Reviews

Bumblebee, directed by Travis Knight, is the sixth movie in the polarizing Transformers franchise. As a rare fan of the movies, I understand the trepidation people may have, but to me the first three films were great movies and still holds a special place in my heart (the last two however were completely horrendous and unnecessary). Needless to say, having the chance to see not just a new entry to the series, but one that is a throwback to better days earlier than anyone else made me super excited. The film takes the franchise back to the basics and feels very much like a remake of Transformers 1 but without the Michael Bay-ism that had the fan base much maligned. Gone are the lens flares, gratuitous female body shots and incomprehensible metal clanking action scenes. The new movie smartly knows the concept of addition via subtraction by streamlining everything; reducing the number of Transformers characters to four and focusing the heart of the story solely on Hailee Steinfeld and Bumblebee.

The Last Knight almost made me walked out because the movie's over the top action scenes just became a chore to watch after a while. I am proud to report this new movie does not have the same chaotic shaky cam or quick cuts explosions, instead Knight favors visibility of the combatants in shots and allowing the audience to see what is going on. Yes, you can actually tell who is who this time! By far the best and most memorable thing in Bumblebee is that opening scene in Cybertron. It was fantastic and spectacularly faithful! Everything from the look of the planet to the robot designs and the choreography of the battle perfectly captures the original animated Transformers movie. Elongate that scene into a feature length film and that might just be the Transformers movie fans have been clamoring for. I also applaud Travis Knight for finally be able to make the robots feel like living breathing creatures, unlike the previous movies where they were a penny short from being soulless CGI with spotty voiceover.

While there is a lot to like about the film, I cannot go on without mentioning some major flaws. My number one problem is this feels all way too familiar. The story is once again a kid needs a car, the kid finds the car who reveals itself to be Bumblebee and kid gets entangled with an ancient alien robot war. Transformers 1 with Shia LaBeouf is still very good movie that still holds up today, so I do not understand the need to retread the plot without a big shakeup. Hailee Steinfeld who plays Charlie is always a delight to watch as I loved her work since True Grit, but she has already played this role of the destructive, misunderstood, angsty teenager in The Edge of Seventeen before. Do we really need to see her repeat the performance again? Seeing Bumblebee as a talkative, sarcastic badass in the beginning and then seeing him cower in the corner like a child because the script demanded it was strange and jarring. I wish they had kept Bumblebee's voice as we the audience have already seen the cute and mute Bumblebee from the previous movies. This was a massive missed opportunity that could have separated itself from the first movie just a little bit more.

Thankfully no racial stereotype robots exist in the movie (still love Revenge of the Fallen), some parts of Bumblebee felt like they were lifted straight out of a Disney Channel Original Movie, in particular any scenes involving John Cena who chews the scenery while pretending he is auditioning for The Pacifier 2. The cinematography does not help the Disney Channel Original Movie argument because outside of action scenes and some gorgeous exterior shots of the San Francisco Bay, the move looked rather pedestrian and flat. The music also was not at all memorable and the iconic Transformers theme from the Bay movies is sorely noticed and missed.

Overall, Bumblebee is a step-up from Age of Extinction and The Last Knight with its simplification of plot, characters and action scenes, but its attempt of retreading Transformers 1 makes the film predictable and by-the-number. It is a still fun and enjoyable movie outside of problems I mentioned, so I would definitely recommend this to most people, even if it is just for the Cybertron scene alone.

Halloween is directed by David Gordon Green and co-written by Danny McBride. It is the 11th movie of the significant horror franchise, which is by far my favorite of all the horror franchises. The first Halloween and each subsequent follow ups all hold a place, some more special than others, in my heart, yes, even Season of the Witch and the Rob Zombie movies. But this entry is something else entirely. Not only to me is it the best Halloween sequel, I also believe it is the best Halloween movie, the best slasher movie and one of the best horror movies of all time. Period.

The movie takes place 40 years after the original movie, ignoring all sequels in between. While this is not the first time they have done that, in fact this is the fourth alternate timeline in the series, this time however I believe they got it right. In a storyline reminiscent to Halloween H20, the main difference being instead of having Laurie Strode running away from her past, this time she is prepared for it, as the 40 years past has her spent honing her battle skills to ready herself for Michael's impending return.

Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode here gives a terrific performance that is rare among horror movies; more akin to a serious drama. Curtis is believable and nuanced, allowing the film to ground itself into a level of realism, divorcing itself from the goof and lunacy from earlier entries like The Curse of Michael Myers and Resurrection. Curtis is the backbone of the film and without her giving it 110 percent, the movie could have faltered and not worked at all.

Thanks to the grounded performances and direction, Michael Myers this time around feels much more menacing. Since the victims he kills feel way less like cannon fodders like in typical slasher movies, the overall tone of the character is darker and more mean-spirited. While still having some slasher tropes, the characters in the film feel more real than ever, so when scary moments hit, I genuinely wanted them to survive, but only for my heart to sink, when they bite the dust in the bloodiest, most disgusting, brutal way.

Michael Myers is a horror icon, but he has not been frightening since the original. As the series went on, he became a generic masked killer at best and laughable at worst. The reason for that is because the sequels simply do not know how to frame him. Ask yourself what makes someone scary? Absolutely not when you explain away his curse with Thorn and turn him into a hitman for a cult, or recount his white trash family backstory. None of that. Here he is just a highly resilient, deranged man, who lacks morals and empathy, and preys on one of mans' primal fears - at any moment someone can break into your house and murder you for no reason and with no remorse.

The best scene of the movie is a tracking shot where we follow Michael through the neighborhood, breaking into people's houses and murdering them in the grisliest way. The camera, the tension, the lighting, the kills all make it one of the best horror scenes of recent memory. And the final showdown between Laurie and Michael was cathartic and satisfying, having been built up throughout the entire film.

As for negatives, I kind of wished they show more of the holiday of Halloween. Yes, we get a Halloween dance and background scenes of children trick or treating, but something the past movies did absolutely right was capturing the spirit of the holiday that I felt this movie kind of just skimmed through. I wanted more walks through the autumn foliage and perhaps even a scene at a costume shop would have been appreciated.

With Laurie and Michael both working as characters for their different respective reasons, the rest of the technical aspect of the film is equally brilliant. The writing, directing and music (of which John Carpenter returned for) are all top-notch. Halloween 2018 is the best movie of the series for me, topping even the original because of the much more menacing nature of Michael Myers. The movie is a slash far above the rest of horror movies of the same vein. Halloween will satisfy those who are looking for a fun, jump scare-filled movie, as well as those who are looking for intense, arthouse horror.

Happy Death Day is a horror slasher movie directed by Christopher B. Landon. What if you have multiple lives and the chance to solve your own murder mystery? College sorority girl, Tree wakes up in a stranger's bed after a night of hard partying. She has a headache, does not know where she is, leaves dorm room, goes about her day encountering numerous people whom she interacts with, and then at night she is murdered by a masked killer. But there is no light at the end of the tunnel however, instead the very next moment Tree wakes up in the same stranger's bed to relive the same day over again. This concept has been done before, the last notable one being Edge of Tomorrow, but this time instead of aliens, we get a slasher. I find the movie in general to be very enjoyable. It was surprisingly fun and effective, with the right balance of humor, scares and character development.

The best thing about the movie besides the awesome concept is definitely how funny and light-hearted it was. Most of the humor stems from Tree knowing exactly what is going to happen each cycle, much to bewilderment of her surrounding characters. The concept, even though it is not new, is refreshing to see it being applied to a teen horror film. It is fascinating to witness Tree experiencing the same thing over and over again but with all previous knowledge intact and seeing how she learns and grows as a person. In the beginning she is mean and terrible and just the biggest jerk to everyone, but by the end of the film, she more than softens up. Jessica Rothe as Tree was multi- faceted; she was sassy, funny, courageous and sympathetic in her portrayal.

The mystery of the killer's identity is another part of the fun. The film introduces a bunch of characters in the first loop, many whom are red herrings for the audience to suspect. In the end I failed to guess who the killer was since the film deployed multiple misdirection to make sure the secret is preserved. All the characters are very entertaining and it felt like I was an active participant in the uncovering of the mystery. One character I particularly liked was Carter, the schoolmate of whose room Tree wakes up in. Their romance was something I could easily cling on thus by default, the heart of the film.

While the killer reveal was surprising, the more I thought about it the more it does not really make sense. The killer would have had ample chances to kill Tree thus his/her master plan just seemed very unnecessary by the end. The PG-13 rating also did the movie no justice as it felt like a handcuff of what they could have displayed. Horror films, especially slashers should be given the liberty of showing maximum violence, and in that respect Happy Death was a little bit on the dry side. Although the buildups were suspenseful and the jump scares effective, with one catching me pretty good, the movie was not terribly scary.

