Reviews

"In Bruges" director Martin McDonagh applies his dark comedy sensibilities to this unconventional but compelling crime drama that benefits greatly by knock-out performances from McDormand, Rockwell and Harrelson.

I think what holds this movie back a bit is that in the end, it does feel like a riff on the Coen Brother's brand of modern neo-noir that is lacking in subtlety when it comes to tackling it's broader philosophical and social themes.

One of those rare sequels that is better than the first movie in every way.

James Cameron manages to take everything that was great about Ridley Scott's original 1979 film and builds on top of it to make a superior sequel.

It not only maintains the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first, but I found the characters more endearing and memorable (Ex. Hicks, Hudson, Vasquez) this time around.

The action is great, the creature designs are better, and the visuals are simply awesome. The Queen Alien is one of the greatest monsters ever put on screen and it's amazing that the effects were all done in camera.

Aliens also feels more textured from a character and writing perspective. I love the Vietnam War/Starship Trooper aesthetic (I personally like this movie better than the actual Starship Trooper movie) and the underlying themes of motherhood that is further accented in the extended cut.

I also liked how Ripley is upgraded to be an action heroine and Cameron showcases this transition perfectly. It all felt perfectly natural and in keeping with the logic of the story (I'M LOOKING AT YOU FORCE AWAKENS!!).

James Cameron back in his heyday really understood that in order for all this action and spectacle to matter, you need to have compelling relatable characters to anchor it.

It kinda bothers me that there is this growing trend of stereotyping the film as a "dumber action shoot-em up" version of Alien, which baffles me to no end.

Seriously, it's nearly a full hour before any gun is fired and there is literally zero moments in this story where the marines have the upper hand.

Nolan has created another masterpiece in the form of this suspenseful and grounded depiction of the evacuation of Dunkirk.

From a technical standpoint Nolan has really outdone himself from the shocking opening 10 minutes, the dogfights, and the nail-biting claustrophobic boat sequence.

The performances are top-notch all-around, with Tom Hardy probably the most impressive since for most of the movie he has to act with his eyes. However, both Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy also really knock it out of the park.

Despite being yet another WWII movie, Nolan still finds a way to make it distinctly his and manages to stand out through it's focus on survival, minimal dialogue, and merciless clinical depiction of war.

Some may not like that the movie deviates from the novel, but The Shinning stands on its own as a definitive horror classic.

Stanley Kubrick gives his signature cinematic vision with mind-blowing cinematography, eerie music, and a dream-like atmosphere. Jack Nicholson turns in one hell of a performance playing a writer descending into madness.

Like other Kubrick films, the story has many layers of detail and meaning that makes the re-watch value very high.

Kubrick manages to make a truly chilling horror movie, and he didn't need to turn the lights off.

Sixty years later Stanley Kubrick's proverbial really good science-fiction movie continues to draw awe, praise, and division.

Regardless of whether you love it or hate it, the cultural and cinematic impact of this masterpiece cannot be denied. But despite it's wide influence, there still hasn't been quite a movie like 2001.

A true experience for the eyes and the soul that takes the viewer on a journey through the history of mankind.

Writer/director Quentin Tarantino explodes unto the cinematic landscape with his masterful directorial debut that quickly establishes all of his trademarks (profanity-laced poetic dialogue, pop culture references, black comedy, music juxtaposition, shocking moments of violence).

Rarely do filmakers start off with a masterpiece but Tarantino directs this unconventional low-budget star-studded paranoid crime thriller like a seasoned pro.

Both this and Pulp Fiction will always remain some of my favorite movies ever.

It's a shame that when most people talk about the Wachowski's masterful debut these days, it's in reference to the impressively graphic lesbian sex scene, which only lasts about 2 minutes of the actual screen time.

That is too bad because Bound is not only a sincerely effective lesbian romance tale, but it's also a great Hitchcockian thrill-ride that benefits from great performances (Jennifer Tilly, Gina Gershon and Joe Pantoliano).

Even though their next film (The Matrix) would help the siblings explode onto the pop culture landscape and started them on the path towards making large budget special effects spectacles; this small but meticulously-crafted neo-noir exploration of characters who each feel trapped within their own lives exceeds them all in terms of story-telling and emotional resonance.

