Black Panther (2018)

Ryan Coogler does it again with his third director’s credit that ensures the audience gets what they paid for. “Black Panther” is the most unique Marvel movie I have ever scene, let alone comic book movie. It stays grounded to the core and source material, gives us relatable characters, and proves that spirituality plays a big part still in blockbusters. February has in the past been a dumping ground for bad and under the radar films, but “Deadpool” (2016) and “Black Panther” are changing that. This movie makes me happy to call myself a fan of the comic book genre.

I first want to address how similar this movie is to Shakespeare’s Henry IV: Part I in regards to the relationship between T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) and Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan). We have rivals to the throne of Wakanda who will not stop their fight until the other is dead. In Shakespeare’s history play we have two rivals who are the two Hals who want to inherit the drone of England and meet in open combat. Both sides in both scenarios think they have right on their side. T’Challa wants to protect Wakanda and preserve their country’s neutrality, and Killmonger wants to right the wrongs to his family and arm the oppressed against their oppressors. This is by far Marvel’s most in depth and thought out villain that the have made, which makes the hero/villain conflict that more tense.

The score by Ludwig is the most beautiful and best arranged form of music ever created for the MCU. It’s a score that I can actually whistle the melody to, and I like this direction they’re going with it. It’s a fully orchestrated and emotional experience to listen to this score. All of the scenes are enhanced because how different but yet very harmonized the story is with it. That was one surprise I wanted to highlight.

Spirituality is rare in movies let alone comic book movies. This story that Coogler gave us is filled with themes and plot points dealing with the afterlife and connecting with a higher power, perhaps God. This is a gutsy move that worked in the story due to Wakanda being a place where family and religion play a vital role to the culture. Coming from a religious background and being a church-going man, I found this film to be a respectful refresher to those who find religion to be a necessity of life. I am glad that a film like this one exists.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

So this film isn’t all what I thought it would be. It’s not a thriller. It’s not a mystery. It’s not even a crime movie. It’s a family drama much like “Ordinary People” (1980) and “Manchester by the Sea.” A bunch of people with emotional problems due to the death of a family member. It’s a habit with family dramas, but it works. Martin McDonagh directs the his actors to the best performances that I’ve seen on screen this past year. Every actor in this film knew his place, how to act when prompted, and complement each other when tears needed shedding, anger needed enraging, and laughs needed to burst.

Frances McDormand plays Mildred, a bad tempered mother whose only way of coping with her daughter’s murder is to unleash her hate on everyone around her. Particularly the Ebbing police department headed by Sheriff Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) and  deputy Dixon (Sam Rockwell). Mildred takes a drastic turn to push her daughter’s investigation along when she puts up three billboards, harassing the police to solve her daughter’s murder. This I think is a very selfish move on her part as she thinks her pain is all that matters and will make everyone suffer with her rather than suffer alone. And boy does she accomplish that.

The strongest part I can see in this film as I said before are the performances. Rockwell is the one actor in this production that gives everything he’s got. His character Dixon is a bigot, but he’s a bigot who grows a heart and learns the hard way that you’ve got to be nice sometimes to succeed at something. He’s also immature and a sloppy police officer who needs direction. Rockwell’s approach to his character is so natural and flowy that I forgot that he was acting. That’s the skill a determined actor. God bless America!

Woody Harrelson (L) and Frances McDormand (R) in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

 

The Shape of Water (2017)

The Shape of Water is a delightful love story that doesn’t take on the facade of your regular Hollywood couple. It’s about deception, romance, and the pure joyfulness of being human. In this case the love story is between a mute cleaning lady named Elisa (Sally Hawkins) and an Amazonian river monster who is performed by veteran mime and actor Doug Jones. Jones flawlessly gives one of his best performances without saying a word as does Hawkins. This might be one of those films where the two leads don’t speak to each other and their only form of communication is sign. It’s quite a miraculous method of communication within a monster movie.

Guillermo del Torro loves monsters and puts that into visual evidence with this latest film of his. He definitely puts thought into how he wants to portray the monster from the view of the audience, the view of the federal government, and the view of Elisa. This film’s direction reminded me of “The Frog Prince” (1988) with Helen Hunt as a step sister. Del Torro focuses heavy of prejudices in his story, which I thought was a little too hard over the head, but I don’t think he wanted to be subtle with the content. This movie is filled with acts of prejudice, so I guess del Torro didn’t want to be discriminatory against anyone. All have equal acts of bigotry against them. But the one who gets the blunt end of it all is indeed the river god.

