Matt Reeves (Let Me In) concludes the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy with a long-winded and riveting piece of blockbuster-cinema.  War for the Planet of the Apes does what a lot of trilogies cannot, which is end on a high note.  All three of the films in the franchise are good, but War for the Planet of the Apes is easily the best installment.  Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings) clearly worked hard on his portrayal of the lead-ape, Caeser.  The trilogy centered around his character and audiences can relate to him more than they can relate to their own species.  

The linear storytelling that War for the Planet of the Apes uses works well for the blockbuster.  The story never dulls or slows down.  Rather, it constantly progresses with new revelations about certain characters.  Every character in the film has a background that is relevant to the story.  Caeser, Maurice, Rocket, and Luca return with new developments in their storylines.  However, we also get a lot of fresh characters to connect with.  Bad Ape, Nova, and The Colonel add different ideas and backgrounds to create an original story.  

As Caeser, Andy Serkis once again stuns audiences with his performance capture.  There is nobody better at performance capture than Serkis.  Every movement he makes is authentic and believable.  These are not the sub-par effects that partially ruined the Star Wars prequels.  As one of the few human characters at the center of the story, Woody Harrelson's (No Country for Old Men, Zombieland) performance is also fantastic.  This is a fitting role for him to portray as a villain with a deeper background than the surface shows.  Throughout the film, he gives chilling speeches that remind us of current human ideologies.

As a whole, the story is unique to the rebooted series.  Of course, there is a war going on between humans and apes.  Yet, there are other things going on as well.  The movie is not as simple as the title makes it seem.  Matt Reeves and his writing crew clearly did not want this film to be a summer blockbuster with meaningless explosions and shallow characters.  The conclusion of the film is emotional because of how well-built the characters are.  I would love to go on another adventure with these characters and hope that Serkis can find the time to advocate for another installment.

The Bottom Line:  War for the Planet of the Apes is a thoroughly-crafted blockbuster conclusion to the new Planet of the Apes trilogy.

Score: 9.5/10

Image credit: ​By Gerald Geronimo, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15934608

My initial reaction to the release of Spider-Man: Homecoming was to rewatch all of the previous Spider-Man films.  Well, I made it halfway through the first film and then it was showtime for the new release.  I'm pretty glad that I did not watch all of them because I would have been exhausted from all of the web-slinging.

Upon rewatching Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, I realized that the movie is dated.  There must be some reason why I own all three of Raimi's Spider-Man flicks, but now that I have watched the first and half of the second installment, I'm not sure that I was in the right mindset as a child.  Spider-Man is fun and probably caused my jaw to drop when I was a kid, but it no longer means much to me.  The franchise was cheesy, CGI-heavy, and oddly paced.  Spider-Man covers a lot of the character's background, but it feels extremely rushed.  Character backgrounds are pushed into the later films to try and evoke more emotion in the later installments.  

Tobey Maguire (Pleasantville), James Franco (127 Hours, This Is the End), and Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia) proved that they are capable actors, yet there is not much that the audience can relate to with their characters.  All three of them come off as entitled brats at some point in the film.  Franco and Dunst often make me cringe with their relationship, which might be what the writers wanted.  Oddly, the new Spider-Man franchise actors are more mature than the original trio.  The direction for this film was more action based than Spider-Man: Homecoming.  If I had watched all three films before seeing the new one, maybe I would have had a different opinion.  But, the cast is so fun in the new film that it basically makes the original trio completely underwhelming.

I will admit that the storyline in the first film follows the comics more closely than the new franchise.  There is also more action in the original, so kids might enjoy watching it a bit more.  While the CGI is outdated, the sequences are exciting and the costuming is spectacular.  I like this costume more than the new one, especially since it is not a Tony Stark creation.  At least in 2002, Spider-Man did not have to rely on the Avengers to help him out!

The Bottom Line:  Outdated and odd, Spider-Man is still thrilling in this "classic" Marvel flick.

Score: 5.5/10

Image credit: ​By David Shankbone - David Shankbone, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2070935

This is the Spider-Man that comic readers can fall in love with.  Tom Holland (Locke) lifts the character right out of the comic book, applying the comic-formula to the big screen.  As a child, Spider-Man was admittedly my favorite superhero.  Average Peter Parker was always easier to relate to than the millionaire, Bruce Wayne.  Now that I've grown up a bit I'm more of a Batman fan, but Spider-Man will always have a special place in my heart.