Check it out!

Using fantasy stories to provide commentary on contemporary society is hardly a new concept, especially in regards to racism. Just look no further than Dr. Seuss' short story The Sneetches or the whole Mud-bloods vs. Pure-blood theme of the Harry Potter series.

However, if there is a comparison to be made with David Ayer's latest creation that gives an End of Watch urban cop thriller spin to a Middle Earth-esque mythos; it would be Disney's Zootopia.

Both movies use odd else-where settings (Zootopia with anthropomorphic animals, Bright with orcs and elves) in order to examine racism and the wealth disparities that exist within our own.

I certainly give Bright plenty of credit for it's intriguing "Middle Earth in the modern day" concept and the large amount of money that was obviously put behind it (it's the most expensive Netflix movie yet). From a visual effects and cinematograph perspective; it's certainly the best-looking of the Netflix features that have been released thus far.

With all it's impressively thrilling action sequences that have all the blood and grit of those nostalgic R-rated 90's action flicks and wild shenanigans courtesy of the MacGuffin magic wand; nothing here feels cheap or like a glorified TV movie as with some past Netflix features.

But the film's core strength is it's two main leads.

I've always loved Will Smith ever since he first stepped out of that rare cab on the popular tv show The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Smith has a natural "adorkable" charisma that lighten up a room and posses solid acting chops to boot. Even if he may not always be in the best movies (Wild Wild West, Concussion), Smith always manages to elevate things somewhat and Bright is no exception.

Smith, much like with his previous role of Deadshot from Suicide Squad, utters plenty of hilarious one-liners while also being a more morally grey character than his previous roles. Despite being despicably racist and mean towards his Orc partner, Smith brings a certain vulnerability and humanism to the role that gives the down-on-his-luck Daryl Ward compelling layers.

Smith also shares great Bad Boys-like chemistry with co-star Joel Edgerton, who despite having to act with pounds of prosthetic Orc make-up, manages to still turn in a very solid performance. While I wish Nick Jakoby's backstory was more thoroughly explored, Edgerton still manages to be compelling by playing up to the character's innocence.

Much like with Ayer's and Smith's previous heavy flawed but enjoyable Suicide Squad, if you can accept Bright on the level of being a B-level low fantasy action flick with solid action and funny dialogue; then it's passably fun on that level.

However, upon watching this I can't help but feel that the concept presented would have been better served if it was a six part Netflix miniseries rather than a movie. The script is written by Max Landis; a screenwriter full of clever ideas but can't coalesce them into a great screenplay to save his life (Ex. American Ultra, Mr. Right, Victor Frankenstein).

In all honesty, the further away we get from Chronicle, the more that movie is starting to look like a fluke.

Where the aforementioned Zootopia was able to deliver a surprisingly fair and balanced portrayal of societal racism and prejudice from all angles while still telling a compelling coherent story, Bright is not able to do the same. The first twenty minutes of this movie in particular lays the racism subtext on way too thick with particularly heavy-handed lines such as "Fairy Lives Don't Matter".

Sheesh, and I thought Spike Lee lacks subtlety.

Landis is also pedestrian when it comes to developing the backstory and fantasy LA setting, with the fantasy elements seemingly placed at pure random at times. For the most part Bright's LA looks like normal LA with Orcs and Elves in it, but other times with little explanation there would be Guillermo del Toro-style magical trees, gothic seedy churches surrounded by normal square buildings, and a Dragon flying in the background (I bet a certain Dothrakian queen is worried sick right now).

Frankly, the whole subplot revolving around a certain prophecy and the danger of a Dark Lord returning felt forced into the plot to give the conflict un-needed worldly stakes. Bright works best as a low-fantasy with focus on character interplay rather than as a Lord of the Rings-type epic high fantasy.

There is also a subplot involving an Orc gang and Nick that is very sloppily injected into the third act that honestly felt like padding and it's made worse by the fact that it leads to a moment that is frustratingly ripped straight from Training Day!!

I really liked the concept, the action, and the two main leads but it's execution and attempts at world-building left much to be desired. There is a sequel currently in the works and despite my reservations, I am still personally interested enough to see what lies in store for Daryl and Nick next.

