Change Your Image
obiegimmie
My name is May, and I absolutely love film and TV. Watching films of any kind; action, romance, adventure, drama, horror, etc; is something i genuinely love to do and will not stop loving. I appreciate you reading my review(s), no matter how irrelevant, nonsensical, or whiny they may be.
Thank you so much for checking out my page and have a great day!
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald": A Slighly Mis-Paced, But Adequately Entertaining Adventure
I actually think this film is superior to the first one. It doesn't waste much time introducing characters, and the few new characters (namely, Callum Turner as Theseus Scamander, Zoe Kravitz as Leta Lestrange, and, of course, Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald) are introduced cleanly and neatly.
One of my biggest issues with the film is its many plot threads. It tries nobly, and partly succeeds, in taking numerous elements and incorporating them into a big plot twist. The problem is that the film struggles in how much time is relegated to these elements. It spends almost half an hour on the romance between Eddie Redmayne's Newt Scamander and Katherine Waterson's Tina Goldstein, a pretty much inconsequential aspect of the film. In fact, that serves as Newt's primary motivation for around half of the film.
Newt, I feel, is an exceptionally built protagonist that lacks a comparitively built motivation or reason. Jude Law's Albus Dumbledore is perfectly compelling, due mostly to his character in the books and Law's depiction. Grindlewald is one note, but hopefully they'll expand his character in future installments. And the primary driving point, Crendence Barebone, is expertly managed, if a bit underdeveloped, by Ezra Miller.
The visuals are spectacular and the story, though boring in some parts, picks up beautifully at the end.
7/10
70% (Mostly Fresh)
C+
Robin Hood (2018)
"Robin Hood": A Joyless Spectacle of Action and Cliche
Quite possibly the greatest rendition of the classic "Robin Hood" story is the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood," starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. The film begins with an initiative, and uses its protagonists to advance the plot methodically. Perhaps most importantly lies the film's self awareness; its delight in relishing a sense of refreshing fun and delight. The classic tale of Robin Hood has always been one best told briskly and with a sense of humor.
If only this film had followed the 1938 template. It starts out with an obvious purpose; to retell the Robin Hood legend in a modern form. This is reinforced through the bizzare steampunk costuming and one out of place scene in which Marion (played by the adequate, but not particularly noticeable Eve Hewson) wears a bedazzaled mermaid gown. Also, the film establishes the romance between Marion and Robin Hood as a key element, and presents her as, essentially, Robin's only motivation for almost the whole of the film. This is not inherently a bad decision, but the movie fails to present their relationship in a compelling or interesting way. There is no reason, no foundation, for us to feel invested in Robin's motivation, and thereby, his origin story.
The effects are borderline amateur. This film does right by incorporating a lot of detailed set pieces, that create a believable environment. On the occassion that green screen is used, however, it reminds you of a 2000's era Star Wars prequel. While the choreography regarding Taron Egerton's Robin Hood and Jamie Foxx's Little John is somewhat competent, the battle sequences are shot nonsensically with no direction or focus.
One thing this film struggles immensely with is character building. As mentioned above, there is no depth to the romance between Robin Hood and Marion. Little John and Robin Hood, despite all the scenes they have together, have no real conversation. I felt that Little John was the only character I even slightly felt for, because he was the only person with a semblance of a backstory.
It was incredibly stupid, convuluted, and cheap. I'm not saying there weren't compelling elements, but ultimately, those were bogged down by the film's idiocy.
2/10
20% (Rotten)
D
Rampage (2018)
'Rampage': A Fun, Entertaining Action Movie That Remembers To Be Dumb
"Rampage" was a film with which I found easy and fluid escapism. I appreciated that it was self-aware especially concerning its constraints and limits. I think the film managed its cast of characters quite nicely, and while no one can say this is a captivating character study, it can be said that the actors maintain a nice stage presence and remember to provide discernible traits, flaws, and even charms. I liked how Naomie Harris and Johnson worked together. I liked their chemistries and I felt that the main cast generally fit, with the exceptions of the main villains. The two bad guys are cookie-cutter corporate bad guys and any enthusiasm or passion from the two actors is lacking. Their motivations were almost comically laughable and their plan in order to execute these goals even more so. Yet this is not the type of film where you need to even be invested in a villain.
I found myself immensely interested in George, the albino gorilla displayed on all of the promotional posters. The interactions between George and Johnson all seemed fairly well done and it definitely held some weight to it. Nothing here is really well developed, don't get me wrong, but it can be argued that nothing here was ever supposed to hold any emotional investment or grounding.
This movie is loud. Loud and gory. I almost brought my 12 year old little brother to see it with me, yet I am extremely relieved now that he declined. I usually do not take issue with the MPAA rating in my reviews and I am certainly not suggesting that this movie should be rated R, but you should know about this especially if bringing a child.
You have seen dozens of these movies and you will see dozens more. The big, stupid, loud cinematic mess that perfectly summarizes "Rampage."
6/10
60%
C+
Ready Player One (2018)
"Ready Player One": An Enormous, Fantastic, Breathtaking Mess
"Ready Player One" is based on a 2011 novel of the same name by Ernest Cline. For the most part, I felt the film lacked real substance or meaning. It seemed terribly derivative, and quite honestly I felt the film could have gone in different directions. Rather than create a fascinating thriller that thrives on character study and exploration, that explores the bounds of the human imagination when exposed to something as intangible as technology, the film focuses on spectacle. Quite possibly the thing I disliked the most was the lack of character building. Typically, there needs to be an exciting or tense backdrop/situation for a group of characters to work around. Most importantly, the said backdrop is tangible and actual and has stakes to it. With RPO, the immensity of the plot happens in a virtual world, where it is made clear at the very beginning that death there is not permanent nor applicable in the real world. In order to construct a somewhat competent action film, and to create actual chemistries and relationships between various characters, which is what the film aspires to be, there needs to be some traits or weight to them. These characters were generic. There's Wade Watts, the lead, who has no defining characteristics to him, his girlfriend??, Samantha, who has a birthmark, and there's Wade's best friend, Aech, (underused, and fully capable of replacing Samantha as the romantic lead, please the chemistry is there). I did, however, had some fun with the bad guy and his company, IOI, the antagonist that competes with Watts to locate several keys/clues within the game. The world was interesting to me, especially the concept of the loyalty centers and the premise of the corporation itself. I was captivated in the character studies surrounding Sorrento and his ascent to the head of IOI, Halliday's relationship with Kira and how he interacted with her and Morrow. I think the stories surrounding these characters deserved to be fleshed out more.
This is not to say that this is a terrible film , or even a bad film, really. It's fairly competent and has some impressive visuals, some incredibly entertaining, well-paced sequences that are performed and written well. For example, a scene is a spin-off/tribute/montage to "The Shining," in which the characters interact with settings and characters from the original Kubrick film. I had a lot of fun with these scenes, like the fluidity of the car chase scene, or the creativity and colorfulness of the club scene, or the nostalgic giddiness surrounding the Iron Giant sequence. I loved a good amount of this film, yet it could have been so much more.
