Reviews

The Enterprise crew is back for more adventure. After a divisive follow-up that is "Into Darkness", I am proud to say that the third installment of the newly-formulated Kelvin timeline (the J. J. Abrams movies) is a worthy addition. Where the next trek goes brings the Enterprise to its knees, as they are attacked by a merciless leader named Krall (a menacing Idris Elba). And landed on a hostile planet, the crew must stop Krall from his evil deeds.

If you are a devoted follower to the saga, you may observe the repetitive pattern (wherein Enterprise gets attack by a baddie with resentment to the Federation and must stop his/her huge plans of mass destruction). "Beyond" applies the same pattern but to surprising effect. It can be lauded to Justin Lin's effort to lend his flair for blockbusters – as seen from his Fast & Furious movies – and apply them to the Star Trek universe without sacrificing its heart and soul. And that comes from the Enterprise crew on adventure mode, for this new "Star Trek" feels like a full-length TV episode. It proves that Simon Pegg knows Trek flair when he and his co-writer wrote this down.

Well, it can be attributed that this is a mandatory tribute for Star Trek's 50th year anniversary, but as a stand-alone feature, it is a whole lot of fun. As the visual spectacle has been consistent, the cast this time has more chemistry and screen time, with Chris Pine as Kirk striking solid, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban and Dr. Bones as an effective duo, Anton Yelchin finally having time to shine, and newcomer Sofia Boutella in breakout mode after "Kingsman".

Yet, despite the fun, it cannot help but make this a bittersweet entry, as this is where the late great Leonard Nimoy was given a well- deserved salute, and this serves as Yelchin's posthumous performance. Fitting to this celebratory part of the franchise. While Trekkies and non- Trekkies may see this as a loss, it should not stop "Star Trek Beyond" from being an epic adventure that truly respects Gene Roddenberry's creation and gives it a breath of fresh air. This adventure boldly went where no man has gone before (even though it means repeating itself).

"Independence Day" is 1996's prime summer blockbuster. Despite being an unoriginal piece of space invasion sci-fi, it has its fun moments like the alien destruction, quirky characters and Will Smith's star-making performance. Now, after 20 years in the waiting, the aliens "resurge" for one more attack in their bigger return in the lamest way possible.

As a starter, after the events of the 1996 hit maker, the whole world is unified under one protection umbrella called Earth Space Defense. A weary but game Jeff Goldblum returns as himself, again, who uncovers a plan about the aliens sending a distress signal after their defeat. Goldblum tries his best but he is given the same material from the original, and he just dragged Charlotte Gainsbourg along in his chase. And once invasion is confirmed, it is up to the ragtag team of pilots, like Liam Hemsworth, Jessie Usher as Will Smith's son, and Maika Monroe as Bill Pullman's daughter, and Roland Emmerich's stock characters to stop the invading forces.

For the audience, try doing an endurance test (in the first 10 minutes) because you will likely have a hard time getting invested on anything. Blame it on the fast but uneven pacing that questions the editing, introduces new characters inserted to no effect (What are Hemsworth and Usher fighting about again?), inserts pointless characters (case in point, Judd Hirsch's unpleasant return) and kills off old characters to no payoff. Not helping is the jarring script (penned by five writers, including Emmerich, partner Dean Devlin and James Vanderbilt of The Amazing Spider-Man) that rehashes the pattern of the original. Wait what?

The only saving grace is the alien destruction that made the original kind of remarkable. But even that, it basically lasts only for a while and the climax copies Ivan Reitman's "Evolution". Lame. Yet at least you will tolerate returnees being present for nostalgia factor (from Bill Pullman's awesome president in old man's beard and Brent Spiner's wacky scientist) and Maika Monroe's phoned-in yet bearable performance. But even they cannot save "Independence Day: Resurgence" for being a total trainwreck of a sequel that failed to capture the fun, the charm, the flair, the bombast, the scale and the awesomeness of the original. 2016 sequel-itis hit once again, and "Resurgence" is not immune.

It is just a summer popcorn lackluster.

"Finding Nemo" is really one of Pixar's best efforts. So a followup to the 2003 undersea adventure would really set a lot of standard. For that, I'm proud to say that its sequel, "Finding Dory", is not as bad as I expected it to be. In fact, it is actually great.

Well, part of the skepticism I had for this followup to "Nemo" is that it centers on the predecessor's instant scene stealer Dory. To admit, Ellen Degeneres truly made the lovable blue tang as an iconic character as she is now. And to turn the spotlight to a forgetful comic relief does show corporate cynicism for Pixar, as demonstrated by "Cars 2". At least that's my first reaction to a sequel to "Nemo" that centers on Dory. More than thankfully, Dory makes up for another compelling adventure, with Marlin (a game Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence), in search of her parents as she retrieves memory of them from her birthplace in a Morro Bay marine reserve. Kudos to Ellen for bringing heart to every funny, tearful and motivating moment.

There are new characters along the adventure, like Destiny (an enthusiastic Kaitlin Olson) and Bailey (a clumsy Ty Burrell). But the definite breakout is Hank the octopus or septopus (a gallant Ed O'Neill), who provides an undeniable presence of a scarred but redeemed character. Though his back story is kind of vague (an octopus who wants to stay in captivity), the mollusk is more than interesting, and a great companion to Ellen's beloved blue tang. Just the animation of its design and movements is something Pixar has always stepped up to create.

Always a Pixar standard is its quality animation as not only the ocean became the main attraction, but also the detail of the so-called "jewel of Morro Bay, California". Andrew Stanton and team are really aware of the environment they are in. Kind of reminds me of "Jurassic World" of how life size the attraction is. Also, watch out for sudden twists and turns, just a showcase of how unique the movie is.

Though this may not be as momentous as "Finding Nemo", "Finding Dory" is still a worthy continuation of the adventures of everybody's favorite clownfish and forgetful blue tang. Pixar finally gave us a fine sequel to their property. And I am sure to hold hopes for their next film…"Cars 3". Hmm.

