting for me. That said, the Earth scenes here once again grabbed me most (as well as the scenes with the colorless portrayal, you'll know when you get to it) and the off-world stuff did not (especially once again the Zeus scene). When Asgard was destroyed in Ragnarok I thought that was the best thing that could happen to this franchise if it meant more Earth scenes. There are some scenes away from Earth with nice grounded conversation, and these are the moments that almost reminded me of what Jojo Rabbit did so well. Valkyrie was also normalized a lot in this movie and I dug her every time she was on screen because of it.

Despite some of the cringe that was afoot, I had a good time with this sequel. Given that I do not relatively enjoy the Thor films as much as many of the other MCU films, I can easily put this above the other three myself. It was a visual delight, the music was well done, the actors all gave good performances, and characters had solid arcs to play out. Furthermore, I like that it was two hours and they didn't needlessly add in other characters which didn't fit this story, even if they were a part of previous Thor films. I won't say this movie completely fuses the humor to my liking for this character, but the movie itself is the best/most entertaining of Thor that I have seen so I suppose I am accepting of it.

I have to be careful when I call The Black Phone "horror," because it certainly wasn't all that scary. The situation was certainly horrifying, as was Handsome Hawke's performance as The Grabber, but I don't think this ranks among other horror films that are genuinely unsettling. Nevertheless, it is very captivating. There are clear protagonists and antagonists, and my want as an audience member for the protagonists to prosper and the antagonists to falter are delivered effectively. This is done by taking time in the first act of the film to lay the groundwork with the characters, setting, mystique, and having a great cast.

Speaking of which, the child actors in this are phenomenal. They get the most screen time, and they could have really ruined the film with bad deliveries or general annoyances that can come with the demand of an R-rated, adult-themed movie, and in the 1970s no less. They really had to understand their element, and the main brother and sister had to show us their chemistry not just when together but also when apart. They had a lot to work with, and lived up to their roles. This was of course complemented by Hawke's first ever villain role, portrayed very obscurely yet charismatically (not theatrical like V, but not animalistic like Leatherface). You're not ever really knowing what he's thinking, what he'll do next, or why/when he'll decide to wear different masks or illicit a new kind of conversation. They could have gone deeper into it narratively, and restraining from it let the acting play first fiddle. Because of this being a strength in the film, I'd say this was the right choice.

I mentioned the first act being a lot of setup, and for someone who didn't see trailers or read a plot synopsis I was confused what kind of movie we were going to get. Things could feel a little disjointed when we would go directly from upbeat 70s music to a chilling score, or from dark and heavy thematic elements to campy one-liners from children. There are also a lot of characters introduced and questions of what subplots may be of use once the main plot takes course. Even more so, I didn't know why the movie had its title for quite a while. However, one thing they did well compared to Sinister was they let us know slightly early on that there would be some supernatural happenings going on, and it allowed you to buy in with and suspend disbelief for in a very natural way. Not only that, but this movie doesn't work without those elements in place, whereas I'm going to spend some of my summer finishing my Sinister editing project that removes all the supernatural elements and works better without them. The Black Phone carefully lays all the pieces of events before them and I think most of them are paid off, but definitely not all of them. There was also one thing that I buried my head in my hand for thinking about for like five minutes, wondering if they were giving us a foreshadowing clue; turns out it wasn't even a red herring, and was just something that I stupidly was giving more meaning to than was ever intended.

I do want to nitpick on two things that this movie (and many movies) botch on a filmmaking level. One is a baseball scene that makes you question whether they even watch the sport with the way that the shots are composed, and another is that classroom trope where the bell rings as the teacher is teaching like they had thirty seconds to deliver a lesson and weren't aware they needed to wrap up (as a baseball aficionado and a school teacher, these really get to me). It's not these things in particular and I know from the outside looking in people probably don't care, but there can be an intangible effect on these things when done right that just make for a more competently-made film overall. I keep going back to the greatness that I believe is Top Gun: Maverick, and you see YouTube videos of real-life pilots reacting to how 95% of what is done in the air of that film is completely authentic, how they would do it, etc. And the rest is enhanced for the sake of the film. In the case of the baseball and school scenes (plus some bullying scenes), there seems to be much less care that occurs here and aren't used to enhance the film either. These are really dumb nitpicks, but I'd like to see films actually get these right because they never seem to.

Anyway, this movie was really good. Scott Derrickson is starting to have a very distinct look and style to his films that works for this genre, and I think it is made better by having a team of players who he has worked with in the past (even James Ransone is in this picture). I think this is meant for a more mature audience, and those who lived in the era (which I did not) will probably appreciate the nods to that time period. It wasn't a particularly scary film, but it did better things than most horror films did with shot composition, acting, sound/set design, and story to just be an overall better film than most of them (there was one very intense "hold your breath" kinds of scenes for sure though, and they threw in a couple of jump scares likely to make sure they had something for the trailer). I don't think I'm trying to rewatch this immediately, but I'm definitely willing to have conversations about it within the moviegoing community.

This movie had quite a bit to live up to. Not because of Toy Story, since this is technically no more in the universe than fictional films are within our universe. No, rather because (1) Pixar and (2) this was supposedly Andy's favorite film and his reason for loving Buzz Lightyear in the first place. Personally, I don't think it lived up to either.

I'm kind of surprised by this being Andy's favorite movie and the character that brought the toy he so desired. I'm having trouble tapping into the nine-year-old within myself to formulate how much I would have enjoyed this movie. I think I would have had a lot of fun with it, but I'm also thinking about how much more fun I can have. I look at a film like The Incredibles, and honestly Pixar didn't have to do too much with it other than make an animated superhero movie (sure there was the family dynamic, but this wasn't the first of its kind to do that), and it turned out very excellent and fun. When they made the decision for this movie to be more generic than the Pixar magic they tend to bring light with, along the way I think they tied themselves down a bit and forgot to hash out the excellently fun elements.

In a sense, I'm actually waiting for the sequel to this movie. I think that is the one where they would be able to get it off the ground and make it the exhilarating sci-fi adventure that Buzz Lightyear: Space Ranger is meant to be. I think the sequel to this movie is the one that Andy would've fallen in love with. Pixar has an interesting opportunity here in that they can spinoff a franchise from this individual character and have it be completely of its own accord in science fiction if they want to, and I want them to. This first entry, if you will, is very much a character study. I just don't see this as the toy that I would want to rush out and purchase (though there is another one I think a lot of people will want to buy, more on that later).

Lightyear heavily borrows from Star Wars, Star Trek, Interstellar, and throws in Toy Story Easter eggs here and there (some quotes and mannerisms you've seen from Buzz). Sadly, I think it's only all for the best if you haven't seen those movies before. When I see something it pays homage to, I know that in other films I have either seen it better, can't be caught by surprise with it, or it can't tug at my heartstrings again. This is all especially true of Toy Story, because although it has nothing to do with the toys, this is supposed to mold into Andy's toy, and again I just have yet to see that. This mostly has to do with the fact that Buzz is a different character here than Andy portrays him as (and I think his character here is better since he is flawed), and this is especially problematic with how they chose to represent the villain. Again, these things aren't a problem if you've seen these other films, so either a sequel can choose to tie it all closer or distance itself all more. Either way, there is this middle ground they decided to hit which left me scratching my head.

Overall, this movie becomes a bit too pedestrian by playing safe against the material that it likens itself with and decides against being the all-out fun space opera that it can be (though I feel a sequel can remedy that). There is one pretty intense scene, but it was the only time that I felt any actual peril for any characters. Most all of the comedy falls flat for my age group, with the exception of Sox. And yes, I'm saving the best for last. Sox saves this film. He is adorable, hilarious, a scene-stealer, and will obviously be a big toy-seller. He alone might have brought this movie up a full point or two, especially because he brings the comedy that I think the other characters fail to. IVAN is also great, but not really a character.

I don't think this movie is bad at all, but in all that it is good in it falls short of delivering the Pixar magic, the adventure, the consistency with the character we believed Andy fell in love with (which is fine on its face if you decide to separate that), and the villain choices were bothersome. In all, I still very much want this to be a franchise and want the sequel that I know Andy truly would've loved with Buzz Lightyear, and I think Pixar has a chance at giving us the Incredibles parallel in this franchise.

There are three credits scenes. None are necessarily groundbreaking, but I just want you to know that they're there.

Also, I didn't see any trailers before watching this movie, so I wanted to search up a trailer before leaving impressions to see what I should and shouldn't say content-wise. Sadly, in just typing "lightyear," the predictive search options brought up five or six hits that frankly should not be the focus of this movie. It is so 2022 that this movie is probably going to be known for a controversial talking point, when really I thought it was part of the best written aspect of the movie and it was done really well. Perhaps if the rest of the movie was written as well, people wouldn't draw their focus to this.

I don't know whether this is a fabled memory, but a few years ago I think I read an interview where director Colin Trevorrow said that the story of Dominion was always his ultimate go-to, that Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom were the stepping stones to there (almost as if it was gathering the right build-up with characters, fan anticipation, budget, and technological advances). For every reason imaginable, I believed him. Where Fallen Kingdom ended, you had endless opportunity to explore the world with dinosaurs running amok and causing mayhem. Final shots of Fallen Kingdom included the T-Rex at a zoo, the Mosasaurus attacking surfers, a velociraptor overlooking a suburban California, and pterodactyls towering above a tourist-populated Las Vegas. It was all there; think The Lost World's San Diego epilogue but on a grander scale with more dinosaurs. Throw in the military, philosophical conversations regarding their eradication versus their survival, advance some more characters, and you have a bona fide fun summer blockbuster.

This didn't happen.

No matter what my actual opinion is of the film hereon out, I can't help but be letdown with disappointment that Trevorrow either deluded himself into believing this was the kind of conclusion that fans yearned for ala War for the Planet of the Apes (which has a much more compelling protagonist that makes it work despite its story misdirection) or J. A. Bayona pulled a Rian Johnson and put him in a corner with the concluding chapter that he had to rectify and had no actual written plan of his own. And it's not that there isn't a medium where this story doesn't work just fine. I can imagine the main plot elements being adapted from, say, a novelization or a comic series. Hell, there was even that Battle at Big Rock short that was done which could have told these elements on their own, or at the very least introduced them. Instead, they threw in extremely disjointed story bits for this final chapter that seemed to have no source of origin. They felt like they were the contrivance meant to unite our two character groups, and nothing more.

Dominion starts off very okay. It shows that it can slow down, have a genuine heartbeat, provide pathos for the existence of our reptilian brethren, trot the globe to see how they have integrated (or not) with our species, and reintroduce characters new and old (with possible internal conflicts) to show how they would pave their globetrotting paths. They even fix some of the poorly written aspects of Fallen Kingdom such as maturing Franklin's character, giving better use to the laser-targeting attack system, and giving Maisie a more believable backstory. All of this is supported with fantastic animatronic work and much improved CGI blending with it. I thought the visuals were mostly a knockout and supported the onscreen setups.

Not only that, but Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum kindled a similar flame to their interactions in JP1 and you sat forward to watch those moments. I caught myself smiling quite a few times during those exchanges. Jeff Goldblum was especially used well as he was able to inject entertainment and comedy through his dialogue where the film otherwise was flat with on its attempts. They were not small cameo appearances and served crucial roles to the film. You buy where they are in their lives, and even though TLW and JP3 are retconned the actors clearly tapped into those experiences for their performances to accentuate their statuses.

