Reviews

From Dusk Till Dawn is a half crime drama half vampire gorefest. Given my own bias against vampire films (the only good ones being Bram Stoker's Dracula and John Carpenter's Vampires), I much prefer the crime-laden first half of the film. The first half is stylish, suspenseful, entertaining, smooth as ice, and contains an electrifying opening scene. The initial appeal is the dynamic duo of George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino acting opposite one another. But the real appeal is hearing the always smooth George Clooney recite snappy Tarantino dialogue. Music to our ears. It makes you wonder why these two haven't teamed up since.

The second half of the film does a complete 180. While it delivers a seductive dance sequence from a young Salma Hayek, and some funny cameos from Cheech Marin, it deviates into a high-octane vampire bloodbath. The vampire makeup effects look cheesy and some vampires inexplicably explode for no reason. By the end you wonder what was the point of the film, and realize it had nothing below the surface. Yet this is how B-movies are supposed to be. The vampire carnage can feel stupid and not scary, but the second half is never boring and there's always something happening. Most notably being Harvey Keitel's character regaining his faith, and exclaiming how he is "a mean mother effing servant of God."

From Dusk Till Dawn is a guilty pleasure mashing up black comedy, crime thrills, action spills, horror chills, and some eye candy courtesy of Salma Hayek. The talent in front of and behind the camera elevates the trashy material to enjoyable heights.

Tenet is a work of genius. Christopher Nolan delivers again with another heady action blockbuster. Like some of Nolan's previous efforts, Tenet is original and not a sequel, prequel, remake, or book adaptation. The film's story can be described as James Bond meets Inception, or Bond on acid. With new talent at his disposal like John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, and musical composer Ludwig Göransson, Nolan proves yet again his mastery of cinema.

Nolan continues to create original concepts for each of his films. In Memento, the story unfolded in reverse. In Inception, he had multiple dream layers all moving more slowly in time the deeper the layer. In Interstellar, time was relative to space travel. In Dunkirk, time was disordered and then later reordered at a single climactic moment. In Tenet, characters and objects become inverted and travel backwards in time against objects moving forward. Only Christopher Nolan could come up with concepts so revolutionary and brain busting, only to make all of them work. It is even more astonishing that he makes these remarkable films only two or three years apart from each other.

Tenet has Christopher Nolan written all over it. It features a lot of his trademarks such as: practical effects, gorgeous visuals, a talented ensemble, savvy banter, cerebral sci-fi themes, heart-pounding action, and an obsession with time. The characters were cool with the standout being Robert Pattinson. Pattinson was witty, stylish, and sophisticated in typical British fashion (he has come a long way since playing an albino vampire). The soundtrack from Ludwig Göransson -- doing his best to mimic Hans Zimmer who's absent due to commitments to Dune -- was epic and exciting. The sound design was loud yet immersive. The pacing was electric with an exciting set piece around every corner. The inversion concept humbles your own intellect. It leaves you in awe that Nolan could concoct such brilliance and make it work cinematically. The action, visuals, and music is a sensation for the eyes and ears, but the inversion is an all new experience for the mind.

Tenet also features some of Nolan's worst trademarks such as: inaudible dialogue, extremely complex narrative structure, and emotional coldness. All of Nolan's films since The Dark Knight Rises muffle dialogue, the worst being in Tenet. Perhaps Nolan does this on purpose to intellectually mess with the audience, and hinder their ability to solve this cinematic Rubik's cube. Or maybe he wants to emphasize the visuals and the music instead of the dialogue. Either way subtitles are a must. To say Tenet is difficult to fully comprehend is a massive understatement. Events unfolding in reverse while action unfolds in real time is a brain buster in itself. Tenet wastes no time and spends much of the infrequent downtime explaining the plot or the physics of inversion. Many of Nolan's previous efforts are difficult to fully grasp after first viewing, which only increases the likelihood of watching the film again. Nolan's films are highly rewatchable thanks to this complexity, and of course the spectacle. In defense of this film being too difficult to follow, the scientist girl from the beginning said it best, "Don't try to understand it. Feel it." The spectacle and the theatricality feel incredible, yet is there an emotional core? There is attempted emotion, but most people do not go to see Tenet for the character relationships, and emotional catharsis. In defense of the film feeling emotionally empty, most films probably feel this way to people. All of Stanley Kubrick's films are emotionally cold. Nolan likes to stir our imaginations, our brains, and our adrenaline glands, not as much our hearts.

Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time because with each film he makes he manages to thrill his audience with surface level action and drama, as well as layer each of his films with meaning and depth. There is always something new to pick up on after each viewing. Nolan combines the best elements of art house and commercial films to create the best kinds of films. Essentially, he combines the depth and intelligence of 2001: A Space Odyssey with the entertainment value of Star Wars. Tenet is another welcomed addition to this breed of artistic entertainment.

Sam Mendes' 1917 is a masterclass of filmmaking. With an Oscar-winning director and every famous British actor in smaller roles, 1917 does something unprecedented in a genre filled with masterpieces. It manages to tell a fresh story with breathtaking bravura. Featuring impeccably executed tracking shots, amazing soundtrack and beautiful cinematography - courtesy of the legendary Roger Deakins - 1917 stands as arguably the best World War I film, as well as one of the best war films ever made.

The element that makes this film so unique is the long tracking shots. The film is made to look like one continuous take. Thanks to modern CGI, there are unnoticeable cuts in the film. But the execution of the film cannot be understated. The long takes, the authenticity, and practical sets add so much realism and intensity to the story that they make every frame immensely gripping. Never has there been a film about war, with such incredible and ambitious camerawork like 1917. Films exist to show, not tell, what an experience would be like. They emphasize tricking the audience for a split second, making them think they are there too. 1917 manifests this near perfectly.

A drawback to the tracking shot format is that it does not capture the whole scope of battle. The format makes the audience's vision into this world limited, albeit, that vision is still epic, and breathtaking nonetheless. A film that showcases a truly epic scope with edits to multiple camera angles is Dunkirk. Though that film would have felt more complete if CGI was used to enhance the background and further surroundings. The only real complaint is during the night city sequence, George Mackay's character is running from German gunfire. He zigzags and evades bullets. The aim of the German soldiers is unrealistically bad. Perhaps a case of stormtrooper aim, but in a film so dead set on authenticity and realism, this did require a suspension of disbelief, if only for a brief moment.

Two scenes that illustrate the power of the filmmaking craft are the night window scene, and the running scene. These two scenes showcase that transportive and magical feeling that the cinema can provide. The night window scene features beautiful cinematography, breathtaking visuals, and an amazing score. When those three things come perfectly together, an operatic sensationalism floods the screen. The running scene may be the most epic running in cinematic history. Yes, even better than Forrest Gump and Tom Cruise. The build-up to the running felt as realistic as the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan. These were two truly magical scenes.

1917 is movie magic. It captures the thrilling, intense, and awe-inspiring resplendent of war. It truly felt like we the audience were in this moment. 1917 is more than a gimmick, but a powerhouse of filmmaking and raw visceral power.

Joker is the latest iteration of the Clown Prince of Crime. After many different versions of the character, director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix give their film a sense of identity by taking after Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. They do this by making this version darker, and more realistic to even greater extremes. Joaquin Phoenix gives such a stellar performance, he'd make Heath Ledger proud. Joker hits, and hits hard. It works as a riveting character study, as well as an unnervingly realistic depiction of mental illness.

To say Joker is controversial is an understatement. The film deals with real world issues like mental illness, poverty, class wars, child abuse, antisocial behaviors, and anarchy. Many people will probably be put off with how disturbing the subject matter is. Others will see the film as glorifying antisocial behavior. Some will see it as mere entertainment. One thing that almost everyone can agree upon is this: this is one dark movie. Some people are afraid this film might incite real life violence. This film is similar to Fight Club, in regard that it comprises of crazy people doing anarchist things for the audience's amusement. Some people have valid concerns, however, Joker, although fictional, is a film that represents reality. There have been rebellions, and riots before, as well as class wars, and incidents incited by mentally disturbed individuals. Though the exact events of Joker have never happened in real life, they easily could. This film like most films should be left to viewers discretion. Art represents reality, and reality isn't always pretty.