Ellen, you deserve the movie you took years of campaigning.

Bryan Singer continues the "X-Men" cinematic lore with a continuation to the "First Class" storyline. We see the team formed then divided in the 60s, clashed in the 70s and regrouped in the 80s. This time, a powerful, ancient mutant named En Sabah Nur or Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) resurfaces and aims to reform a new world but destroying our own. So, it is up to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and his band of mutants to stop Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen from (what else?) taking over the world.

Now, I am an avid follower of the "X-Men" lore. Although I have not read the comics, I follow some story lines that shape up the universe. And I praise Bryan Singer for his efforts ever since the first "X-Men" movie until his return from departure for being involved in "X-Men: First Class" to bring the complex superhero team to silver screen form. I tell this as a strong compliment, for Singer made a bold risk with "X-Men: Apocalypse", whether the repercussions are good or bad.

To give its credit, Singer, along with collaborator Simon Kinberg, knows the "X-Men" story lines all too well. But fanfare does not weigh as much as narrative. (Still, for comic book fans, watch out for Easter eggs.) Being too familiar of the storyline makes this the most derivative part of the franchise. And it all feels predictably formulaic: mutants are outcasts but they are given a chance when a baddie emerges, and all is well. Despite the amount of great moments, the narrative lacks the heftiness of its predecessors. And it does not help that the jarring editing jumps like a jumping bean, shifting from one lighter tone to a heavier one. When the story fell flat, the same goes for the cast.

To be fair, this is an undeniable cast ensemble, mixing the originals, from McAvoy, Lawrence, Fassbender, Nicholas Hoult as Beast and Rose Byrne in a returning role, with the new generation, from Tye Sheridan as Cyclops, Sophie Turner as Jean Grey, Kodi Smit-McPhee as Kurt/Nightcrawler, Alexandra Shipp as Ororo Munroe/Storm and Olivia Munn as Psylocke. Seeing every mutant interact feels like watching the 90s animated series. But even with that, majority of the characters have no arc. The one that has a recognizable one is Erik Lensherr, who goes through the same plot beats but with winning effect. Michael Fassbender really made a compelling performance as a mutant desiring to live normally, only to be brought down by his unwanted powers. The rest are there to drive the plot, sadly. Then we go to the main villain. As Apocalypse, Oscar Isaac makes up the character for its intimidating presence but gives too little of a payoff, making him generic and kind of disappointing.

However there are indeed moments, like Evan Peters topping with another Quicksilver's slow-motion scene, Smit-McPhee's Nightcrawler being an effective comic relief and the final battle in Egypt. But it cannot help rescue "X-Men: Apocalypse" from a derivative plot, a clichéd villain, haphazard editing, a confused tone, a mix of professional and amateur special effects, the absence of deeper themes and missed opportunities with the cast. Still, "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a fun ride, thanks to its enthusiastic and well-committed cast, thrilling action scenes and wonderful moments. It may be a fallout from "X-Men: Days of Future Past", but this Bryan Singer's boldest move for the franchise, better or worse.

The Marvel universe gets tenser with the most-awaited "Civil War". For what fans clamor to be a storyline that the MCU is building towards, here comes a showdown of Marvel's biggest properties.

"Captain America 3" starts off where "Avengers: Age of Ultron" ended, when the New Avengers, led by Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), are cornered by international concern in response to continuous collateral damage. As a result, a governing act is proposed to the Avengers, fracturing the team to two sides, one led by Rogers and another led by Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.). But when a new threat is on the horizon, the team has to face the repercussions of their brawls.

It is a huge help that the Russo Brothers returned to hold the weights of Marvel's Phase Three, after their spontaneous effort in "The Winter Soldier". Though "Civil War" may not be as solid as its predecessor, it is still a worthy addition to the Avengers storyline and Captain America's saga. Yet, it excels for taking a mature route that brings a compelling character study, a token from the first Avengers movie. Out of such character study is the major theme of vengeance. I am not going to give any more details about it. It is best to be seen and be enamored by how such themes are delivered with an affecting yet entertaining vibe.

Kudos to the cast ensemble that all brought their A-game, even though some characters are not that fleshed out, or feeling shoehorned. Evans is at his most moving as the fading patriot who wishes the best for his team and loved ones. Downey Jr. is still what we expected from RDJ. Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow has a neutral but affectionate presence, despite her rather little involvement. The rest of the cast is great to see, with notable breakout performances from Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man/Giant-Man, Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa/Black Panther and Tom Holland as Spider-Man/Peter Parker. And Daniel Bruhl as Helmut Zemo is a better addition to Marvel's lacking lineup of antagonists. But despite the cast's collective efforts, there is an obvious battle for screen time with all characters. Thankfully, it was all salvaged as the two parties brawl in a cleared airport, in an exhilarating action sequence that will surely make every audience member cheer.

For all the makings of a summer blockbuster, "Captain America: Civil War" gets it all started right. Besides being a loyal companion to the comic book storyline, it is a worthy setup to Marvel's other properties and one that truly can hold on its own, courtesy of its consistent superhero action scenes, the Russo brothers' tense direction, the excellent cast, its thought-provoking themes and its exciting story with its signature Marvel snappy dialogue. Let us hope for the best for MCU's future, including Tom Holland's "Spider-Man".

"The Jungle Book" is one of my favorite Disney movies, being an incredible classic during my childhood. Now, as it gains its second live-action reincarnation (there's still the 1994 version), it sets up a standard for the 2016 version to achieve. And in prospect, this is one is very rewarding.

For starters, this "Jungle Book" movie actually derives away slightly from the animated predecessor. Instead, it settles more on the Rudyard Kipling source material, complimented by its darker tone and deeper morals. But it still has the same storyline. As Mowgli (Neel Sethi) comes of age, he is being hunted by ferocious tiger Shere Khan (a menacingly excellent Idris Elba). So it is up to caring panther Bagheera (a supportive Ben Kingsley, also doing the narration), carefree Baloo (a comically game Bill Murray) and the hospitable wolves led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita N'yongo) to protect Mowgli, and for Mowgli to set his destiny, whether as a man or in the jungle.