Spider-Man: Homecoming portrays a better rendition of the character than previous film adaptations have.  Holland is an interesting choice, but it's nice to have a younger and somewhat innocent portrayal of Peter Parker.  The choice to cast a young actor clearly bleeds into the rest of the film.  Rather than focusing on heavy action, Jon Watts (Cop Car) focuses on the actual character.  Quirky and constantly joking (like every other high schooler), Peter Parker is fun to watch.  The genre for the film is not straight-action, but includes coming-of-age and comedy.  

The one interesting aspect in terms of this adaptation is Iron Man's involvement.  I had a few issues with Parker being mentored at times by Iron Man, but Robert Downey Jr. is always a pleasure in the role.  Luckily even with the Iron Man inspired Spider-Man suit, Peter Parker proves that he is a hero even without it.  Furthermore, Holland proves that he can rake in the Marvel money even without RDJ.  I would not have complained if we did not have RDJ on the screen at all.  At least with RDJ, we get to skip over Spider-Man's origin story (which we already got to see too many times in previous films).

The rest of the cast carries it's weight throughout the story to support Parker's journey.  Michael Keaton (Birdman, Batman, Spotlight) is a fantastic Vulture.  He literally acts like a Vulture even when he isn't in costume, constantly preying on things and scraping up whatever he can.  Keaton has somehow managed to be the main actor to portray flying characters ranging from Batman to Birdman to Vulture.  The supporting cast is also hand picked to perfection.  Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler, The Lincoln Lawyer), Zendaya (Shake It Up!), Donald Glover (The Martian), Jon Favreau (Chef), Jacob Batalon (North Woods), and Laura Harrier (The Last Five Years​) add great performances to the mix.  There are quite a few reveals at the end for each of the characters.  Some are good and some are a bit over-the-top, but I will leave those spoilers up to the audience's discretion.

If you want to talk about any of the spoilers, I have some strong opinions that we can discuss over Facebook!

The Bottom Line: This is undoubtedly the best big screen adaptation of our friendly neighborhood superhero!

​Score: 9.3/10     

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Stan LeeUploaded by maybeMaybeMaybe, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22896794

Bong Joon-ho (Snowpiercer, The Host) has built a vastly successful filmography for himself, and this film is no exception.  The first film that I watched by him was The Host, which turned out to be an interesting thriller/horror.  Yet, Joon-ho never fails to add comedy to his films, creating a wholly original tone.  He has created his own genre, which meshes a whole bunch of different genres into one.  Unfortunately, I thought that this detracted a bit from Okja because it was too slapsticky.

Joon-ho's film tone is so odd that it often catches me off-guard, making me fall out of the film's message.  If there was not any comedy in Okja, I would value the message a lot more.  While most of the acting is fantastic, I am still pondering what Joon-ho was doing with Jake Gyllenhaal's (Donnie Darko, Nightcrawler) character.  As Johnny Wilcox, Gyllenhaal goes way overboard with his voice and eccentric attitude.  This is one of the worst roles I have seen in a Joon-ho film.  Clearly, Joon-ho wanted Gyllenhaal to be a comic relief for the dark subject matter, but he really is too much.

Luckily, the rest of the acting is more serious and deserving of praise.  I loved Paul Dano's role as a vegetarian rebel leader.  Dano seems to have struck gold with his recent successes in diverse roles ranging from Prisoners to Swiss Army Man.  Tilda Swinton's (Adaptation., Doctor Strange)  character is similar to her character in Snowpiercer, which is fun to watch but really odd at the same time.  My favorite casting choice for the film would have to be Seo-Hyun Ahn (The Housemaid​) as Mija.  Mija is a stubborn, but also innocent character which Ahn portrays perfectly.  I'm glad that less familiar foreign actors and actresses are finally making their way to American audiences! 

With the quirkiness of the characters and subject matter, the cinematography and CGI effects are still beautiful.  The first quarter of the film is a broad image of a Korean countryside where Okja and Mija live.  The shots are epic and open space fills the screen with natural beauty.  When we move into the city, Joon-ho maintains his grand film scale.  The action sequences are fluid and every shot is worthwhile.  Of course, Okja has no noticeable flaws.  The super pig graces the screen as if it is an actual giant pig.