5/10
50%
C
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
"A Wrinkle In Time": A Muddled and Ultimately Unfocused Piece that Refuses to do Justice with an Incredible Cast
"A Wrinkle In Time," is an incredibly lacking piece that neglects to be a coherent story with applicable motivations. A good amount of the film simply does not make sense (How was the father being detained? What is the relevance of Veronica, Rowan Blanchard's character? Furthermore, what was the relevance of Calvin?). I think that the story never quite realized its purpose and just seemed to be going through the motions. The director, Ava Duvernay, has proved herself more than capable, yet her style here is almost laughable. I just think the director, and part of the cast was mis-chosen, which is a sentiment frequently proved throughout the film. The effects, for the most part, were haphazardly done, and I felt the film was generally at its strongest when dealing with literal backgrounds and sets, rather than a CGI/green screened backdrop. For example, the scene in which Mrs. Who interacts with Charles Wallace has an engaging and interesting feel to it, even if the acting and directing is lacking.
In conclusion, unless you are a die-hard Disney fan who has taken a blood oath to read every. single. film. they release, I do not encourage "A Wrinkle In Time." I hate to say it, but even "Sherlock Gnomes" would be more focused.
2/10
20%
F
The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature (2017)
'The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature': The Very Definition of Laziness
'The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature'
'The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature' is a 2017 computer animated film produced by Open Road Films, creators of 'Justin Bieber's Believe.'
'The Nut Job 2' is a bad film, but not the kind of bad that you can enjoy. Rather, it's a film that robs any enthusiasm, hope, or light inside of you and destroys it. It's not clever, or fun, or in anyway bears a semblance of enjoyment. It is cold upon delivery, and until its conclusion you, the ignorant viewer, are forced to witness its ramblings.
The plot itself is not grounded, or devoted to making a point, or even interested in carrying some sort of purpose. It just ...is.
Surly Squirrel and his pack of forest critters are living off the fruition of an abandoned nut shop for several years now. However, in the process many have lost their primal instincts. This, in itself, is an interesting idea. For a children's film produced by a mediocre studio, it is, dare I say it, an innovative and important concept. However, because subtlety appears to be gone nowadays, we meet our villain, a fellow called Mayor Muldoon, your typical onenote kid's bad guy; a rich, fat, bald male with a bratty redhead daughter. Muldoon wants to tear down the park and in its place install a local amusement park. The animals now must protect their beloved park, while also transitioning back to their original instincts due to the recent destruction of their Nut Shop.
In one scene, Surly takes on an impending bulldozer by biting an unidentified wire, which inexplicably launches the dozer into the air and flips it around a bit.
I could explain, or rather, an 8 year old could explain, why the essential laws of gravity would disprove this scene. But do I really want to? It's the 'Nut Job' sequel. You know what you're getting into.
Here are some actual lines of dialogue actually uttered in 'The Nut Job 2.'
"They threw our potty in the river."
"More like Dustalicios!"
"We're all gonna die!" (Mouse says it about 12 times whenever something negative happens)
"I'm Frankie, you're Precious! That makes us Frecious!"
"So many mailboxes!" (Surly crashes into mailbox a grand total of 5 times)
The only line I laughed at in this entire film was when someone said, "It's funny how quickly rock bottom sneaks up on you." Not because of the character's situation, just because I really identified with that.
1/10
10% (Rotten)
F-
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
'War for the Planet of the Apes' Review
War for the Planet of the Apes, is , in summary, a visual masterpiece and a reflective piece on the bounds of humanity in times of challenge. Despite multiple flaws, War is noticeably more thoughtful than its predecessors by relying almost solely on the emotion of the apes it focuses on.
HISTORY: The first Planet of the Apes was released in 1968. Starring Charlton Heston, the film is set in a dystopian planet where intelligent apes dominate and mute, incapable humans are treated as cattle. The film was an immediate hit with critics and moviegoers alike, despite featuring one of the largest movie budgets of that era, $5.8 million. Although initially intended as a stand-alone film, the commercial and critical success of the film persuaded Hollywood producers otherwise.
Ape sequels ran rampant in the early 1970's, and are as follows; Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970) Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Despite financial success, close to all of these films were demolished critically, with the exception of Escape, with generally positive reviews, and Conquest, with mixed reviews. Battle is known as the worst of the franchise.
Despite several reboot attempts in the 80's and 90's, development was almost always riddled with issues. For the rest of the 20th Century, Apes would not see another appearance on the big screen. In 1999, screenwriter William Broyles Jr, to write a script. The project seized the imagination of Tim Burton, a director known for his odd yet arresting style and themes. A film was released in 2001, starring Mark Wahlberg as astronaut Leo Davidson. Davidson accidentally appears in a wormhole dominated by apes with human slaves. He then leads a human revolt to gain human independence once more. Despite a box office success of over $362 million, Burton lacked interest in a second installment, therefore the Planet of the Apes was back to its stagnant pose.
In 2011 came a reboot film hoping to become a franchise. The film was titled Rise of the Planet of the Apes and followed the exploits of Caesar, a chimpanzee who receives advanced capabilities from surrogate parent, Will Rodman. Due to several incidents in which Caesar is mistreated in the outside world, he decides to collect a number of advanced apes and lead a revolt against the humans that formerly oppressed him. It essentially explains how the apes gained control of the world seen in the 1968 version.
A sequel followed, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, in 2014, dealing with the effects of a massive outbreak, titled the Simian Flu, that killed more than half of the world's population. The apes remain dominant while small groups of humans huddle together trying to survive. In this film, Caesar's apes and a camp of humans are able to coexist. However, at urgings of Koba, Caesar's (former) friend, the apes attack the humans and both sides engage in an all out war.
The third movie in this reboot trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes, is the subject of this review.
The plot itself is magnificently done, and while an overused trope, it ultimately prevails in this film. What one cannot help but adore in these movies is its never ceasing sense of imagination to somewhat justify a world overrun of apes. Granted, this story is ridden with predictability and clichés, but is able to balance that out with other masterful components. Rather than relying on a supposed 'war,' as the title implied, this film focuses on the merits of internal, emotional, conflict, such as Caesar struggling with his family's deaths.
Do not be fooled by the appearance of a well publicized human villain, the character is significantly built off of the apes themselves. And while this film succeeds in validating a brotherhood between Caesar, Maurice, Luca, Rocket, Nova, and Bad Ape, it does not give the main characters enough development on their own. The death(s) do(es) not feel earned because, unless you had watched past films, your familiarity with these/this character(s) is/are unfounded. Therefore, his/her death is of little significance.