Initially, I was quite skeptical of how director Jon Favreau executed the story. But knowing that this is more loyal to the book series, its unorthodox execution fits. As a result, Favreau, together with cinematographer Bill Pope ("The Matrix") and visual effects houses Moving Picture Company and Weta Digital, was able to craft a visual splendor of stunning effects and beautiful animation.

As for the performances, the ensemble vocal cast is at their A-game, with the addition of Christopher Walken as King Louie and Scarlett Johansson as Kaa. But the true MVP is Neel Sethi, who makes a compelling Mogwli, being an inventive and wholehearted boy. And it shows how Sethi is committed to blend his character to a blue screen and to interact with none-present beings.

If there are flaws in here, it is that the main animal characters are not that much fleshed out. They are basically given too obvious traits. The versions of three of the Sherman Brothers songs are executed in an uncanny manner. And fans of the original will be indecisive of how much changes were made out of the original.

In the end, "The Jungle Book" is another "Life of Pi" adventure. But it is complimented by Favreau's direction, the topnotch visual effects and the excellent vocal and live-action performances. And at least it is better than Disney's other live-action versions of their animated movies.

Back when I was a kid, I truly wished for DC Comics' prime superheroes, Superman and Batman, to clash together. I got the cartoon but I truly wanted for them to meet in real life. And as we finally get a titanic clash of two of the greatest superheroes, what I get...is a mixed bag.

Okay, to be honest, it is a noble task for "300" director Zack Snyder to set up a cinematic universe from the divisive "Man of Steel". Of a flawed telling of Superman's origins, there needs to be corrections be done to justify a setup for a "Justice League" movie. Too bad the same mistakes are done in this effort, from its dark and gritty tone to its plot excesses. However, you can forgive them as they tend to highlight the epic showdown between DC's greatest properties; if not too much.

As for the plot, there are times that it feels forced or designed to set up DC's other properties. For it is easy to tell a growing rift between the Son of Krypton and the Bat of Gotham, it is baffling that the execution is flawed. The best storyline comes from Bruce Wayne/Batman. Ben Affleck does an impressive performance as Wayne and his alter ego, with Jeremy Irons' Alfred Pennyworth in full support. And although I commend Affleck for impressively embodying Batman, his performance is tad too similar from his predecessors and his motivation goes south.

The supposed backbone of the movie, Superman's subplot, fails to fulfill the personality missing from "Man of Steel". As both Clark Kent and Superman, Henry Cavill was able to pull off a fine act but he was given no room to develop more for both identities. And his storyline feels a little constrained to learn of his character journey to justify "Man of Steel". At least Amy Adams' Lois Lane is given further credit, more than she was previously.

The true breakout and delightful surprise comes from Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/Diana Prince. While the Amazon warrior princess feels phoned in, she makes a striking impression from her limited screen time. Gadot is impressive, making me wish for more room for her to shine.

While I can post more compliments, I cannot but feel frustrated as to how disappointingly this "Justice League" setup was staged. Some scenes are thrown in like pies. The action scenes were hard to follow. The pacing is flagging. The main villain, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, is a balance between witty and exasperating. The Easter eggs end up too visible like billboards. The introductions to other DC characters are too much forced. And the showdown that the movie truly sells is…okay. And expecting an okay reaction from a showdown between Batman and Superman is not okay.

After a preview, I heartbreakingly realized that a trailer for "The Lego Batman Movie" made a better impression than the actual movie itself, making this one of the most frustrating movies I could ever review. All the while, I was still hyped to see where Snyder and company will go from this one. And I hope it is not surely a recollection of what the movie was. Now, we can all lay our hopes…to the "Suicide Squad".

Out of "Zootopia" comes one of Disney's cleverest scripts, for the fact it successfully pulls off a new spin on their usual fables. Well, the concept isn't new – an animal buddy cop movie, but in usual Disney animated magic, it is a fun new creation. At the center of this buddy cop movie is bunny Judy Hopps (a wonderful Ginnifer Goodwin), an aspiring cadet who is landed on parking duty, despite being a valedictorian in police academy. But when given a chance to solve a case, she recruits fox con artist Nick Wilde (a smooth-talking Jason Bateman in perfect voice acting mode) to crack it. Yes, one can see the obvious direction this goes. But surprisingly, "Zootopia" greatly pulls off the clichés with an abundant dose of Disney Animation Studio's colorful animation (from the creative Zootopia districts to its 3D effects) and its surprising script that, to be honest, contained one of Disney's more adult-oriented dialogue. Secretly, every line and frame is littered with self-referential humor that mostly adults will relate to. (That explains my country's PG-13 rating.) Aside from mature humor, its surprising detour to teach about prejudice is a timely subject. And thankfully, it was not handled with a smack in the gut. All around, "Zootopia" may not stick out as a classic, but can rest in our subconscious as one fun, wild ride. So, sticking out for more fun adventures with Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde!

Joel Edgerton's directorial debut proves a promise for him in the future. For his first film, "The Gift" recalls previous attempts of the suburban psychological thriller genre (like "Prisoners" and "Straw Dogs"). But with a hefty script by Edgerton, this gives it a unique take that not only stands out but seeps the skin deep. And in the center of this suburban haunter is a couple (Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall) who relocated in Los Angeles and encountered a cordial stranger (a sordid Edgerton) who may cover a story as overwhelming as his sudden presence. But his story is to remain a mystery until you watch it because "The Gift" is a chilling ride that truly plays with the psychological aspects to make every moment crawl under the skin. As every twist unfolds, the final outcome becomes satisfyingly devastating. And that is where the total brilliance of the story comes from. Props to Bateman for leaving his comedic chops for a while to play a successful man with a hidden past, being unraveled by Hall, as she becomes torn with the story unfolding. "The Gift" is indeed a present that one must open.

