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

If you like Spielberg's (Jurassic Park​) filmography, than I am certain that you will enjoy The Post.  The Post is a superb retelling of the struggle between the government and the press during the Vietnam War.  As a period piece set in the 70s, the setting is well-crafted and the costumes are fitting.  While the film isn't set in a time period too long ago, it is still clear that Spielberg's attention to detail forced him to use certain props and dialogues.  Every time we get to see the newspapers being printed, we get lost in the maze of the publishing facilities.  As someone who has never seen a newspaper company up close, I was astonished by the vastness of the Washington Post's offices.

As always, Spielberg brings us an all-star cast including Meryl Streep (August: Osage County, The Devil Wears Prada, Into the Woods), Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan), Bob Odenkirk (Nebraska), Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek), Sarah Paulson (12 Years a Slave, Carol), and countless other names.  Streep and Hanks are perfect in every scene and the other actors also seem to fit in their respective roles at all times.  Nothing seemed to stand out overwhelmingly, but it is hard to get a real standout performance from a lot of these actors because they are always great.

Throughout the first half of the film, everything flows and the script is clever.  Unfortunately, the final portion of the film runs dry because of the built-in applaud pauses.  When I saw the film, there were certain points where the audience applauded.  Depending on the moment I am usually okay with some applauding during a film, but these moments felt too formulaic.  They were preachy and at times I felt as though I was being converted into the Church of Spielberg.  Clearly, the film wanted to connect the past events with present events.  However, it is easy to make this connection without Spielberg choosing to spell it out in the last quarter of the film.

The Bottom Line: Spielberg brings another impactful past event to the big screen and capably connects it to current politics through an all-star cast.

Score: 7.5/10

From the visionary director that brought us Pan's Labyrinth comes another creepy and yet heartwarming film.  The Shape of Water is a lovely portrayal of a forbidden love between a creature and a human.  The plotline is spectacular, balancing the heavy-hitting politics of communist Russia and the United States in the 1960s and the science-fiction creature that drives the love story forward.  The tone is classy, with a jazz-inspired score that brings the audience back to the 60s.  The story is relatable to any time period, but the 60s backdrop makes it even more interesting.

Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Pacific Rim) never ceases to create beautiful effects for his visionary films.  The imagery throughout The Shape of Water is consistently fluid and spectacular.  There is one scene where we get to see two raindrops dance around on a bus window, acting as a metaphor for the story unfolding on screen.  There is blood and gore involved, but only the necessary amount for us to enter the world that the screenwriters have created.  This is not a film for children, but for a mature audience that can handle the darkness of a spy thriller and the nudity that comes with a full love story.  To gently push the audience through the film, Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech, Argo, The Queen, Philomena) contributes a smooth score that juggles between intensity and charm.  The orchestral score fits with every single scene, settling and unsettling the audience at certain times.

I would go amiss without acknowledging the cast members that bring the story to life.  Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine) easily gives the best performance of the year with her portrayal of a mute janitor.  While she cannot talk, there is emotion behind every sign that she gives.  Alongside Hawkins, Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) plays a fantastic sea monster.  Rounding out the cast, Michael Shannon (Midnight Special) is a scarily bigoted villain.  This is the big bad role that Shannon has perfected throughout his career.  Finally, the support for the main roles are brought to the screen by three well-seasoned actors.  Octavia Spencer (Fruitvale Station), Richard Jenkins (Step Brothers), and Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name​) are all great additions to the film.  Overall, this is a top-notch cast brought together to create a top-notch film.

The Bottom Line: The Shape of Water certainly deserves all of the Oscar-buzz that it is receiving because of its tender and yet unsettling approach at a love story.

Score: 9.7/10

Image credit: ​By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54631984

The Age of Shadows is a simple cat-and-mouse chase film with a lot of details that become confusing at times.  As a whole, the film is very enjoyable and extremely well-shot.  From acclaimed Korean director, Jee-woon Kim (The Good the Bad the Weird), comes this thrilling and constantly progressing story involving cops, a resistance group, and untrustworthy spies.  These three elements make for an intriguing story full of twists and turns.  At a runtime of two hours and twenty minutes, the film never gets muddled down or boring.  The directing and shot choices keep every scene fresh and vibrant, forcing our eyes to never look away from the screen.

While the shots are clear and concise, there are certain pacing choices that could have been better executed.  At times, the setting jumps from one place to another in an instant.  Because of the constant setting changes, I found myself lost on occasion and was left trying to figure out what happened between the filming locations.  There is one scene that occurs at a nunnery, but it is hard to figure out who is at the nunnery at the time and how they leave the nunnery.  The transitions are fluid, but not detailed enough to explain what is occurring between scenes.  

The main plotline was easy to follow, with corruption and two-faced protagonists leading the charge.  Yet, there are a few subplots that are harder to comprehend and might require a second screening of the film to completely understand.  Yoo Gong (Train to Busan), Kang-ho Song (The Host, Snowpiercer), and Byung-hun Lee (A Bittersweet Life​) are all brilliant in their respective roles.  It is often hard to figure out their characters's allegiances, but that is a huge part of the storyline.  Often times Korean films include overly cheesy characters, creating comic relief for the story.  Yet, I usually find that these characters detract from the seriousness of the genre.  Luckily, there are no such characters in this award-level film.

The Bottom Line: The Age of Shadows is an enjoyable Korean cat-and-mouse chase story, filled with untrustable characters and exciting camera shots.

Score: 9.4/10

Image credit: ​By wasabcon - http://wasabcon.tistory.com/621, CC BY 2.0 kr, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31364107

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

Once again, Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar) reminds us that war is a very scary thing with his new feature film.  Of course, it would not be a Nolan film without a few twists and turns in the storytelling method.  Rather than focusing on a perfectly linear storyline, Nolan chooses to give the audience bits and pieces of multiple events that are going on at roughly the same time.  While his method is effective in creating the chaos that war ensures, the film often feels cluttered and somewhat hard to follow.

Each character has a role in the war, but we are never given much development or background for any of them.  There are quite a few notable actors that are capable of grand performances, but the script seems to hold them back at times.  Kenneth Branagh (Valkyrie), Cillian Murphy (Inception, The Dark Knight), Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies, The Other Boleyn Girl), and Tom Hardy (Mad Max: Fury Road, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, The Revenant) round out the star-studded cast.  Former One Direction member, Harry Styles, also joins the acting realm in Dunkirk​.  However, none of them give a jaw-dropping performance for audiences to connect with.    It seems as though Nolan really wanted to focus on the action, rather than the characters.  I can understand his direction in terms of creating a war film, yet it feels weaker than most (if not all) of Nolan's past films.

Technically, this film is a fantastic addition to Nolan's filmography.  The action is intense, with unpredictable war sequences and constantly evolving events.  While I have never been through a war, I imagine that this film portrays what it would be like very effectively.  To add to the intensity, Hans Zimmer (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Dark Knight, The Lion King, Inception​) creates another score for Nolan.  Similarly to the score of Inception, Zimmer cleverly meters his score so that it swells with the action.  The pomp and circumstance of the score also reminds us of where the events are taking place.  This is a truly symphonic composition that fits into a classical film score genre.  Surely, we will be seeing an Oscar nomination for the constantly running film score. 

The Bottom Line:  As a war film, Dunkirk is a masterpiece for the eyes and ears.  Although, it does lack the intriguing character development that previous Christopher Nolan films have.

Score: 9.4/10

Image credit: ​By Photograph by Richard Goldschmidt, www.piqtured.comDerivative by Keraunoscopia - Derived from File:Christopher Nolan, London, 2013.jpg, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26638525

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