Some people may also be turned off by Joker's realism. The main character Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), whose alter ego is the Joker, is a man down on his luck suffering from a mental illness. This movie doesn't hold back by showing mental illness in all its ugliness. Crazy people have graced the screen before, but real life crazy is not glamorous in the slightest sense. You couldn't help but feel unnerved and disturbed by the sheer ugliness of this crazy crime-ridden, messed-up take on Gotham city. The world is so dark, apathetic, and brutal. The streets are littered with rats and other filth, government programs get shut down do to a lack of funding, and depressing scenery of busy toxic city life cram the screen. One can't blame Arthur for losing his mind.

Something the film excelled at was getting the audience to empathize or feel bad for Arthur, aka The Joker. His life and the world around him is so soul-crushingly harsh. When the film starts out, he is not that bad of a guy. He cares for his ailing mother, works unfulfilling jobs, and fights his mental illness. The society crumbling around him creates the Joker. It's very realistic to see Joker unintentionally and indirectly starting all this mayhem and anarchy. He is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Joaquin Phoenix plays the Joker extremely well. He is more of a mentally ill man wearing clown makeup than a larger-than-life supervillain. Joaquin plays the character in the shadow of Robert De Niro's Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, except Joaquin's character is even more socially isolated and disturbed.

Joker is heavily influenced by Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy - two films that star Robert De Niro. Both of Scorsese's films deal with a mentally unhinged loner acting out against society in violent or antisocial ways. Joker tries to be a combination of the two films while molding itself into Batman lore. Joker successfully weaves its influences together without being derivative. If there are any criticisms, they are all minor - typical movie sins you find in most movies. To name a few, how does Arthur sneak a gun onto a Talk Show and how does he sneak into the Wayne theater so easily. Criticisms apart, along with two great Scorsese films, Joker stays with you with its compelling performances, disturbing subject matter, and shocking moments. Joker gets under your skin and lingers there.

Quentin Tarantino's 9th film features some of the biggest superstars in the business. Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt really are the best duo since Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is worth watching just for the epic star power alone along with Tarantino's signature killer soundtrack. Tarantino is known to subvert norms and create controversy. He does so here, but to a lesser satisfying degree.

When news first hit about Tarantino doing an old Hollywood piece centering around the Manson murders of 1969, one could assume he'd be doing another wild over-the-top bloodbath with snappy dialogue, entertaining storytelling and iconic characters. While the Mansons and Sharon Tate are present in the film, their roles are disappointingly underrepresented. Sharon Tate (played gleefully by Margot Robbie) does not do much throughout the movie but watch her own films. The Manson ranch is shown but Charlie Manson is only present for five seconds. These people vital to the real life story don't really have much purpose here. The story focuses more on Leonardo DiCaprio's character Rick Dalton, a former TV star trying to stay relevant in the Hollywood spotlight.

While the story at hand with Rick Dalton has its moments (Bruce Lee scene and forgetting lines), it's too long and too dragged out. Tarantino goes for setting an authentic feel, and establishing character development over plot. Much of the film feels like it's going nowhere, so it's boring sometimes. The film is more of a love letter to old Hollywood. A lot of work was put into taking us back in time to 1969, impressively done without CGI. It's impressive technically but it lacks an exciting narrative - something Tarantino normally delivers on. The first two hours or so shows everyday life for these characters, but doesn't become a 'movie' until the end. The last 15 minutes is classic Tarantino. Without spoiling it, it utilizes everything we have come to know and love about Tarantino. He subverts your expectations, but to a lesser satisfying degree.

A film where Tarantino brought every act of his storytelling prowess together was The Hateful Eight. The Hateful Eight set up a mystery while making the audience guess what was going to happen next. Then it climaxed into a violent, hysterical, quotable, and utterly badass bloodbath. But what Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was lacking was the build-up to the climax. The ending was just slapped on so you know you're watching Tarantino. The Hateful Eight worked better as a story which is why the ending was much more satisfying than this film.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood delivers some rare cinematic treats, courtesy of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. However, one can't help but feel a little disappointed with Tarantino given the stellar cast and the legendary Manson backstory he had to work with.

Neil Armstrong finally gets a biopic in Damien Chazelle's epic "First Man." Chazelle does justice with a practical, honorable, and accurate account of the Apollo 11 space mission to the Moon. However, the movie did not entertain with its thin characterizations, emotional detachment, suspenseless climax, and very boring family narrative.