The Maidan unrest in Ukraine is one of the most impactful civilian unrests in contemporary times. The scope and the sequence of Ukraine's revolution is the subject of this harrowing documentary. Using interview accounts from known and unknown figures of the protests, "Winter on Fire" wistfully tackles the growth of the revolution, from humble beginnings of persuading the government to integrate with the European Union to powerful struggles to overthrow President Viktor Yanukovych.

The raw video footage of the peaceful protests-turned-civilian riots will surely unnerve the senses of how much tormenting the revolution was. Though it centers more on the protesters and their experiences, the documentary also holds no bar of portraying the state as an antagonistic figure but a difficult challenge to overcome.

I watched this without subtitles. And thankfully I did because it truly connects the country's weary conditions to every viewer, with the wise use of raw footage, powerful montages and emotional interviews that deliver a gut-wrenching picture of the fight for freedom.

This animated adaptation of the Antoine de Saint-Exupery truly exemplifies the morals and ideas of the timeless literary piece. Clearly, every avid reader of the book will truly admire the visual transition of Saint-Exupery's illustrations to impressive 3D paper-like images. Every detail is loyal to the iconic handcraft of the book. Though the images perfectly match its source material, its narrative jaggedly slides through the remainder of the running time. Its succession so far comes from being faithful to the story about the Little Prince. Its timeless story sweeps with fancy, even when its ambiguity gets drained by the B-plot, involving the little girl. Her character, voiced brilliantly by Mackenzie Foy, makes a remarkable innocence of a child empathetic. However, her Mary Sue presence is a tired cliché that substitutes Saint-Exupery's ambiguity with a predictable story. One may forgive her presence, especially when she goes through a shifty (and debatable) third act where admirers might be tested. Though young readers will find it understandable. For all its worth, "The Little Prince" is a whimsy tribute to Antoine de Saint- Exupery's classic, delightful and heartfelt in all.

Having browsed the Michael Lewis source material, it is a compelling examination of the 2008 financial crisis, starting from its roots on the housing and credit bubble to its fruits on the Wall Street. Strings of business jargon and crass pop culture from the book makes this as a fitting material for "Anchorman" director Adam McKay to take the helm.

The movie glances on three interconnected stories of New York-based firm personalities who engaged on earning big from a marketing bubble on the credit and housing sectors. Each story has its own quirks and stakes to an impending crisis. The source of its growth comes from hedge fund manager Michael Burry (a sardonic Christian Bale, redoing a calm but crazy Patrick Bateman), who predicted the collapse from loan numbers he received and devised a way to profit from it by betting on the big corporations. His plan was realized when Deutsche Bank investor Jared Vennett (a snarky Ryan Gosling) decided to get involved in the credit swap, dragging along trader Mark Baum (an outstanding Steve Carell) and his firm. Burry's predictions also catch the eyes of junior investors Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who set a credit default swap deal with several officials, with the assistance of veteran banker Ben Rickert (a low-key Brad Pitt). All stories intertwine to what becomes the horror story for the world economy but an accomplished mission for those people who profit from it.

The main topic that surrounds "The Big Short" is a complex issue that truly requires an unorthodox method to boost interest. Adam McKay's approach goes for the mockumentary style, complete with hand-held camera-work, supportive montages and jumps from scene to scene. Also adding to McKay's oddities is the splurging editing (thanks to deserving Hank Corwin), which spans from the surrounding pop culture of the period, and the sudden fourth-wall breaks. It seems in favor of the source material that McKay and Charles Randolph narrow down to directly tell the complex tale of the 2007-2010 financial crisis. It also helps that the cast ensemble are at their full game through the proceedings; Carell's Baum being the most sympathetic and Bale's Burry as the golden goose. This makes them one of the most compelling casts in a comedy- drama. And a must for "The Big Short" because this is a crucial piece of informative cinema, from the outrageous mind of Adam McKay.

Happy Rizal Day to everyone! And as a special tribute to the national hero of my home country and hometown, here is an updated overview of the 1998 epic biopic, which I once considered the "best film of Philippine cinema".

It is overwhelming to realize the influence that this film brought to the country. In obvious reasons, it comes from the understanding of the famed hero and his exploits. "Jose Rizal" then succeeded on interpreting Rizal's life story. As it should be, this film is a helpful module for students and others who have yet to know about Rizal.

But glancing over that, others may seem to overshadow its slight faults. Though technically, "Jose Rizal" did excellently in its attempts to depict a Spanish-occupied Philippines, with its authentic sets, still cinematography, blend of sounds and images, and Marilou Diaz-Abaya's excellent direction. Its execution is nearly pitch perfect. Though it has to be set back by the story.

Nothing offensive to the story. In fact, in a roaring 178 minutes, you feel the Rizal's story coming to life. The backdrop is Rizal's imprisonment in Fort Santiago, and the rest of his story was shown in flashback. Best parts were definitely intertwining Rizal's monologues with excerpts from his novels "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo". Though the effort was excellent, the attempt was too tight to depict Rizal as a "chosen one" on a hero's journey. And the end result is the movie going by the numbers to properly tell Rizal's story and the rising of the Philippine revolution. At the end, screenwriters Ricky Lee, Jun Lana and Peter Ong Lim had done a fine job, bringing Rizal's life, piece by piece. A minor complaint, I could have expect more grand from Rizal and more emphasis on its surrounding crucial history. There was indeed more material than what was depicted. But helpfully, the film respects its audience's receiving thoughts. The saving grace, thankfully, is Cesar Montano, who had done a magnificent work portraying the titular hero in a stilted yet affectionate manner. He really deserves honor in what I can call his signature movie role. The cast ensemble of familiar faces of local showbiz provide gravitas needed for every sequence. But the standout is definitely Jaime Fabregas as Rizal's defendant, Luis Taviel de Andrade. The ensemble acts this out like a three-act play but it was worth sitting through.

Just applauding the excellence that "Jose Rizal" achieved makes it reasonable that other Philippine biopics used its templates for theirs. (See "Baler" and "El Presidente".) Beneath all that, I am going to claim that "Jose Rizal" may not be the best film that the Philippines has to offer. But it was a stepping stone in excellence for the local film industry. Thanks Ms. Diaz-Abaya.

