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

Rebooting film franchises can be a tough journey for filmmakers because of the repetitive nature of reworking an original storyline.  Recent reboots have been decent and Rise of the Planet of the Apes is no exception.  Admittedly, I have not seen any of the original Planet of the Apes films.  Yet, I feel as though the premise is well-explained in the first installment of the new trilogy.  When I saw this film the year it was released, I thought that it was slow and at times boring.  However upon re-watching the film, I realize that the dull moments are still necessary for the future of the franchise.

Many of James Franco's (127 Hours, Spider-Man, This Is the End) acting roles before this film were cheesy and hard to take seriously.  Coming off of the disappointing end to the Spider-Man trilogy, Franco re-establishes himself as a serious actor in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Franco's depiction of Will Rodman stands out as an emotional portrayal of a moral human, which is hard to come by in this franchise.  Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist) cleverly sets up two warring parties, often times making the audience question if human actions are good or bad.  The film made me cringe and PETA might take issues with the realistic abuse of CGI animals.

The greatest moments of this film occur whenever Caeser walks across the screen.  The CGI looks extremely realistic, bringing the audience into the center of the storyline.  As a master of performance capture, Andy Serkis (​The Lord of the Rings) once again brings a computer generated image to life.  It is impossible to tell that the apes are not real.  Clearly, this is not a man dressed as an ape.  Overall, the special effects are jaw-dropping and as the franchise continues, the effects keep getting better and better.  Although there are only a few action sequences throughout the film, they are perfected and never overdone.  

The Bottom Line:  While Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not the explosive blockbuster that audiences may have hoped for, it does set the franchise up for successful future installments.

Score: 7/10  

Image credit: ​By Partha Sarathi Nath - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49728224

Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) has never let me down with his superb filmmaking, which continues with this installment in his filmography.  After the conclusion of the Cornetto Trilogy, Wright was expected to direct Ant-Man.  However, Peyton Reed (Bring It On) got to helm the Marvel film leaving Wright time to work on an original film of his own.  Wright is clearly a perfectionist when it comes to film editing.  Similarly to his previous creations, Baby Driver flows seamlessly with constant transitions.  The film runs in high gear with fun action sequences comparable to The Fast and Furious franchise.  

One thing that this film can hold over The Fast and Furious is a sustainable plotline.  The story never grows stale because the characters are enjoyable and well-acted.  There is not a lot of cheesy dialogue, even though there are plenty of jokes throughout the film.  At times, I felt like the characters and settings were influenced by Pulp Fiction.  There is certainly a high amount of blood and gore, which might also have brought Tarantino's masterpiece into my mind.  The comedic dialogue plays off of the mature imagery, distracting the audience from the seriousness of violence.  Just when you start to feel grossed out by the film, the script reminds you that this is all fun and games.  

As with all of Edgar Wright's previous films, this one does not need to remind audiences of reality.  This is a film to enjoy because of how it was made, not because of the values it holds.  Sure there are some lessons that we can learn from the film (such as, don't mess with Kevin Spacey), but we never have to compare the film with our own lives.  For that, I thank Mr. Wright.  Sometimes, I like to sit back and look at the technical aspects of film creation.  Baby Driver shows us that we do not only need big franchises to have fun in theaters.

The only complaint that I can come up with for this film is the soundtrack.  For a film focused around music, I was hoping for more iconic music.  It is hard to release a film like this after audiences have familiarized themselves with Guardians of the Galaxy.  The soundtrack for Baby Driver is filled with fuel and fire tracks, but there is nothing that compares to the use of "Don't Stop Me Now" in Shaun of the Dead.  If Wright had given me a comparable track in this film, I would really be in love with this film!

The Bottom Line: Edgar Wright's first film after the completion of the Cornetto Trilogy is another sweet treat for audiences who enjoy high-octane entertainment!

Score: 9.3/10

Image credit: By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27437520

James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now, The End of the Tour) returns with this new film about the evolution of the digital age.  Ponsoldt's previous films were more focused on life itself, but now he has taken his turn at displaying the influence of modern technology.  The topic has been dealt with many times in the past few years, so The Circle halts to contain a wholly original storyline.  However, I was still shocked by a lot of the content and situations that the main characters witness.  For a generation that is constantly plugged in, the conglomeration of camera footage invading privacy does not seem too far off.  After all, data mining is already occurring and gaining more transparency.