My last item with this movie that blows me away is Alexadre Desplat’s score. It’s a mix of 1940’s film noir, a French love story, and a symphony all playing under water. Their are beautiful melodies that I can’t help but smile to. Everything about the score makes sense of what the feeling is for this movie. It helps me feel what I need to feel and think what I need to think. Desplat is one of my favorite composers working today. Too bad he couldn’t work on “Rogue One” (2016). That would’ve been neat. Anyway, I really like this movie and deserves a lot of praise for the risks it took to make a monster/woman love story happen on screen.

Sally Hawkins (L) and Doug Jones (R) in “The Shape of Water”

 

The Last Jedi (2017)

After two years of high anticipation to the sequel of “The Force Awakens”, I saw it on opening night on a Thursday with two of my friends. It was a wild ride to say the least. This film that Rian Johnson made is full of action, depth in the characters, and a very detailed look at Jedi lore that reveals a lot about what the force is. This is a lot to take in for one movie, which requires a second viewing. It’s not because this is a great movie to see it a second time, it’s to get a better understanding of what’s actually going on and to pay attention to other details that you didn’t get watching it the once. It’s much better after I saw it again the next day. In order to fully understand this story, you need to see it twice.

Rey’s (Daisy Ridley) story continues on Ahch-To with Luke Skywalker who doesn’t want anything to do with the war between The First Order and the Resistance. His past is so sad and dark that he doesn’t want to add to any more of it. Particularly when it’s involving Kylo Ren. It’s up to Rey to convince Luke to overcome his despair and to help with the fight.  And across the galaxy, we have Leia (Carrie Fisher), Poe Damaron (Oscar Issac) and Finn (John Boyega) who work together to survive the clutches of The First Order. The story is told in a way that the events in this film connects everyone seamlessly.

Johnson’s direction is most key to the success of this movie. The way he puts his camera angles, his cuts, and camera movement definitely mirrors Johnson’s past films to include “The Brother’s Bloom” (2008) and “Looper” (2012). The way we directed certain shots throughout the movie are jaw-dropping, and the best shots were done on Skellig Island for the planet Ahch-To. It’s just amazing how he shot that in such a rocky terrain. The twists and turns that he puts us through make for a fast paced and riveting visual story. It doesn’t stop there. The whole film is centrally controlled by Johnson and nothing veers off from the characters’ stories.

My favorite scene that I won’t go too much into detail is a fight scene in Supreme Leader Snoke’s (Andy Serkis) throne room. It involves a light saber and the Praetorian Guards and nothing can call me back to old samurai movies than this fight. Here you have non-force users using primitive bladed weapons who take on a Jedi. It’s incredible to see this happen on screen and seeing such intense and well-choreographed fighting. This is my favorite scene in the film because it brings the old and new of light saber fighting. It really takes me back to when I saw the older samurai movies to include Hiroshi Inagaki’s “Samurai” trilogy (1954-56). This throne room fight is mixed with stunning effects, sound, and pure hand-to-hand combat. I was just giddy and excited throughout that awesome spectacle.

The last bit I want the address in this review is the sheer uniqueness of this film. There is grand scale to this epic space opera, and yet there is an intimate sub-plot between Rey and Luke. It dives deep into Luke’s motives and his ability to connect to all characters from across the galaxy. With this connection, we begin to understand how he thinks and how much of a part he wants or doesn’t want to play in the lives of the people he cares about. Johnson beautifully shows us how the new and old star wars fans can unite together under the banner of Luke and Rey. This is Rey’s story as much as is Luke’s.

One friend of mine who was with me in the theater wasn’t very convinced that this movie was good. He flat-out criticized this movie due to it’s lack of respect to “Star Wars.” With his response as with a lot of other fans out there who are divisive, as the critics unanimously love it , let me give you my two cents on this. Critics see hundreds of films a year, and most of them are indie films that don’t follow the standard process of big budget blockbuster movies. “The Last Jedi” follows the route of an indie film as Johnson stated in a Wired article. With that said, I think the audience weren’t prepared for this film as it doesn’t go in a direction that they had been expecting for two years. I even fell into that trap, but what we got was something I feel more appropriate for Star Wars with a new age and direction for Episode 9. So the critics loved it because it’s a different and more risk involved story as opposed to it being strictly fan service. Johnson first put down the rules that he wanted to make a good movie, not a Star Wars movie.