Overall Happy Death Day is a pretty enjoyable horror flick with an interesting concept and a very good performance from the lead actress. I was not bored for even a second because of how fun it was. Yes, it is absolutely implausible, bonkers and silly, but if you are looking for some cheap thrills and a reason to crack a smile, Happy Death Day does its job pretty darn well.

Gerald's Game is psychological horror film written and directed by Mike Flanagan based on the novel written by Stephen King. The movie tells the story of Jessie Burlingame and her husband Gerald and their aim to rekindle their troubled marriage by taking a vacation to an isolated lake house. Once there, Gerald immediately attempts bondage sexual intercourse with Jessie by handcuffing her to the bedframes, but before he can free her, he untimely dies of a heart attack. Now we have an isolated thriller where our heroine must find a way to liberate herself from the bed before she dies of hunger, thirst or insanity. I wondered to myself after watching the trailer, how does a movie about a woman in one location be spread to two hours? I then remembered structurally similar films like Buried and 127 Hours did it by a combination of focusing on the protagonists' struggles to stay alive and flashbacks. I really enjoyed Mike Flanagan previous horror films as I think he has an eye for creepy images and a sense of dread. I believe Gerald's Game might be his best film yet.

The movie is not your typical slasher film or ghost movie, but a character study about sexual abuse and overcoming trauma. The meat of the story is Jessie tied to the bed, talking to herself while trying to recall her suppressed memories of a horrible childhood event. A movie like this lives or dies by the performance of the actors and Carla Gugino as Jessie gives one of the best performances of the year. With 90% of the screen time, she needed to carry the movie on her back and she did just that. A lesser actress could have turned the movie from very good to not so good, but Gugino owned the screen at every millisecond. Bruce Greenwood as the titular character also gave a grade-A performance.

Technically, the film while reclusive, is excellent. The cinematography made the atmosphere and feeling of being tied up in your room with the house door wide open absolutely frightful. It also uses darkness very well and produced some very disturbing and harrowing images from it, akin to Flanagan's previous films Oculus and Ouija: Origin of Evil. The climax of the film is quite possibly one of the single greatest scene in cinematic history. I almost never turn away from violence in movies, but I had to pause this because it was making me feel so uncomfortable. The way the scene was built up, filmed, acted and of course the amazingly gruesome special effects cemented the clip as a YouTube rewatch favorite.

One thing I would point to as a negative is the second act did drag and relied heavily on dialogue exposition. While I find the mystery of Jessie's past to be interesting, the way it was filmed was a bit slow. Not really fault to the filmmakers since that was how it happened in King's novel, but it still could have taken a few more cinematic liberties. The film does employ flashbacks to help the audience escape confinement, but I would have liked to see it used more to give details on other aspect of Jessie's life. Also, it is a shame the movie felt the need to follow the novel to the T with the ending, because if would have been perfect if it ended with the climax and left all unresolved up to interpretation, instead of it being spoon-fed to us with boring narration and a series of never- ending endings.

Overall I think Gerald's Game is a very good entry to the psychological horror genre. It was suspenseful and intense, with a fantastic performance from Carla Gugino and a cinematic masterpiece of a climax. There are some problems with the draggy second act and ending(s), but I think the movie still shines through. Those who are fans of horror, survival and stories about overcoming childhood trauma should no doubt watch this movie. I will just dare you to watch it with eyes wide opened.

Chasing the Dragon is a Chinese crime drama film directed by Wong Jing and stars Donnie Yen and Andy Lau. When I first heard about the movie in production last year, a biopic based off the true story of infamous crippled Hong Kong gangster Ng Sek Ho, I thought it was a strange choice to have a world-renowned action star like Donnie Yen play him. Not that he is a bad actor or anything, but Yen is more famous for his karate chops than his acting chops. So who in their right minds would cast him as a handicapped character, essentially immobilizing and disallowing him to what he does best? Equally peculiar of a choice is Wong Jing as the director of the film. I felt his slapstick humor and sloppy storytelling would conflict with the overall serious tone intended for the movie. Coming out of the theater, I felt Donnie Yen is once again the best thing about a movie featuring him, but unfortunately Wong Jing's amateurish direction ruins everything just about everything else.