The Bottom Line:  Although the tone is a bit quirkier than usual, Bong Joon-ho maintains his filmography with another pressing subject.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59614492

Wonder Woman takes the grittiness of past DC movies and adds empathy into the formula, creating a relatable story for the female hero.  Finally, DC has returned to good form with this installment in their cinematic universe.  The casting is near-perfect with Gal Gadot (Fast & Furious 6) in the leading role.  It is not very often that we see these kinds of powerful roles for actresses.  Fortunately, Gadot reminds us that there is plenty of room for these roles in cinema.  Chris Pine (Star Trek) is a nice addition as a supporting actor in the film.  The two main roles play off of each other in a charmingly romantic style.  Of course, there is a whole mix of other roles that also influence the characters and the plotline. 

While Wonder Woman excels because of it's great casting, it stands even taller because of the themes recurring in the story.  The struggle between human nature and free choice has always been a philosophical debate.  The storyline is deep and emotional because of it's relativity to audiences.  The writers take this debate and masterfully create a storyline around it.  Previous DC films have struggled to bring this impact to their viewers.  In the past, action has preceded the storyline.  Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad had the potential for emotional impact, but got muddled down with their action sequences.

Although Wonder Woman is a step forward for the DC universe, there are still some issues for the franchise to hash out.  The last quarter of the film had some interesting action sequences, but felt too long.  The action has a few too many effects, seeming unrealistic.  I also saw the film for free in 3D, which in my opinion wouldn't have been worth the price.  The first act has some fun 3D effects, but nothing else stands out later in the film.  It is cool to watch at first, but eventually detracts from the ideals that the movie worked so hard to create.  Still if this is the new base level for DC films, I cannot wait for the future installments.  Patty Jenkins (Monster) brings hope to female filmmakers who want to helm big blockbusters.

The Bottom Line:  Wonder Woman is the best DC film since The Dark Knight Rises, bringing justice to female superheroes and the franchise that has left them out for too long.

Score: 8.6/10

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore - File:Gal Gadot 2014 Comic Con.jpg, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40400532

Guardians of the Galaxy is as good as it gets when it comes to the superhero movie genre.  The characters are witty, the sets are grand, and the soundtrack is perfectly meshed with the imagery.  With the original film, it was important for James Gunn (Scooby-Doo) to create impactful characters for the storyline.  The comic book series seemed tough to adapt into a meaningful feature film, but Gunn and Marvel struck gold with this one.  Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), and Groot (Vin Diesel) are perfectly cast.  Pratt (Jurassic World, Her) is a stud, similar to William Shatner's (Star Trek) depiction of Captain Kirk.  Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek) brings grace, but also attitude to the role of Gamora.  Bautista (Spectre, The Man with the Iron Fists), Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook, The Hangover, Limitless, American Sniper), and Diesel (The Fate of the Furious) are also fun to watch as muscular and selfish side-kicks for the team!

The space battles are epic, with Lee Pace (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) in an iconic villain role.  Ronan's purple tinge glows as if he is a radioactive alien (which he kind of is).  Yondu (Michael Rooker) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) act as badass sidekicks to the main villain, who is a sidekick to an even bigger villain.  I really enjoyed how this film fits into the MCU, with the introduction of an infinity stone.  The repercussions of this will still play out in the upcoming Marvel films, and I cannot wait for the final showdown with Thanos (Josh Brolin).  Overall, the scale of this film is grander than any of the preceding Marvel films, yet the audience is not overwhelmed with details that only comic-literate fans would understand.

Of course, we have to discuss the soundtrack a bit in this review.  This might be my favorite compilation/original soundtrack layering ever.  "Hooked on a Feeling" hit new highs because of its inclusion in the film.  The fact that Quill can directly refer to Earth-music, makes him a more relatable character.  After all, who isn't a fan of pina coladas and David Hasselhoff?  I'm glad that the sequel stuck the same idea in terms of music.  We get another great compilation soundtrack and another great original soundtrack by Tyler Bates in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.  Maybe Marvel should hire this guy to score all of their films!

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 sets a similar tone to the original film right away.  The old faces are back, but become more developed with a deeper character study for each of them.  The second installment in this film franchise is a much more emotional look at relationships than the original storyline was.  When Star-Lord's father appears on the big screen, we know that the struggle between family and friends are going to engulf the storyline.  Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), and Rocket (Bradley Cooper) reveal more about themselves than we saw previously, with a cleverly written script.  James Gunn (Scooby-Doo) does not get stuck on one character with too much detail, but the audience is given enough information about each one to gain a passion for each.  The return of Yondu and Nebula also create character revelations for the audience's emotions to kick in.  Their roles in this film are bigger and better.