Speaking of buy-in, I would have given this film a long leash on a lot of things they could have done or did with this movie. We hit the point where we can embrace the ridiculous in several places. Want to make Blue become Owen's pet and attack guard? Go right on ahead. Want to modernize the action and give our protagonists more ability and skill that you might see in the Fast & Furious franchise or with our human Marvel heroes? If the dinosaurs get their large share of the action as well, I'm on board (the Malta scene is a perfect example of this). Want to pay homage to the previous films as you conclude your franchise? That is what I expect. I also expect them to diversify this on a tonal level where need be as to not become too stale, and I think I was feeling that here. Hell, there is nearly a half-hour duration where not a single dinosaur is shown or brought up, and if it's in anticipation for what is to come while building character or story then I will let it play out.

The problem really arose both when the movie decided to abandon the broad, peregrinating experience and confine its setting. Dominion is the saga's epic conclusion and did not need to put on this hat. This was a major rug pull from what was anticipated, and soured itself spending an excruciatingly long time on something that left little entertainment, tension, or dinosaurs. When they do show up, the moments become a little one-note. Our good guys have plot armor such as raptors that can run at vehicle speeds but can't catch up to running characters, or when they are cornered they just get roared at or ran/flown/swam past until they find their way out of the situation, or when they know they can stand around and trust that a carnivore won't eat them because reasons. Bryce Dallas Howard got the best/most suspenseful dino encounters at this stage of the film and they actually work extremely well, but for a near 150-minute movie these are few and far between, and for this franchise you really have to sit and ask yourself if there is a chance that she won't survive any of these instances.

A lot of this could have been made better if our Rexy got some great moments, but even she was backdropped and upstaged too often to matter, or when she does come on screen it seems to be a rehashed occurrence from something of old. She looked and sounded good, though. I want to restate how good the dinosaurs actually looked here, and I want to commend the visual effects departments for what they were able to do in that department. If there was a niggle I'd have here, it would probably be in the weight of the raptor movement which felt too light and jittery. That probably only makes sense in my head, but the rest looked really good. If knowing that I would have to wait 21 years after 2001's Jurassic Park III to finally get the sequel with visuals that really soar, I would gladly take it. I just wish it was with a better film, or at least with a film that I would want to rewatch over and again. Instead, this left an aftertaste that makes me want to instead go and watch Top Gun: Maverick for a fourth time. Outside of demo material, I don't even know if I will be a completionist and get this on UHD a few months down the line. Normally one shouldn't fault a film for letting their own speculation become expectation, but in this particular instance I very much believe that you can. All signs and promotions hinted toward a different kind of movie and story, but despite the good parts it did have, this was too much of a misguided, ineffectual whimper.

As a quick history, my experience with the first film didn't start off strong with the first trailer showing a hideous character design, combined with the fact that I didn't get a vibe that anybody was particularly asking for the movie. However, after the character redesign and people leaving good impressions after having seen it, I rented it from Redbox and too was pleased with the result. It wasn't mindblowing, but it was light and charming, and most of all scaled back for people who don't need to have played the game to enjoy it. I found that there is a bind that must be made with video game movies to be able to engage audiences without having to just be for gamers. Even when someone like Robotnik is on screen, the attraction comes more from Jim Carrey than it does the character whom we've battled against over the years and his gadgetry. That doesn't make a movie like this "in name only," but it knows how to tell a decent story with decent characters from a cinematic perspective. Tomb Raider also recently did this very well, and too many other movies adapted from video games fail with this.

Does the sequel hold the right cards as well? For the most part, yes. However, as the movie progresses, it absolutely begins to cater more toward the video game crowd. I guess if the first film brings you into the world and the second film starts you off with familiar territory, they can say: "Okay, did we reel you gently? Now see what the gamers were pining for!" It was a smooth evolution into this though so I suppose you can stay on board, but it started to open my eyes to a few things. The first one is that I didn't realize how much of the lore that others know and I don't. My experience with these games were the side scrollers on SEGA Genesis, plus Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine and Sonic Spinball. That's it. I didn't play the 3D platformers or even do speed runs. I haven't played Sonic games where he spoke, and never even knew of his affinity for chili dogs. The second one is that I didn't realize how much others knew the lore. When I stopped playing on Genesis, my subconscious decided that Sonic was no longer a part of the greater gamesphere, when it honestly could have kicked up in a big bad way. Basically, on top of the moderate success of the 2020 film, this was very likely in high demand even from gamers who probably went back to play as the hedgehog following that.

So once again, the question that I ask myself when watching this movie remains: "Could I enjoy this movie even if I am not heavily tapped into the video game franchise?" That gets a little trickier, because it depends on your age bracket. It really plays into its PG nature, so you either need to be younger in reality or at heart, have a youngin for yourself, or grab hold of something nostalgic such as the games of a previous lifetime. The movie begins in a very entertaining way that kept me smiling and chuckling, especially because of how much it played off its predecessor and brought me back into that same world with those same characters. But eventually we get introduced to Tails, Knuckles, and a fully-fledged Dr. Robotnik, and although the tone stays the same the orientation really does teeter toward the gamers. For example, if I didn't love Tails in the games I would say that he was just aight in this film-cute but not also not playing the most prominent of parts. Knuckles had a good share of time in this movie though and also had a character arc that worked for me, although heavily telegraphed. He was hard to buy into with the Idris Elba casting choice to begin with, but with his fish-out-of-water experiences the more that I likened him to Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy the more that I enjoyed the role he served. I don't know how much I care for a Knuckles spin-off Netflix show, but whatever. If I wear my non-gamer hat I don't know if Dr. Robotnik worked for me as much here (outside of his introduction scene), though with Carrey possibly stepping away from acting I'll applaud everything he brought into these last two films and say that he left an imposing mark on whoever has to follow him and his character.

Never minding the video game elements, there were a few things that didn't work here and they mostly are regarding the PG-isms. With Robotnik hamming it up more you kind of have to appreciate Jim Carrey or the video game to make this one work even a smidge, and since I can tolerate both it was okay but definitely worked better the first time around for me. Officer Wade is back, and every line of his has cringeworthy delivery and is a waste of runtime. I think I laughed at one of them after they cut away for a few seconds to process how ridiculous his inclusion is, but that's about it. Agent Stone also makes a return with similar results to that of Wade. Maddie's sister Rachel is back and has an okay moment or two, but isn't nearly as funny as last time. She has a B-story part to play that I suppose was resolved but also almost seems to forget to be visited again by the end. There is also a scene here with a lot of human interaction that is a far cry from the bar scene in the first film but you can tell they tried to recapture that. And although I never got emotional in the last movie, there was an emotional arc that lingered with Sonic the entire time I happened to enjoy; they seemed to go back to the well with it again here in a forced kind of way, and it was hit-and-miss, leaving some of the emotion even drier than before. The character is still great, but I'm here for more than the video game Easter eggs to get me going.

The only other nagging thing I have also existed in the first film, though I do believe both times they didn't impact the story at all which is good (or the required narrative wouldn't happen without it, which needs to be an accepted fact). Basically, there are times when Sonic could use his abilities to accomplish something and just doesn't. Examples in the first movie are when Tom first sees Sonic in his shed, who could've easily dashed away undetected or avoided getting hit by the tranquilizer dart the same way he enters bullet-time later in the movie (but without this we don't have their introduction together), or when driving down the freeway Sonic is easily the one who should be battling every one of Robotnik's drones when instead there is one where Tom says: "I got this one! Take the wheel!" Again, these are quibbles, but they are present. These things happen in this movie as well, while there isn't a narrative reason for his abilities to be subverted in the moment it thankfully also doesn't make for something to go wrong either. My least favorite example of this happening in movies is when a driver is looking away from the road to have a conversation only to cause an accident; that is not what this movie is doing when these instances occur, so I'm definitely not upset over the moments.

This was mostly a pretty impressive visual movie, by the way. The opening shot was really creative and showed that they just threw more money at the effects and CGI this time around. Sonic himself looks much better, too. In the first movie he just looked like he was built from a computer. It's not like he looks like a realistic creature this time or anything, but he has a three-dimensional fabrication that has this tangible believability to it, like if James Marsden is talking to him you can forget for a second that he maybe isn't talking to a tennis ball. It's the way that the lighting and the fur work, etc. When he's on screen with Tails and Knuckles it does come off a little more animation-like, but there are scenes with Sonic next to Tom's dog and your brain integrates him in the same environment very seamlessly. I was happy with what they delivered there, because again if you go back and watch the first trailer of the 2020 flick that entire design and rendering/composition that was happening can immediately be a turnoff for those on the fence about this kind of movie.

I think this one is actually going to be very successful in theaters. Kiddos will eat this up one way or the other, whether they are actually in demand for it because of the games or whether it is a movie for their age group. There is that other animation film The Bad Guys coming out so I don't know which one they'll go to see first, but this one has a well-known IP behind it and a proven first film that gives this one the edge in my opinion. There is room for yet another sequel to be made, and you can bet that I will go see that when it comes out. If you like the first movie and like the video game series, it will be a no-brainer to check this movie out.

This movie doesn't care who it kills or how many people, which I think was really awesome. And wow, thank goodness I didn't watch the trailer beforehand.

This does a lot of what the past two Halloween sequels did, from Halloween II (1981) to Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2019): it picks up right where the past one left off, so much so that I'm convinced some parts were even filmed a few years back for the first film and were left on the cutting room floor. There are also flashback elements where they do really well in capturing the 1970s look, almost making you think you're watching a version from back then.

As Halloween (2018) acts as a direct sequel to Halloween (1978), a forty-year-later sequel would definitely have a lot of 'splaining to do for an audience that did not necessarily see the first film. I'll say that while the last film did its thing here and there, this one spares no expense in doing as many callbacks as it possibly can. If you didn't watch Halloween (1978), after watching this one I don't even think you'll need to. Obviously you'll be rewarded for having seen it, but whatever "story" you may not have known will be understood by now, imagery and all. Perhaps even some new elements will surface from long ago. But yes, early on Halloween Kills wants to lend as a commentary to the films of the past, a bit to a fault I might add. It is way too exposition-heavy in this regard, and I could have done without a lot of it.

This actually brings me back to Halloween (2018), which I would call my favorite of the bunch but it always kind of did something that irked me: although it ignores the older sequels, it plays as if Laurie Strode had seen those movies, and she is fully aware of The Shape beyond her only minimalistic interactions with him forty years back. I'm not saying killing a few people isn't a heinous act, but she always treated him as something more than she even witnessed for herself, and as long as those other sequels are supposed to be ignored I wasn't ever really accepting of that. She also always made it about her, as if Michael cared about pursuing her more than others... and besides her being the one who got away, it almost was again one of those things where I felt she was controlling a narrative that wouldn't exist if she didn't say anything about it. In a way their relationship actually reminds me of Wanda and Thanos in Endgame ("You took everything from me" followed by "I don't even know who you are"). I won't say whether Halloween Kills addressed or further frustrated my concerns about that, but it definitely exacerbated it enough that it made me bring up these thoughts again.