You could make the very viable argument that this is very much Caesar's story, which is true. The main character is, evidently, Caesar himself. However, the supporting cast solidifies little to no emotional attachment making their death(s) unstable on an emotional level.
**Spoilers in this paragraph**The film is a visual wonder, hands down. The effects, transitions, cinematography, CGI are works of art in their own right that inarguably make the film much more interesting. Seeing the conflict on Caesar's face as he holds a gun to Colonel's head, watching his features twist as he stares at the murderer of his family, noticing his face soften as he realizes Colonel's dismal fate...moments like these define cinema.
In conclusion, War for the Planet of the Apes, while a flawed film, is still a masterpiece to behold that is, in my opinion, better than Rise and Dawn.
8/10
80% (Fresh)
B+
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
'Spider Man: Homecoming' Movie Review
'Spider-Man: Homecoming,' is, in summary, an enjoyable and lighthearted movie that I had fun watching.
The incarnation of Spider-Man has endured much throughout the ages. Originated in 1962 by Stan Lee, Peter Parker, an everyday high-schooler from Queens, defied earlier concepts of comic heroism by being particularly young, pure, and innocent. And his commercial success was evident; becoming one of the highest grossing comic book heroes in Marvel history. Inevitably, several film adaptations were planned, the most significant being a 2002-2007 trilogy featuring Tobey Maguire.
These films are known for being shamefully lighthearted and fun, and focused on Peter Parker's steady character arc as he continually struggles with the identity and purpose of a hero. Rather than an angsty, troubled, tortured, hero, we received one with undeniable hope. The trilogy, while generally liked, is often cited for being too juvenile and simplistic. I think that, while a bit simplistic, these movies captured the general essence and innocence of Peter Parker and his growth as a hero.
After these films had overstayed their welcome and became steadily worse, The Amazing Spider-Man of 2012 and its sequel of 2014 starred Andrew Garfield. These were noticeably edgier, darker, and more adult-like. The first film was welcomed to relatively warm reception, namely for Garfield's performance, which, as Tom Charity of CNN writes, "...combination of fresh-faced innocence, nervous agitation and wry humor ...immediately appealing..."
In contrast, the second installment, released 2014, is known as the downfall of a theatrical Spider-Man for its, as Rotten Tomatoes puts it, "unfocused narrative and an overabundance of characters."
Spider-Man: Homecoming is a different, lighter, and better variation on the Spider-Man story. Rather than focus on aspects of Peter Parker we are already familiar with, it introduces and implements something unique and its own. The story itself blends just enough high-school pettiness and superhero shenanigans to make it a healthy balance so Peter Parker's purpose as Spider Man remains dominant. The problems I had with it, if any, was its reluctance to deal with the consequences of Parker's often reckless actions.
Each character, namely Parker and the villain, Toomes, are developed near perfectly so both's motivations and intents are clear. It is easy to sympathize, or at least empathize, with both of these figures forced to extremes by a continually evolving world. Toomes is an everyman with a general hate for the rich and powerful, Parker is a superhero wannabe trying to please a figure of power and wealth. And the side characters have character, but not enough to control the story or completely steal the spotlight from these two.
The film in terms of physicality is what you expect from Marvel films. Usually compelling visuals that often propel the story to higher standards. It may not hit you immediately, but the music, lighting, visuals, and cinematography all play a crucial part in delivering the emotion for a scene.
In conclusion, Spider-Man: Homecoming, while an imperfect film, is preferable to prior interpretations. The acting is superb, the plot viable, and all other mechanisms equally convincing.
9/10
90% (Fresh)
A
Despicable Me 3 (2017)
'Despicable Me 3' Review
'Despicable Me 3,' is, in summary, a fine but not amazing film that fails to match the wit of the first.
'Despicable Me,' was released in July of 2010. Developed by writer Sergio Pablos (an animator that worked on numerous Disney films such as 'Tarzan') it was originally titled 'Evil Me.' The film was supported by an ingenious marketing campaign, including the release of a Best Buy app exclusively created to translate the Minion language during the film. It was predictably, an immediate hit with parents and children alike for its relatively clever humor, likable lead, and of course, the infamous minions. Its sequel, released 2013 of July, encouraged even more enthusiastic marketing, such as a blimp coined 'Despicablimp' which toured for six months in North America.
Now an international sensation with a significant following, 'Despicable Me's minions earned their collectively loathed and demonized spin-off, 'Minions.' Although beloved by younger demographics, it was almost universally hated because of its bloated exterior mixed with an empty emotional core.
2017, the year of half-hearted sequels ('Cars 3,' 'Pirates 5,' Transformers 5...) is about to welcome a new member, the third 'Despicable Me.'
BENEFITS
The animation is very stylistic and unique. Rather than aim for realism, such as other animation companies, Illumination goes for its own ridiculous, yet creative CGI technique(s).
The villain, Bathazar Bratt (Trey Parker) is amazingly campy and simultaneously enjoyable. A failed 80's TV star, Bratt's obsession (the show he starred in as a kid) is shown several times. You, along with the animators, can delight in the cheesiness of these flashbacks, that echo very similar sentiments to the American 1980's.
DETRACTIONS
The film is trying to get too much done. There is a subplot involving Agnes (Nev Scharrel) and Edith (Dana Gaier) trying to find a real unicorn. Lucy (Kristen Wiig) isn't fitting into her new surrogate mother role. The now unemployed minions have hilarious antics to show. Seriously, they are hilarious. In the midst of all this, you remember that Gru (Steve Carell) has a brother, and that they're trying to retrieve a stolen diamond from Bratt (the seemingly main conflict of the film).
There is not much to say about this film. Essentially, you get what you (hopefully) paid for; a ridiculous kid's romp that isn't great, or even good, but colorful enough to occupy your 6 year old niece's attention as you use your phone.
6/10
60% (fresh)
D+
Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)
'Transformers: The Last Knight' Review
'Transformers: The Last Knight,' is, in summary, an extravaganza of bore under the guise of a blockbuster summer action movie.
The first 'Transformers' movie was released in 2007, directed by the now infamous Michael Bay and starring Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox. It was welcome to international profit and praise, boosting a dying 80's franchise to recognition among current audiences. With a budget of $147 million, 'Transformers' grossed a little over $700 million, making it an imminent Paramount cash cow for years to come. The sequel, 'Revenge of the Fallen,' released in 2009 and helmed by the same people, is hailed as a watchable, but mediocre picture. Still, it fared well with young audiences, grossing $836.3 million to a $200 million budget. The third, 'Dark of the Moon,' received more or less the same similar critical feedback. The fourth, 'Age of Extinction,' released in 2014, was slammed and loathed by critics and audiences alike. Now without LeBeouf and Fox, but rather with a tired Mark Wahlberg and his daughter, the atrocity that 'Transformers' had devolved to was, hopefully dead.