Charlie Kaufman is an outstanding filmmaker, having crafted unique stories like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation." Those movies explore the complexities of the human condition, intimate emotions and unrequited love.

"Anomalisa" continues that trend. This was Kaufman's latest directorial effort after the overlooked "Synedoche, New York". And in his first stop-motion animation project with Duke Johnson, he presents a somber picture of a middle-aged man in the verge of loneliness. Soul-searching, he stumbles upon a woman named Lisa. And there goes an essential tale that examines and challenges the human spirit.

With the right mind and soul, you will get every inch of meaning that Kaufman always conveys in his works. And in courtesy of the seamless stop-motion craft (though the designs are kind of perplexing) and the splendid voice cast of just David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Noonan, it is simple to just get immersed on a transcending experience. One can easily mint every subtle detail, dealing with the ups and downs of soul-searching. But one must truly experience this in the big screen.

If there is one life changer of a movie, "Room" is one must witness on the nearest screen possible to experience a heart-stirring tale of mother and son. Though as simple as the premise is of a mother and son taken captivity, what makes "Room" stand out is how it can take the gut right out of every emotion to convey the complexities of the source material by Emma Donoghue (who also wrote the screenplay) with the the help of Lenny Abrahamson's subtle direction. Brie Larson is at her best ever, since "Short Term 12", playing the scorned Ma, having to make ultimate sacrifices for her son Jack, played by the excellent Jacob Tremblay. It is their performances what made "Room" hit all the heartfelt notes in an unforgettable way. Every individual and duel moment from them will take your breath away. From the claustrophobic scenes in "room" to the breathtaking touches of "space", the experience is one of a kind.

British independent cinema has a wonderful lineup to flourish on. "45 Years" is one evidence of its awe-inspiring wonder. Centering on a 45-year long marriage of an elderly British rural couple, portrayed brilliantly by Charlotte Rampling and Sir Tom Courtenay, the movie tackles how the couple can get through till their 45th wedding anniversary, as haunting news from the past surfaces. The scars slowly show in such a stirring portrait of a fading marriage. The best attention to direct to is from the chemistry of the leads. Both Rampling and Courtenay deliver remarkable performances that deserve them Silver Bears on the Berlin International Film Festival. Their portrayal makes the story resonate with a rousing effect. And the ending is ecstatically wistful, fitting for a surprising heart-stirrer.

To watch 2015's most talked about movie "Spotlight" is to not only get compelled by its excellence but also to encourage conversation of its dark subject matter. As it is inspired by true events, every detail will crawl deeply on your skin. And it would be a fascinating picture to see it from three standpoints: one is obviously from its aesthetics, another from its morals and last on its stance in religion.

Aesthetic-wise, director Thomas McCarthy intelligently crafted a fine dialogue-laden picture with tense situations and compelling details. Necessary for a movie about journalists, especially about The Boston Globe's Spotlight team cracking the Boston Catholic church sex scandal. Every character is at the same pedestal, proving how every involvement matters. And the wonderful ensemble, composed of Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schrieber, John Slattery and Stanley Tucci, makes up for writer Josh Singer's finely tuned script. At each point when one detail is exposed, a sense of terror is felt in every encounter. Also kudos as well to cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi's camera-work and editor Tom McArdle's pacing that keeps every scene interesting.

When it comes to its subject, the movie takes no sides. Everyone is on the same page, as journalism is amoral in form. And for that, "Spotlight" takes no safe detours on tackling taboo topics. What prevails is doing the right choice. And from a journalist's point of view, this film challenges the audience's stance in morality and rights.

Speaking of stance, for a loyally religious (like yours truly), "Spotlight" is an eye opener. One may get the gyst that seeing this movie will distort one's perception of the Church, given how comprehensive the real-life Massachusetts archdiocese sex scandal was. For the most affected, this should be a wakeup call to stand firm more in faith and tolerance. And for the rest, it is easy to accept this as a dark reality and a worldwide epidemic. But better understand this as a character study/period piece of people under fire from a painful subject matter; and does not reflect every member. And it would be easy for one to comprehend every horrid reality, as Tom McCarthy perfectly assembled one of this year's finest offerings and one of the best movies about journalism.

To all its credit, "Albert Nobbs" director Rodrigo Garcia makes a marvelous transition of the story of the temptation of Jesus to the art-house scene, cementing this "not intended for the Christian audiences". Though the art-house Biblical story is nothing unusual, "Last Days in the Desert" makes a unique turn of focusing it as a father-son story. That is where the flaws turn out. Driving the focus away from Jesus makes the story unjustifiable to explore and insincere to depict. However, the grandiose coming from Ewan McGregor's presence and the sense of struggle makes the journey satisfying. There could have been more depth to explore from a simple scripture about Jesus' 40 days in the desert, rather than adding a father-son subplot. But from what was offered, Garcia makes an interesting piece to talk about.

The most awaited movie of 2015 has finally arrived with full throttle. It had been years since the last movie in the saga was released. And now to officially start a new trilogy, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" kicks off the series in one satisfying ride.

"The Force Awakens" starts off where "Return of the Jedi" left off. Luke Skywalker had vanished. Princess Leia Organa was left scarred to command the Resistance. Han Solo parted ways with them. And the Empire rose from the rubble in the form of the First Order. Now fully functional with a huge Stormtrooper army and a new space station, three heroes must stop the forces of the Dark Side from setting the fate of the galaxy.

I say "Force Awakens" is a "satisfying ride" because despite being a fulfilling cinematic experience, it does not hold up as the landmark movie I was counting on. J.J. Abrams, labeled as the "remake king" by 60 Minutes and company really do their best to breathe new life to the saga. The task was risky. The attempt is futile. But the end result is a grand spectacle that made George Lucas' "Star Wars" a spectacle, back in 1977. That being said, it would make you forgive "Force Awakens" for rehashing the same story pattern from the original. Not a bad move like John Williams redoing the "Star Wars" score but creating a new composition to stand out with Episode VII.