What it does do, however, is this weird thing where people who aren't aware of the lore are so easily willing and accepting of the presented evil. Like you mention it in passing, and others are so willing to buy in so quickly and act on it. Like: "You don't know Michael Myers? He is evil itself. Come help me kill him, once and for all! Evil dies tonight!" And suddenly others are on board. Heck, few character interactions are really that great overall. Many characters reprise their roles, but if you didn't watch the 2018 film you wouldn't know a lot of the turmoil or trauma that some characters faced with one another, because they aren't really brought up much again. I think part of the problem is because some of our main characters in the last film fall to the wayside without really being made aware of it beforehand, and then side characters kind of hit the forefront and are a mainstay almost longer than expected. If the balance was shifted back, they probably would have written more of those moments back in. I get the message of this film though keeping that shift in mind, and I think that part actually worked well (when it wasn't stated in our faces so often that is).

One of the only problems with the kills is that most characters could've avoided being killed so easily. Anyone who tries to attack him often only engages him one at a time, people will keep themselves inside when they know he is inside with them, characters are slow to respond to the cries of somebody nearby them, people who evade him won't continue going out of their way of him, and no one has ever heard of a double tap. I don't mean they would survive if they were a little more ahead of things, but I wish they were written as such as to make the kills themselves "smarter" as a result. The other thing, and this happened in the 2018 film as well, is as characters have already been hurt plenty by Myers to the point of death, they sure spend a lot of time not dying as if it seems like they only took their first minor blow at that point, and I'm wondering why they're not dead, unconscious, or unable to move at that point. It doesn't get me a good feel of when they're supposed to die, if that makes sense. This is me nitpicking, though. Many deaths are fantastic and they absolutely have their striking blow.

Lastly, a lot of people shame Rob Zombie's Halloween for trying to humanize Michael Myers a lot (which I was fine with, personally). I wouldn't say this does this at any level, but it does give some characters a chance to try and explain him to themselves. When there isn't a Samuel Loomis around to just scream he's evil all of the time, the goal of this film being that they try and play offense and kill Michael means they have to really understand what it is they're up against, so you get conversations from eye witness accounts about what they believe he is or his intentions are, and again this worked for me.

I chose to be critical here and there when talking about this film, and in many ways I am. The movie is most certainly entertaining, but it is not as strongly written as the 2018 sequel. It probably has one of the better "hold your breath" tense moments that I've seen in a Halloween film, and Michael Myers is ruthless as ever. It's the popcorn horror movie you want to see, and you definitely want to have seen the previous film before this. It really did feel like the middle movie of a trilogy as the whole film kind of felt like a 100-minute middle act, so I'll just say that it was mostly a fun watch and I look forward to see how HALLOWEEN ENDS next year (and I think I know how it does).

This is a new film on Hulu by Aneesh Chaganty (and co-written by Sev Ohanian), following up their cinematic debut Searching (2018) with a thriller involving a mother and her 17-year-old daughter born with several complications (arrhythmia, hemochromatosis, asthma, diabetes, and most impactfully paralysis).

I will say that it's possible this movie is better than I liked it, but if so it would be for its directing and acting, and less so about the writing. I felt like there were holes everywhere, and perhaps too much is thrown at us too soon for us to properly care for the characters and their situation. This kind of movie has been done before, without much new added to the table minus the wheelchair aspect. There were a lot of elements set up for what could have provided a stronger ending delivery and punch, but most of those beats were one-note and used up earlier in the film rather than connecting a strong inner-weaving as Searching was able to do.

I went in blind, and it's likely better that I did given that the trailer is somewhat revealing. I don't think it had a high enough ceiling in the first place to eclipse any wild lack of expectations I already had. My only expectation was in the hands of the creators, and the most redeeming quality this movie will likely have on audiences is I hope they become aware of Searching and see it at some point... which is what I hope most of you all can take away from this. That was my favorite film of 2018, and Run will fall to the wayside as somewhat compelling yet completely forgettable. The story and pre-built relationship just did not have enough juice once the credits rolled.

I want to get this out of the way: I am a friend of Haley Bishop's (who plays Haley, the lead and the host of the Zoom call). We met in college and lived in the same dorm, so we got close. I remember her as a good singer at the time, and since then I started to know her as a good up-and-coming actress. I have been supporting her as she's getting more roles, so when I first learned that she was in Host, I knew I had to check it out ASAP.

Anyway, onto the film that I would coin as "Paranormal Activity meets Unfriended meets quarantine" (not Quarantine the movie, but our current situation heh). This 56-minute Shudder original production plays succinctly, and this becomes an advantage for the film's story structure. It might have helped because I'm personally connected with Haley, but because she was essentially playing "herself" I was easily able to connect with the other members in the Zoom call, seeing them as "her friends." I didn't need massive amounts of character introduction, and they were able to naturally develop and distinguish themselves in quick and short order. They don't feel like campy horror movie characters, they just felt like people. It made it feel really easy to be involved in the session.

The timing of this film is also noteworthy, and in my opinion it is most important that people who CAN watch it now are also able to. This flick is focused around a seance through online chat because they are quarantined. This is our lives right now, and this is the kind of way that something like this would and should have to occur. We aren't a stranger to the elements that the writers and director of Host wanted to convey most strongly. This helps brings a little bit more charm for us who are all feeling a bit insane during these times. This time, watch others live it for a little while, and watch terror occur in the process! Heh.

The audience members who were critical of Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk had fits partly with the lack of girth that could have been used to build the characters and story. In a similar sense, Host wastes no time giving you the characters, perhaps a foreshadowing item or two that you expect to arise later, and won't answer every question that you might have about what you see on screen. To this, I say that is completely fine. They work hard on giving you less and leaving you wanting more, and honestly the movie is better because of it. David Sandberg's short film version of Lights Out was impeccably creepier than its full-length feature film because they didn't try to provide exposition and background to everything, and this movie is like that but with a lot of character interaction in the process. I don't feel you'll be disappointed in this regard if you understand this intent.

This is well acted by all parties involved. What was nice is even if the movie might not necessarily scare you in itself (depending on who you are), the way that the actors convey fear when appropriate (as you'll also get bouts of denial and ignorance) makes you frightful as they are. Unlike Unfriended, this feels a lot less "produced," and that's a good thing, because I feel like Haley and the other actors could really play this in as few takes as possible, and even improvise when needed. There is at least one part that they had to play off an unintended mishap, and it was left in the movie not as a gag reel highlight, but rather as a happy accident.

I started playing this at 2:00 AM, knowing that I wouldn't be able to stay awake even an hour longer and I'd finish it the next day. Come 3:00 AM, I'm at the credits and wondering how I'm tenfold more awake than I was when I started the movie. It never really lets you breathe too much to say what a good stopping point would be if needed, and that's kind of a cool facet that many other films aren't able to have as often. It doesn't really play in "scenes," it's simply a "session" and I loved it for that.

Anyway, I will completely acknowledge my bias here, but I like that it did the screencasting found footage format differently, specifically by trimming the fat of the run time. It really worked in its own favor. If people here haven't seen Searching, you'll get another different take on what this format has to offer and excels as well (given that it takes more than one kind of source, has a soundtrack, zooms on parts of the screen, etc.), so it just goes to show that this format can work in a lot of different ways and still be successful in the process. Again, this helps for the times that we live in right now, and I highly commend them for executing it well on top of it.

If you're not a fan of Unfriended and Paranormal Activity, this MAY not be for you. However, if this review gives you slight hope of optimism, you have an hour to spare, and you would like to support my friend in the process, please hop onto Shudder and give this a looksie!

Every so often there comes a film or film franchise where people say they can't imagine anyone else in the role, or it's as if the role was meant for them. You know who I'm referring to: Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods, Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow... the list goes on.

Well, in the midst of the exuberant young career helmed by one Grace VanderWaal (who became an overnight sensation from a talent show with her uplifting lyrics, raw vocal talent and a wooden ukulele), in comes a film whose screenplay is adapted from a 20-year-old novel that hearkens closely to the livelihood of a then 15-year-old girl.

Grace, much like Stargirl (and hereon out I can simply use the pronoun "she" to interchangeably refer to both), has a magic touch: in she comes, out she goes, and everyone is positively affected by her presence and actions. Always humbled, the cogwheels in her head turn differently where she sees light as the spark and answer to all of life's secrets, even if it means that normalcy falls into the wayside of obscurity. She lives in the moment, for the moment. She is never seeking instant gratification, and although she yearns for acceptance, she will not allow herself to be ill-fated by what others deem to groom her to be.

And yet, this film is not even about Stargirl. We see the film through the lens of the other co-star named Leo, who spends the early parts of the film settling for what small role he can blend into in his small school in a small town, all of which are notorious for accomplishing next to nothing. Stargirl's arrival is something of a stroke of magic to some, yet thematically we can all agree that she merely taps the potential that every character instills inside of them.

As far as the movie itself goes, it's pretty decent. It held my attention, and even though it works through minimalistic plot development, it is meant to serve the characters more than anything else. Unfortunately, I think some of the character structure was a bit off with the pacing, and I think the best thing that would have saved it is if this went the way of a TV series instead. I'm fine with it being a film so long as I can feel the passage of time within a few minutes span and fill in any gaps, but otherwise this had some weird off-beat moments.

Anyway, Grace really starts to disappear as Stargirl. When I first heard she was cast for the role, I thought for a while this would be one of those cutesy "Aww, look at little Grace doing her thing in a movie!" moments. Nope, instead she played a character (who could sing and play the uke, but that's okay) and she played it quite strongly. I was proud to see that, and would love to see her in other roles again. They don't always have to be leads and they don't have to involve music, and I would most certainly like to check it out for myself.

Sit back and enjoy this one, but don't expect the world of it. Just let it happen. That's exactly how Grace would want you to watch it, too.

This played out like a soft reboot, similar to Rings (sequel from The Ring, which ignored The Ring Two). It clearly exists in the same universe as the previous three American releases, but with time between them and other characters into the mix (plus new audiences watching), it kind of throws elements at you that the previous films had. Therein lies the problem.

Although this may be the slightly superior film to Rings, it also was a less necessary sequel. When you look back at what you saw, you ask yourself how the pitch meeting went to green-lighting this installment. I mean, what was the lure that got them to say this was worthy? Rings happened to evolve and modernize its story in a very sensical manner, but The Grudge didn't really breathe new life... and when it tried to, it fell a little flat on its face.

I don't know how much money was thrown at this, but it felt a little too produced. A lot of it had to do with the fact that it was brought to the States. I know that little Asian ghost girl horror was so two decades ago, but having that traditional Japanese setting that stemmed from the Ju-On series (shot on a taller frame and on film) gave the previous movies a bit of a rawer, grittier chill factor that this one loses. Not to mention the way they edit the jump scares this time around is Rings-cheesy. They are by far the worst parts of the movie, sadly enough. Props for the R-rating and I think that was excellently used, but I don't think the tone matched the maturer audience that was watching it... as it still had a PG-13 feel to the scares.

The thing that I liked most about this movie though was the nonlinear storytelling. They borrowed this from The Grudge 2, although that was kind of a twist in that film that you were jumping different timelines. I liked it so much from that one that you really had to work hard in what you were watching, and all it had to take from this movie was removing the big white lettering telling the year that it was in on shots. The timelessness feel kind of became a theme to the movie, and I think if they made the audience work a little harder at it then it would have a nice full circle feeling to it. But alas, you are always reminded where you are at in the film, so it's not quite as fun. Nevertheless, it was a cool ride to flash back and forward, though it was all exposition vomit anyway. I could have allowed them to stretch the film another 15-20 minutes for more present day substance if they could have found a way to fill it, but for what it did I'd say it was okay.