"First Man" features some thrilling space scenes which utilizes film stock and IMAX 70mm. If Chazelle decided to use digital and CGI all the special effects, then he would have been left with a POS movie. The space scenes employ shaky cam, and pitch perfect sound design. During the launches, it sounded like the space craft would break apart, adding to the intensity of the scene. The score by "La La Land" composer Justin Hurwitz was jazzy, musical-like and at times searingly epic. I couldn't help but compare the score to another epic space movie "Interstellar." Justin Hurwitz's music was good but no where near the level of transcendent epicness of Hans Zimmer's score.

"First Man" decided to do something different and focus half the movie on Neil Armstrong's family. The result was a bore-fest. The family drama dragged on and on and really killed the pacing. There was very little characterization for such a stellar cast. Some actors like Corey Stoll, and Kyle Chandler had nothing to do but recite boring exposition. Ryan Gosling's trademark is playing stoic and emotionally reserved men, offering for a perfect casting of a stoic Neil Armstrong. However, Gosling didn't employ that same emotional vulnerability that made him so tantalizing in "The Place Beyond the Pines." Everyone knows how the story of Neil Armstrong and the Moon ends. So it really isn't the movie's fault that the ending is predictable and suspenseless. With that said, the ending did not redeem what felt like 3 hours of soap opera family drama on the hallmark channel.

Stanley Kubrick did a better job directing the moon landing than Damien Chazelle. #MoonLandingFaked. Just kidding.

"Deadpool 2" is the greatest superhero sequel since "The Dark Knight." Its rapid-fire meta humor, immense hilarity, and non-stop entertainment marks the second coming of Jesus. Ha just kidding. Let's be real, littleging12 is writing another wordy and pretentious review so he can pretend that he has a big penis, when in reality he has a chode. With these reviews, littlejizz hopes to deceive uneducated immigrants into thinking he is Conan O'Brien.

In his review of "Deadpool," littleging12 stated that "what holds it back from greatness is its superficially structured story, unimpressive CGI action, ineffective resonance and bland one-dimensional characters excluding the titular character." If he was anymore pretentious, he'd get nominated for an Oscar. "Deadpool 2" improves over the original with a better story, better side characters, better CGI action, bigger heart, and smaller penis. What holds it back from getting a 10/10 is littleging12's bull sh$!$y rating system.

In all seriousness, "Deadpool 2" is very entertaining, hilarious, and one of the better sequels in recent memory. It may not be the most sophisticated or artistic movie, but it delivers everything you could want out of an irreverent superhero comedy. Deadpool is the character Ryan Reynolds was born to play and he will hang up his suit (and his dildo) as a pop culture icon. 8.5/10.

Marvel's "Black Panther" treads new grounds as it takes on racial and political problems, as well as being a blockbuster action film. "Black Panther" works as a positive medium for building bridges; it has a good message, but is not a good movie. Once you look past the political and social ambitions the film aims for, it's just another by-the-numbers predictably average comic book movie.

The only real impressive thing about the movie is its villain. Michael B. Jordan was forced to carry the movie, and when he wasn't on screen it was painfully boring (most of the first hour). His villainous Erik Killmonger stands as one of the better MCU villains. His ferocious yet sympathetic portrayal of a vengeful man gave the movie the spark it needed to avoid sucking. Also his super fit body jacked the eye candy way up (for a second I thought I was gay). However, Killmonger suffers from abrupt Dr. Evil syndrome. His prime motivation is to give all black people around the world specialized weapons made from vibranium, a mined substance in the technologically advanced Wakanda, to seize social dominance over any non-black person. I'm surprised he did not ask for laser beams attached to the heads of sharks. I'm sure the vibranium is capable of such matters.

Without the emergence of Michael B. Jordan's more interesting villain, "Black Panther" is a dreadfully formulaic, predictable and borderline boring superhero movie. The characters, outside Killmonger, are pretty forgettable and uninteresting. The comic relief is very inconsistent; a few jokes hit while most completely miss the mark. The CGI is noticeably sub-par. The action sequences are not poorly done but don't leave a lasting impression. Many of the film's plot points you can see coming from a mile away (T'Challa vs. Killmonger part I and II, M'Baku's entrance, T'Challa's return).