Speaking of spectacle, it would be best attributed to its universe building. Give praises to Abrams from making everything grand and massive that you feel the movie experience in your very eyes. From the abandoned remains of the Imperial fleet to the chilling fortress of the Starkiller Base, every setting is amazing to behold. It also helps that Industrial Light and Magic ups their game with the effects that made them the defining effects players of the film industry. It could help if more of the Star Wars universe is expanded but from what was shown, it satisfies at best. If I could nitpick something, the editing is too frantic that getting from sequence to sequence is breathless and sudden. No harsh words for Abrams regulars Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon, but they should have learned from "Star Trek Into Darkness".

Of course, "The Force Awakens" will not be without its robust cast of characters. The original "Star Wars" entourage is back in full swing, with a lot of twists and turns for them. The presence of Harrison Ford's Solo, Carrie Fisher's Leia, Mark Hamill's Luke, Peter Mayhew's Chewbacca, Anthony Daniel's C3PO and Kenny Baker's R2D2 will provide cheers for fans and non-fans alike. But the crucial part of the cast is the people who will be passed on their baton. John Boyega provides a resonating, if not affectionate, presence as a redeeming Stormtrooper, given the name of "Finn". Oscar Isaac is basically impersonating Lando Calrissian with a hint of Solo, in an okay fashion. BB8 as well is a cool scene stealer. However, the biggest praise of the cast goes to Daisy Ridley as Rey. A scavenger in a desert planet, she is provided with the simplest persona but with the deepest secrets from her past. Give props to Ridley for making her one of the year's greatest heroines in a year of great heroines. And her chemistry with Boyega's Finn is exquisite. You will truly love the newbies. The cast is not without its faults. They go more to the antagonists. Though the presence of Domhnall Gleeson and Andy Serkis is kind of average, it is Adam Driver as Kylo Ren takes the most mixed bags. Kylo Ren is an intriguing antagonist. He is no Darth Vader, for the better. Ren at least leaves a scar from his back story. Without the mask however is a different opinion. Probably because it is seeing Driver still as the guy from "Girls" or because I am not sold to his performance. I could have asked more dimensions to the characters, but that will be left to the next chapters.

Besides the cast, there are serious nods and Easter eggs for avid fans and more genuine action set pieces from non-fans. But one must truly experience the movie to behold its wondrous spectacle. Abrams should not feel worried for as much as a tiny fraction of plot elements might flaw, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is truly the movie event you cannot miss.

Before I get to the "predictable" review, I'll admit this: I was excited for this movie. The trailers are mind-blowing. The cast is composed of great actors. The director of Chronicle is taking the helm. The new take of Marvel's first superhero team is intriguing. With all that said, I can firmly say how much I am betrayed by Fant4stic.

The plot is not only nonsensical, but empty. The first act, starting with Reed Richards' childhood, builds up weakly but effectively. Then it strays lazily to the rest of the running time, with nothing gained but frustration. As an origin story, it not only goes by-the-numbers, but clutters plot elements with no pay off. How does it work? As every movie critics' pet peeve, exposition. Director Josh Trank tries his best to squeeze in every familiar plot beat to 100 minutes, but exposing every story detail gets no redemption. As a result, nothing is exciting. Being loyal to the Stan Lee-Jack Kirby comics is beyond my knowledge, but this movie never feels any semblance of a Fantastic Four story.

Not helping is the fact that the movie feels rushed, throwing character development and conflict out of the window (important story elements by the way). Speaking of characters, none will actually impact, but frustrate, courtesy of the wonky script and wooden dialogue that was given to them.

Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic is the clichéd determined genius with Murphy's Law in his application. Miles Teller tries his best in the role, only to end up bland and one-dimensional. The Storm Siblings, Johnny Storm/The Human Torch and Sue Storm/Invisible Woman, barely shows any discernible trait. And that says a lot given their unorthodox casting. There could be more material for Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara to work on, like Sue being adopted to a family of color, but nothing came out of them. It does not help that Reg E. Cathey's Franklin Storm is the blandest of father figures I ever seen. Tim Blake Nelson is wasted as a stock government official guy. And Toby Kebbell's Victor von Doom is the most unforgivable character of the movie. His Victor personality, being a nihilistic computer programmer, is nothing new. And his Doctor Doom alter ego has the most unconvincing villain look, turning his serious look into a laughable presence, making Power Rangers baddies look intimidating. The only character that I root for is Jamie Bell's Ben Grimm who transforms into The Thing. But his performance cannot save this dreary experience. From that, the team dynamic that the Fantastic Four is known for is never apparent or recognized. They are just awkward, wearisome characters, with no superhero antics lathered.

What can I say about the others? The CGI is the most horrendous of this year. It looks that it had been dated from the year when the Tim Story Fantastic Four came out. There are obvious green screen scenes in the proceedings. Mr. Fantastic's stretch effects are atrocious. And the climax is where the sole action set piece of the movie kicks in, with no buildup, no progress and no excitement. All of these attributes to one of the frustrating movies I have watched in a cinema.

Say what you will about the 2005 film and its erratic sequel, movies I hate by the way. At least they stayed to the spirit of the team dynamics of the comics. 2015's Fantastic Four never establishes anything other than a studio-mandated update that never gains anything but disappointment. Fant4stic is indeed not only one of the worst superhero movies ever, but also one of the most disappointing movies of all time. It indeed gets the "dishonor" as the worst movie of 2015, dethroning Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. This is no recommendation to witness an atrocity, but a warning to behold the most hollow that Hollywood can offer.

Summer 2015 kicks off with the annual Marvel tentpole, now in the form of the summer's most anticipated Avengers: Age of Ultron. It has been a roaring success for Marvel as they kicked off their "cinematic universe" with the release of 2008's Iron Man. And ever since its release, Marvel followed it up with outstanding follow-ups (Iron Man 3), successful stand-alones (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), a space opera (Guardians of the Galaxy), small-screen extensions (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and, of course, a kick-ass crossover (Marvel's The Avengers) that breaks barriers in the superhero genre.