The movie whimpers out at the end for me though, and that was really where I wish it had something else to say about the franchise's evolution when it plainly couldn't. I think that's where it hits its weakest stride. I can imagine sequels to this happening, but they just won't be as fun or freaky unless they return to Tokyo again and have Kayako and Toshio again, throwing less money at it and making it raw and gritty if they're able to. This is a skipper, even for die-hard Grudgies.

One last note: This movie has the intentionally funniest scene transition since Napoleon Dynamite's "It's a sledgehammer" moment. That alone was actually worth the price of admission.

What a delightful unraveling of murder mystery mayhem, carefully crafted with witty wordplay, splendid camera work, raucous audience engagement, and a tour de force performance by Daniel Craig (with honorable mention to Michael Shannon).

This was a movie that overtly demanded your attention, and you were more than welcome to provide it (although given the PG-13 rating, I do question how it will hold up for minors during the first third of the movie). Rian Johnson made something that could take to the stage someday, and I think it's that kind of audience that this would compel most.

To say that it delivered would be an understatement. Every minute of the run time mattered. It had this interesting way in which information was revealed in a front-loaded fashion, and yet still left you with necessary questions that you couldn't dodge, and you constantly questioned with the people around you. This will stick with me for a while, and hopefully also garner Oscar consideration for best original screenplay.

No, I'm not talking about Fifty Shades of Grey!

The romantic comedy genre is a flavor that gets a bad rap for being one-note and heavily playing on sappy/silly tropes, even if that is not always the case. I have learned to expand my horizons when it comes to the genre and fit more good titles in there that don't necessary hit that mark. Last year, we were graced with the best of the genre staple I've seen in a long time in The Big Sick because of its strong writing. I am pleased to say that we have a winner again this year, and a lot of it has everything to do with how the editing complements the writing and directing.

Crazy Rich Asians is an entry that treads lightly on both the romance and comedy (there are plenty of laughs to be had, I just never got an abs workout or fell out of my chair is all) and instead delivers a story built around culture, respect and trust, taking pages from Meet the Parents and The Devil Wears Prada. It is an absolutely accessible film for all audience members, even if they might have had *ehem* so good of a time that I couldn't hear some lines because of the overdrawn laughter from others. Through framing, editing and choice of music, director Jon Chu finds a way of bringing about action in a film that is entirely devoid of it. He really highlights Singapore as a character in the film full of vibrancy and vivacity, claiming set-pieces to dictate entire acts of the story. There is a lot of symbolism that is foreshadowed very subtly, and almost everything has a payoff instead of making the audience question what a certain setup was meant for. We get to see the crazy-rich invite us to their fantastical routines as side-characters like Awkwafina hilariously bask it all in and takes nothing for granted. We envy their possessions, even if we may not envy their lifestyle.

The first 1/3rd of the film is wide-open throttle on the gas pedal. There are colorful overlays to indicate locations and text messages that mesh with what is going on in the image, and they feel as if they want to arrive to the story about as fast as Get Out. Characters are introduced so fast that you will want to bring a pad and pen to web-diagram the whole thing, but Chu made a smart choice in having the audience remember characters less by their names and faces and more with their actions, like when you play a name game icebreaker with a large unfamiliar group. You start to figure out where people stand on the totem pole (us audience members are clearly at the bottom) and get to enter Rachel's mind while she's absorbing things as a "fish out of water" at a breakneck pace, and we have to do the same. This representation may be that of the 1% end of things, but the wealth is only in your face from a glamorizing perspective and is not too in your face with snobbery constructed from their wallet and purse sizes.

Once this is all enacted we reach the second 1/3rd of the film, which lets off of that gas pedal and coasts for quite a while. It hit me rather fast like brake lights and I wasn't expecting it, so I called the film out a bit on its inconsistent pace and didn't feel the typical story arc of "rising action." Thankfully, what was lost in that art was found in character chemistry and intensity. Our main protagonist couple is a duo worth rooting for as they yearn for a cathartic endgame with one another, despite what morals stand in their way. They drive the story's purpose, but they are on the bland end of personality when it comes to delivering the comedic goods, and this is totally okay; they let those around them bring us most of the character and laughs. A couple of them are thrown in for the cheap shtick, but there are nearly a dozen characters which get the limelight with their own romantic subplots. This ends up being more than just one love story, and normally I would consider this a detriment but this drawn out middle act of the film spends a lot of time establishing tangible and intangible values, and these characters' interactions are a big part of that. We get a lot of conversation regarding the betterment of characters from each side of the proverbial fence that separates rich versus not-rich, Chinese versus American cultures, and wants versus needs. In a movie that could have easily only stated messages for an elite class of individuals or specific ethnic group, they spend a long time catering to the other 99% so we can be a part of the journey and not just seeing it from a particular lens.

I am purposely leaving out the story's pulse of tension between Rachel and Nick's mother, because I would like for you to strap in and see it all for yourself. As the film puts it at one point: it basically starts to feel like the two characters are playing chicken and they want to see who swerves away first. It doesn't quite reach Stiller vs. DeNiro or Hathaway vs. Streep in their respective film roles, but these two characters have a lot more to say that speaks to us and possible predicaments that we may encounter, especially regarding the ideas of family and what it means to be a part of one beyond the surface level.

We transition into the final 1/3rd of the film where I feel the story arc had found its footing again. I was recognizing aspects of resolve taking place, affect brought personal emotions within me to rise more (I started to get the feels when a scene took place where the only thing you hear are the sultry echoes covering an Elvis Presley gem), and although this is a romantic comedy that may hit some of the stereotypes that other ones do, you don't dismiss it as a negative thing because the way we arrive at those points feels organic and validating. I could not predict where this story was going to go or what it wanted me to come home with earlier on, but by the time we hit the credits (there is one minor "mid-credits" moment thirty seconds in, in case you intend on leaving your chair immediately) I was completely understanding of Chu's conveyed intent that he displayed within the two-hour runtime.

Ironically, his statement exceeds that of the film reel and the novel that this film adaptation is based upon. He is playing chicken with Hollywood, and I think he will strike victory here. Like Black Panther earlier this year and The Big Sick last year, we are beginning to realize that 'serving the underserved' is a good business strategy when there is a story to be told that requires exactly that. I am excited that both this film and Searching (please give that a look in a couple of weeks) is garnishing Asian leads without it feeling like an intolerable offense. Yes, one film is based upon that culture and the other just so happens to utilize characters of that background, but it just goes to show that mainstream audiences are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and come out the other side with smiles on their faces, saying that the film is "good" and not needing to bat and eye over the fact that they were not graced on screen with a white male lead. I could have done my review without stating any of this, but I really think this is one part that separates this from many other romantic comedies.

From the earlier marketing, I did not expect this movie to win me over. It did, and I think you will feel the same if/when you decide to check this one out. Story-wise I felt some unevenness, but Jon Chu strikes enough visual flair to make a duvet out of a blanket. What could have been a tedious sitting was instead a raucously good time, and I really feel like there is something for everybody here. It is a recommended watch. Go check it out.

Much like the Blair Witch, Slender Man has always been scarier as an idea within the lore built around it than as a literal and physical presence of it. We laud what the Creepypasta community has done to up the ante with the character originally created by Victor Surge (properly credited at the end of the film as an early billing), and there have been positively freaky spins on the subject matter such as the YouTube project Marble Hornets, yet there have also been negative effects attributed to the character in the attempted murder in Wisconsin by prepubescent female friends. The tormenting figment of our minds is spooky enough to carry throughout 90 minutes of film with flashes here and there. Apparently Sylvain White (director) and David Birke (screenwriter) didn't get the memo.

I won't pretend like I could have written or made a better film, but I don't know if the right plot was chosen here. This is a story where SM is already embedded in the national consciousness and skeptical friends decide to attempt to summon him, only to bear the burden of his haunting, kidnapping and/or killing. I personally would have liked to see this have gone in one of three different directions: (1) have a tone more like The Ring where the demonic evil is not known as a figure but simply as a watched video with a curse (they even mention "virus" that would be a lot like the Ringu series and get into the anatomy of it), with no alias or concrete image in association to it; (2) let it play out more like a psychological horror, even if it means recapturing elements inspired by the stabbing incident four years ago; (3) found footage fashion, but Marble Hornets already did that, so I'll annex that recommendation immediately. There would be larger opportunities to provide a certain cloud of mystery and intrigue to explore something further, rather than simply to have too tangible of a grasp on the subject matter. Idea #2 might glorify and inspire that notion a little more than we need though, and since idea #1 would tie more closely to the film's actual events I'd say that #1 would be my personal go-to. In fact, when the girls watch the video it actually reminded me of The Ring to begin with, and that was a good thing; too bad they did not continue much down that path.

Characters also never really had any kind of realistic dialogue. The opening conversation between two schoolmates just has you thinking: "This feels like they're reading a script." That's never a good thing. Like many horror movies, characters have trouble elaborating what they see and feel with each other, and it comes at an unnerving level here. Only one character ever tries to really cope with what's going on in a verbal manner, but she simply doesn't push enough to bring the others to her side and it feels like a lost cause. I'll admit that she tries, but she doesn't articulate herself well enough and from the outside looking in just comes off as sounding irrational. Well-written horror movies have characters who can actually think and speak rationally, yet still have trouble being able to overcome their villainous adversities.

The way it was shot was another concern of mine. This film is dark, and by that I mean it is dimly lit to a fault. I know they probably opted for more natural lighting at times, but even then there are no carefully-constructed shots to contrast silhouetted characters with some sort of lighter background from a light or a dusk evening sky. Even many interiors seem like people forget to pay their electricity bills as they only light up the bare minimum amount. Forget tone, this was just a slighted level of realism that probably could have resolved a lot of the characters' dumb moments if they just turned on a couple of more lights at times. They're also always going out on their lonesome after sunset, which tends to be a recipe for disaster. White chose to let sound play a major role in the film, but often did not establish a shot for us to sense our place in the scene. Everything looked too same-ish to lack the feeling of impact moments take place as they should. I think the choice of shots got better as the film went on, but at that point it was too little too late.

There were three scenes in the middle of the film that are almost back-to-back-to-back that probably provide the best overall tension. All three scenes have great buildup, but unfortunately only one executes strongly and the other two flatten out rather quickly. This mostly has to do with the fact that they try too hard to show more, and the effect is lessened as a result. That, or like many horror films it is just poorly edited (sorry to stray off-topic, but speaking of poorly edited... in the beginning of the film there is a "One week later" moment that shows up in the bottom right corner of the screen and it fades away the moment it comes on that you might actually miss it). The scene that pulls off its moments well works because of SM really only appearing soft in the background if that, and a lot of mentally-jarring moments for the character that make the sequence feel nightmarish. If more scary moments in the film were like this or if there were less attempts at scaring the audience in general, it would have heightened these moments much more and become extremely effective. Alas, it was not meant to be and we are resorted to cheap thrills. What makes matters worse is that I think some moments would have been great without inserting eerie music alongside them, and I don't want to call them jump-scares because to be honest there aren't too many here (most times they are intentionally telegraphed as they creep into the frame, but the ones that are there could have served better without the score).