"Black Panther" is a movie that is getting such spectacular reviews from critics because it has a socially proactive message, touches upon real world issues, and nearly has an unprecedented all black cast in a superhero movie. Judging it as a piece of entertainment, it is wickedly underwhelming, predictable and disappointing.

"Game Night" is a much lighter and funnier version of David Fincher's "The Game." Both films feature a protagonist with a conflicting relationship with their brother, an ensemble or an individual trying to make sense of the fake or the real events happening to them, and a string of fake outs that keep the audience guessing until the very end. "Game Night" has a similar setup to "The Game" but with the humor, ensemble, and style of "Horrible Bosses," resulting in a time that's as fun, twisty, and enjoyable as a real game night.

Greta Gerwig's pseudo indie film "Lady Bird," is a very entertaining, relatable, and heart-warming surprise. The film has the look, budget and feel of an indie drama, but moves at the pace and quality of a mainstream film. Saoirse Ronan leads the cast of very talented young actors who all give stellar performances. Greta Gerwig, and company produce a not entirely original but effective dramedy about adolescence, finding one's place and the at times, tumultuous relationship between mothers and daughters. "Lady Bird" rises above the overcrowded teenage dramedy genre with enough vigor to give itself an identity, but can't reach the stars due to its genre limitations. 7.5/10

Aaron Sorkin (aka The Godfather of dialogue) teams up with the ravishing Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba to bring the crazy true story of Molly Bloom to the big screen. "Molly's Game," based on the book of the same name, chronicles the underbelly of the most exclusive, illegal high-stakes poker game in LA. Sorkin, in his directorial debut, brings his signature fluid dialogue and exceptional writing. Jessica Chastain brings her signature acting chops and amps up the eye candy to glorious effect. Together, they produce one of the best written and most consistently engaging movies of the year.

"Molly's Game" follows the trope of an ambitious and morally questionable person who gambles everything, builds an empire only to have it come crashing down upon them, writes a successful book about it, and even gets a movie adaptation. This has been done many times before, but what helps "Molly's Game" stand out is not only Sorkin's dialogue and Chastain's charisma, but the depth explored between Molly and her complicated father (played magnetically by Kevin Costner). One of the best scenes in the film is towards the end when Molly and her father have an intervention of emotional awakening. It may seem shoehorned in for some old-fashioned father daughter catharsis, but the intelligence and power of the scene are enough to overcome this. Molly's father confronts her on why she chose her path of running an illegal business and calls her out for wanting to control powerful men as a way to get back at him. This scene beautifully breaks down the enigma that is Molly Bloom and is like an orgasm of self-actualization.

The only real flaws of "Molly's Game" are the repetitiveness in the story - could've trimmed the runtime - and the dialogue is so fast it's as if it's sped up. Otherwise, Sorkin and company make what could have been another average based on a true story crime drama, into a marvelously written and acted, fast paced entertainment.

"The Post" features the best starting lineup since the 2017 Golden State Warriors: two time academy award winning director Steven Spielberg, two time academy award winning actor Tom Hanks, the academy award winning writer of "Spotlight" Josh Singer, and 21-time Oscar nominated actress and three time winner Meryl Streep. "The Post" is this year's most try-hard Oscar bait movie, yet succeeds as a surprisingly non-boring film thanks to its veteran cast, timely themes, and tense second half.

"The Post" leaves its best material for the second half -- the first half was boring and forgettable. The second half is where the story takes off, performances shine, humor seeps through, and the themes of the power of journalism come to fruition. "The Post" provides a very good message about journalism, and how it's up to the criticisms of the media to provide a checks and balances for the government. The film sheds enough insights on the fact-based history of the pre-Watergate Nixon scandal without slowing down for tedious exposition. "The Post" celebrates courage, and that when people remain true to what's right, good will result.

Steven Spielberg and company make another feel-good, informative and entertaining film that does just enough to be good, although can't help but feel a little disappointing given the legendary lineup present.

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the best screenwriters working today, and he delivers here with an intelligent, sophisticated, and twisted romance. Daniel Day-Lewis, in his last film, delivers another breathtaking and masterful performance. Paul Thomas Anderson and crew master many filmmaking elements, well deserving of all those Oscar nominations. However, "Phantom Thread" isn't without its boring scenes, lack of emotion or reasons to care about the characters, and implausible character decisions.