It's a comic-book-like revenge caper and a tragic love story with a healthy dose of Evil Dead-like insanity thrown in for good measure.

What could have been a Z-grade formulaic revenge plot is elevated thanks to Raimi's energetic filmmaking, some well-executed action, creative special effects, an awesome score, and a talented cast with a great central performance by Neeson.

If you are a Raimi fan, an Evil Dead fan, or just love watching Liam Neeson being a badass; then you owe it to yourself to check out this underrated gem.

"Water is like love, it has no shape. It takes the shape of whatever it inhabits. It's the most powerful element in the universe. It's gentle, flexible, but breaks through every barrier."-Guillermo del Toro

Despite del Toro's love for comics, gothic visuals, giant mechs, and practical monster effects; the famous Spanish director has always been a bit of a romantic at heart as demonstrated by the above quote.

From his more artsy Spanish films (Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labyrinth) to the more mainstream efforts (Hellboy and Pacific Rim), there is a touching reoccurring theme concerning the idea of societal outsiders and marginalized individuals finding solace within each other's company.

With his fascination with fairy tales, it seemed only a matter of time before del Toro took a stab at creating a straight-out romance tale, which comes in the form of his latest feature that gives a great twist to the "Beauty and the Beast" concept.

What makes TSOW probably one of del Toro's best films since The Devil's Backbone is that taken on a pure conceptual level, the inter-species romance angle could have easily been awkward and almost kitschy if done by lesser hands. But del Toro's mathematical but delicate storytelling, impressive set designs, and the incredibly layered performances from the silent Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones, despite wearing a thick rubber monster costume, turns TSOW into one of the most touching and honest romance tales in quite a while.

The performances in general are incredible across the board, arguably the best when it comes to del Toro's English-language movie canon. Hawkins is obviously magnetic in the lead but Michael Shannon as the openly racist research team leader Richard Strickland easily joins the canon of Jacinto (The Devil's Backbone) and Captain Vidal (Pan's Labyrinth) in del Toro's brand of genuinely terrifying but tragic human villains.

But the person that I feel really stole the show was Richard Jenkins, playing Elisa's down-on-his-luck friend/neighbor and closeted commercial artist Giles. Giles by far feels like the most down-to-earth character in this fantastical tale and you really do feel sorry for his plight in life. For most of the movie Giles and Elisa's coworker Zelda (Octavia Spencer) have to verbalize the mute Elisa's sign language; giving way to some unique interactions. Giles also provides some great subtle moments of comic relief.

Praise should also be level at the spell-binding score by Alexandre Desplat (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Argo), giving a film with admittedly strange subject manner a timeless classy atmosphere that further contributes to the fairy tale quality. The accordion and whistle-heavy music that plays over the film's mesmerizing opening underwater dream sequence was the first sign that I was watching something truly special.

The movie on the whole has a magical Old Hollywood feel to the whole thing, which is something different compared to del Toro's previous efforts. It's not the type of Old Hollywood tribute that feels pandering either (Ex. La La Land), it all feels born out of genuine affection and is completely at the service of painting the film's intoxicating atmosphere.

TSOW on the whole is a pretty unconventional movie that is hard to pigeonhole into a single genre.

It's part "Beauty Meets Beast" romance, part creature-feature, part period piece, part fairy tale, part science fiction and part spy thriller. There is also the fact that this is an R-rated del Toro flick and while it's not nearly as violent as Pan's Labyrinth, there are a few scenes that will make you wince or shiver in uncomfortableness.

Even with the trailers it's obvious the distributor's Fox Searchlight Pictures could not crack the egg on how to market the movie. Hopefully it will continue to get more attention due to it's appearance on many critic's "best of" lists and with award season underway; but regardless del Toro's latest masterwork is one of the 2017's best.

I don't know what was scarier: seeing Jo Nesbo's thrilling Norwegian detective noir get shredded into an baffling incoherent mess or Val Kilmer's sagging face and his jarring ADR'd voice.

I'm not a book purist in the least, but this movie takes what was overall a pretty straightforward mystery tale and changes so much to the point that the story's connective tissue was completely eliminated.

