Thanks to AMC, I got the chance to see this film a week before it's wide release date.  This was certainly one of my most anticipated films of the year, and the anticipation was absolutely worth the wait.  Fresh off of his controversial Star Wars film (which I admittedly saw three times in theaters), Rian Johnson (Looper, Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi) is back with an original murder mystery.  When family patriarch, Harlan Thrombey, leaves behind a large fortune in his mysterious death, his large family is left behind to solve the cause of his death and what will happen to the fortune.  Johnson hits the genre right on the head, but adds an entertainingy comedic twist to keep the audience fully engaged throughout the whole film.

Johnson's writing is so strong that it is only fitting his cast is full of top-tier names.  Toni Collette (Little Miss Sunshine, Hereditary), Jamie Lee Curtis (True Lies, Freaky Friday), Michael Shannon (The Shape of Water), Don Johnson (Django Unchained), and Chris Evans (The Avengers) create a dysfunctional family dynamic that is believable and yet shocking to watch.  If those names aren't enough to keep you interested in this film, the cast also includes Christopher Plummer (Beginners), Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049), LaKeith Stanfield (Sorry to Bother You, Short Term 12, Selma), Katherine Langford (Love, Simon), and Jaeden Martell (It, Midnight Special).  Every member of the cast is nothing short of amazing.  No one is given too much time on screen or too little time on screen.  To me, Daniel Craig really stands out in his role, with an accent that I would have never expected to hear from him.  With a southern drawl, it takes a good ear to stay focused on what his character is saying.  Furthermore, I have seen very few movies with Ana de Armas and this film really makes me want to become more familiar with her acting.  Certainly, everyone will find a character that is most enjoyable or most relatable to them in the film.

This cast works so well because the script and story is consistent throughout the whole movie.  This is a suspenseful and yet comedic murder mystery.  There are constantly new revelations in the story, but with so many twists and turns one might expect the film to grow tiring.  Contrary to this expectation, the twists and turns are perfectly timed and keep the viewer on the edge of their seat.  Within the plot we get a lot of family banter, especially with Chris Evans's character.  Evans plays Ransom Drysdale, a rebellious grandson of Harlan, who constantly bickers with the family.  Ransom provides most of the comic relief in the film, being crude and clever with his banter.  

Once all of the pieces are put together for the mystery, the audience is left craving more still.  Similarly to a Soderbergh (Traffic) heist film, Knives Out, releases the audience's tension at the end of the film.  The payoff is worth the nearly 2 hour wait, just as it was worth the wait for Rian Johnson's first original film in 7 years.

The Bottom Line: Rian Johnson is back with one of his best films yet. This is a wholly original murder mystery with a crazy cast that portrays Johnson's writing skills with gravitas.

​Score: 9.7/10

Image Credit: By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Rian JohnsonUploaded by maybeMaybeMaybe, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22894471

In honor of Liam Neeson's (Schindler's List, The A-Team) birthday yesterday, I decided to watch his most recent film.  From director, Jaume Collet-Sera (The Shallows, Unknown, Orphan, House of Wax), comes another thriller starring Neeson in a lead role.  Collet-Sera's past collaborations with Neeson have been fun to watch and well-made.  Unfortunately, The Commuter falls short of the previous collaborations.  While the cinematography and filming techniques are exciting, the storyline drags down the film and often reduces the weight of the superbly acted roles.  

Of course, Neeson brings gravitas to his role.  Ever since the release of Taken, Neeson has become an amazingly realistic hero for the common people.  From saving his daughter to saving a whole airplane full of passengers, Neeson has perfected the role of action hero.  Once again, his acting stands out in The Commuter and he is surrounded by other good performances.  Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air, The Departed), Patrick Wilson (The Phantom of the Opera), Jonathan Banks (Mudbound, Gremlins), and Sam Neill (Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Jurassic Park​) round out the cast.  Every character is unique and important to the story as it progresses.

While the acting performances are good, the writing for the film struggles to create an impact for viewers.  At first, I was entranced with the plot as it started to unravel.  However, after the first half of the film there are major plot holes that open up.  We never get any sort of background for the main character because development is sacrificed for more action at the end of the film.  We are thrown into a situation without much meaning behind the actions that occur.  This leads to a final act that is merely disorganized and lackluster.  There are certain lines in the final act that are extremely cliche of past action thrillers.  The film becomes more of a cheesy blockbuster and less of an impactful story by the end of the screening.

The Bottom Line:  The Commuter tends to sacrifice a meaningful and organized plotline for more action towards the end of the film.  Liam Neeson once again acts the part, but the story holds very little weight for his character.

Score: 5.5/10

Image credit: ​By Karen Seto / ???? from Toronto, Canada - Toronto, Ontario, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5108817

After 18 films, Pixar still continues to release it's greatest content yet!  When I first heard about Coco, I admittedly had extremely low expectations for the film.  None of Pixar's recent films had felt fresh, original, or great since Inside Out.  However with Lee Unkrich at the film's helm, Coco transcends the recent films to become a masterpiece from the studio that started it's animation dominance with Toy Story.  