While the film delves into this deep subject, audiences get to enjoy the performances of professional actors.  Emma Watson (Harry Potter) is authentic even after the release of her giant Disney blockbuster.  She is vastly different in this role, showing that she is capable of taking on diverse parts.  It is nice to see smaller actors such as John Boyega (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) and Ellar Coltrane (Boyhood) also involved in this project.  Both Boyega and Coltrane bring genuine characters to the screen.

Of course, the big names in this cast created the early buzz for the film.  Patton Oswalt (Ratatouille, Young Adult) and Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump) act well in their roles, but unfortunately there is not enough screen time for either of them.  To me, their characters were the most interesting aside from Watson's.  Hanks plays a big business CEO who at first seems like a morally inspiring character, but later turns into something else.  As always, his dialogue keeps my ears attentive and the words roll right off of his tongue.  He is one of the greatest actors ever, but was wasted a bit in this film.

Another issue I had with The Circle has to do with the timing of events.  Everything moves too quickly without a lot of time for the audience to understand what is going on.  The overall concept for the film is simplistic, but the nitty gritty details could have made the subject matter more interesting and different from previous takes on privacy and modern technology.  All of the build-up continues until the very end, where we are left with an unsatisfying finish.  It's as if Ponsoldt never really finished the film.  At the end, the credits start to roll and the audience has no idea what happens.  Often times I can live with that, but this just felt unfinished and sloppy.

The Bottom Line:  Overall The Circle includes good acting and an interesting subject, but several filmmaking choices leave room for perfection.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21288731

As the first full Fast and Furious movie that I have seen, this one is exactly what I expected.  One liners, explosions, and a lot of cars round out this eighth installment in the franchise.  The culture surrounding the franchise remains the same with large-muscled characters and rap music playing in the background.  Although the film is shallow at times, it is still an enjoyable adventure/action flick that keeps the audience engaged for a runtime over two hours.

With seven preceding films in the franchise, it must have been hard to create somewhat realistic action sequences.  From what I've heard, as the franchise chugs forward, the effects and events become more and more insane.  Clearly, it is getting hard to stick with just cars for action.  The franchise has expanded into more weaponry and turned into a cheesier Bond-esque genre.  At times hundreds of cars are controlled by one hacker, but there are also torpedoes to keep the film from becoming too focused on car racing.  Honestly, I love the integration of weaponry with the cars because the cars now create a safe place for the characters wherever they go.

While I do praise the film for a lot of it's action, I will warn you that this is in no way a serious action film.  Do not walk into the theater expecting to see Skyfall or Saving Private Ryan.  Rather, expect a fun flick similar to Escape Plan or Get Hard.  The story is simple as heck with a villain trying to terrorize the world and turn a good guy into a bad guy.  As a centerpiece for the film Vin Diesel is just a simple character and without his team this film would be really bad.  Luckily Dwayne Johnson (Moana) and Jason Statham (The Transporter) return with decent dialogue here and there.  Unfortunately, this is one of my least favorite roles that Charlize Theron (Mad Max: Fury Road, Hancock) has ever played.  Her script makes her a weak villain who is capable of hacking into anything, but cannot even make a joke funny.  Without seeing the other films I assume that this one is not the worst, but I also hope it is not the best of the franchise...

The Bottom Line:  The Fate of the Furious is a fun-to-watch action film, so long as you do not get too caught up in the physics of the real world.

Score: 6/10 

Image credit: ​By Tokumeigakarinoaoshima - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58045638

This is not an X-Men film for the whole family.  It is gritty, crude, harsh, and a fantastic sendoff for the best character in the film franchise.  For years, Hugh Jackman has been the perfect fit for Wolverine, but it seems as if he is finally worn out and ready to move on.  Surely, he will miss the grandiose payoff of playing the character, but it is time to pass the claws over to a new actor.

While sending off the old character, Logan also introduces a young generation into the franchise.  As Logan is forced on a journey to help a new mutant, he is able to reconnect with something that has been missing from his life for a while... a family.  This is not a straight action flick with explosions and weak villains.  Rather, this film is a family drama with an aging Logan and Professor X.  At a time when there are so many superhero films being pushed through Hollywood, it is nice to see one that stands out as a unique drama.

The tone of Logan drives the film to success with a serious outing for Marvel.  Marvel newest films have been more comedic than serious, but Logan shows the diversity in their storylines.  This may be the last film for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, but it will remain in our minds as one of the best X-Men films in the franchise.  Because of the tonal differences, I found it hard to connect with this film a bit more than with previous installments.  However after a bit of reflection I do believe that this was the best way to approach the end of Jackman's portrayal of the main X-Men character.  As per the special effects, this film stands up to the others with good graphics and still a few jaw-dropping mutant powers throughout.  Nothing else really needs to be said about this film aside from the fact that Jackman will be missed!