Before those three scenes that I mentioned (and outside of watching the main video), the story really had trouble grabbing me; past those three scenes (outside of a great 'mentally disturbing images' sequence and one of the visual shots near the end of the film), the story really begins to whimper out. It tries to work in two other characters to an extent and does not deliver on carrying out their arcs throughout (add in one of the main characters as well), parent involvement is set to a bare minimum and they are useless when present (in fact, there's a weird bit where someone thinks they are at the wrong address because they didn't see any cars in the driveway... ever hear of a garage??), there is little to no conveyed emotion for the loss of people near and dear to the main characters to feel their motivation as a great driving force, nobody ever listens to anybody in the film except when it's a detriment to their cause, and for some strange reason the girls all know the passwords to each others' laptops (just a small nitpick on my end). Worst of all, Slender Man was only slightly imposing and just not very scary, and he appears far too often. When I watch the Marble Hornets series on YouTube and he rarely appears in a quick couple of frames, I get the most unsettling chill in my body. When I play Slender and am traveling the forest as the stomps begin happening, the tension ramps up and gets me in the right mood to freak me out when something actually happens, no matter how scary. As a constant, Joey King was the only onscreen redeeming quality of this abhorrent mess.

They should have gone with "less is more," and they instead went for the reverse tactic. That did not work for Blair Witch (2016), and it's no surprise that it didn't work here as well. This wasn't even in the "so bad it's good" camp unfortunately, and I am someone who will be curious to watch this regardless of any ratings. I do ask that you try and heed my warning when I say there is not much you are going to get from this movie. It wasn't scary, gripping, fun, exciting, or anything like that. Just a morose form of cinematic poppycock that probably came out five years later than it should have, and with the wrong story to boot. I just feel like they missed the mark on what makes Slender Man spooky, or they tried too heavily to rely on his spookiness to tell the story that they did.

Oh, and the first trailer ending shots of the girl in the dress is not in the film. I don't even know who that girl is suppose to be, because she is not in the film either heh. Sorry to spoil you there (more of an anti-spoiler).

**WARNING: I get a little bit into what some of the characters do and don't do, even though I don't really get much into the overall story.**

Disney's Christopher Robin serves as a companion piece to Goodbye Christopher Robin in that they play different parts of CR's life. Goodbye Christopher Robin takes place during his childhood and has small parts of him growing to a young adult by the end, and Disney's Christopher Robin spends the first ten minutes advancing through his raising years rather quickly so we can get to his adulthood. Outside of the source material, the comparisons of the two films stop there. Disney's Christopher Robin is much more family-oriented fiction, whereas Goodbye Christopher Robin is slightly more adult-themed nonfiction. I'll say that at my age, as much as I loved both films at their cores, I did prefer one over the other.

Now, let's address "the Heffalump in the room" here: This film will receive nearly unanimous praise and everyone who reads this will adore by what they just saw on screen by the time the last page reads "THE END." You will see the 9's and 10's pour aplenty on here, and they will be absolutely justified to the point that I won't disagree with a single thing that they say, truly. I am no different, as while watching this I tapped into early childhood memories of me watching the Winnie the Pooh cartoon. All of the feels were there and they were strong. Parents and children had a joyous experience with the entire film, and my face may even hurt from smiling too much. I will mostly let every other review speak on that, though. I want to try and touch on the moments that others may have trouble expressing or just won't bother to, and explain away how my score (for better or worse) is emphasized by other elements of the film that may or may not have personally worked for me as well.

When I say the words "mixed bag" I'm not referring to the quality of what was on screen, just how my head coped with what was on screen. Every issue I have with the film is mostly not a film issue at all, but rather it is my conflicted mind wondering what kind of film I expected to watch. Having just come off of Goodbye Christopher Robin not one year ago, I was trying to decide whether I was watching yet another biopic of sorts here, or if this was just a fictional fantasy adventure. When it initially seemed like it wanted to be the former, eventually it revealed that it was going to be the latter, and boy they went the whole nine yards with that. Upon first glimpse CR is just letting his imagination run wild with him, but alas it turned out that these stuffed animals are not inanimate, but actually alive and talking. Yes, beneath the surface one can decide to create allegories for the animals' lively spirits representing something larger than they actually were, but in the last half hour of the film it feels like a very shallow version of: "Nope, they're real... accept it and move on." The tone shifted sort of fast without warning into something a bit childish, and not in the absolute best way. It kind of hit a wall with me, because initially they were going so well with what just felt like the imagination route, and I feel I would have preferred that much more. Then again, when I was a child I think I saw the animals more as actual animals and not stuffed objects in CR's imagination, so if I'm a kid watching this film I don't think this is a demerit in any way at all. Sadly, I'm now a thirty-year-old man critiquing a lovable children's film to the bitter end, possibly undeservedly so.

Which leads me to my next personal predicament: I didn't know which lens I was supposed to view this film from. I hate to make the immediate comparison, but Goodbye Christopher Robin strictly stuck to one tone and allowed me to find perspective as an audience member for where I belonged watching it. This film begins with a young CR and the playful animals expressing their personalities to the fullest, so I began watching it as the cartoon and all was fitting. Then a bit of time goes by without the animals to set up CR's current status in the workplace, with his family, and even with a neighbor (whose tiny intermittent "subplot" feels strangely incomplete, unless there was an after-credits scene). During this early stage I figuratively heard children shuffling in their seats, and I literally heard a young girl ask: "Where's Pooh Bear?" Given the expectation the trailers appeared to provide (which I avoided before seeing the film), you'd understand why the youthful ADHD crowd can get a bit restless with the slow pacing of these moments.

Then later Pooh appears and all is righted again, but I sit and wonder where kids are with this bear and his furry friends, because I legitimately do not know. Do they know him in name only but have not read the books or watched the old cartoons? Are they familiar with the animals' voices, quotable lines and unique mannerisms? It's not exactly an ongoing marketed icon anymore, and they might be too busy in front of their Smartphones anyway to know why we who grew up with them find every moment so wondrous. So again, here is where I'm completely out of the know: if children are not as well-versed with the characters at large, I wonder if they'll get as much out of this film as I would if I was there age, or as I did now. Don't be too alarmed, though! There are still plenty of moments to make this movie enjoyable for all ages, whether or not you are privy to all that which is Winnie the Pooh.

Oh yes, Pooh Bear: he was perfection. It's clear that the screenwriters know him very well as to make sure that every piece of dialogue that he says has this poetry about it, accompanied justly with Jim Cummings' original voice work. Every third line that he says will give you a chuckle, whether he is wittily responding to CR or talking to himself. We get a "Think think think" and more than enough honey references (which you can never have enough of). His humor is very deadpan and it works best when you see his innocent beady eyes conveying those words with that little mouth. I'll admit that I miss the cartoon design, but they took enough creative liberties to blend the real stuffed animal with the cartoon version and you get the best of both versions. He is both dependent and dependable, both nescient and thought-provoking, both wanting to make you laugh and cry. I cried exactly two times in this film, and both had to do with a Pooh spoken line or spoken action. They needed to capture this for the film to work, and they did it ever so well.

Eeyore and Tigger were also both real hits and exact representations of their cartoon selves. I would say that Eeyore will win over more with the adults when it comes to his dark and depressing lines (again, this is also one of those times where "if you understand the characters already it works much better"). Tigger gets to bounce, sing and laugh, all with original J.C. voice work and that really means something to me. The misses to me came with Piglet and Rabbit, which although it's unfortunate that their original voice actors have passed away they did not do enough to get close to those voices either. Rabbit always reminded me of a Squidward in the cartoon (I know that SpongeBob came afterward), but had no such notions here... just a couple of "I'm healthy and like things clean" kinds of lines. He also wasn't heavily featured, alongside Owl, Kanga and Roo. Piglet was mostly fine, but was missing the voice, never let out an "Ooooh, d-d-d-d-dear," and never really let his fearfulness become an affecting part of the story. Good thing Pooh made up for most of it, and honestly I could have completely done without the other characters and would have been just fine... yet at the same time Tigger and Eeyore's direct inclusions were too good to pass up.

Ewan McGregor was convincing and looked like he had a great time with the role. Hayley Atwell kind of got to sleepwalk through her mother/wife role as she didn't have much to do, the daughter was good but was in the wrong film for focus on her end (even though they try and maintain that theme throughout, it's not explored very fully), and literally every other character was over-the-top and may have fit with this film but were also outlandish and exaggerated to the point that I really didn't care. As I was saying before, keep this as CR and Pooh having adventures and I would be none the wiser as to the rest of it.

I hope that you can take my review as just very level-headed. There were just a few too many things I found to either be inconsistent, or at the very least made me perceive it as such. That might be more a fault of mine than a fault of the film's, but that's why I get my own vote on here and others will get theirs. My last minor quip was slightly mentioned before, but the overall pacing was pretty slow. I was okay with that, but I am trying to speak for the masses. I think Goodbye Christopher Robin was a film that was lighter on its feet regarding the pace, but it also is a little less kid-friendly since its focus is not on the animals (and never gives life to them, imaginable or otherwise).

Despite the things I've pointed out, I think you can chalk them up as personal issues only, and I can't recommend this film enough. I mean it's Winnie the Pooh, for heaven's sake... of course it will be lovable! My audience applauded at the end, and I did right alongside them. It has something for everybody, and plenty of it. It almost seems sinful to dismiss this film in any sort of way, and don't let my score be an indication of how much I actually did love moments of this film and urge everyone to go check out and see, specifically if you have children, a connection with the characters, or simply if you have a soul. Yet if you missed out on Goodbye Christopher Robin, I also recommend that you see it at some point for something that is probably less fictionalized and slightly more adult-oriented.

Fallout feels like a direct sequel to Rogue Nation, even though it doesn't take place immediately after in the timeline (based on some dialogue I believe it to be two years later). But a lot of things remained consistent: we finally kept a director around (I'll get to that later) and many of the characters have returned, including one Solomon Lane (played by Sean Harris) with more villainy than ever before. In the past, we would cruise through team members such as Maggie Q, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Paula Patton, and heck even Jeremy Renner who was not in this flick... but we have grown into others like Ving Rhames (whose character wasn't just there to look cool and throw in some one-liners, but rather to shed some actual emotional weight), Simon Pegg (who has finally earned my respect "in the field" where I feel he now officially belongs), flashes of Michelle Monaghan (the Jules factor!) and newcomers Alec Baldwin (underused again) and Rebecca Ferguson (dayum is all I have to say). Yes, they threw in some new characters in this film... I'd say one too many for me to keep track of... but they didn't interfere too much with the chemistry already in place with the other actors/actresses surrounding Tom Cruise and the bigger picture. I'm a bit iffy on Henry Cavill's character still, as he felt a bit out of place from the franchise we've been accustomed to, but he did work in this film as did his mustache. Even still, I think this movie demands a re-watch on my end to understand all of the character motivations again, particularly three of them.

All told it does feel like a sequel to RN in the sense that you should not see this one if you don't see that one. I think it is enough of a companion to make 3-6 part of a larger something when all watched together, even though 4 is only loosely connected at this point from a story perspective. In terms of feel however, it is not like any of the other M:I films before it. Instead of going for sleek and stylish, they chose raw and gritty in more ways than one. It really had its dark and serious moments, even played by the score through the opening credits (which I had to close my eyes for because they tend to spoil movie moments lol) demonstrating it would carry more epic impact than normal. Sometimes it delivered on that, and other times I think its reach exceeded its grasp, but ultimately you would feel it. It still had light humor time-to-time, but this was not a light-toned film in the slightest. I don't know if "grounded" is the right way to describe the film's attitude (because any time it is literally off the ground it is quite ridiculous as far as action films like to go!), but any time that it is on the ground everything is pretty simple. This film isn't built around stealth and technology; in fact, outside of masks and GPS-tracking (and some thing reading off a mission), I honestly couldn't name a single piece of technology that was more advanced than that in this entire film (EDIT: I thought of one more thing but it really won't wow you, and you probably won't even think of what I'm talking about after seeing it). Outside of some of the camera work, it definitely had a throwback feel to it, pulling the reins a lot but not in a forced way. This one just didn't call for a lot of futuristic technology.

