I went into Happy Death Day with some low expectations, even though the reviews have been mostly positive for the film.  Happy Death Day mixes one of my least favorite genres of film with a formulaic storyline that I have always struggled to enjoy.  As a horror film director, Christopher Landon (Disturbia) uses a whole lot of jump scares to try and get the audience out of their seats.  Yet, almost all of the jumpscares are easily predictable and often not scary at all. 

Another issue I have with this film is that I've always struggled to enjoy the use of a constantly repeating storyline, which is one of the main premises of Happy Death Day.  Once you've seen the plot recur three or four times, it starts to drag the film down more and more.  A runtime of one hour and thirty-six minutes feel more like a two hour film because of the repetitive filmmaking.  Furthermore, this convention has been done a lot in film, from Groundhog Day to Edge of Tomorrow.  I'm not sure if it has been used for horror before this film, but it still seems like it's been overused.

Happy Death Day also tries to entertain audiences with a comedic script, but the jokes fall flat with immaturity.  Nothing is too clever, but rather plays on sexual innuendos and valley girl-esque speeches.  As the lead actress, Jessica Rothe (La La Land​) is good enough to handle the eye-rolls and head nods necessary for the role.  There is no real emotion in any of the characters with a completely surface-level development for some of them.  They act their own parts, but there really isn't anything worthy of a rewatch.  

The Bottom Line: Happy Death Day plays well for younger audiences that don't require much depth for a late night feature.

Score: 4/10

In Gerald's Game, what starts off as a relaxing get-away for a middle-aged couple turns into something completely unexpected.  The trailer for this film had me intrigued for the new Stephen King (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Shining, Pet Sematary) adaptation.  I cannot relate to the book since I have not read it, but either King's writing is crazy or Mike Flanagan's (Oculus) adaptation is weird as heck.  For most of the film, I was on board with what was going on.  However, there are some parts that are a bit too fake to be scary.  In fact, I found a lot of the horror aspects to be funny.  Gerald's Game is very similar to Misery, but with more paranormality and a less believable storyline.

There are two main characters in this story, Gerald and Jessie.  As Gerald, Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek) creates an interesting character that is hard to judge at times and has some depth throughout the whole film.  As Jessie, I found that Carla Gugino's (Night at the Museum, Watchmen, Sin City) performance was too exaggerated.  In the situations that she is put through, I don't think that anyone would have reacted in the same way that her character does.  Certain parts of her role are believable, but the first half of the film feels overacted.

Overall, Gerald's Game has ideas that are hard to figure out at first.  The ending has twists that are not easily resolved through a first viewing.  I'm glad with some of the choices that Flanagan executed in his direction, but there is some CGI that is inexplicably bad.  I understand that the film would be a complete bore without some of the horror conventions used, but I wish that more of the budget was spent on them.  This is the first Mike Flanagan film that I've seen and I believe he still has some potential for growth as a horror filmmaker.

The Bottom Line:  Don't expect to be jumping out of your chair throughout the film, but there are some ideas that might keep you awake at night pondering.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By "Pinguino" - "Pinguino's" flickr account, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1774637

Tom Cruise (Top Gun) breaks away from his Mission Impossible franchise to bring us a film that probably didn't require the dangerous stunts that his fans are used to.  Even without him hanging off of the side of a plane, fans can enjoy this brisk-paced action/drama flick.  From the very get-go, this film flies by without any stop in the action.  The opening credits prepare us for the winding journey that we are about to take with Barry Seal.  I was completely unfamiliar with this story going in and found every twist and turn to be surprising and, for the most part, unpredictable.

Something even more unpredictable about this flick is Doug Liman's (The Bourne Identity, Edge of Tomorrow) superb directing.  Liman's past filmography is wishy-washy, and mostly includes shallow action films.  Liman's creativity behind the camera helps to progress this story, with varying shots and photography.  The film goes from extreme close-ups to landscape shots in an instant, never ceasing to bring a spectacular image to the viewer.  Found footage brings unfamiliar viewers (such as myself) into the past time period.  So far, this is my favorite of Liman's films because the direction clearly leads the storyline.  While we are constantly thrown forward in years, it's hard to get lost or confused about the plot.

In terms of acting, Tom Cruise and Domhnall Gleeson (Ex Machina, The Revenant, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2) give bring the energy to their respective roles.  Cruise may be typecast as this point, but I'll be damned if he doesn't play the action hero part well.  Even without huge stunt productions, it's hard to avert your eyes from Cruise piloting a plane.  I will admit that it is still hard for me to take Domhnall Gleeson completely seriously because of that one big franchise he was in as a child, but he is definitely maturing into more serious roles.  I foresee more big roles being thrown Gleeson's way after his success this year.