The Bottom Line:  Jackman's final outing as Wolverine is much different from previous installments in the franchise, creating a more emotional sendoff for the most relatable X-Men character.

Score: 8.5/10

It seems like only yesterday when BP got in big trouble for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The explosion leaked millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, creating catastrophic environmental consequences that took months to clean up.  The spill showed the United States the consequences of messing with the environment and not using proper procedures in the process.  Coming off of his success with Lone Survivor, Peter Berg once again brings a true story to the big screen in epic proportions.  The effects are spectacularly realistic, bringing the audience straight into the story that shocked us in the news in 2010.

I think this might be my favorite movie featuring Mark Wahlberg (Ted, Lone Survivor) to date.  Wahlberg often takes on fratty roles that are easily replaceable, but this film clearly portrays the talent that got Wahlberg noticed in the film world.  Wahlberg takes on the role of Mike Williams, a true hero on the Deepwater Horizon.  The supporting cast also respectfully portrays their characters with differing roles in the events that unfolded on the oil rig.  Kurt Russell (The Hateful Eight) seems to be making a comeback with his recent success.  As Jimmy Harrell, he plays a loveable mentor and safety-concerned BP employee.  Russell is the perfect mentor in cinema, having experience in so many different roles.  It is damn-near impossible to dislike Kurt Russell at this point in his career.

Deepwater Horizon not only features an incredible cast, it also features incredible technical effects ranging from the Steve Jablonsky (Transformers) score to the blood and gore that unfolds.  If you have a weak stomach, I do not recommend this film because of the realistic goriness.  However, it is important to see films like this one because we get a sense of just how crazy the event was.  If the effects were cheap and unbelievable, the film would be disrespectful to the true story.  At times, I teared up as I thought about what a disaster this was.  The movie is heavily emotional and brings us to the realization that maybe we cannot control the environment.  Maybe we need to respect the laws of nature a bit more than we currently are.

The Bottom Line:  This film respects the event and characters of the Deepwater Horizon spill, bringing an emotional retelling of one of the biggest disasters in U.S. history to the big screen.

Score: 9.6/10

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

In 1971, Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most well-known experiments to date.  The experiment involved random individuals who were hand selected to play roles as prisoners and prison guards.  The experiment was supposed to last for two weeks, but ended up being cut short because of the findings that Dr. Zimbardo gathered.  The Stanford Prison Experiment retells the story of Zimbardo's work in a haunting fashion.  What starts off as a paid job for twenty-four male students ends up escalating into something that no one expected.  The film handles the event extremely well, taking us inside of the prison simulation that ended with results that are still hard to comprehend today.

Director Kyle Patrick Alvarez (C.O.G.) takes us into the cramped space that Zimbardo created for his experiment, masterfully giving a claustrophobic portrayal to the audience.  Capturing the tone of the experiment, Alvarez creates a haunting reimagining of what the "prisoners" went through after signing up.  The film features performances by actors that I have barely seen on screen.  All of the performances are crafted from the original experiment, giving the film a genuine cast.  Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Almost Famous, Big Fish) plays the role of Dr. Zimbardo and capably puts himself in the shoes of a man whose experiment turns for the worse.  A few other actors do a nice job in their respective roles are Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Suicide Squad) and Michael Angarano (Almost Famous).  Miller shows us what was going on in with one of the prisoners, who felt mistreated and had a mental breakdown.  On the other side of the picture, Angarano plays one of the guards who gets carried away with his role.  In his role as Christopher Archer, Angarano terrifyingly takes control of the prison.

This is a film that leaves the audience pondering the outcomes of the experiment.  The experiment shows us that people can become power-hungry if they are placed in specific roles.  There are also implications of ingroups and outgroups, where people join up with others who are in similar situations as themselves.  Some of the prisoners banded together to rebel against the guards, while some chose to follow along with what the guards made them do.  The guards often ganged up on the prisoners, taking the experiment to the extreme via the use of physical brutality and mental harm.  The film brings us visually into an experiment that is hard to imagine from simply reading the thesis.  In writing, the reader can get an idea of the experiment, but we can only truly understand what was going on through visual interpretations.

The Bottom Line: The film gives the audience a fascinating peek into an experiment that had to be called off because of certain interactions among the guards and prisoners.

​Score: 7.5/10

Image credit: ​By Zahra Borhan - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49047896