The action this time around really was all about chases, gunplay and hand combat. I mean if you like hand combat, then you'll really have fun with 2-3 particular scenes in this movie. This is all good and great for an action movie, but good enough for Mission: Impossible? Because of the characters involved, YES. Outside of one of the beginning set-pieces, every action scene in this movie is heavily built up and driven by the story around it, and felt like the story's impact of the moment was always bigger than the stunts being pulled off. This is a good thing, but that also means it's not all surface-level entertainment. You could pop in your Blu-ray of any of the previous three M:I films and watch an action sequence and just go: "Hell yeah." In this film, each moment is earned a little more as the story progresses, and they are very character-focused moments. I can't say it really compares to the other films in terms of action, but it worked. At one point I think it got a hair too ridiculous, but I was on board because of the situation at hand. This doesn't really have the summer blockbuster tag that the last two felt like they did, though. I can see some high schoolers not understand the progression of this franchise and walk out going: "That was stupid and boring." Go watch Transformers, little ones.

Now it's time to sing some serious praises for two individuals. The first one is writer/director Christopher McQuarrie. Given the state of this franchise, they found the right person to steer the ship. Even in the middle of this 2.5-hour-long film when the action feels a bit bogged down and mundane from something you'd expect out of M:I, McQuarrie does enough for it to still feel different. Many scenes are shot so practically, the music is always original, tongue-in-cheek moments are injected without taking you out of the scenes, and you're always exploring the space around you so that nothing is ever too stationary. There is one action setting that didn't work for me at all and I honestly don't know what was going on, but it dynamically moved away from there fast enough and continued on to the next immediate action moment that all was forgiven and I was caught up to speed again. He understands the characters so you're not left with thinking they're making irrational decisions, and he understands how to showcase his stars so they can give him all that they have to offer. He captures it in a nice wide frame and only cuts when he has to. Sometimes he mutes the score for the sound effects, and there is this one really awesome moment where he drowns the sound effects from the score and it works so perfectly. If there is another film, I expect him to stay a part of the team.

The next person is Tom Cruise. Good. Lord. This guy is the reason we watch these movies. Talk about a guy giving it his all. Stunts in previous films may have had the panache that sells you watching the trailer, but I can tell you first-hand that nothing is as demanding as what he went through doing some of his stunts this time around. This guy doesn't age! When I say that, I mean he literally looks younger in this film than he did in Rogue Nation or Ghost Protocol! This dude shows you what it means to sprint, and his abilities handling a weapon, riding a motorcycle, now doing things off the ground (which means more than one thing really), and everything else just makes the action that much more convincing. You don't have to have CGI, green screen, stunt doubles, or quick-cuts to try and convince you otherwise (I'm looking at you, Taken 3). It's only unfortunately that you're actually taken out for a moment only to sit back and say: "Holy ****, Tom Cruise is actually doing that in front of our eyes." Kudos to what he does, and apparently it is worth every penny of everybody watching it as well. He will break bones for us to make this happen, and it really is a delight. He is an ageless wonder, and I can't wait to see what he is willing to do for us next! I just hope he makes it out the other side each time.

I'll admit I was a little shook with how different this film was than the others, but it didn't make it any worse... just different. Connection-wise it feels more like a M:I sequel than any other one, but tone-wise it couldn't feel more separate. I have to wrap my head around some of the plot points and character motivations I didn't quite grasp watching it, but if I am going to grade it on M:I standards I can't in all good faith put it above 3 or 5. That doesn't mean it is a worse film, though. It was a great film, and by all technical merits it hit too many right notes, and I believe more so than any of the ones before it. Just a little bit of unevenness, but I like that characters were the focus and that they dug deep into what Rogue Nation gave us instead of just making something another wacky episode in the wide world of Ethan Hunt & crew. It was not as flashy and full of blockbuster moments as the other films were save a couple of items here and there, but I think if you are a fan of this franchise you would be way hard-pressed to find too many downfalls in the final result. Leaving the theater I award it a strong eight mustaches out of ten, and sandwiching it around the middle. If this is on the merits of being a film and and of itself, I would place it above Ghost Protocol easily and it could potentially top 3 and 5 for some. If judged against films for being in the Mission: Impossible franchise, GP may sneak above it by a hair. But because of the strong connection to Rogue Nation leading to some consistency for once, I'll currently place my ranking at:

3 5 6 4 1 2

I think this is a movie that will get better the more you re-watch it, whereas the other films really peak their excellence the first time through because there isn't much past surface-level. I can't wait to see this one again.

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. I don't know where else to fit this, so I'll just place it at the end. There was this recurring line in the film that characters would say, along the ilk of: "I'll figure it out." It was always in response to a character asking how they'll approach something next. I don't know if this was a gaff in the screenplay or a wink at the audience in some way---maybe as a response to the previous movie having two different characters literally anticipate every outcome of the film's entirety since the planning stages---and now showing in this film that they have to improvise scenarios reactionarily to something that was unforeseen. I don't know what it was, but it felt like it was said a bit too much. I'd really like to hear McQuarrie bring that up in an audio commentary.

BRIEF REWIND:

I rented Unfriended through Redbox and saw it with a date, and I'll give it kudos that we did not turn it off and even talked about it afterward. I can't in all good faith call it a good film, but it was the first of its kind that I had seen and I merely tolerated it. Unfortunately it fell into a lot of issues that start and end with the characters/actors, and the teeny-bopper horror elements that leave you laughing and eye-rolling almost as if they intentionally wrote and directed it that way made it extremely mediocre, forgettable, and worst of all passable. What seemed like it was serving its style as nothing more than a cheap gimmick, I easily would only rate it a 4/10, but I was on board as I watched it and it did not turn me away from seeing a sequel.

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESENT DAY:

I didn't know anything about this sequel going into it, never mind the fact that I didn't even know it was a film until yesterday evening. But when the pre-screening invite fell into my lap, I bit the bullet and hoped for the best even though I planned for the worst. Needless to say, this was a pleasant surprise. Before I go on, I'm also going to strongly advise that you avoid the trailer at all costs for four reasons:

1) It spoils a lot of events (though leaves out the main overall plot of the film, which was nice). 2) It misinforms the audience of what kind of film it is (treats it like a pure horror when it is more of a thriller/suspense flick). 3) It edits a lot of items on the screencast that do not occur in a similar way in the actual movie, even down to colors and sound effects that are used. 4) It makes it look really bad.

I saw the trailer AFTER seeing the film by the way, and I'm glad that I did. I would have passed up this pre-screening if I saw that horrible trailer, and I would've felt like I've seen the entire film if so as well (yes, it does reveal several plot points).

I totally understand why this film has the 'Unfriended' tag: it's a found footage screencasting film where an anonymous user intrudes a Skype group chat, and torments them as a result of their mishaps bestowed onto said user. This is where the premise similarities end, though. This isn't only not a story continuation of the first film in any way (you can watch this without watching that and you won't lose a single beat), but this also does not have a supernatural element, and although Facebook may be one of the applications in the film it has nothing to do with unfriending somebody through it. Granted, I understand the name can take on multiple meanings in which case I can easily find one for it through this film, and if it just had the title The Dark Web, people would hark on it for being "too similar to Unfriended," so they were stuck. This can either help or hurt the film because I know a lot of people who won't see this on the name alone, but you may be mistaken by passing it up.

As I said before, this isn't bogged down with anything supernatural. That's not to say it's the most realistic thing in the world either, but if you suspend enough disbelief you can feel that it has a lot more grounding to it. This is the first plus. There's nothing wrong with supernatural horror flicks, but the first film holds a strong stigma around Facebook that it just couldn't be taken seriously. At least they did it better than Friend Request, but that's still not saying much. This circumvents that completely. Everything involved is through the power of individuals, all of which seem to be very computer-savvy, but making that decision won me over significantly more. I'd say it teeters more toward the suspense/thriller genre than it does the horror genre, and for this that can only be a good thing. Just don't expect anything scary so to speak, though there are a couple of disturbing ideas that only strengthened the film's mystique.

This also had some clever writing. Compared to the original, it's just nice to know that there was some actual thought into telling this story and not just throwing it out the window. The way the plot develops may leave you very curious as to how some items are slowly discovered, and some small nuggets (as well as character traits) throughout the film play a larger part by the time the credits roll in a fascinating way. Can't say I didn't like how things went down, but what's interesting to me is that halfway through watching it you could have predicted a million ways they should have done the back-end, and even if you ultimately feel they didn't go the route you may want it's still ahead of the other film on potential and wonder alone.

Unfriended: Dark Web grabbed me pretty fast with the relationship between two of the central characters. I cared enough about the situation to be concerned for their well-being. I can't necessarily say the same for the other characters. One was a little annoying but you grew into the personality, two were kind of bland (but one outshined the other both with acting and backstory), one was wasted entirely to the point that I wanted more from that one than any of the others, and one was compelling but served the plot exposition and advancement so well you could nearly call out "Deus ex machina!" at times, as that character also has no development. Everything in the Skype chat kind of worked out though because the "main" character (the screen we're watching all the time) mutes them or goes to different windows for long times on end when the others didn't need to serve a larger purpose for said moment. Neither the film nor the characters were that funny either, but the film didn't try to be funny too often either; wasn't laughing with them, but thankfully I also wasn't ever really laughing AT them. The first film had laughable characters that were unlikable to the point that I couldn't wait to watch them be killed.

Those who read my reviews know that I like to be vague so you can enjoy the film for yourself without still really knowing anything about this film, so that is where I'll leave you regarding content. Most of what I mentioned was the good stuff, and some of the lesser things in the film for me lie in parts that would probably spoil too much. I have some other small quibbles like off-screen characters type and respond unrealistically fast, though I understand they need to keep the pace up at the same time. Even still, I'd say they still make some decisions in the sequel that make me think they didn't learn everything from making the original, but they definitely self-corrected so much, probably more so than going from Annabelle to Creation or from Ouija to Origin of Evil. I also found the halfway point to allow it to go into multiple directions, and although the route they chose wasn't my absolute favorite I'm not about to sit here and petition that a rewrite be in order either.

This film also did one more thing for me: it made me realize that the found footage screencasting sub-genre is one that can actually work and be used more and more. It is very inexpensive and tailors perfectly to our generation around the social media realm. I thought it was far too gimmicky in the first film, but then I saw the film Searching and found how it could be used correctly... and just a short two weeks later I can clearly say that in the right hands there is enough creativity there to do more and more things. That being said, I liked Searching more as a film but I can't say that I would have liked it as much as I do if I saw it AFTER seeing Dark Web. I think the novelty of the filming style meshed so well with the story and really grabbed me, and this was entertaining enough overall that I didn't care I was seeing this style again. I think seeing it in the other order might exhaust me to see Searching second. So, here goes: I recommend you see both films, but if possible I recommend you see Searching first to get the best bang for your buck. Unfortunately it releases in a few weeks while this releases just next week.