It also didn't help that given the tight shooting schedule, supposedly a good 15% of the script was never shot and boy does it really show. Characters and story threads are brought up and dropped with little to no explanation.

What was the whole point of the Gert Rafto, Rakel Fauke and Arve Stop plot-line? As far as the movie is concerned, I don't know?

The movie couldn't even nail down the Harry Hole character. Michael Fassbender tries his best, but despite Hole supposedly being a "great detective", he barely does any throughout.

Heck, Rakel Fauke does most of the detective work here!!

So much of what happens in this movie turns out to be completely meaningless once this mess reaches it's lame, stupid, and rushed conclusion. Seriously....the move not only rushes the pay-off but it just cuts off!!

There are some gorgeous snow landscape and the music by Marco Beltrami should have been in a better movie.

Outside of those things however, this was just a waste of such a prestigious cast and crew.

Up for multiple awards and sporting an impressively high 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, Gerwig's directorial debut is an extremely confident and poignant tale of a teenage girl as she navigates through one year of her life as a Catholic school student in Sacramento, California.

Stylistically this independent feature is very reminiscent of the understated documentary vibe of Richard Linklator's Boyhood with it's impressionistic editing and willingness to just.....well...show a life (Ex. teenagers hanging out, practicing for a lame school play, first dates, being away from home at college).

So I guess an alternative title for this would be Girlhood?

Actually, I think LB manages to surpass Boyhood because it makes it's points regarding life and growing pains in a more efficient and energetic way in it's ninety minute runtime than Boyhood in nearly three hours thanks to it's disciplined editing and sharp dialogue.

But by far the highlight of the film is the tumultuous dynamic between Christine and her mother (Metcalf), especially one particularly uncomfortable but funny sequence involving something as timeless as shopping for a prom dress. The acting by both Ronan and Metcalf is more than deserving of the accolades. Anybody who has ever had a difficult relationship with their mother will find a lot of moments in this movie that will hit close to home.

Even though there is plenty of drama to go around, there are also a lot of laugh-out-loud moments, especially between Christine and her friend Julie (Beanie Feldstein). Probably my favorite little moment was a scene in which Christine and Julie are goofing around in a church that exhibits some very cute bonding moments presented in a hilariously unconventional manner. It all feels very down-to-earth, personal and...well....real.

That is almost the key word here: real.

Everything about this movie feels true to life. There are no big moral speeches, no over-the-top melodrama, no sense of self-importance, or calculated soundtrack inserts.

If I had any complaint about this film it's regarding Father Leviatch, Christine's theater instructor played by Stephen McKinley Henderson. There is a certain reveal regarding his character about halfway through that never really ends up having a pay-off. I know the movie is called LB, so in the end it is about Christine journey but I wouldn't be surprised if something significant got left in the editing room because Leviatch just kinda disappears after a while.

Sequelitis" includes the following:

1. Re-hashing plot points and the best parts of the first movie

2. Taking the "bigger and better" approach with the addition an over-abundance of special effects

3. Adding in new characters you don't care about and in worse cases omitting major characters to the detriment to the sequel

The first smash-hit was a good movie because it was essentially an R-rated coked-up riff of those Roger Moore-era James Bond flicks that still boasted a solid story. It was an R-rated ultra-violent Spy Kids!!

So going into this follow-up, I thought there was a good chance this sequel would at least match the quality of the first movie given this is the first sequel that Matthew Vaughn has directed (Kick-Ass 2 was directed by Jeff Wadlow and X-men: Days of Future Past was Bryan Singer).

Obviously the action never reaches the heights of the Free Bird-soundtracked church sequence from the first (oh boy do they try), but there are a few highlights. The movie opens with a great car chase with Eggsy (Egerton) fighting a Winter Solider-ized Charlie Hesketh (the explanation for how he survived the first movie admittedly makes no sense) soundtracked to Let's Go Crazy by Prince that really starts the movie off with bang!

There are also plenty of damn funny moments too, including one involving a GPS tracker that literally had everybody in the audience rolling on the floor.