Yet the disappointments of 2017 persisted otherwise. Paramount's tireless efforts to match other studios in terms of box office hits were quietly fading (ie; Ghost in the Shell, Baywatch) and they needed an immediate hit to raise the numbers. This brings me to, quite possibly, the worst movie of 2017, 'Transformers: The Last Knight.'
BENEFITS
Well, this is a $217 million movie, so, naturally, the graphics and effects are sleek. But 'Transformers' never was known for its story, rather, the huge and entertaining explosions that come with it. That being said, this franchise has relied on extravagancy for too long and it shows in its fifth installment.
DETRACTIONS
This movie is too long. The story could be told efficiently, and quite possibly, more professionally, in a 75-100 minute runtime. Things only pick up when the film has hit its 45 minute mark, which, even for 'Transformers,' is a long time to spend on exposition.
Characters are introduced into the film and play little to no part in the movie's goings, yet we spend 15 minutes learning about them. An example would be 14 year old Izabella, a character who seemingly in the first minutes will play a large part. But she does absolutely nothing, for Transformers and humans alike. I reiterate many people's complaints on this movie.
THE. HUMANS. DO. NOT. FREAKING. MATTER.
Since this is a franchise based off the whims of a 14 year old boy, everything is enlarged and dramatized. Everything. Now, I love watching action in movies. I truly, truly, do. But there needs to be sound, prior context in order for the action to be properly appreciated. Watching Wahlberg and Co; run around an abandoned town just isn't cutting it anymore.
I don't know what to say on this film. I really don't. Usually, I love ripping movies to shreds as it fills me with unfiltered glee. This one leaves me simply empty inside.
2.5/10
25%
F-
Cars 3 (2017)
'Cars 3' Review
'Cars 3' is, in summary, a decent film despite not matching regular Pixar standards.
The first film, titled 'Cars' was released in 2016. While welcome to relatively successful reviews, yet in terms of Pixar Art 'Cars' is often overlooked alongside other classics (ie; Toy Story, Wall-E, Incredibles, etc). Yet when you google the phrase 'Pixar Films', 'Cars' is ordinarily one of the first results produced. Why is it the first suggestion when there are clearly far superior Pixar films available?
The answer is retail. In total, Cars has grossed over $8 billion, both in retail and in box office sales, making it one of the biggest Pixar/Disney franchises to date. Annually, the Cars franchise grosses around $2 billion. And although there have been more financially successful Pixar hits (ie, Finding Dory, Toy Story 3), 'Cars' is particularly impressive because the revenue never seems to decrease significantly. It is a fluctuant cash cow for Disney, each sequel provides a welcome surplus of income.
And 'Cars 2,' despite relatively massive box office approval, is a prominent dark spot both in Pixar and 'Cars' history. The film's most significant problem, is my opinion, is its dramatic genre switch. This may have been acceptable in say, 'Cars 4,' where the general world has been established and the franchise is in need of a genre switch. But this was the SECOND movie, and did not have the needed support to make such a significant shift. But enough about 'Cars 2,' here is my opinion on the third installment.
I will address the detractions and benefits of this film.
BENEFITS
Firstly, 'Cars 3' features a female lead, Cruz Ramirez. I think that this new feminist positivity in Hollywood is terribly beneficial. 2017 has held women empowering hits such as 'Wonder Woman,' and yes, even 'Beauty and the Beast.' (I loathed that movie with a passion, but I'll give them this.) Cruz is ultimately portrayed in a positive light, and I did like that.
Secondly, the animation. Pixar and Disney are known for their exemplary animation techniques, and 'Cars 3' is no exception. I found my inner child squealing the most during the racing sequences.
'Cars 2' tried desperately to introduce Mater as a new character, yet his irritable humor and general aura are part of the reason 'Cars 2' is so loathed. Mater is still in #3, but plays a very minor role as the chemistry and main relationship is mostly between McQueen and Cruz. Decimating Mater made the movie ten times more enjoyable.
DETRACTIONS
Most of 'Cars 3' is spent establishing Lightning McQueen and his return to racing dominancy. Cruz, while a main character given ambitions and personality, is not working toward the racing success McQueen is. She is not the focus. Without spoiling; Cruz holds a prominent part in the 'Cars 3' climax where certain abilities must be used. The god-like abilities shown in the climax by Cruz do not match the implications and information about Cruz offered prior. This is a noticeable error.
Also, the villain, Jackson Storm, is so one dimensional that the film would have been unchanged without him. The conflict could purely be McQueen realizing the inevitability of physical deterioration due to age. I will go as far as to say that he was actually a detraction; that the film would have been more thoughtful (in that classic Pixar manner) by not having an obvious antagonist. Instead having something we will all have to face, growing age, would have made a smarter movie.
The humor in the first half was practically nonexistent. There was obviously effort but it never really paid off. Fortunately, 'Cars 3' picks up in the last half and thankfully includes better jokes. However, if you are walking into the theater purely for laughs (unlikely, but still) then this film is not for you.
A significant amount of the movie could be cut out and it would remain virtually unaffected. For example, McQueen and Cruz are somehow in the middle of a mud wrestling car racing competition (a bad description, I know, but work with me). Cruz wins. McQueen gets bad publicity. And then the movie continues. The scene had no overall context and contributed nothing except insignificant conflict. If they wanted to establish this conflict with Cruz getting McQueen in hot water with the press, then they could have. The conflict could have been done a lot better. And smarter. Kind of like this movie.
6.5/10
65%
C+
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)
'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales' Review
What, really, is the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' franchise? What has it become? What purpose does it serve, now, 14 years after the witty, clever, and fresh original? These questions, and more, you will be asking yourself while watching DMTNT.
So let's begin with a little history; the first PotC movie, 'Curse of the Black Pearl,' was released in 2003. The early 2000's were a tedious time for Disney, largely because it had started a new (and pointless, in my opinion) trend of rebooting classic Disney theme park rides. One infamous example of this dark period is Eddie Murphy's 'The Haunted Mansion' a crowded and ultimately mediocre picture that failed both critically and financially. But the PotC franchise came to Disney's salvation. Released a few months prior to HM, PotC proved a success and encouraged astronomical reviews and box office profit. Three years later comes 'Dead Man's Chest' a film that, while significantly worse than its predecessor, DMC managed to get relatively positive reviews and, of course, fared over $1 billion. Only a year later came, what I consider, the death of PotC, because everything; the presentation and execution of the film are dead on arrival. Of course, I am mentioning 'At World's End,' with an impressive $963.4 million. The last film defiantly refuses to attempt anything original or remotely entertaining, 2011's 'On Stranger Tides' with an undeserved $1 billion.
Predictably, I, as most of America, angrily stomped my feet and shook my fists because they had killed it. They had viciously destroyed everything good about PotC and expected us to pay to see the funeral. It'd be insane to make another one of these. "PotC is dead," I say to myself.