Do as you must, but ultimately I suggest you give this one a crack and you may leave as surprised as I was.

The word "gimmick" can be thrown around to describe a major element of a film that changes up the ordinary tropes we'd expect from a rather straightforward flick. There is 3D, timeline splicing, animation, found footage, you name it. Some films almost even fall into these places as a genre. When they do, you get the inkling that the people responsible for thinking up the movie likely have these elements in mind at the forefront with the story as an afterthought. Only when that occurs do I call those elements gimmicky. And it's not that a gimmick is a bad thing, but if that is what you rely on to make your story compelling, it will often become a crutch for poor storytelling or one-and-done enjoyment. Sometimes it is done right, in which case the gimmick works... but most of the time it has that negative connotation for good reason.

However, there is another breed of films where you can get that feeling that a story was thought up, and ultimately it was decided that the best way to tell that story was by use of something like 3D, etc. When that happens, it is no longer a gimmick nor does it fall into that genre, so to speak. It is just the best way to tell that story, even though the story could work very well without it. I am no longer attracted to the film because of the device being used, but rather I can almost ignore that it's happening because I am so engraved in the story being told.

Within the found footage narrative realm has come screencasting, where we see the world through somebody's computer or phone screen. The first and only film of this variety I have seen was Unfriended, which takes place on one user's laptop screen as she does a group webcam chat. This played off as a gimmick because it was the only way to tell the story. Searching is now the second screencasting film I have seen. It has a bit of a hybrid feel though because there are jumps to other footage needed to tell the story (perhaps from the news or something) and there is also a score that the characters otherwise wouldn't hear.

Gimmick is also the last term I would use to describe what it does. Of course, this is plainly because the story is what drives the film and could be done without this style, but also because this style is doing more than tell a story: it is telling of our generation's attachments to/reliance on technology, the internet and most of all social media. The right audience will connect with this very well because they will feel very comfortable and familiar. This is where the film gets to breathe and even provide what one could call comedic relief (in just how real it all is to our technological experiences).

Director and co-writer Aneesh Chaganty came up with something extraordinary, and very smartly crafted this film into something where the main character's (played by John Cho) computer and phone are not devices (no pun intended), but they are now characters. There is an inaudible dialogue between him and screen, and the audience fills the gaps of what each of them are saying to each other. I say the story could be told without the screencasting in play, but the audience would need another way of being exposed information through needless dialogue, either to oneself or other characters. That, or we would still be looking at computer screens for a very long time, or time would have to be served filling scenes in other ways, so restructuring the screenplay would be required (which is possible, but I think Chaganty found the best way to tell his story).

I am still on a high with this film, to the point where I temporarily feel comfortable saying this is my favorite film of the year so far. The trailer that I just watched on this film after the fact would lend you to believe that it is a suspense/thriller, and even though it is suspenseful and thrilling I would not identify it as that. I would call it more of a drama/mystery. I think the first ten minutes of the film easily define what the entirety of the film will play out to be with regards to what emotions it will tap into you, and the opener of this film is one of my favorites in a long time. Thinking back on it, it's probably what really seals what I really think about Searching as a whole, and puts your mind at ease for the screencasting style that Chaganty tells the story with.

This film is about a father whose high school daughter turns up missing, and he cooperates with the police in doing his own personal detective work through means of his electronic devices to help aid their investigation. Thinking back at some of the missing persons films I have seen in my days (Gone Girl, Prisoners, Taken, Man on Fire, Gone Baby Gone, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Flightplan, Ransom), these stories have ranged from: straightforward to conspiracy-laden, kidnappings to runaways, found alive to found deceased to never found at all... and Searching gives you reason to believe that any of these possibilities could be true, all within staying very real. I think that's what makes this movie work most, that by the end of the day you convince yourself that you felt you saw something extremely grounded and strangely relatable. I mentioned the technology/internet/social media aspects, but the characters also relate well, and because it takes place in the Bay Area it also gives more bonus points for someone like me because I have an extra connection with the locations that are mentioned or utilized. It's best that you try and not decide for yourself what kind of film or outcome you hope to see going into it, and instead commend the shrewd genius in weaving the pieces together in a very levelheaded manner.

Absolutely none of this works without the sturdy acting by John Cho. You clearly see the image of a wrecked and broken father attempting to find his daughter. He has a compelling way of making us feel his his hurt and desperation. Chaganty once again used the screencasting element well here in having his character's on-screen actions say so much as well, from his mouse gestures to the things he starts to type but deletes before sending to other people, etc. The audience will not have to work too hard with these facets because of competent directing and brilliant acting.

What I suggest you do work really hard at while watching, however, is what I would call the Easter eggs this film has. When a screen pops up with a bunch of e-mails, news articles, or chat conversations, you want to pick up everything that you can because you won't be able to pause and rewind in theater. But furthermore and most importantly, every revelation of this film can be grasped if you work and look hard enough at everything that Cho's character works and looks at. This is a good thing, and what makes it even better is this film is never predictable (mostly because you know as much as the protag does, because you are literally seeing the film through his eyes). You get to stay on the edge of your seat through this process, even if nothing is really going on, because you feel like you get to take everything in at the same time that he does. There is a lot to process here, and again it is all in such a very real way.

This one is such a good time at the theater, and I think the only people who will be disappointed in this flick is if they: find the screencasting to be too much of a gimmick for their taste, feel misled by the trailer's overly suspenseful tone, or they already have one or two predetermined outcomes in mind that they want to happen and it doesn't suit their liking. Comparatively, my biggest gripes in this film stem from things like characters typing messages lightning-fast and perfectly (and people responding faster than they would even be able to read the message sent to them), plus off-screen voice acting was very wooden. That's pretty much it. As it stands tonight though, it is my favorite film I have seen this year. I don't want to call it groundbreaking what Chaganty did as far as influence goes (I don't expect many of these films to suddenly churn out as a result), but as far as accomplishing intent in a unique manner I think he did what no one else has before, and it works far too well for the story he told.

For those who are curious, this film is not yet rated but I can easily say the MPAA will give this a PG-13.

**I first wrote this review on 11/15/17 but it never got published. If something seems off or outdated, this is the reason why.**

This film universe is a little weird. I mean really, it is. We all have questions that we never really get many answers to regarding how much we can personify these cars as humans. Apparently they do consume and excrete, they require fuel, and that there aren't humans (I guess they are the humans); I still don't understand the idea of adolescent cars, what their limits are for speed when they're racing (sometimes it seems like Lightning just 'wills' himself to a higher position), how they build stuff, where they come from, why they need seats/doors or if they're even aware of what they are, etc. Perhaps it's best to not overthink it, but this is the first franchise for Pixar where the seemingly off-putting set of protagonists (toys, bugs, monsters, rats, robots) do not really serve a larger purpose for their message, and instead are kind of just... there. You can argue the Route 66 elements are important as well, so I'll give them that as much as anybody else will.

Many audience members are somewhat turned off by the models though, as it's just too weird to think about. I'll say one thing: everybody and their mother suggested Pixar should have used the headlights as the eyes, and their response in Cars 2 was about as punctually adequate as can be. I didn't see a big visual leap in the models from Cars 1 - 3 after a decade of work, but there were some nice little touches that a Blu-ray can help pick up which I have enjoyed the progression in. I did expect a bit more of a graphical upgrade on that front, since the surrounding environments all looked so beautiful and that crash teaser trailer even looked fantastic. But I digress, these animated films are definitely about more than just their animation.

Although the majority do not speak very highly of the Cars franchise in comparison to Pixar's other stellar efforts, people still look back at the first film in higher regard given the simpler message of taking the road less traveled and appreciating the journey every bit as much as the destination, including the people you meet along the way. It was humble and innocent. Though I think people give Pixar too much credit for just that. Other films have done this exact same thing; in fact, there is a film I saw called Finding Normal which I likened to Cars by all of the character connections, though it was made after it so I guess I have to give Cars some credit here. Cars 2 messed this up tremendously for the majority of moviegoers, throwing a Mater spin-off in our faces as we had pretty much a spy flick, with new characters for Pixar to merchandise off-and they would probably admit as much as well. As unfortunate as this was, I was thoroughly entertained by Cars 2. It is not good, but it's also not unenjoyable either. Definitely not up to Pixar's standards, though it still had its own message: accept your friends for who they are and not what you want them to be (I think that's what it was?).

So now Cars 3 comes along, yet here we are still all clamoring for an Incredibles sequel, which thankfully is coming. However, I think John Lasseter wanted to right the ship a little bit. For one, he downright ignored Cars 2 completely. If you didn't see it, you didn't miss a thing. Not a single new character from that film appeared here, no references to what happened as they went world-traveling, nothing. Skipping out on it becomes no loss whatsoever. Secondly, he gave Mater and non-car operated machinery (boats, planes, cranes... you name it) their chance in the limelight in the second film, and stuck to cars only this time around, tossing Mater to the side thank goodness. Lastly, they focused again on Lightning McQueen and the evolution of his character through the time that has gone by, back to true-and-blue circuit racing roots. It was appreciable that they did this, and for the most part I will say it worked very well.

Cars 3 is a sign of the times, both old and new. With the way sports are changing today, this was the perfect time for it to release. The new kinds of technology put in place in this film-from the cars to the training regimens to the statistical analysis-were all thrown in showing what modernists can offer to the traditionalists, possibly even aging them out to retirement. However, for Cars 3 to instill its motto in having some heart to compete, its moral stances on racing didn't get too lost in the dust. It stuck to several roots that Cars established (training in dirt roads, drifting, being one with the road) and clearly paid homage to Rocky III and Rocky Balboa (comeback story of a washed-up veteran, racing on the beach, training montage, calling a car Cal Weathers... seriously?). Not to mention there were a lot of callbacks to how Doc Hudson mentored Lightning, which paid off by the time the credits rolled. I like how both sets of times clashed on this one (and not in a James Bond way like Cars 2), because I think that was the next step up for this franchise to evolve properly. In essence, this was a faithful sequel to the first film. You can argue all you want as to whether it should exist, but since it does I think most can admit they did it properly.

Literally speaking of which, at about the 75-minute mark of this film I literally said out loud, "This film is doing no wrong." I liked what I was watching. There were a couple of strong heartfelt moments, not as strong as Cars but not too bad either. There were some scenes that I could have done without, but at the same time if I ever do buy a 3D version of this they are also the scenes I would want to replay most in that setting. Then with maybe fifteen minutes left to go in the film, they take a left turn. I'll admit it was a bit of a surprise and even somewhat more of a letdown (let me just say that the sign of the times really showed here, and if you saw my little mini-rant in the Family Guy thread then you may be able to guess what I'm talking about) because Pixar just had to be different, or rather just had to be modern. I won't fault them for feeling they needed to do what they did, but let me just say that I have the easiest rewrite in the books that gets us to the exact same place when the credits roll without needing to detour a little bit. I have a slight feeling that if they didn't pull this stunt, the several folks (including critics visible on Rotten Tomatoes) who decided to undersell this film would have evened it out in the end. I don't hate what they did, but they honestly could have done without it. Nevertheless, I'll go with as I said in my previous paragraph: since they did it, I can go ahead and say they also executed it pretty well in the process, because they really could have butchered it.