Even though this sequel is far from devoid of entertainment value, it still disappointingly suffers from all three of the "sequelitis" issues that I've highlighted above and it is all rooted in the script, which essentially boils down to a re-tread of the first movie with much more fat.

Oh boy does this movie have WAY too much fat with it's excessive number of characters and severe pacing issues. For some reason the filmmakers thought it was a good idea to place even more focus on Eggsy, which perplexes the heck out of me because Eggsy has always been the most boring character in this series.

Too much of this movie is taken up by his "relationship-drama" with his Swedish princess girlfriend (aka. Eggsy butt victory present at the end of the first one) that is played perplexingly straight and only serves to grind the whole affair to a halt. I also love how Eggsy is supposed to have matured since the first movie yet is still somehow dumb enough to leave the door to the secret spy room in his apartment place COMPLETELY UNLOCKED!!!!

The dialogue scenes between Galahad and Merlin (Strong) are one of the few times where the movie sincerely succeeds in injecting an emotional core. Probably the most effecting moment in the whole film comes at the end with Mark Strong (if you have seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about). It's ironic that for a movie with so much special effects and action, the best scene is a simple one that climaxes with one tiny explosion.

The movie in general spends way too much time with superfluous uninteresting elements (Ex. Eggsy girlfriend, a gratuitous running gag with Elton John that over-stays it's welcome) and not enough on the actual interesting elements (Ex. the touching dynamic between Eggsy and Galahad, the satire on drug use that should have been more of the main focus).

Even the Statesman, which were a centerpiece in the film's marketing, end up being completely superfluous to the plot. Channing Tatum fans will be severely disappointed because he only has a total of 10 minutes of total screen time before being unceremoniously removed from the plot. Even Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges are barely in the movie and thus do not make much of an impression.

The only Statesman to receive any significant screen-time is Pedro Pascal, who plays Jack Daniels (aka. the one with the whip). Now I really like Pascal, especially on Narcos, and he does a good job with the role and has a good chemistry with main trio of Kingsman. But as with the case with most things with this movie, Jack Daniels doesn't really add much to the narrative and mostly exists to squeeze in more action sequences (his last fight scene is a classic case of padding out). He does have an intriguing character reveal but it's frustratingly tacked unto the eleventh hour of the story!!

This is a movie in which the filmmakers seemed to have been very much thinking in set- pieces, which isn't always a bad thing (Ex. John Wick, Mad Max: Fury Road) but if that is the route you are gonna take with your action movie….then PLEASE keep the pacing brisk and invention constant!! It is never a good sign when action sequences start coming off as a boring nuisances than thrilling and the nearly two and a-half hour runtime does not help matters.

Probably the biggest weakness of this movie is surprisingly it's main villain. Despite a solid introduction (you will not look at a hamburger the same way again), the 50's obsessed drug lord Poppy Adams (Moore) comes off as more of an annoyance to our heroes than an actual threat. She lacks that seamless balance of odd humor and sincere menace that Samuel L. Jackson brought in the first one.

Moore's overly ernest dialogue delivery and just the fact that most of the jokes written for her are lame contribute to her character getting annoying and old VERY fast. Moore is a very good actress but her performance was simply terrible!!

So at the end of the day, K:TGC ended up just being another average sequel. If you loved that first movie then I can only recommend it as a rental but otherwise, stick with the original.

While watching Aronofsky's uncompromisingly bleak journey into the downward spiral of four individuals living in Brooklyn, I couldn't help but think of the famous Nine Inch Nails tune Hurt.

The lines, "The needle tears a hole, The old familiar sting, Try to kill it all away, But I remember everything", bring to mind Harry's (Leto), one of our protagonists, heroin addiction.

In a way both Hurt and Requiem for a Dream (RFAD) deal with similar themes regarding individuals engaging in self-harming activities (in this case, drug use) as a means to escape their empty lives.

This isn't to imply that RFAD is just a simple anti-drug PSA because while the four main characters such as the aforementioned Harry, his grandmother Sara (Burnstyn), his girlfriend (Marion) and his friend Tyrone (Wayans) are each addicted to different types of drugs; what truly drives their actions are their obsession with achieving the idealistic American Dream in order to find happiness.