Donnie Yen plays Ho, an illegal mainland Chinese immigrant in Hong Kong. His character is very sympathetic, as he is family man looking after his people, earning 10 Hong Kong dollars a night as a street fighter. Here he gives the best performance I have ever seen and I really enjoyed his character, I felt he was able to channel between different emotions and display empathy, sympathy, loyalty and relentlessness. While he is probably not going to win an Oscar in February, he did go above and beyond his usual spectrum. The Chaozhou accent and language he used was very good and along with the excellent costumes and set design of 1960's Hong Kong, giving the film an overall authentic feel.

Where Chasing the Dragon really failed however was the storytelling, particularly as it relates to the editing and pacing. The movie starts out very simple and easy to follow, but soon expands unnecessarily to convoluting proportions with subplots of different crime bosses and corrupt officials I did not really care about. One of the worst piece of editing I have ever seen was a tragic sequence that bookends the first act. The scene was supposed to make you feel emotional and wrecked, but it just made me roll my eyes the entire time. I felt really annoyed because story-wise, the tragedy made very little sense for us to feel sad since we do not even know who the character is, but the technical execution of the scene was even worse. The film then transitions months ahead into the story and at that point, it had no idea what it wanted to focus on. Was it his love for his brothers? His friendship with Andy Lau? His mourning of his family? His desire to rise to the top? No, the film touches upon everything only slightly, but never truly exploring any of it in great details. Any of important plot points were montaged through quickly, with the director expecting the audience to know the true backstory to fill in the gaps. Instead of seeing Ho earning his power, we just see things getting handed to him. What exactly has he done except being a good fighter and a loyal friend to deserve all the accolades? Another big issue I have is the final 20 minutes, which pertains a subplot that blows up and becomes the main plot and the whole movie then turns into a revenge fantasy for no reason at all, because the writers said so.

My initial trepidation of Donnie Yen playing a crippled character, hindering his ability to perform his trademark moves was right on point. Donnie's acting was good, but because for half the movie he can barely walk, he is utterly wasted nonetheless. Simply put Chasing the Dragon is not an action movie, so if you go in expecting Ip Man quality fight scenes, you will be sorely disappointed. There are few hand to hand action scenes in the first half, but even those were poorly done by Donnie Yen standards. They were short, shaky and lack the oomph of a satisfying fight scene.

Overall, I feel the movie failed to tell a compelling story with its cast and production value. Wong Jing was definitely a very poor choice of director, and it shows throughout. His style simply does not mesh well for the story content. Who is the movie made for? Action fans? The action is not very good. Crime drama fans? The drama is muddled with technical problems. While not a terrible movie, the only good reason to watch it is two words: Donnie Yen.

Leatherface is directed by Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo and it is the eighth film in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre horror franchise. The entries in the series have been very interesting even by horror standards because it has gone through so many reboots and remakes and prequels that each film feels completely disconnected from another. Each new film seems like it is just grasping for straws to cash-in on the legacy that was the 1974 original. The newest iteration, simply titled "Leatherface" is the 'prequel' to the entire series, not to be confused with 2006's The Beginning which was a prequel to the 2003 version. At this point, making a good Texas Chainsaw movie is not impossible, it just needs to be in the hands of filmmakers who actually care and know about the source material, because watching Leatherface, all I see are amateurs who do not know how to make a movie nor understand what makes the 1974 film a classic. This is not only the worst film of the franchise, but quite simply one of the worst mainstream horror movie I have ever seen.

Everything about the film is utterly atrocious and needs not be seen by anyone. First off, the whole entire premise is innately flawed, as we do not want nor need to see how Leatherface becomes Leatherface (again). Showing Jed Sawyer as a child with crazy family members demystifies him and in turn makes everything less scary, so thus this movie should not even exist in the first place. Second, if you are going to make a movie about Leatherface as child/teenager at least make it compelling and character-focused, but no, the entire movie has almost nothing to do with Leatherface, Texas or chainsaws.

The first act of the movie takes a place in a mental institution, where violent criminal patients can peculiarly roam freely. A laughably bad breakout scene leads us to the not much better second act, a road trip with psychos, which is the bulk of the movie. The movie tries to play it coy by not telling us which of the five road trippers is Leatherface, but it was so painfully obvious I was sighing every 10 seconds. The main nurse character was one of the captives in the group, and she was the closest thing to sympathy we have in the film, but even she had no character aside from being a nurse and being kidnapped. She was also very dumb as she had opportunity to escape her captors multiple times but decides not to for inexplicable reasons, despite the fact they do not have weapons of any kind in the beginning.