Call me less a fan of the first Cars film than other people seem to somewhat appreciate it for, a completist for being mildly amused at the second film enough to own it on Blu-ray, and a happy-go-lucky fan of this third Cars film that capped off the trilogy in such a way that, although with a little bump at the very end, was indeed a redeeming chapter of this franchise for what it started with. Pixar easily could have allocated its resources in other films, and it looks like we're getting the payoff now with an Incredibles 2, a Toy Story 4, and four originals (including Coco, where if you blink you might miss the small Easter egg Cars 3 had for it). Sue them for wanting to eek out a little profit here and there, but in a world where the Cars films exist I think it's better off with 3 in the books than if the trilogy-closer did not come to light, even if it means we have to wait a little longer for Pixar to sprinkle out hopefully some more magic in the coming years.

I know I'm extremely late to the party, but I waited for a time to sync up and see it with a friend (we both have too many obligations in the education realm), plus I had to see Doctor Strange and Thor: Ragnarok beforehand.

Now before I leave any impressions, know that my experience was dampened by students with a moronic goal of sabotage by deciding to blurt out anything about the film they knew that I wouldn't want to know. I mean... what can I do to them in retaliation? Fail them? Strike them down with the hammer of Thor? Nothing, they're untouchable and they know it. It's sad, and I thought I've taught them to be better than that. Unfortunately, that select few is out there and always will be. I've waited nearly thirty years of my life for a film of this impactful magnitude to come out in its respectful genre, and individuals half of my age decide to play the card of indecency upon me and essentially impede on the level of my viewing experience.

All that being said... it was a very good film, even better than I liked it (the problem was the spoilers). In fact, if I were to list negatives for this film, it would really just be all in one lump-sum bullet point regarding the lack of grounded material: a lot of space related stuff, nanotechnology (and I really don't like the Iron Spider compared to regular ol' Spider-Man), whims of inexplicable magic sources, levels of seemingly unbeatable friends and foes where I don't understand the devastation of a punch or explosion onto the individual taking the blow, and the recurring MCU element of death not necessarily being a finality for characters' ends.

Conversely, there were many things that I really appreciated about the film. The first thing I would like to mention was the balance of everything, starting with the balance of characters and their moments. I thought this was going to be a massive issue going into this film, where it would just be one endless action battle and people wouldn't be able to serve their parts correctly, or they would only serve aspects as a moment of convenience to further the plot. Instead, where everyone was at during any moment seemed very natural to the overall MCU progression of items, and interactions that were had (on top of some that have yet to occur, lying in wait for the fourth Avengers film) were nicely played out. Villain encounters even appeared late in the film, which is kind of nice so that the legend looms larger as the movie goes on instead of playing beats such as: "We need three fights between hero and villain, so let's spread them out." Even characters who are physically inferior weren't just suitably matched up with other characters of that nature, and instead they found a way to possibly hold their own or team up to make things equal enough so that the fights could be anywhere with anyone. None of this works just in script alone; this was done by the hands of great directing. The Russo Bros have found a way to serve this great kind of balance for two straight films, though in Civil War it really felt a little more like: "Let's force the issue and get everyone on screen at once, even in a bit of a friendlier brawl." Admittedly some characters miss the boat of even appearing in the film, but it was few and far between, and they are explained away where frankly it worked just fine.

Another great form of balance was in the light versus dark emotional moments. I have been on Marvel for having too many lighthearted moments in their films, or really too much levity for the sake of entertaining the crowd on their first viewing of a film. They really pushed the envelope with Thor: Ragnarok, and honestly I was not appreciative of it. They needed to find a way to strike the right balance of when to say what and what surface level of comedy they need to inject during the characters given the moments, but most importantly every light moment needs to be balanced with a dark moment for emotions to hit the right heartstrings. Infinity War does exactly that. I wasn't eye-rolling when they injected humor, and only one or two comedic bits were out of place for the moment they were in. That is a fair price to pay for the overall structure. They had enough characters to find those moments with in the 160-minute running time, and for once they didn't have the villain(s) either be demoted to that same level of yuck-yucks nor did they subject them to another character's comedic relief as a way to actually victimize them.

This is a great time to transition to this film's villain: Thanos. I have had my quips with MCU villains being rather underserved in scope compared to that of the larger picture at play, like where they may be more of a pawn so the rest of the chessboard could do its thing. Thanos, however, appears as the king of this universe's chessboard. He was the main character in this film, and probably had the most screen time. He was not just a villain seeking ultimate domination of everything for the sake of it, he has his own goals and purposes in an attempt to restore a harmonious balance (there is that world again) for all species. It was not only believable, but it was also sympathetic. He shows remorse for his (attempted) actions, he shows mercy to those who beg for it so long as they aid in furthering his cause, and he speaks with a level head in a way that if we haven't already had eighteen other MCU films liking our heroes so much that we would actually root for the bad guy here. Definitely the best served comic book villain in a decade, if not right alongside the Joker for 'overall' status. Granted, Heath Ledger has given us the performance of a lifetime, though that character is very one-dimensional (and really good at that dimension, no doubt). Thanos really surprised me that he was more than just a large purple alien wanting "MOAR."

I want to give the directors credit for making an extremely long running time feel extremely short. I don't know if I'm sitting here saying that I'd like to watch a whole 'nother hour of the film, but they hit the right beats and paced it so evenly that they really made time fly by in a manner that other films really can't speak for in the same vein. For all the movies I own on Blu-ray, I sometimes stop short of watching something that runs this long because I tell myself: "This is a long film man, you are going to be devoting a lot of time to this." I don't think I'll be saying that about Infinity War. If I were to show this to a friend who hadn't seen it yet, I wouldn't be warning them about the duration of it nor would I fear they would be looking at their watch every fifteen minutes wondering when it would end. The more you get into the film, the more you lean forward on the edge of your seat. Yes, sometimes they do cut away from characters to get to others because they have to, but you never forget your place where others are at and you aren't dismayed at the next grouping's story line. It all worked so very, very well.

I'll cap this off with one thing that wasn't as strong as I hoped it would be, and it was in the movie's action. There was nothing wrong with it, but outside of some last-act battles I wasn't ever really wowed by anything either. All visual effects were top-notch, though (ehem, Ragarok was not good here too). I do think I'm putting this on a relative scale though, because it's interesting that I say that looking back at the whole picture that I think the moments outside of the action were actually better than the action points themselves, not in terms of entertainment but just in overall value. That's a good thing too, so now you're not just sitting around waiting to be getting your money's worth again. This jumps back to how the film's length is not a concern. No action scene overstays its welcome either, or it has enough dynamic elements and cross-cutting that it fits properly (again, jumping back to Civil War, that airport scene was just way too contrived... this doesn't have that). Age of Ultron was much more of a popcorn flick for me that I really do enjoy, and The Avengers has all of its lasting appeal in the final third of the film when they all assemble together, so I think I can say this one is the most consistently put together.

Overall, I would say that my experience was definitely a great one and it is likely hitting inside my Top 3 of all the MCU films (The Winter Soldier still wins). I'm not ready to officially rank it just yet and I still have a lot of questions about what I saw in this one, but again that's a good thing about this film's natural depth where I'll have to watch it more than once to understand and appreciate those items. I really think the thing that brings this movie down a notch was my experience because of spoilers beforehand, and I didn't want to believe many of them to be true but unfortunately many were. This is a movie that I even avoided watching trailers for. Any knowledge about an event I am already interested in does not help ramp up the hype by me learning more about it. Shame on them for doing that to my theatrical viewing, but thankfully this film did not only rely on its spoiler-bound moments to be as good as it was. It was very ambitious, and I can't wait to see what they come up with next because I really have no idea where they want to go from here.

In this soft reboot--outside of a character connection, the idea of a heist/recruitment, and some scenes that they clearly wanted to serve as a mash note to O11--it really did not feel too much like O11. In fact, its plot felt more like Tower Heist with a tone closer to O12 and a deliverance that played out a bit like Logan Lucky. It opens up with a score similar to that of what David Holmes used in the past, but outside of the different score bits this film has an actual soundtrack as well to give it its own style (personally, I would have preferred an "only score" flick).

It's a very female-driven film. Not just by cast, but also with themes. A lot of this movie involves fashion and high society (as the heist itself takes place at the Met Gala, that's probably expected), and that lost me a bit. Even the target, although more tangible than that of what O13's objective was, felt a bit too small-scale. No, they didn't need to knock over another Vegas casino, but there was something great about that in O11 and O13 that was lost in O12, and it did the same again here. They didn't spend any time making the city backdrop become a staple or character in this film either. Everything was always shot very close and with a lot of interiors.

As I outright claim in my review title, the weakest aspect of this film was the writing. I just don't think they were really all that clever, at least in that I had seen it all before. What do all heist films tend to have in common? The suckers around the protagonists eat up everything they are fed. Everything has to work in such a convenient way for it to all be pulled off. In 2018, I'd like to see a heist film that sets up a lot of contingencies when things don't go right, and this one felt very linear. Also, one thing the previous Ocean's films did really well was kept the audience in the dark about a lot of what the protags were doing--that they weren't just tricking innocent bystanders, but they were tricking us along the way as well. I'll admit they got me once, but on two other occasions it seems like they tried and I just didn't fall for anything there. The rest of it was all very plainly laid out and we were just going along for watching them attempt to execute it.

These writers also simply didn't know how connect the (male) audience with its characters the same way as its predecessors. The players served their parts just fine, but only a couple of them had actual personalities. Plus, George Clooney and Brad Pitt developed such a "cool" dialogue with each other all of the time and always knew what the other was thinking. Maybe I'm actually looking for them to be closer to that film more than the writers wanted to, but this felt a little generic as a result. Plus, they upset me with one of their tie-in decisions to the previous trilogy, but I'm sure that was a decision that looms far above their control.

Now, it probably seems like I'm majorly harping on this film, yet really when all was said and done I'd actually say that I enjoyed watching it. It wasn't a great film by any means, but I certainly did enjoy it. What I think saved it was one Sandra Bullock and one Anne Hathaway, with heavy emphasis on Hathaway. Though let me first say, Sandra played so low-key that I wouldn't be hard-pressed to claim this might be my favorite performance of hers. It's not her best performance, but she didn't feel as much like a "try-hard actor" in this film as she normally does, so it made me like it a lot more. However, the REAL show-stealer in this was Anne Hathaway, and I didn't even remember she was in this film before she showed up. I LOVED Anne Hathaway in this. I mean she was the really redeeming quality of every scene that she appeared in. If I rewatch the film any time soon (which I likely won't), it will be for her alone. Her delectable presence got me to go with the idea of the female-ish tone that was being played out. Rihanna got into her character nicely as well. I did not like Cate Blanchett or Helena Bonham Carter, sadly enough. Mindy was kind of "there" as was Sarah Paulson (who they tried to give some character to, but forgot along the way), and I liked Awkwafina but honestly didn't know who she was before this. Lots of celebrity cameos and a few callbacks to the previous films as well.

Time will tell where this ranks with the other Ocean films, but right now I'd place it at the bottom. At least O12 had an artsy appeal of filming in Amsterdam and it felt like there were a lot of high stakes risks given Isabel, Benedict, and The Nightfox. Sodebergh did enough in that one and the dialogue was witty to still keep it at #3 on the list. Though gents, please feel free to take your significant other though if you'd like; they'll probably dig the fashionable aspects and you'll enjoy enough of the caper aspects to leave like I did, saying that you liked it and move on. If there is one other nice takeaway for this film, it's that everyone looked like they had fun filming it, which is an important staple of the Ocean's series.