6 years later comes DMTNT. Here is a detailed plot summary (OPENING OF MOVIE SPOILERS)
We open with a young Henry Turner (played by Lewis McGowan) (Elizabeth and Will's son) looking for his father Will (Orlando Bloom), the now cursed captain of the Flying Dutchman (from third film). Will is confined to his ship for 10 years at a time, and can return to land for only one day. Therefore his father has largely been missing from his life, and the fed up Henry tells his father about Poseidon's Trident, a mystical object with capabilities to cure any curse. Will reluctantly dismisses his son; and Henry vows to find Capt. Jack Sparrow, a pirate with the required resources to find the trident.
Henry is now roughly 19 (Brenton Thwaites) and working on a British Royal Navy Ship as a lowly crew member. His ship is about to enter the lethal Devil's Triangle, and Henry, an educated student of sea myths, tries to persuade his commanding officer to turn around. But the enraged captain sentences Henry with treason and the ship continues. This inexplicably triggers some kind of supernatural incident, in which an undead captain and crew reawaken headed by Capt. Salazar (Javier Bardem). Salazar slaughters the crew but leaves one man, Henry, alive with a message: to find Sparrow and tell him death is coming to him.
We cut to Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario), a young woman about to be hanged. A priest comes to hear her final confession, during which the most ham handed exposition occurs in the history of Disney.
"I confess that I am not a witch. I confess that I am an orphan who was left a diary with a secret map from my faceless father. I confess that I intend to solve the map and find a clue to my father's identity,"drawls Carina, while you wonder why they didn't just stick a STATS card in the screen corner.
So Carina, Sparrow, and Henry work together to get the trident while avoiding the tireless pursuits of Salazar and hilarity ensues!
This movie, while better than 3 and 4, holds little excitement, whimsy, or fun. Despite a few good scenes, the movie is tiring and simply a bore. It's a far cry from the PotC that you fell in love with, although a slight improvement.
4/10
40%
D+
Wonder Woman (2017)
'Wonder Woman' Review
'Wonder Woman' is, in short, a masterpiece, an artful collaboration of romance, action, heart, and humor to create a near perfect superhero film.
First, some history; Wonder Woman was a DC character that first appeared around 1941. She was created by William Moulton Marston. WW prevailed through the several ages of comics, and by doing so created a significant following that fully encouraged this feminist revision. She has endured decades of television and movies, some good, others bad. They include:
1974 film starring Cathy Lee Crosby
1975-1979 TV series starring Lynda Carter
2009 direct to DVD animated film
2011 TV Pilot starring Adrianne Palicki
And of course numerous appearances in other DC films
In this retelling, Diana (Gal Gadot) is summoned from her euphoric island home to help American spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) during WW1. Their mission is to stop the deadly efforts of Dr. Poison (Elena Anaya) and Gen. Ludendorff (Danny Huston). But Diana, creation of the gods themselves, believes that humans are innately good and human corruption by evil god Ares is to blame. Trevor sets out to destroy Ludendorff's lethal poison gas and Diana joins him with the intent of killing Ares in his human incarnation.
I loved this film. I've seen it twice. I found myself genuinely caring when a specific character was in danger. I cannot tell you the last time I sat in a cinema and thought that.
In terms of flaws, 'WW' holds few. A few things that I did not enjoy was the casting choice for Ares. I know that the intent was obviously for surprise, but choosing an actor with that physique did not really fit earlier descriptions of Ares. I also thought that Dr. Poison and Ludendorff were a bit underdeveloped, but enjoyable.
The relationship between Trevor and Diana is striking. True, the romance is a bit rushed but I liked the equality and fairness to it. It seemed very honest and real as not just a romance, but as partners.
The most stunning thing about 'WW' is Diana. We see her as this innocent and naive girl who sees morality in only black and white. But after her exposure to humans, to war, Diana realizes that humans have the capability to be evil. It will ultimately come down to a choice each one of us will make that will determine our place in human history.
9/10
90%
A
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' Review
STATISTICS (*NO SPOILERS*) "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is a 2017 fantasy epic directed by Guy Ritchie ("Sherlock Holmes") and written by Ritchie, Lionel Wigram ("The Man From U.N.C.L.E."), and Joby Harold ("Edge of Tomorrow"). Music is by Daniel Pemberton ("Steve Jobs"), cinematography by John Mathieson ("Logan"), editing by James Herbert, and production by Guy Ritchie, Akiva Goldsman ("Mr. and Mrs. Smith"), Joby Harold, Tory Tunnel ("My Blind Brother"), Steve Clark-Hall, and Lionel Wigram. It stars Charlie Hunnam ("Pacific Rim"), Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey ("Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"), Djimon Hounsou ("Blood Diamond"), Aidan Gillen ("Game of Thrones"), Jude Law ("The Talented Mr. Ripley"), and Eric Bana ("Hulk").
REVIEW (*SPOILERS INDICATED*) Guy Ritchie is famous for his stylistic and sleek directing style. It has become cinematically significant; holding a British saltiness and wit as well as a quick, bloody, yet entertaining method of action. "King Arthur" is no exception. I won't elaborate on the plot, as you probably are somewhat aware of it and rehashing it will only waste both our time. But please, allow me to share my feelings on this film.
It is in no way the terrible film the critics are painting is as. It is flawed, but not horrible. If I were to see this film again, it would be to see some nice action and catchy music, not for character or even plot.
Arthur, while played nicely, is generic as Arthur's go. I know nothing of Humnam's early work but in this film he was dry and perfectly acceptable. It wasn't a notable performance, per say, but perhaps it wasn't meant to be.
And that brings us to Jude Law. As the dimensional power hungry uncle, Law succeeds. I found myself being inexplicably drawn to all of his scenes. He absolutely dominated.
This is a strangely brief review, but I think what I have to say is already written. "King Arthur," is a decent film. It won't make any lasting impressions or leave you thinking differently. But I would recommend it.
6/10
60%
C
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
'Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2' Review
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOLUME 2
STATISTICS (*NO SPOILERS*) "Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2" is a 2017 superhero film directed and written by James Gunn ("Slither"). Music is by Tyler Bates ("Super"); cinematography by Henry Braham ("Legend of Tarzan"); editing by Fred Raskin ("Django Unchained") and Craig Wood ("Frogs"); and production by Kevin Feige ("Thor"). It primarily stars Chris Pratt ("Parks and Recreation"); Zoe Saldana ("Star Trek"); Dave Bautista ("The Man with the Iron Fists"); Vin Diesel ("Fast and Furious"); Bradley Cooper ("The Hangover"); Michael Rooker ("The Walking Dead"); Karen Gillan ("Oculus"); Pom Klementieff ("Sleepless Night"); Kurt Russell ("Silkwood"); Elizabeth Debicki ("The Great Gatsby"); Chris Sullivan ("This is Us"); Sean Gunn ("Gilmore Girls"); Sylvester Stallone ("Rocky"). Filming began February 11, 2016 in Fayette County, Georgia and ended June 16, 2016. Its budget totaled at around $200 million, and to date (May 2017) it has earned about $632.3 million. It spans a total of 2 hours, 16 minutes (136 minutes) and is grouped as PG-13.