Overall, this film is stunning visually and verbally. The dialogue was fresh while staying true to “Star Wars” lore. The acting is convincing to the point that I could have a conversation with any character on the spot. The sets, visual effects, and production is incredibly detailed. And the story is original for new chapters for all of the characters we love and hate. I look forward to what comes next.

Daisy Ridley (L) and Mark Hamill (R) in “The Last Jedi” 

Coco (2017)

This came a bit late with a whole ton of shopping, wife, and kids stuff. Speaking of family, this past Thanksgiving we all went to see “Coco” and wow that was a fun and heartfelt movie. It’s another Pixar film about a young Mexican boy who enters the Land of the Dead and must break a curse on his family through music. It’s a colorful and breathtaking story that involves following your dreams and remembering your family. I was quite impressed with the story that focuses so heavily on family. Usually in a Pixar or Disney animated movie, and there is at least one parent out of the picture and no siblings. “Inside Out” (2015) changed that dynamic by giving a young girl two parents in the home. In “Coco”, Miguel is given two parents, two sisters, a brother, aunts, uncles, a grandmother, and a great grandmother. All who care about a young boy who makes a mistake.

One flaw in this film I want address is the weak reveal that involves two characters. Once you meet them you can guess what the reveal is going to be. I figured it out in about 30 seconds, and the I had to watch the movie for another 40 to have officially revealed. I felt that this reveal was in here for the sake of having a reveal. It was lazy and could have done better by not having it and taking out the villain entirely. Or making the villain a non villain, which would have made more sense and more of a story about living with consequences from our actions, not the actions from someone else.

So this movie was a tremendous achievement for animators. They created a world that looks lived in and characters to fill that world. I enjoyed that the concept wasn’t spoon fed to me, which showed me clues that made me think, “why is he doing that?” or “Why is this not affecting that character?” It’s not a distracting question, so it didn’t bother me. I’m glad it was approached that way. And the movie does answer that which is a big payoff. This is a great experience that all families should experience.

“Coco”

Justice League (2017)

This band of super heroes brings us the audience a different perspective of all of the superheroes in the DC Universe that we grew up with as children. Every Saturday morning and weekday after school I always watched Batman the animated series. I loved that show as a kid. Not so much with the Justice League. So that made characters such as Cyborg, Flash and Green Lantern new to me as I got older. This film however is mixed bag with content and storytelling that isn’t very consistent with what Zack Snyder initially planned. Due to a personal tragedy, Snyder was unable to continue with the project and directing was handed over to Josh Weadon. I don’t wish any tragedy on anyone, but this directory shift may have helped with the content slightly as Weadon is a better storyteller than Snyder.

The film is about Batman (Ben Affleck) traveling the globe to find other superheroes who can help defend the world from Steppenwolf since Superman died. Gal Gadot returns as Wonder Woman and Henry Cavill returns once more as Superman. This group of heroes worked well together once they were all on screen together. One of the best moments of comradery happens when Aquaman (Jason Mamoa) sits on something. Once you see it it’s really funny and creates a positive atmosphere. Overall, I liked how well the actors and heroes worked together on screen.

One negative I’m going to point out is the lack of a villain. Steppenwolf is a ‘big’ threat who never gets his due moment. I say that not as a way to segue his defeat, but never getting any real emotion or grit about him. Sure, he carries a big flaming axe, but that’s all that he does. Wields an axe and talks big. Not a real threat. He has such a vast history as I learned in the film and from comic book history, that I expected more from him in his dialogue, but all the company he had are zombie mosquitos. Poor company if you ask me. The second end credits scene makes me more hopeful with what villains are coming into play.