Now, it comes to this point if its follow-up can live up the standards of the original.

Plot-wise, the movie begins where The Winter Soldier left off as the Avengers raid HYDRA's secret base to retrieve Loki's scepter. As Iron Man/Tony Stark discovers an artificial intelligence concealed inside the scepter, he and Bruce Banner/Hulk extracts it, then, when left, possesses an Iron Man armor and forms into the entity known as Ultron. With Ultron programmed to achieve peace by eradicating humanity, the Avengers must put behind their differences and stop the invulnerable foe.

At this point on, this is where The Avengers plot line takes a new direction on progressing the series, for better or worse. But its mitigated flaws are salvaged by the most important element of Marvel's crossover, its cast and characters.

What made the first Avengers worked is its touch on built-up characters and have their arcs intertwine with others. Director Joss Whedon, whom I consider as the master of "team dynamics", still blends the best he could to make this superhero team a team. And the team cast really packs the best.

Still, the main leads Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Chris Hemwsorth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk and Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America gave undeniable charm on their characters. Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow and Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton /Hawkeye provided more development at this stage. Add-ins Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Pietro Maximoff/Quicksilver and Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch were very welcome. And supporting players from previous MCU movies, including Don Cheadle as James Rhodes/War Machine and Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon, intersected with little but well-meshed parts.

But the best performances came from the A.I. characters. The main antagonist Ultron, played by a conniving James Spader, was a huge treat to watch. The character did not feel anything resembling a robot bad guy, just a Machiavellian victim. Another treat to watch is the new Avenger Vision, played by Paul Bettany. His character here is a calm presence to the withering superhero team, and a fine addition of cool- looking characters.

Overall, the cast were able to top the original on their team chemistry, since a lot of development must be pushed from there. And the story and script was able to mesh their arcs in a right amount of balance.

But what good the story and script provided does not always work for its execution. Aesthetic-wise, Age of Ultron had little to complain but it never tops the original's. The action pieces were a so-so. The sequences were commendable for having an edge-to-the-seat scale. The slo-mo was used to awesome effect. And the whole thing was never tiresome.

However, the aesthetics were not without its fault. The editing was slightly shoddy and abrupt. The camera-work almost landed on Michael Bay level with its frantic execution. The special effects were kind of blatant, especially on the Hulk. And the color palette was a bit dim; I kind of expected that to happen since the MCU series has to progress to a darker stage, but for a fun crossover, it needs to be brighter.

Out of all this, I can say that there is a little to complain about the sequel. It is just its existence makes it feel standard and obligatory, like we know what we are getting. For that, it rightfully falls short from what the predecessor provided and took a new direction, for the better.

Fortunately, fans and viewers alike will forgive this, for the Marvel superhero universe expands further with this movie. Throughout, there may not be that much Easter eggs, but there are sights of foreshadowing taking place in its sequences (remember the country Wakanda, or Hawkeye's near-to-death gags). And note, there is indeed an awesome post-credits scene.

With this, you can be able to guess that the forces of Marvel and Joss Whedon was able to craft another awesome superhero crossover adventure. Avengers: Age of Ultron achieved what it intended to achieve. It was an awesome follow-up to the hit predecessor, placing stakes high, molding a script and having it blended to the still exciting bunch of cast and characters, and punctuating them with breathtaking action sequences, wielded by an awesome villain.

However, it felt out of ambition that it falls to the pit of "obligatory" and "overstretched". From style and substance, there are truly faults that surfaced but it was salvaged by Whedon's buoyancy for the superhero team. As the opening blockbuster for the summer, it really boosted a lot of confidence, not just for Marvel but, for the upcoming summer.

It was a big pawn for Disney to remake their animated properties to live-action since almost all of them had sunk to notoriety. (Hello Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland.) And it was also a big pawn for the audiences to get invested in these stories that had been told better. So, with that in mind, I lessened my hopes for the 2015 Kenneth Branagh version of Cinderella, since the source material had been beaten to death many times; heck, Disney previously released a version of Cinderella in Into the Woods, two months prior its US release. But that pessimism had all faded when I was so blown away by what the film turned out.

First of all, this Cinderella is a retelling of the 1950 animated classic that AFI touted as one of the finest animated films of all time. To top it, this live-action take must have something substantial to make it memorable. And indeed, it has a lot more substance, making it a companion piece to explain lots of gaps from the animated version.

Cinderella's back-story is further fleshed out, gaining investment for her character as we learn of her parents and their uneventful passing. Then, the story explains how she ended up with her stepmother and stepsisters, filling up more motivation from the character of Lady Tremaine herself. And, until the end of its by-the-numbers retelling, there was a sense of struggle and character for Cinderella. And justly what separates this from the 1950 animated film is that there was more substance to get invested, especially to its almost stereotyped characters.

Cinderella's character here may not convey the usual female-empowering figure that Disney celebrated increasingly (for the better) but she knows her worth and purpose; and Lily James (of Downton Abbey) portrayed her with sincerity, conviction and charm. The character of the stepmother, played outstandingly by Cate Blanchett channeling Kate Winslet in Divergent, as well is fleshed out to make her cruelty explicable by expressing her vainness and jealousy towards Cinderella. The stepsisters (played by Holliday McGainger and Sophie McShera) were thankfully not reduced to bothersome, although forgettable characters.

But the best update was from the Prince, who is now a three-dimensional character, unlike the quickly-forgotten "Charming" of the original. This guy had a back-story, from being an apprentice for royalty to a loving son to his careworn father/king. Schmaltz may seem to be smothered, but there was a hook since the Prince's character is lifelike and common. Although Richard Madden's casting is distracting (for those of you who don't know, he is Robb Stark of Game of Thrones), he still pulled it off.