Okay, I'm missing one character here.  Who is it?  Oh ya, Baby Groot (Vin Diesel)!  Who can forget Baby Groot in such an iconic role?  Baby Groot is just there for the ride.  His character provides the sheer fun that audiences loved from the first film.  I don't think anyone can deny that Baby Groot is cute, awesome, and adorable.  James Gunn brings back all of the enjoyable effects from the original film, but reshapes them into a fresh batch of superb filmmaking.  Constant action makes us root for the good and bad guys at different times.  While the action is fantastic, the main villain is a bit weaker in writing than Ronan was.  I was not a huge fan of the concept that Gunn went for, but I still had a heck of a lot of fun.

Of course, I have to finish off this review with a discussion on the soundtrack.  NO it is not as good as the first film's soundtrack, but it is a very very close second.  Iconic tracks such as "Mr. Blue Sky", "The Chain", and "Brandy (You're a Fine Girl)" round out the compilation soundtrack.  These tracks bring us fun breaks in the film to relax and just zone out.  Never before has a movie franchise been as nice to the ears as Guardians of the Galaxy is.  Tyler Bates (John Wick, Watchmen, 300) crafts another action-packed original score to work alongside the compiled tracks.  Bates manages to sway from battle to love in an instant, working with the story to touch our hearts.  In all honesty, Bates is my favorite action film composer currently because of his talent in creating sweet melodies with the brass-heavy space themes.

The Bottom Line: Music, passionate character portrayals, and Baby Groot add up to create another Guardians movie that families can enjoy in a theater.

Score: 9.4/10

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - James Gunn, Michael Rooker, Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Dave Bautista, Elizabeth Debicki & Kurt Russell, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56227043

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them continues the Harry Potter franchise with a similar tone and ambience.  The magic that young adults grew to love with the original series returns with new ideas and old ideas jumbled together to create a fresh storyline.  This spin-off is almost as intriguing as the previous installments, but it will take time for audiences to reconnect and separate from the older films.  No, this film does not revolve around Mr. Potter.  Rather, we get a whole new set of characters and a storyline that precedes the time of the young Hogwarts students that we fell in love with.  

The setting for Fantastic Beasts takes us to a different time period right away.  Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables), precedes Harry Potter's childhood by about 70 years.  The audience is not isolated to the small world of the original films.  This is a larger scope of worldly magic, opening the mystic universe to our muggle eyes.  The original films never grew stale, but it is nice to move away from that world to explore new wizards and witches.  Newt, Kowalski, Tina, and Mary Lou are fun characters to spectate as their lives get flipped upside-down when they collide with each other.  Dan Fogler's (Kung Fu Panda, Balls of Fury) safe portrayal of Kowalski is an especially nice mix with Scamander's exploratory attitude.   

The writing is familiar, which it should be considering it was done by J.K. Rowling.  It appears that this is her world, and she wants to keep it that way.  Another familiar face returns to the directing chair to helm the film.  David Yates, the director of four other Harry Potter films, brings back the charm and dark reality of the character worlds.  When Yates took over in the original films, there was a turn towards a darker story, where Voldemort became more prevalent.  Yates perfected this tone and will likely do the same with Fantastic Beasts.  For now, IMDB claims that Yates is set to direct all five of the Fantastic Beasts films.  While I am not in any way opposed to this idea, we will see if he actually stays on board for all five films.

A lot of my praise for Fantastic Beasts is due to how relatable it is with the original films.  The new aspects are mostly praise-worthy as well.  The story is decent, the creatures look good, and the new cast is nice to see.  My main complaint with the film comes at the very end.  As with all Harry Potter films, there is a twist at the end.  The twist is not terrible, but I worry about one of the casting choices revealed at the end.  I will not spoil who pops up, but if you have seen the film you know who I am talking about.  To me, this actor is not a great fit for the new role.  However, we will see what happens when he is give the chance to truly act the part.  Aside from this, I highly anticipate the next installment.  I especially am excited to hear that Jude Law will be joining the franchise as young Dumbledore.  I think he will fill those shoes very well!

The Bottom Line: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them takes an original storyline and places it in the wizarding world that younger audiences were so fond of a few years back.