There are so many good adjectives one could think of when describing the aesthetic and filmmaking process of "Phantom Thread." Like so many other Oscar nominated films, it is a technical and visual masterpiece, but that does not mean it's a true masterpiece. The acting, writing, and cinematography are practically perfect, and save the movie from sheer boredom. Daniel Day-Lewis' narcissistic and emotionally-cold Reynolds Woodcock (very cleverly named) is a very interesting character to watch, but not one worth caring about. His quips and abrupt aggressive demeanor are hilarious and very quotable. His narcissism, obsession for his work, and OCD-like daily structure alienate those closest to him. The relationship between Reynolds and his romantic interest Alma (played wonderfully by Vicky Krieps) goes from romantically peaceful to uproariously vile.

Some of the things that Alma does to get Reynolds attention are something you would see in a Stephen King novel. The ending (I dare not spoil it) may leave some viewers scratching their heads wondering why. Why!? Because Paul Thomas Anderson is a true filmmaker; meaning, he has balls and uses them (remember "Magnolia").

"Phantom Thread" is an artistic, beautifully filmed, masterfully acted, sporadically boring Oscar bait vegetable movie with some hilarious lines from Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel, you will be missed.

I, Tonya boasts two first rate performances from Margot Robbie and Allison Janney in this honestly-told and hard-nosed based on a true story adaptation. The film transcends many based on a true story adaptations by not completely coasting off the source material. It adds unexpected depth by delving into what it takes to make a champion and how far parents are willing to go to push their kids to the maximum.

I, Tonya is clearly inspired by the hard hitting cruelty, black humor and self-awareness of Goodfellas. With the source material, this approach proved to be more effective than derivative. The character interviews explaining why things happened allowed the film to be more funny, honest, and meta. You see these peoples' side and understand why they acted the way they did, even if sometimes their decisions were completely idiotic and downright amoral. The only person you feel for is Tonya Harding due to her abusive relationships with her mother and boyfriend, and the fact that her skating career was ruined thanks to a couple of bumbling idiots. Every other character is entertaining but is either ugly, abusive, or downright trashy. Give the movie props for not trying to lionize them and depicting them for how they really are.

Something thought-provoking the film brought up had to do with the complex relationship between Tonya and her overbearing mother. When Tonya becomes an Olympian, her mother tries to take credit for it saying that she made Tonya a champion, through all the cruelty and abuse. Does beating and making high demands of your children really make them champions, driven to overcome any obstacle or opponent? Hmm maybe my parents should've beaten my ass so I'd learn to write better reviews and become the new Ebert. Damnit mom and dad! Haha just kidding.

I, Tonya scores with its funny, well acted, and unbelievable true story that doesn't quite stick the landing discourtesy of its awful CGI skating scenes and unsympathetic, albeit entertaining, characters.

The Disaster Artist is the unbelievable true story behind the infamous making of The Room, one of the worst movies imaginable, which is considered by many to be so bad it's good. James Franco shines as the eccentric, egotistical, and unpredictable Tommy Wiseau, the director-writer-producer and star of The Room. The Disaster Artist not only works as a very enjoyable movie but also as a thoughtful node to filmmaking, dreams, and friendship.

The cast is loaded with more celebrity cameos than the SNL Christmas episode. Many of them bring their star studded power but not much else. Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, and co-star Dave Franco are the only side performers who make the most of what they are given. Seth Rogen's critical condescension of Wiseau's unorthodox methods is very compelling especially since Rogen is normally typecast as the nice lovable stoner. Dave Franco nails Wiseau's real life best friend Greg Sestero, the sensible but loyal friend of Tommy. Zac Efron masters the very limited yet intimidating role of the irate drug dealer (the only good acting in The Room). And of course all the performers feed off of James Franco's masterful impersonation of Tommy Wiseau, which should have given him an Oscar nomination if not for Franco's sexual allegations.