This film is a good one. Even though it has it’s limits with its villain and lack of story, I had a good time. One other complaint is that the action and fighting in the third act got a little convoluted. It made me a little bored and fatigued with how much as getting thrown at me. Snyder tends to do that with me. And there were some scenes at the beginning that showed that the world was in disarray because Superman was gone. One example was two white guys harassing g a Muslim owned corner shop. I definitely thought this was forced because this is somethings that Superman in no right would interfere with let alone the time. Clark Kent might. This was more of a social issue regarding political affiliates rather than the lack of a super hero. Speaking of which, we all knew Superman was coming back, but there are some major plot holes that don’t get addressed which are vital to explain with his return. This particularly is a concern with Clark Kent which I won’t spoil for you.

Ben Affleck (L) and Jason Mamoa (R) in “Justice League”

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

“Murder on the Orient Express” is a fun and developed story about a private investigator Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh)who becomes stranded on a train on his way home from solving another case. He then must solve a murder on the train and one out of the passengers is the murderer. It’s a very good segue to involving tension and trust issues as the story moves along in the film.

One strength this film has is it’s actors. Judi Dench, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Daisy Ridley are only some of the actors who give all of their game in this production. They are all convincing, with their accents, personalities, and “motives”. I didn’t see one weak link in their performances. It was a very good choice of casting.

There is one negative that stood out as a sore thumb for me and that was Branagh’s mustache. It looked as though someone got glue and pasted it on his upper lip—oh no that’s what they did! I was up and center under that movie screen in row ‘A’ because the others were sold out. I could see the seams and prosthetic glue keeping that thing on his face. It took me out of the movie for a while and then I got over it.

I had not seen any of the adaptations or read Agatha Christie’s novel, so I went into this film with a clean slate. I was thoroughly impressed. I don’t love it, but I like it. My co-workers on the other hand are not fans at all with this adaptation. They felt that it didn’t stay true to Poirot’s character and had a ton of plot holes that the book covers. I’m glad now that I didn’t know the plot or what the book had in it. I judged this film by what I saw on screen, and I what I saw was a good film with a good character who progresses in the case as we did as the audience. Needless to say, I have different taste in films than my co-workers, but that shouldn’t affect by what I think. This film is a good one that is worth your money.

Kenneth Branagh in “Murder on the Orient Express”

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Taika Waititi’s film has really been a big surprise for most movie and Marvel fans. It’s funny, drastic, and very enjoyable. It’s personally my favorite Thor film in the franchise and Hulk’s presence in the story truly highlights how connected this universe is. And with distribution rights aside, Hulk serves best as a supporting role, which is always a treat.

In this film, we see Thor (Chris Hemsworth) get stranded on a planet that specializes in trash and gladiatorial games as a new threat, Hela, (Cate Blanchet)comes into play and takes over Asgard.  Thor then has to fight Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) in the arena, and then team up to return to Asgard and fight Hela together. This is all in the trailer, so don’t get teary-eyed with spoilers.

There really wasn’t anything to complain about in this film. Some people might be taken back or disappointed that Natalie Portman as Jane Foster isn’t in this one. She doesn’t need to be, and she’s written out in a natural, nonviolent way. Another potential negative for some fans or critics is the comedy. Ironically, the comedy is my biggest positive for this film, but some people I know were not fans of how comedy plays into Nordic mythology into something as big as Thor. They and we need to remember that this is a comic book movie. This is a story about a guy who carries a hammer and befriends a giant green guy with the stretchiest pants in the galaxy. There’s room for comedy here.

One of the most impressive qualities from this film as I briefly mentioned before is how the comedy, drama, and action executed with each other. It’s a very seamless effort as we see Thor come to grips about his family’s heritage, his imprisonment on a strange planet, and having to deal with Dr. Bruce Banner’s alter ego for half the movie. It’s a very balanced story with bits of mythology, tragedy, and cameos, some well-placed cameos that I didn’t see coming.

Waititi did a great job with this film, and brought to life a different side of Thor that we have never seen. His direction also puts into perspective how powerful both Thor and Hulk can be. We’ve seen their powers before in past stories, but some acts they do really makes me think they were on steroids if they weren’t on the drug already.

Mark Ruffalo (L) and Chris Hemsorth (R) in “Thor: Ragnarok”

 

BLADE RUNNER: 2049

Denis Villeneuve directed another incredible sci-fi with his rendition of the “Blade Runner” sequel 35 years later. The visual effects are incredible, the acting is suburb, and the story is strong. This is an all-out good movie to watch for both movie lovers and nostalgia seekers. I am not a big fan of the first “Bald Runner, but seeing this sequel has really brightened my vision for this world that Ridley Scott brought to the screen back in 1982.