PLOT SUMMARY (*NO SPOILERS*) We begin the film with the Guardians, headed by Star-Lord/Peter Quill (Pratt) and consisting of assassin/combatant Gamora (Saldana), the primary muscle and brawn Drax (Bautista), raccoon hybrid Rocket (Cooper), and an adorable yet still infant Groot (Diesel). They are on a job for the Sovereign Race, a group of no-nonsense, relatively generic yet perfect beings led by High Priestess Ayesha (Debicki). They do this in exchange for Gamora's sister Nebula (Gillan), whom the Sovereigns have captured. But Rocket, against the team's best interests, steals a collection of the batteries intended for the Guardians to retrieve. The angered Sovereigns begin to chase the Guardians, but luckily a mysterious commodity comes to their aid. The Guardians crash land on a foreign planet, where Ego, (Russell) later revealed to us as a modest celestial, rendezvous with them and reveals to Star-Lord that he is his once faceless father. Star-Lord, Gamora, and Drax agree to join Ego to his home planet, while Rocket, Groot, and Nebula repair the damaged ship. But Star Lord and his friends soon learn that Ego's planet, as well as Ego himself, are not as they appear.
REVIEW (*SPOILERS*) There is trash, and then there is good trash. This is good trash. It's not awe- inspiring, or thought-provoking; it's not even blatantly clever. No, this funny. It's violent and fun and entertaining. It was purely meant to kill 2 hours of your time and give you a nice ride while doing it. So let's actually discuss the film and how everything played out. First, the characters are presented with undeniable swagger. Most of the audience will have a connection and familiarity with the Guardians already, so most of the film focuses more on them, their aspirations and backstories, rather than introducing their abilities or parentage. Really, this is an expansion of the Guardians, a movie that allows you more time with them as they save the universe. Yes, some moments are admittedly stupid, yes the story can get a bit choppy. But it ultimately succeeds in its goal to be fun and entertaining. In terms of action and cinematography, this film is stunning. The arguably best scene was when Yondu (Rooker), Rocket, and Groot were escaping a Ravager Prison and Yondu showed the immense abilities of his telepathic arrow. The graphics were seamless, and I was guiltily captivated as he commanded the arrow with an angelic whistle and it whirled across the screen to his whim.
As for what I didn't like; I didn't think the Sovereign subplot was used to its full advantage. The beginning scene was funny, interesting, and promising. But since the Sovereigns are supposed to be the main antagonist until Ego is revealed, I felt they were under-used for the rest of the film. There was also this scene toward the climax when the Guardians, with no Quill, are discussing whether or not they should leave him behind, thereby saving themselves. Drax chimes in with a classic, "We're family. No-one gets left behind" speech. So yes, the moral can be a little ham-fisted. But those are my only complaints.
The new characters were very interesting; Nebula brought a kind of ominous seriousness to the already light hearted film. She had some moderately funny lines, but it was ultimately her identity and Karen Gillan's performance that made her stand out. Mantis was captivating and entertaining. She had little in the way of backstory or development in that way, but she was sweet. I just wish that her talents and abilities were expanded on more. I knew very little about her respective powers or how they really work. Other than that I liked Mantis. With Kurt Russell's Ego I thought the film was very self-aware that they were using a common superhero trope, so they tried and succeeded to bring something fresh. Ego was different, and he brought a versatility that the first film lacked.
In short, I enjoyed and recommend this film.
7/10
70%
B-
The Circle (2017)
'The Circle' Review
THE CIRCLE
STATISTICS (*NO SPOILERS*)
"The Circle" is a 2017 techno-thriller directed by James Ponsoldt ("The Spectacular Now"), and written by Ponsoldt and Dave Eggers; Eggers the author of the 2013 novel of the same name. Music is by Danny Elfman ("Desperate Housewives"); cinematography by Matthew Libatique ("Black Swan"); editing by Lisa Lassek ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Season 6); production by Anthony Bregman, Gary Goetzman ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding"), Tom Hanks, and James Ponsoldt. It primarily stars Emma Watson ("Harry Potter"); Tom Hanks ("Forrest Gump"); John Boyega ("Star Wars: The Force Awakens"); Karen Gillan ("Guardians of the Galaxy"); Ellar Coltrane ("Boyhood"); Patton Oswalt ("King of Queens"); Bill Paxton ("Terminator"); Glenne Headly ("Mr. Holland's Opus"). Filming began September 17, 2015 in Pasadena, CA. (Retakes were scheduled around January 2017.) Its budget totaled around $18 million; as of today (May 10, 2017) its box office is at $16 million worldwide. It spans a total of 1 hour, 50 minutes 110 minutes total) and is grouped as PG-13.
PLOT SUMMARY (*NO SPOILERS*)
Mae Holland (Watson) is an unaccomplished, mediocre customer service rep, who, in hopes of bettering her life, applies for a job at the Circle (the equivalent of Google and Facebook in one). To her surprise, her friend Annie (Gillan), a Circle employee, is able to get Mae a modest yet serviceable position in customer service, and Mae is predictably ecstatic. Mae meets a mysterious person, later revealed to us as TruYou founder Ty Lafitte (Boyega). They share some terribly awkwardly paced flirtatious dialogue, and then Lafitte leaves, but not before ominously suggesting The Circle could be evil. Then Eamon Bailey (Hanks) the CEO, and his co-founder Tom Stenton (Oswalt) set Mae up for an interview in which she shares the life-saving abilities of SeeChange to her co-workers. She announces that she is now going "fully transparent," or wearing a live camera on her that can be commented and monitored 24/7. So now she wears this camera all the time. Mae is so unique that she is given the required funds to launch a new program, SoulSearch. Fundamentally, SoulSearch requires the participation and involvement of people across the globe. Ideally any person can be accessed. Once his/her name is announced, everyday people will begin, worldwide, to search for said person. Mae's plan backfires when the crowd suggests searching for a normal person, someone close to her is lost and she begins to doubt The Circle.
REVIEW (*SPOILERS INDICATED*)
I have never read The Circle by Dave Eggers, so I am unfortunately unable to make a comparison, determining if the story was good. I am ashamed to say that $12.00 is the price I had to pay to view this film, and $12.00 was therefore wasted. But do I regret it? No. This is probably the funnest review I'm going to write all year.