The other characters were given a modernized treatment, in rather effective and ineffective results. Branagh regular Derek Jacobi as the King had a decent portrayal, instead of giving him the hammed-up performance from the original. Stellan Skarsgard is kind of unrecognizable as the Grand Duke. Nonso Anozie, another Game of Thrones regular, as a new character, the Captain is nice, like the way Andre the Giant did in The Princess Bride. And Helene Bonham Carter as the iconic Fairy Godmother is irresistible.

Everything in the movie is almost flawless from the way it is executed. The sets are heavy in detail and period. The production design is strikingly stunning. The costumes (by the Academy Award-winning designer Sandy Powell) are elegant especially the glass slipper. And the score (by other Branagh regular Patrick Doyle) is rousing. Almost, there is nothing to criticize here since this is a faithfully accurate adaptation.

But that sits as the major problem. Since this Cinderella goes in the same pattern as the 1950's Cinderella, nothing really new surfaces, aside from some twists and turns. It does not offer the unique edge that made Enchanted and The Princess Bride an audience runaway winner. But setting that aside, Cinderella is truly a magical offering that established itself as the most superior of all Cinderella adaptations, alongside the original 1950 version.

Now if you are asking my reaction about the Frozen short called Frozen Fever, I have mixed feelings about it, but most of it is positive. On a running time of 7 minutes, the story continues after Elsa and Anna's last adventure took off, now during Anna's birthday. Elsa and company are throwing a surprise party for Anna, but Elsa's unexpected cold (get it?) causes trouble. Truly, it is a simple synopsis but it delivered a lot. The characters are still charming. The humor is consistent. And the musical number "Making Today a Perfect Day" is another perfect accompaniment to Frozen's playlist.

However, the story has many plot holes to recognize, like why little snowmen pop out when Elsa sneezed, how come Anna never realized her sister is catching a cold, how was Elsa aided in the end and how Marshmallow the snow monster survived after falling from the ice castle in the first movie. Though, all these nitpicks never took away such an exhilarating experience to see Frozen's endearing characters once more.

Truly, the long wait is paid off when expectations vie for the unexpected. That is the handicraft that Aussie writer-director Christopher Nolan has over to his movies. Look at the way he mold the Batman franchise to what would become The Dark Knight trilogy. Trust me on this, even though his style may run to extremes, he is reliable to provide sorrow and spectacle.

And to make sure that trust is sealed, I will not spoil any important detail to miss, but I can only say this: CHECK IT OUT.

This is one of the grandest films of the year, and it might take patience and observations to keep intact with the story.

The basic premise is that the world resorted to an agrarian system, since the planet is labeled uninhabitable and agriculture is being improved to sustain life. And that a functioning NASA program is making attempts to search for a habitable planet beyond the galaxy. Well, the marketing gave glimpse of what would wormholes be, so that will provide a hint.

Going to the characters, as the main protagonist Cooper, Matthew McConaughey proved once more he can breathe life to a relatable character, whose entire life revolves to space engineering over the primitive farming. Not bad. But what makes his character compelling is his estranged relationship with his daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy of Breaking Dawn, Part 2) as most of the movie's parts is dedicated to them. The reason I brought up Murph is that her character is the most I rooted for, since she has to live up never to see her father in many years, and that the Lazarus space program might not what it used to be. Lend your eyes on that. And for that I give kudos to Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn, who appeared briefly, on bringing life to the character and giving a compelling father-and-daughter tandem.

Other characters and their performers are well in their game. Anne Hathaway as Amelia Brand is unrecognizably excellent, as she fully blends in character. John Lithgow is still a reliable asset. The Endurance crew that includes Wes Bentley's Doyle and David Gyasi's Romilly are decent, despite the small characterization and the fact that the crew has little dynamics. The rest of the supporting players (Casey Affleck, Topher Grace to name a few) are fine. And Michael Caine had poured out his inner dignity to great measure.

The only characters that are inanimate are the robots TARS and CASE (voiced by Bill Irwin and Josh Stewart, respectively). Their appearances are a mixed bag since they are mostly set aside, but their designs and purposes are enticing. And visually, they may remind of a Minecraft figure.

Speaking of visually, the movie never fails there. It kind of mixes the space realities of Gravity and the charms of Guardians of the Galaxy. But since this is a Nolan flick, it has to be grand, broad and massive- scale. That comes to the visuals of space and the planets the crew arrived on. The Endurance space shuttle design is pretty impressive, recalling 2001: A Space Odyssey. The visuals are worth-deserving to see on the best screen imaginable. Unfortunately, I saw it by the 70mm version, but still, the VFX are indeed a splendor.

Indeed, the Nolan-istic visuals are worth the price of admission, if you do not comprehend too much on the script. Leaving the sometimes stiff dialog aside, the story might surface some plot holes, as to how Nolan pulls off his own depiction of time and space. That would come into thinking, once you watched the movie. And it will leave you raising questions about the dimensions in space. Plus more, it will sometimes neglect cosmology, time frames and logic to go bounds to save it for the plot. It is complicated at times, because it is inherently Christopher Nolan. Speaking of Nolan, the movie feels like a passion project for him because all of his usual styles, tropes and uniqueness. The use of time jumps is similar to The Dark Knight trilogy. The non-fixed narrative is inspired from Memento. The existentialist ideas are reminiscent to The Prestige. The swift action, editing and dreamlike set pieces are clearly Inception-based. The expository dialog is a minor nitpick, but the grandness and epic-scale visuals are true to his heart and imagination. With the aid of co-writer and brother Jonathan Nolan, editor Lee Smith, cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, vfx supervisor Paul Franklin, composer Hans Zimmer and other collaborators, Christopher Nolan was able to transform a space epic to a compelling humanism picture, without being too egotistical.

There is a lot to discuss from Interstellar, but it must be seen first before talked about. Everything is worth investing for a running time of three hours that does not feel exhausted. Nolan, McConaughey and the rest of the cast and crew are at their A-game. Though audiences may feel disoriented with the science of the movie, it is worth needing attention. And though the flaws are way afloat, they never take away the fun. Check Interstellar for it is a true space epic.