The film feels very far removed from a Texas Chainsaw movie that it felt like it was originally written to be a different film altogether, and was then combined with Texas Chainsaw elements to create the screenplay used. What made the 1974 original so effective was the terror and surreal feeling of being captured by a crazy family, being tied up to a chair to have dinner with them, like a nightmare you are unable to wake up from. This 2017 movie's road trip plot of "Who is Leatherface?" completely misses the spirit.

Technically it is perhaps even worst, as the entire film has a cheap direct-to-video look to it and the night scenes are really dark and not properly lit. The scenery is obviously not Texas as they could only afford to show a barn, a diner and a hospital, all in the middle of nowhere with no context of where they are. The editing has to be some of the most jarring and disgusting I have ever seen. There was actually a jump cut used when two people were sitting and talking to each other in the most obvious and egregious way. Two sex scenes were employed between the two escaped patients, and they served no purpose except as attempts to shock the audience. It had no effect on me because I was too busy rolling my eyes on how terrible they were. The violence while here, has the fakest looking blood to date. With not much else to look forward to, the editors actually had the audacity to cut away from some of the gruesomeness. The movie is not going to win an Oscar, so it might as well should went all out with the gore, but no, the filmmakers disappointingly holds back.

The only things I can say that were not truly awful were the diner scene, and Vanessa Grasse as Lizzy just because she was easy on the eyes, but that is it. The franchise has definitely seen better days, and if a ninth film ever gets made, I hope it is handed to filmmakers who actually know what they are doing so we can get another great Texas Chainsaw movie. Leatherface has very little redeeming factors and even for the most die-hard fans of the series it is hard to recommend.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is written and directed once again by Matthew Vaughn, who also did the first movie, Kingsman: The Secret Service. I really liked the first film as I found it to be very fun and unique with some spectacular action sequences. While this sequel unfortunately does not quite reach the quality of its predecessor, it nevertheless is still a very entertaining comic book romp. What made the film fell short were a meandering plot and messy pacing which unnecessarily padded the running time to nearly two and a half hours. The Golden Circle introduces so many new characters and subplots only for them to be disappointingly undercooked. The end result is a film that has interesting ideas, great action and characters, but was ultimately betrayed by the script and editing.

The film's greatest strength by far is the action sequences. The Golden Circle took the style of the awesome Westboro Church massacre scene from The Secret Service and applies it generously here throughout. The zoom-in, zoom-out and slow-down effects used gave a surreal, visually appealing look to the whole thing. The sequel takes a complete comic book turn with characters now battling with bionic arms that extend and smash through walls, lassos that electrify and slice people in half, robotic guard dogs, as well as the other Kingsman gadgets you know from the first movie. My favorite scene is the opening with two characters fighting in the backseat of a moving vehicle.

The acting is very good from all involved. Taron Egerton as the lead really surprised me as he managed to bring a sense of gravitas and weight to a world of complete zaniness. I really liked how unpretentious and down-to-earth his character is while at the same time sweet and loyal. Colin Firth and others also did very well with what they had to work with. The standout of the film goes to Julianne Moore who plays the main villain, is crazy and psychopathic but superficially extremely polite and well-mannered. I love her evil smiles and head- tilts right before she does something heinous.

The film presents many new elements, but aforementioned a lot them goes absolutely nowhere. The biggest new component as witnessed in the marketing campaign is the American counterpart to the Kingsman, the Statesman. Without spoiling anything, this secret group is utterly wasted with all the American actors not getting nearly enough to do. Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges did not feel like big Hollywood names performing, but instead zombies sleepwalking to their paychecks. A small role for a famous celebrity was also included in the film that was meant as a surprise to all his fans, but I just found his entire part to be awkward and unfunny and felt it should have been cut. There is a way to do surprise celebrity cameos, but the filmmakers took the wrong approach here. The finale takes place in a diner and feels really small in comparison to the escalation the film was taking. In my opinion, it could have upped the ante a little with a bigger location and the villain putting up more of a fight.

Overall Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a very fun and entertaining movie with top-notch performances by Egerton and Moore, but alas was bloated by subplots and poor filmmaking choices. If you like the first movie or James Bond-esque spy thrillers with over-the-top action sequences, you will find much to enjoy in this movie, just remember to leave your brain at the door.