So let me begin with what many people consider the biggest flaw of The Circle, the characters. In that category that this film remarkably fails. I mean what do we really know about Mae? She has a dad with MS and is...kind? Witty? Smart? Dumb? Dead Inside? This is not totally Watson's fault. I know I have been all too vocal on her in Beauty and the Beast, but in this film she is genuinely trying to make Mae work. Is Emma Watson an amazing actress? No. No. But she tries. So let's direct our attentions to another big character, Eamon Bailey. There is nothing giving us evidence that Bailey is evil. No qualities that we can assign to him besides "mysterious" and "controlling". Heck, that could be Edward from Twilight for all I know. And this brings me to Ty Lafitte, a severe misuse of what could have been great. Again, this is not a fault of Boyega, but rather the writing and pacing of the film. In the entirety, Lafitte appears in about four scenes and is mentioned in two. I can't really make a legitimate criticism because we know virtually nothing about Lafitte except that. Yes, the writing, the screenplay is to blame because it does not take time to build on the characters, to establish valid connections between the audience and actor.
So let's focus on another aspect; the plot. The plot is filled with holes and calamities that I am still baffled about. Let's list them here: (*SPOILERS BELOW*)
1. Why did Annie leave The Circle?
2. Why did Ty share that information ("The Circle is bad.") with Mae when she could have easily gotten him fired?
3. Why does no-one recognize Ty even though he was some big shot Circle founder?
4. Why give Ty free reign of the place without suspecting he's riling up a Circle employee (Mae) with anti-technology propaganda?? Hasn't something like this happened before?
5. What exactly is on all of Bailey's files that Mae exposed? What makes them incriminating?
6. What was the real point of hiring Karen Gillan, Patton Oswalt, and John Boyega in the movie if they do so little?
7. After exposing Bailey, what happened? Is Mae the head of the Circle? Is the Circle still existent? Why did Mae appear happy to see the drones monitoring her when her philosophy after Mercer's death was "Monitoring everything is bad,"?
It is a beautiful film, with sleek editing and graphics that are impressive and demand attention, if nothing else.
1/10
10%
F-
Born in China (2016)
'Born in China': A Gorgeous Documentary that is Bound to Please
"Born in China" is a 2016 nature documentary directed by Lu Chuan ("The Missing Gun") with a screenplay by David Fowler, Brian Leith, Phil Chapman, and Lu Chuan. Music is by Barnaby Taylor; editing by Matthew Meech; and production by Roy Conli ("Big Hero 6"), Brian Leith, and Phil Chapman. It's narrated in its USA release by John Krasinski ("The Office") and in its China release, actress Zhou Xun ("Suzhou River"). The entirety was filmed in unpopulated areas of China. Various Chinese wildlife were followed for a year; their misadventures and struggles culminating in this film. It was released in China August 12, 2016, and in the US April 21, 2017. To date (April 29, 2017) the film has raised approximately $15.2 million worldwide. It runs for 1 hour, 16 minutes (76 minutes) and is rated G.
The film centers on various Chinese wildlife; one being a snow leopard named Dawa struggling to collect the needed food for her two cubs. With increasing competition and food supply decreasing, Dawa struggles to maintain her cubs' health. The second is that of Tao-Tao, a golden snub-nosed monkey who is constantly plagued by his family's bias to a newborn sister. Tao-Tao joins a group of misfits, referenced as "The Lost Boys," but still finds himself lonely. The third is a panda named Ya-Ya and her baby daughter Mei- Mei (pronounced "My-My," apparently). As Mei-Mei grows older, Ya- Ya is forced to confront her daughter's maturity and newfound independence. Finally, there is a herd of chiru, who are there for little plot complexity and more for cinematography.
Sometimes in nature documentaries, the director's abundant desire for humor/story development begins to overtake the film. This is not necessarily a bad thing; jokes and story are good in small doses. But with too much, the attention is detracted from the actual entertainment (the animals) and more to something that won't satisfy. Sadly, many Disney Nature films have fallen victim to this, and "Born in China" maintains a serviceable, if not entirely balanced, scale between these two conflicting features. That is not to say the film is not without fault; Krasinski, while of talent, does not do the film justice with mediocre narrating. Most of the jokes are meant to be cute, but with Krasinski's delivery, something goes wrong, leaving a decent quip that may have earned my half-hearted chortle acquainted with silence. As a whole, "Born in China" is deservant of some of the detractions mentioned on this forum and on my review. As a whole, however, the film is entertaining and somewhat educational. I would recommend it over some of the recent releases. So, yes, go see it. It definitely will beat "Beauty and the Beast," "Boss Baby," and maybe even "Gifted." What low standards for film we've been setting lately, where a documentary can edge out $160 million competitors in terms of quality.
+ Beautiful cinematography.
+ The animals are made into characters with struggles, flaws, failures and successes, and one will undoubtedly empathize.
+ It is paced well, with captions notifying you of the current season and the scenes remaining relatively quick (not in a bad way).
+ The film includes an interesting interpretation of the harsh reality in nature.
- Krasinski's narrating.
9/10
90%
A
The Boss Baby (2017)
'The Boss Baby:' A Disorganized and Scattered Film Unsure of Its Purpose
"The Boss Baby" is a 2017 20th Century Fox animated comedy based off of a book of the same name by Marla Frazee. It is directed by Tom McGrath ("Madagascar"), with a screenplay by Michael McCullers ("Baby Mama"). The music is by Hans Zimmer ("Lion King") and Steve Mazzaro; the editing by James Ryan; and production by Ramsey Ann Naito. It stars Alec Baldwin ("30 Rock"), Steve Buscemi ("Armageddon"), Miles Bakshi, Jimmy Kimmel ("Jimmy Kimmel Live!"), Lisa Kudrow ("Friends"), and Tobey Maguire ("Spiderman"). It was announced June 12, 2014 and, after multiple incidents in which its release was delayed, was finally cinematically released March 31, 2017 (USA). "The Boss Baby"'s budget totaled at $125 million, and internationally, it profited $366 million. It runs for 1 hour, 37 minutes (97 minutes total) and is rated PG. Now to the review:
Young Tim Templeton (Miles Christopher Bakshi; adult narrator voiced by Toby Maguire) is introduced to us as a frequent dreamer; in fact, the animation style changes when the film is switching to one of his imaginings. Tim is doted one by his parents (Jimmy Kimmel and Lisa Kudrow). However, things take a turn when his obviously pregnant mother announces that Tim is about to have a baby brother. We now see a baby (Alec Baldwin) exiting a sleek limo and doing some strange dance. Why, if the mother was pregnant, is the baby clearly being transported by some otherworldly means? Are the parents in the limo? And if so, why don't we see them entering the house as well? Tim quickly learns that the baby has business-like tendencies, and that he was assigned to become a "Boss Baby" rather than grow up like everyone else. His objective is scattered; Tim's parents, who work for a puppy manufacturer, have access to a disclosed, yet potentially earth-shattering ForeverPuppy. Boss Baby must break into the Puppy Headquarters, steal the ForeverPuppy plans, and then return them to Baby Co. If he doesn't, he will get fired, thus turned into a regular baby that will remain in Tim's life for good. Tim, who obviously wants to be rid of Boss Baby, reluctantly agrees to help on his mission IF he agrees to never enter Tim's life or family again.