RFAD MW

With Sara it's being on TV, with Harry and Sara it's starting their own clothing store, and with Tyrone it's the simple desire to be loved by someone like his mother did when he was a child. Protagonists with obsessions that eventually lead to their downfall is a common theme in Aronofsky's filmography whether it's clinging on to their 80's glory days (The Westler) or perfecting ballet dancing (Black Swan) and RFAD is no exception.

Aronofsky has also never been afraid to get weird. Much like David Lynch, Aronofsky uses surrealism and unorthodox film-making techniques as a tool to help externalize the emotions and state of minds of the characters.

This is on display with the film's then revolutionary "hip hop montage" technique (previously used by Aronofsky in Pi) in which a large number of rapid short cuts are used to illustrate the character's transition from sobriety to intoxication.

While there are plenty of crazy camera techniques and visual elements utilized throughout the movie such as body cams shots (Ex. Tyrone running away from a gang hit) and rapid visual distortion to showcase the characters suffering from withdrawal, by far one of my favorite moments is a quiet moment that features Harry and Sara talking face-to-face while lying in bed together.

Instead of being in the same shot, both of their faces separated by a split-screen format. Despite saying they love each other, the cold dialogue delivery and the separation by the editing serves to illuminate the hallow-ness of their relationship. Harry and Sara are more in love with the idea of each other if anything else.

There are many other tricks being used in order to immerse the audience into the subjective emotions of the characters, none more so than with Sara who as the film progresses experiences more vivid delusions of being on a potentially non-existent game show in addition to increased stress from trying to lose weight. Let's just say you will probably never be more scared by a refrigerator than when watching RFAD.

Speaking of Sara, it would be a crime to discuss RFAD without mentioning Burnstyn's magnetic transformative performance. This isn't to minimize everybody else because the acting quality in general is great, heck, even Marlon Wayans (playing against type in his only dramatic role so far) more than holds his own against the likes of Connelly and Leto. If there was any weak link in the cast (if any because once again, everybody is awesome) it would be Leto due to his uneven New York accent in the first half of the film. Despite all the characters having less than admirable qualities, the acting gives each of them a level of believability that works in conjunction with the guerilla-style cinematography to lend an air of authenticity to RFAD.

RFAD Sara

However, seeing Burnstyn going through her transformation from absent-minded white- haired grandmother to a pill-popping anorexic red-haired wreck is both horrifying and an awe-inspiring testament to having dedication to one's craft. Out of all the characters, Sara is the one I had the most sympathy for since she was the most innocent out of anybody. She sincerely cares for her son Harry and wants nothing more than for him to be happy. This is what makes her "nothing is left for me" speech to Harry simply heartbreaking. Burnstyn gives some of the best acting I've ever seen because the sadness in her delivery and expressions was so moving that even cinematographer Matthew Libatique broke into tears while shooting the scene.

Needless to say, RFAD is far from an uplifting film and is easily up there with Grave of the Fireflies as being one of the saddest films I've ever seen, but it's also a great Greek tragedy-style psychological character study that isn't afraid to show the ugly side of humanity.

I watched all six episodes of S1 over the weekend and oh boy, it is every bit as terrible as it looked from the trailer.

Unremarkable animation, terrible voice-acting (Jaden Smith continues to show he is a crap actor and Jude Law is half-assign it like crazy) and dialogue, pointless plot, trite set-up (Neo Yokio just looks like regular New York with the sci-fi and Japanese elements very lazily written in) and poorly directed.

Not outrageous enough to be a good comedy, too few actual anime references to entertain fans of anime, no real action, and the attempts at capitalism satire are about as vapid as the characters themselves.

It is not just a failure, it's a spectacular failure.

Brought to mind a quote from Roger Ebert regarding Highlander 2 which was "the most hilariously incomprehensible movie I've seen in many a long day—a movie almost awesome in its badness. Wherever science fiction fans gather, in decades and generations to come, this film will be remembered in hushed tones as one of the immortal low points of the genre.".

Instead of sci-fi fans, it will be animation fans who will remember Neo Yokio as an immortal low point in the medium.