Coco is beautiful and full of detailed animation that is hard to fully admire through the constantly progressing storyline.  Taking place during Dia de los Muertos, the animators are burdened with creating intricate costumes for many of the characters.  With all of the pressure, the animators do a great job of creating smooth transitions and glorious settings.  One of the highlights of the artwork was the spirit animals.  These neon and often glowing animals are vivid and full of imagination.  Aside from that, the movements of the characters are fluid and there never appears to be a slip up in the film that probably took many years to produce.

Similarly to Inside Out, the storyline for Coco is full of heart and empathy.  The film centers around a young boy struggling to find himself between his passions and his family's values.  Of course, there are multiple twists and turns along the way.  We meet sensitive characters and awesome creatures that help guide Miguel towards the correct path.  While the film is formulaic, it still feels fresh because of the revelations that occur.  A nice addition to this Latin film is the soundtrack which includes mariachi tracks and orchestral Latin compositions.  For a film that centers around music, the original and compilation soundtracks mesh together well.

The Bottom Line: Coco is the greatest Pixar film to be released since Inside Out, revolving around a young boy's journey in finding himself.

Score: 9.5/10

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

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

Best known for his screenwriting, Taylor Sheridan (Hell or High Water, Sicario) finally writes a film for his own direction.  Wind River is a gritty crime mystery revolving around a subject that is overlooked in modern cinema.  Native American culture has not been portrayed a lot in mainstream American cinema, even though there is a large amount of subject matter for the big screen.  Sheridan's full filmography shows his interest in other cultures and diversity.  Wind River takes an idea and creates a story around the idea.  The film is not a shallow image of drama and mystery, but a spiritual and in-depth character study.

The character development slows the movie down, but is wholly necessary to build the story.  Jeremy Renner (Arrival, The Avengers, The Bourne Legacy) and Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla) are at the forefront of the mystery, but other actors contribute great performances as well.  Graham Greene (The Green Mile, Die Hard with a Vengeance), Gil Birmingham (Hell or High Water, Rango), and Kelsey Asbille (The Amazing Spider-Man) bring important secondary characters to life, helping to create a diverse screen for Sheridan.  I really enjoyed Graham Greene as the police chief on the reservation.  Without his character, many viewers would struggle to understand why the mystery is hard to solve.

While the main action does not come until the second half of the film, the wait is totally worth it.  An explosive final act gives the audience what they waited for.  There is one fantastic transition towards the end of the film that gives the audience a complete explanation for the mystery.  Rather than having a smartass character explain the mystery, Sheridan effectively shows the discovery.  Just as the characters figure out what happened, the audience has the realization.  And of course, as any intriguing mystery resolves, there is a shoot-out to give audience members the action sequences they paid for.

The Bottom Line:  Wind River is a uniquely diverse mystery with a slow start and explosive finish.

​Score: 9.5/10

I'm glad that I have never been put into a position where I have had to rank the Coen brothers's (No Country for Old Men, True Grit, The Big Lebowski, Fargo) films because that would be really hard.  However if I was forced into doing this, it is very likely that Hail, Caesar! would sit close to the top.  The creativity of this film is where the Coen brothers strike gold.  Every one of their films is different with a common thread of comic relief throughout most of them.  Unlike previous works, the Coen brothers take a period piece and turn it upside-down.  

The casting for the film finds past actors from the Coen brothers's previous filmography.  Josh Brolin (Sicario) returns from No Country for Old Men and George Clooney (Gravity, Up in the Air, The Descendants) returns from O Brother, Where Art Thou?  Brolin leads the all-star cast as a Hollywood studio problem-solver.  It sounds weird, but that is probably the best way to describe the character.  As Eddie Mannix, Josh Brolin travels around multiple sets in Hollywood, solving problems ranging from a scandalous actress, played by Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation, The Avengers​), to a missing movie-star played by George Clooney.

The comedic aspects create a flow for the film that made me wanting more after the first watch-through.  The best part about the Coen brothers is their witty script-writing.  While No Country for Old Men was a fantastic movie worth a lot of praise as one of their greatest films, it was missing the amazing wit of the talented filmmakers.  They are capable of keeping me entertained during the continuous repetition of a western movie star struggling to say the lines and act for a classic film director.  This is just one of the many small gags throughout the film that keep the camera rolling.  Of course, the film is a beautiful piece of visual art as well.  I cannot imagine how hard it must have been to choreograph most of the scenes, considering there are musical numbers and even synchronized swimming scenes.  Once again, the Coen brothers created a masterpiece.

The Bottom Line: As expected, the Coen brothers create another fun piece of art for audiences to chuckle about.

Score: 9.4/10

​Image credit: By Rayukk - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46780191

I apologize in advance for all of the Harry Potter news you have been/will be hearing in the upcoming weeks.  Personally I am a Harry Potter fan, but not a hardcore fan that knows every single line of every single scene.  Still, this franchise was great to grow up with and filled me with joy every year that a new film came out.  I have read all of the books as well, remembering a time where a friend of mine ended up getting punched for revealing the ending of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  Starting off as a young adult series with a few oddities, the franchise became really dark at the end of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  This next film in the franchise was even darker, playing with dream sequences and character connections to steer Harry and his friends towards a bigger battle later to come.