+ Some of the concepts are interesting; (being replaced by a younger sibling), and are lightly touched on.
+ The animation, while not Disney-level, is colorful and entertaining.
+ It will likely please young kids.
+ There are a few funny moments.
- The plot does not make sense.
- It becomes confusing for the watcher to separate Tim's fantasies from reality.
- The villain is weak; and his backstory does not make sense.
2/10
20%
F-
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
'Beauty and the Beast:' An Absent, Vague Reimagining of a Classic
"Beauty and the Beast" is a 2017 musical romantic fantasy remake of a 1991 animated film of the same name. It is directed by Bill Condon ("Twilight: Breaking Dawn" parts 1 & 2) and is written by Stephen Chbosky ("Perks of Being a Wallflower") and Evan Spiliotopulos ("Huntsman: Winter's War"). The music is by Alan Menken ("Aladdin"); the cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler ("Dreamgirls"); the editing by Virginia Katz; and the production by David Hoberman ("Monk") and Todd Lieberman ("The Fighter"). It stars Emma Watson ("Harry Potter"), Dan Stevens ("Downton Abbey"), Luke Evans ("Clash of the Titans"), Kevin Kline ("Sophie's Choice"), Josh Gad ("Modern Family"), Stanley Tucci ("The Lovely Bones"), Audra McDonald ("Private Practice"), Evan McGregor ("Star Wars"), Gugu Mbatha-Raw ("Doctor Who"), Ian McKellen ("X-Men"), and Emma Thompson ("Sense and Sensibility"). Filming began May 18, 2015 in Surrey, England with an estimated budget of $160 million, and a box office totaling at $1.103 billion internationally. It has a running time of 2 hours, 19 minutes (139 minutes), and a PG rating for mild violence. Now to the review:
Belle (Emma Watson) is a gorgeous, kind, and smart young woman living in a small- minded village in France. Despite constant wooing from village heartthrob Gaston (Luke Evans) Belle keeps her feisty independence and devotion to intellect. Her father Maurice (Kevin Kline) goes on a "trip" (Doing God knows what, that's never really explained), and she asks for a rose. Maurice ends up getting lost in the woods, and comes upon a castle where, unbeknownst to him, a cursed Beast (Dan Stevens) and his staff reside. Maurice is captured by the enraged Beast, and Belle, learning of her father's disappearance, goes to the castle and trades her freedom for his. Slowly, Belle and Beast fall in love, while a frazzled Maurice searches for help to rescue her. He finally gains the trust and help of Gaston and his lackey LeFou (Josh Gad).
So here's what I think it boils down to. Something as beloved and treasured as '91's B+B should not ever be made into a remake without taking all possible precautions. You need a Belle who can sing and act, a beast who looks fairly realistic, a CGI castle that actually looks plausible, and you need an interesting and captivating script/plot. Otherwise, the project should not be taken on.
Obviously, this will be a huge box office hit. And I understand. No one is immune to some nostalgia, especially from an amazing original animated film. But I miss the times when cinema had standards. I miss the clever and impactful films Disney used to make. If we are meeting films like this with widespread approval, then what messages are we sending for future Disney films?
Here is Watson, when asked why her Belle specifically, is a feminist:
"So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor."
Now, I guess one could say that that this is a slight improvement (no matter how unnecessary) on Belle. But why? What more is being said? "Hey, not only can she read, but she also can build things too! Now that's what I call a feminist princess!"
But Belle was already a feminist princess. A bit outdated considering our times, sure. But if you're going around flaunting the term "Feminist Belle," then I expect more than one 1.5 minute scene where she's using her washing machine, and then a 30 second clip in which that same machine is destroyed. God, what is your point? What more is this bringing? What thought is this provoking?
Now, I think the idea of revamping a feminist Belle is great. I do, really. Watson had great intentions. But if this is all we're getting, then what's the point if you're adding so little?
3/10
30%
F
Gifted (2017)
'Gifted': An Overall Enjoyable Film
"Gifted" is a 2017 Fox Searchlight Pictures drama directed by Marc Webb, with a screenplay by Tom Flynn. The music is by Rob Simonsen; the cinematography by Stuart Dryburgh; the editing by Bill Pankow; and production by Karen Lunder and Andy Cohen. It stars Chris Evans ("Captain America"), Mckenna Grace ("The Young and the Restless"), Lindsay Duncan ("Birdman"), Jenny Slate ("Obvious Child"), and Octavia Spencer ("Hidden Figures"). Filming began October 2015, largely in Savannah and Tybee Island, Georgia. Its budget totaled at $7 million, and its box office sales end at approximately $12.5 million internationally, ending at an estimated grand profit of $5.5 million. It runs at 1 hour; 41 minutes (101 minutes total) and is grouped as PG-13 for some swearing and sexual situations. Now to my review:
7 year old Mary (Mckenna Grace) has been spending the prime of her childhood with her Uncle Frank (Chris Evans). However, with first grade beginning, Frank decides that enrolling her in public school will ultimately be beneficial. It is made clear from the beginning scenes that socially, Mary is severely lacking and of course, Frank and his landlady/best friend/babysitter Roberta (Octavia Spencer) are painfully aware of this. Thus, Mary is understandably frustrated by the curriculum and ignorance of her grade level. There, she meets her teacher Bonnie (Jenny Slate) who, after questioning Mary, discovers that she is in fact, gifted. After some googling on both Frank and Mary, Bonnie learns that Mary's mother, Diane, was a brilliant mathematician who ended up committing suicide shortly after Mary's birth. Enter Frank's mother and Mary's grandmother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan), an equally brilliant and intellectual mathematician, who brings a conflicted antagonist that this movie was undeniably in need of. Evelyn and Frank indulge in some predictable skirmishes over Mary's future, and whether an education that matches her intellect is what she is in need of. Since the two are in such disagreement over the girl's future, Evelyn begins a crusade for full custody. Evelyn and Frank duke it out over Mary in a series of nail-biting court battles (That was sarcasm); Mary, Roberta, and Frank stop at a hospital to watch families' excitement over newborns (eye-roller); and Bonnie and Frank begin romantic entanglements (annoying and unnecessary).
+ Grace and Evans have wonderful and undeniable chemistry.
+ The acting is beautifully executed; the casting is superb.
+ It raises important arguments over the future and childhood of gifted children.
+ All of the characters (even the child genius) are relatable and easy to admire.
+ Evelyn makes a layered and complex antagonist.
- The court scenes are boring, and take away from the overall story.
-The whole Bonnie/Frank romance is extremely unrealistic.
- Mary's mother, Diane, is too underdeveloped.
9/10
90%
A-