The Disaster Artist, like so many other based on a true story adaptations, coasts off the unbelievable hilarity of its true story. Some of the things that go down during the nightmarish production of this legendary movie are truly stranger than fiction, and help explain why The Room turned out as badly as it did. A minor misstep James Franco, as a director, took was bending some of the truth for dramatic effect. Greg's offer to be on Malcolm in the Middle was completely fabricated and untrue. They took poetic license to show you the divide that Tommy was causing to the relationship of himself and Greg, when more truthful subtleties would have been more effective.

When people first heard about the creation of The Disaster Artist, they had to assume that it was going to be a spoof or condemnation of Tommy Wiseau. Instead, Franco presents Wiseau as a 'real human bean' (reference to The Room) full of positives and negatives. The story's heart stems from the friendship between Wiseau and Sestero. Their dedication and perseverance to make their dreams come true when everyone else doubted and rejected them allows the audience to feel and empathize with them. And the great irony of the whole thing is that Wiseau and Sestero achieved their goals of becoming famous actors (just not in the way they planned).

The Disaster Artist is a film that in order to fully appreciate one must have seen or heard of The Room or Tommy Wiseau. The movie is still enjoyable, eye-opening, and surprisingly heartfelt, but not as effective for someone entering with no knowledge of The Room.

The Big Sick is based on a true story chronicling the romantic early days of Kumail Nanjiani and his then girlfriend, now wife Emily V. Gordon (played by Zoe Kazan). The Big Sick is not original in its premise but gets very creative in its execution. It features some really funny moments, relatable characters and situations, emotional intelligence, timely cultural themes and feel-good charm.

The Big Sick starts out as your standard rom-com formula: guy meets girl, guy and girl quickly become infatuated, guy and girl both keep secrets from one another, guy and girl have a falling out, etc. As the film moves into its middle act is where things start to become much more interesting. Instead of a guy trying to win the girl, he ends up having to win the parents over when the girl goes into a medically induced coma. The second act amps up the humor, pathos, intelligence, and cultural tension to glorious effect. The performances that really shine are Holly Hunter's deadpan, feisty, frightened mother, and Ray Romano's awkwardly funny, down-to-earth father. The banter the two parents have with Kumail is hilarious and arguably the highest point of the movie. The conversation about 9/11 and Ray Romano trying to give Kumail horrible life advice regarding adultery are two pure examples of the film's hilarity.

The only real critique is that the beginning and final act are not as original, innovative and funny as the middle act. Though the ingenious banter, relatability, and heart-felt emotion are good enough to overshadow this flaw. The Big Sick is one of the best films to come out in 2017, and one that may live long in the memory afterwards.

Baa Baa Land is one of the most original, deeply moving and ingeniously hilariously made films of all time. Filming sheep for eight straight hours is the most original thing since inventing pizza. The political movement presented in the film of the sheep fornicating for equality is the most inspiring act since Private Doss. In a time of giving cultural exposure to African Americans in films like Moonlight and Hidden Figures, Garth Thomas perfectly captures the everyday struggles of sheep, giving hope everywhere to the sheep community that they too may get equal rights. Baa Baa Land should win best picture for the political and social grounds the film breaks. SJWs and sheepinist rejoice! Finally sheep are getting the treatment they deserve.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle does what most sequels try to do only to ultimately fall flat. It suffocates itself by being stupider, lazier, more ridiculous and can only help but pale in comparison to the original. Kingsman: The Secret Service was a breath of fresh air for the action genre. Its zaniness, humor, creativity and wildness made for one enjoyable time. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is too long, boring, predictable, CGI-infested, and ridiculous to even care for.

The first Kingsman had a very infectiously perverse vibe that made the film more unpredictable and fresh. This one lost me as soon as they brought back Colin Firth in the most cartoonish and ludicrous way possible, making Kingsman go from unexpected fun to campy sci-fi stupidity. Nearly all the action scenes are too over-the-top, and cartoonish to enjoy. The film relies too heavily on CGI; everything seems so artificial and uninspired. The film goes for vulgarity instead of well timed clever jokes. The newcomers (Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, and Halle Berry) are wasted as they either drop exposition dumps on an already thinly written plot or fail to add any humor, charm, or character.

If there is any good things to say it's that we got to see more of the good characters from the original, it had one or two funny lines, acceptable close-range fight choreography, and interesting commentary on drug use. All this, however, does not redeem the film for being a boring bloated mess.