The Bottom Line: Liman brings on the action at a fast pace and a time period that many moviegoers weren't alive to witness.

Score: 9.3/10

Blade Runner 2049 takes place in the future, a desolate and yet overcrowded time period.  This follow-up to the first film stands out as a wholly original film, requiring minimal prior experience with the storyline.  Of course, you will be able to understand a bit more if you view the first film, but it is not crucial to Denis Villeneuve's (Arrival, Prisoners, Sicario) creation.  There are a few characters that return from the original film, including Harrison Ford (Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, Raiders of the Lost Ark) and Edward James Olmos (2 Guns).  They stay true to their character forms that were first introduced by Ridley Scott (Alien).  

While the returning actors are important to the story's progression, there are quite a few newcomers to the franchise that stand out with bold performances.  Ryan Gosling's (Drive, La La Land, The Big Short) third team-up with Villeneuve might be his best yet.  Gosling's character is reminiscent of Ford's character, but with more twists and turns right off the bat.  Ana de Armas (Hands of Stone), Robin Wright (The Princess Bride, Beowulf), and Sylvia Hoeks (The Best Offer) are fantastic female characters that Hollywood often overlooks with blockbuster casting.  Jared Leto (Requiem for a Dream, Dallas Buyers Club) is also thrown into the casting mix as a haunting and creepy villain-esque personality.  Blade Runner 2049 is full of brave performances that sequels often lack.

This follow-up to the original film is even richer in content and digital effects.  The landscapes are eerie and yet shockingly beautiful.  CGI constantly graces the screen, but still feels like real life is being portrayed in front of us.  The technology is a paradise for gamers, with effervescent screens everywhere.  The land is dull, but everything that is built on top of the land is architectural perfection.  Clearly these are updated effects from the original, which was expected for a film coming out 35 years later.

I was more shocked by the actual content throughout the film.  I argue that no scene is wasted in Blade Runner 2049.  Every single scene holds meaning for the overall storyline, which is hard to admit for a film that has a runtime over two-and-a-half hours.  This is a film that can reveal new ideas every time I rewatch it, which will undoubtedly happen.  For some reason, the storyline reminds me of Christopher Nolan's (The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar) mind bending filmography.  I highly recommend watch the film and then having dinner with friends to discuss it's meaning.

The Bottom Line:  Villeneuve once again displays his mastery of filmmaking with this effervescent follow-up to the original Blade Runner.

Score: 9.5/10

Before I say anything else, I will admit that the Kingsman franchise has found a unique form of action that is fluid, fun, and cheesy.  These are good qualities for the spy spoof, even if the second installment falls flat at times.  After Kingsman: The Secret Service came out, I was fully onboard for a sequel.  Taron Egerton (Eddie the Eagle) as Eggsy and Colin Firth (The King's Speech) as Harry Hart were fun to watch as spy protagonists going head-to-head with an oddly hilarious Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained, Captain America: The Winter Soldier) villain.  Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes, The Imitation Game) was also the perfect sidekick to throw into the mix.  Unfortunately, something went wrong in the second installment and the script was not as clever.  Neither was the storyline.

In Kingsman: The Golden Circle, Eggsy has matured a bit.  He seems to know what is at stake with the new villain, and yet has a seemingly more immature sense of humor.  A lot of the jokes are sexualized, causing viewers to question if the movie as a whole is more immature than it is clever.  Some new characters pop up to join the mix ranging from Channing Tatum (21 Jump Street) to Julianne Moore (The Big Lebowski, Children of Men).  Moore's portrayal of Poppy is very enthusiastic, which came off as a bit too overblown for my taste.  Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit, Iron Man, TRON: Legacy), Halle Berry (X-Men: The Last Stand, Cloud Atlas), and Pedro Pascal (The Great Wall) act as American counterparts to the Kingsman with a decent southern attitude.  The Statesman are fun to watch, and we might see more of them if the franchise stays alive after this film.

As with the original, the technical aspects of the film are still fresh and near-perfect.  Some audiences have complained about the use of CGI, but that was the fun part of the original.  There are new weapons and action sequences that start from the very beginning of the film.  The score is once again a mix of original and compilation soundtrack, creating a constantly moving blockbuster.  While the action sequences are enjoyable, the film is about 20 or 30 minutes too long.  If some of the scenes were cut shorter, the attention span wouldn't have dwindled towards the end.  While this film was nowhere near as good as the original, I still hope for a third installment!

The Bottom Line:  Don't go in expecting to see the same solid story and performances as the original film, but enjoy the style that the franchise has developed.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By Kubrick 574 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49224480