While the miniseries was far from perfect, it's most fondly remembered for Tim Curry's (Rocky Horror Picture Show, Legend, The Wild Thornberrys) legendary performance as the terrifying children-eater Pennywise the Clown. However, even with the over three hour runtime, certain details or story elements were still changed or entirely left out. One example being that Pennywise was much more cold and demonic in the novel as opposed to Cury's Freddy Krueger-like interpretation.

Now, how much a movie is faithful or not to it's source material is of no consequence to me because most of the time…..I just want to see a good movie. I don't care how much King hates Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining for being unfaithful to his original story, it's still a horror masterpiece.

Having said that, I think the thing that intrigued me most about this latest adaptation of the novel was the decision to split the story into a two-parter with the first movie strictly focusing on the Loser's club story from when they were kids in the 1980's (as opposed to the 1950's in the novel) and the second one with the Loser's club coming back to Derry, Maine over twenty-seven years later to fight Pennywise again as adults.

It's a strange choice from an adaptation standpoint since a key element of the novel and the miniseries was it's constant back-and-forth between the two stories in order to showcase the past's effect on the present. The adult narrative also served as the framing device for the child narrative.

But in a way, while it may have sacrificed some of the nuances of the novel, keeping the first movie fixed on the past vastly improves the narrative for me because, personally, it made for a much tighter and more intense story. One of my personal pet peeves are when movies make it clear right from the outset that the characters are going to be alright because it kills any suspense. Heck, the movie itself doesn't even make it clear that there will be a chapter 2 until the very end.

Plus, I always found the kid story of the Loser's Club from the miniseries much more interesting than the adult story.

If I had to describe this movie, it would probably be a combination of the demonic spook- house thrills of The Conjuring series combined with the setting of Stranger Things and the antics found in 80's nostalgic classics such as The Goonies.

Even though the trailers have sold It as a horror film and while it is indeed a solid horror film, this is not the movie's strongest attribute. That is because at it's heart the movie is a touching coming-of-age story with Pennywise serving more as a metaphor for the traumas and personal issues that each of the members of the Loser's club must overcome. I think it's due to this reason that the movie not only ends up being one of the best King adaptations ever, but possibly one of the best movies of the year period.

This feat is thanks in no small part to the excellent cast. Bill Skarsgard ended up being a great choice to fill in the clown shoes of Curry. Skarsgard's Pennywise is every bit as creepy as he looks and I love how he gives the character a more creature-like demeanor, almost as if at any anytime the unstable Pennywise is on the verge of going full-on monster mode. The character of Pennywise is also helped by the sheer amount of terrifying hallucinations he imparts on each member of the Loser's club in order to bring out their worst memories or fears.

While I will always prefer Curry's portray of the character due to the sheer amount of fun he brought to the role and the fact that he is…well….Tim Curry, Skarsgard interpretation is nothing to sneeze at either.

But the true stars of the movie are the Loser's Club. For most of the movie we are strictly focused on their perspective and fortunately the quality of the acting is excellent across the board. There is literally not a single weak performance and the chemistry between the actors captures the magic of those coming-of-age classics such as Stand By Me.

When it comes to acting prowess Lieberher and Lillis obviously come out on top but probably my favorite character was Richie Tozier played by Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things fame due to his endless supply of hilariously inappropriate jokes and one-liners.

I also liked how the sociopathic bully character Henry Bower, played by Nicolas Hamilton who funny enough has been in TWO Stephen King movies this year (The Dark Tower and It), is given some much needed depth compared to his miniseries counterpart.

While the film does not skimp out on the horror in anyway (some of the novel's darker elements are included where they were absent in the miniseries), the coming-of-age story and the child actors form the very tender human heart that makes this film seem so special compared to other film's in it's genre.

I think this is why I am able to forgive a few of the film's flaws such as Chosen Jacob's character Mike Hanlon disappointingly given the shaft when it came to character development and dialogue, a couple of scare scenes suffering from less-than-optimal CGI and Benjamin Wallfisch's overall excellent moody score getting a little over-bearing at times.

So if you are one of the hold outs who hasn't seen It or simply looking for a quality King adaptation to wash away the bad taste left by The Dark Tower…..then what are you waiting for?!?!?!