At the very start of the film, the tone is completely different from the previous films.  Dark clouds surround the characters as dementors fly towards them.  Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong and the tension is building towards the ultimate ending.  As the first film for David Yates's (The Legend of Tarzan​) direction, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix masters the new tone, crafting a whole new adventure for the Hogwarts students.  The special effects add to the dark palette, only ceasing to shadow over the audience during holiday scenes.

As with all of the other Harry Potter films, there are some new and unique characters that are cast well for the film.  Evanna Lynch (G.B.F.​) adds a quirky character who later becomes extremely important in the franchise.  Just as in the books, we get a sense of the odd mentality that Luna Lovegood has.  Another great addition is Imelda Staunton (Chicken Run).  Her portrayal of Dolores Umbridge gives me chills every time.  Constantly correcting people, she is a villain that seems friendly on the surface but turns evil very quickly.  If that isn't creepy enough, she is apparently a crazy cat lady who collects plates of magical cats.  While these characters add uniqueness to this part of the franchise, they still come off as a bit cheesy.  This cheesiness helps the franchise to attract children's attention, while still darkening the tone for audiences that have matured over time.  I look forward to watching David Yates's expansion of the franchise with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them!

The Bottom Line:  This Harry Potter film is dark and quirky, captivating audiences that are young and old.

Score: 7.5/10

Image credit: ​By Andy F, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14269682

The Girl on the Train starts of as an intriguing mystery, but quickly loses momentum as the story derails into a completely unsatisfying ending.  At the very start of the film, it is clear that Tate Taylor (The Help) is trying to be innovative with her direction.  The story is told in a very disorganized way, but for no effective reason.  Constantly jumping around in time, the audience is thrown into different character's shoes, none of which are that hard to figure out.  The disorganization saturates the story as the viewer is constantly trying to remember what time period they are in during the story arc.  This is an innovative convention for Taylor's filmography, but unfortunately it is less than ideal.

One other convention that is constantly used by Taylor is an odd slow-down of the film.  This creates a dreamy visual that detracts from the serious tone that the storyline strives for.  Some reviews have called this film "Lifetime-esque", probably in reference to this convention.  The Girl on the Train uses slow-motion flashbacks to add more suspense to the thriller.  The problem is that they are filmed so oddly that they feel extremely inauthentic.  Drinking clearly affects our vision, but I have never had the sort of experience that Emily Blunt (Sicario, Edge of Tomorrow, Looper, The Devil Wears Prada​) is constantly seeing when she drinks.  It is a nice attempt to add horror, but adds a cheesiness to the film instead of terrifying the audience.

The first twenty minutes of the film were not great, leaving me with the impression that the poor early buzz was understandable.  However, the middle portion of the film is well-made, grabbing my attention and giving me the thought that maybe the early reviews were a bit harsh.  Then, the last half-hour arrives ruining any hope that the film had of getting a good review from me.  The ending of the film turns into a complete trainwreck of over usage of already seen footage and a really cringeworthy action taken by one of the characters.  Leaving this review spoiler-free is hard because I want to reveal the horrible ending.  I will not reveal the horrible ending, but I will repeat that it ruins every good thing that precedes it.  The audience at the pre-screening I attended laughed at the scene, which was supposed to be serious.  If you want a solid story, it sounds like you will have to read the book instead!

The Bottom Line:  The film falls from being a serious attempt at solving an intriguing mystery, as the characters become more and more muddled in their own actions.

Score: 4.5/10

​We would be going amiss if we did not mention the leading actors in Sicario.  Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, Looper, The Devil Wears Prada), Benicio Del Toro (The Usual Suspects), and Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men​) bring fascinating characters to life on the big screen.  None of the characters are easy to read into, creating the mysterious and dark tone in the dialogue.  There is an odd relationship between del Toro's character and Emily Blunt's character.  The ending only creates more fogginess in their relationship.  In  every film that I have seen with del Toro, his character is surrounded in a cloud of mystery.  Sicario uses his perfected character form as he portrays one of the members in the government task force.  Brolin's character is set in between the two, as a straight-edged and serious proponent of the task force.  All three of the actors are spectacularly cast and fitting for Villeneuve's thrilling cartel film.

Sicario also achieves it's suiting tone through the technical aspects.  The soundtrack is constantly pulsing through the speakers, bringing us into the terror of gang territory.  The beat chugs us through the story, often times not easily noticeable.  Most of the time, when a soundtrack is less noticeable, it fits into the film better.  There also some very unique shots that include thermal vision in a way that I have never seen before.  Birds-eye-views place us above the action a lot of the time, giving us a real sense of war.  Overall, this film is produced with the style that we expect out of Villeneuve's previous works.

The Bottom Line:  Villeneuve continues to bring tense stories with good casts to audiences who are familiar with his past works.

Score: 8.5/10