I’m going to describe the plot as best I can without mentioning any spoilers, as any detailed plot would give them away. That’s how detailed and precise this plot is. Here we go. This film is about ‘K’ (Ryan Gosling) who discovers a secret about the replicants and must find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who holds the key to that secret. Going beyond what I just mentioned would spoil the movie now. Whew! That was a close one.

My favorite thing about this film is the use of visual effects and world building this movie gives the audience. The art direction and sets built for this film are so detailed that I thought I was taken into the movie. The visual effects are so well blended with this film that I really couldn’t tell what was real or fake. I won’t say who it is, but there is one face that appears from the original “Blade Runner” that left me jaw-dropped because of how good it was. It made Tarkin’s and Leia’s faces from “Rogue One” (2016) look like a film student’s bad Photoshop job.

Ryan Gosling’s performance was pretty good as he’s the front of this film with Harrison Ford coming into the picture about an hour-and-a-half into the story. This journey is officially K’s as he’s the center of everything going on in this post-apocalyptic and dystopian world inside Los Angeles. Both actors give their best efforts into this movie as to make us believe that they are trying to survive what ‘life’ throws at them.

One negative about this film is Jared Leto. Now I loved his performance don’t get me wrong, but I wish there was more of him. He plays Niander Wallace who is the blind owner of the Tyrell Corporation who creates replicants. He’s a manipulative, creepy, and genius of a villain. But he’s hardly in the movie. He has only a handful of dialogue and appears to never leave the same room. This film could’ve put more of him as the forefront of the film as a main villain who played a more pivotal role in the third act. Besides that, this film delivers on everything else. It has depth, a strong cast, brilliant visuals, and a tremendous story only meant for a sci-fi epic.

Ryan Gosling in “Blade Runner: 2049”

IT (2017)

Andres Muschietti directed this Stephen King horror novel into a great adapted film. It’s a simple story with a simple cast, and it turned out big for movie lovers and horror enthusiasts. I’m not much of a horror guy and don’t scare easily. Having seen this movie was a delight for mainly storytelling purposes rather than the gore and scares. I definitely recommend this film for anyone to understand the true meaning why Pennywise exists and what he can do to haunt your sanity.

One word of caution before going to see “IT”, don’t watch the trailers. Most of the scariest scenes in this film are in the trailers. It really softened the blow for me when I watched “IT” in the theater. I was quite disappointed that I wasn’t as scared of the movie as I wanted to be because I knew what scary scenes were coming. Granted, the trailers only show a sliver of what messed up things Pennywise can do, but the moments were spoiled for me. Still creepy though.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was a great addition to this horrific adaptation. He comes from a big acting family and he puts his theatrical talents to work. His joyful and sinister laugh, his creepy crawly eyes, and his physical acrobatics make him a dangerous antagonist. I was solely convinced that Skarsgard did not exist. Only the clown. That awful, prepared, scary clown. This was unlike any villain I’ve seen in recent horror films. Skarsgard gave his best performance of his career so far due to his commitment to the character. I hope he can bring this and something new to future “IT” installments.

I was really impressed with the kid actors who portrayed the northeast coast youngsters. Jaeden Lieberher who plays Bill Denbrough was a really good addition as the leader of the “Losers Club”. One flaw that he has (I mean flaw as a positive) is he has a stutter. Not many movies risk giving a lead that kind of disability for the sake of the flow of communication. It was used very effectively in “The King’s Speech” (2010) as it was the main plot of the movie. “IT” uses Bill’s stutter as a way to give him his own physical obstacles aside from his brother’s disappearance and a crazed demon clown trying to kill him. It gave him a very human quality. Evidence of his adolescence. Human enough that he doesn’t overcome it, but learns to deal with it and carry on with the mission of survival.

I’m glad that I saw this film. Sure it didn’t scare me, but I like it for what it is. A good movie to watch as you develop clown-phobia. Wait! It’s a real phobia?! No way! It’s called coulrophobia! Sounds like a good title for a sequel if you ask me.

Bill Skarsgard in “IT”