Score: 9.3/10

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore - Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53412978

With Logan being wide released, I thought I would gaze back at the film that kickstarted the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Every time I rewatch Iron Man, I reminisce on the formula that is finally started to wear itself out.  ​Iron Man was iconic with it's use of a powerful villain, historical relevance, and superhuman character at the center.  Yet, these types of films existed long before Iron Man.  With the new hero on screen, Marvel struck gold and was able to build an extremely well-developed franchise that is still running well almost 10 years later.  

In 2008, Iron Man revolutionized the Marvel superhero genre.  When DC hit audiences with darker Batman films, it seemed as though superhero flicks would struggle to be anything greater.  I will not argue that Iron Man is better than The Dark Knight, but the two films are both signs of success in a genre that needed freshness.  Tony Stark was a hero that audiences could relate to.  Everyone knows that personality type and can somehow relate to Robert Downey Jr.'s (The Avengers) portrayal of the character.  Downey Jr. has become the face of the MCU and is paid way too much because of his perfected character-type.  Alongside RDJ, the cast shines bright with a lot of familiar faces including Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit, TRON: Legacy), Gwyneth Paltrow (Se7en), and Terrence Howard (Prisoners).

To this day, I watch this movie and marvel at the effects used to create the poster hero.  Creating a film that includes large-scale battles is one thing, but just watching Iron Man suit up is a whole other monster for filmmakers.  Every transition is smoothly executed and realistic.  In fact, I am surprised that a suit like Iron Man's has not been created in modern society.  That is a scary thought, but not too far away from what our technological capabilities are.  While I might be tired out of this genre for the time being, I will always have a special place in my heart for where it all started.

The Bottom Line: Iron Man is a superb start to a franchise that has invaded cinemas and grown into a money-sucking machine.

Score: 8.5/10

Image credit: ​By Edgar Meritano - Publicada en wikipedia, author sent original by email, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4008669

At first glance, this movie had everything going for it.  Fresh off of directing the indie film, The Kings of Summer, Jordan Vogt-Roberts was ready to take on a big blockbuster.  What could go wrong?  With Max Borenstein (Godzilla) and Derek Connolly (Jurassic World, Safety Not Guaranteed) on the writing team, Vogt-Roberts had writers who proved themselves with previous monster hits.  If that's not enough to bring you out to the movie theater, look at that star-filled cast.  Tom Hiddleston (The Avengers, Thor), Brie Larson (Room, Short Term 12, The Spectacular Now), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained, Captain America: The Winter Soldier), John C. Reilly (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Wreck-It Ralph, Step Brothers) and John Goodman (Monsters, Inc., The Big Lebowski, 10 Cloverfield Lane​) are the top names on the cast list.  With everything going right with the casting, direction, and writing, I somehow left the theater with the most disappointment I have felt in quite a while.

Let's start by dissecting the writing problems.  There is one character that the audience can care about by the end of the film.  Almost every single character in the film is a hollow image of a Hollywood star.  You know the film is bad when someone sitting next to you counts the lines of a lesser character throughout the film.  None of the characters are developed throughout any of the film.  For example, Tom Hiddleston's character is simply a tracker or a hunter.  It's not clear why he is a tracker, or what his motivation for anything in life is.  With so many characters, I imagined that there would be a lot of room for backstory and development.  The only character with any sort of backstory is John C. Reilly's character.  I won't go into details about the character, because that would give away the only decent writing in the movie.  Just know that by the end of the film, you will most likely only care about that character.

As an action film there are some cool sequences throughout the adventure, but the action still falls very short of perfection.  I got the "privilege" of seeing this one in IMAX 3D.  I would definitely not recommend paying extra to upgrade the viewing experience.  At times, there are really poorly made green-screen backgrounds, and the 3D adds nothing that pops out in a grandiose manner.  There is a monster battle towards the end of the film that is somewhat well shot, but by then I was ready to head home for the night anyways.  Constant flaws detract from the experience.  There are flaws that could have easily been fixed, such as the number of helicopters that fly to Skull Island.  However, there are also overarching flaws that the writing team should have looked at a bit more carefully.  Overall, this is the biggest disappointment of 2017 cinema so far!

The Bottom Line:  Flaws and poor writing create a shallow film that should've been reviewed before it was released to modern moviegoers.

Score: 5/10

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55961946