Mother! is a psychological horror film written and directed by Darren Aronofsky. The movie is about a married couple living in a secluded country home being visited by strangers with the husband welcoming them in with open arms, much to the chagrins of his wife. The film has similarities with another movie of Aronofsky's, Black Swan, in that both are told through psychologically worn out female protagonists' eyes, forcing the audience to walk in her shoes and question their own sanity as the madness unfolds. Mother! has been extremely divisive since its release due to its controversial allegory and graphic content. To be honest, the popular interpretation of the metaphor did not even cross my mind once when I was watching, instead I took the movie for face value and it still had me enthralled, uneased and disturbed throughout. I believe if you go in to the movie having read about the supposed metaphor, it would greatly bias your opinion and affect your viewing experience, for that reason, I am going to review Mother! as a pure horror film to 1) avoid spoilers and 2) be objective.

Mother! is very gorgeous-looking and wonderfully-acted. The film might be slow to some, but it is never boring as the situation is always building towards something keeping you captivated. It is a very strange and surreal film told through Jennifer Lawrence's eyes. We do not know much about her except she is married to Javier Bardem's older character, but as the film establishes early on, Lawrence is possibly the sanest thing in the film. The camera literally follows her everywhere in the house, which we never get to leave, creating a sense of dread and claustrophobia. The first half of the film has mostly psychological horror, with Lawrence having to deal with unruly guests with unpredictable behaviors and her slowly deranged husband. I was intrigued at frame one and found myself gripping on my seat whenever Lawrence is in confrontation with anybody, even if it is somebody that logically should pose no real danger, but the film causes you great doubt regardless. The second half contains most of the controversial visceral horror, and detailing anything therein would constitute as a spoiler so I am just going to say: viewers discretion is advised. It gets really insane and crazy to a point where you will just be dying to know how it ends.

Technically the film is excellent. The cinematography brings the creepy house to life and the sound design is harrowing. The film captures the fear of being alone in your own house but not knowing if you are truly alone very well. Jennifer Lawrence gives the best performance I have ever seen of her yet; she touched the notes of vulnerability and weakness, loving, reluctance and then finally anger and contempt. Since she gets close to 100 percent screen time, any sort of hiccups or off- night would have put the film in jeopardy, but she brought it every second. Javier Bardem as the husband was wonderful as always, performing like the world-class actor he is.

There are some negative though, namely some pacing issues, particularly it being a little too long and dragging towards the middle, repeating certain situations over and over again. I just want to wrap my arm around the director's shoulders and tell him, "I get it buddy, the guests are rude, and she's vexed, now can we just move on?" The whole thing should have been shaven down to a leaner 90 minutes, which would have been sufficient to tell this story. Also a lot of weird things happen unexplained and never expound upon. I guess this feeds into the film's interpretational and allegorical approach, but also kind of lazy as it theoretically gives Darren Aronofsky the right to just throw in any bizarre content in the cauldron he can conjure and not have to worry about explaining it.

Mother! is a very good scary movie if you want to view it as just that. When you start to unravel the film and break it down, that is when objectivity usually gets thrown out the window in favor of own personal beliefs. Even if the metaphors are what Aronofsky intended, within the film itself it was never stated as canon, so everything is still just an interpretation and what is most important is what you choose to see the movie as. As a superficial psychological horror flick, it worked because it was scary, disturbing and jaw-dropping like a genre film should be.

It is directed by Andy Muschietti and it is a remake of the 1990 three- hour miniseries which in turn was based on Stephen King's own 1986 horror novel. So what is "It?" As a kid browsing through video rental stores in 90's, I have always noticed the peculiar VHS cover with a white face painted, sinister looking clown on it with the title "It" in bold red colors. The miniseries was hailed by classmates at school to be the scariest movie of all-time and I always wondered why; the back of the VHS seemed to show the scariest thing about the film is just a killer clown. Is it because I am fortunately enough to not have a phobia of clowns that is why it had no effect on me? Then I thought about why Stephen King chose to name the book "It" and not "Clown" if it is indeed just a story about a killer clown. This 20-something year old question of mine was finally answered when I saw this 2017 iteration at the cinema on opening day. It is whatever you do not want it to be. It manifests itself as the thing you fear most. In short, it is an entity that can transform and show itself as your worst nightmare. Now that my curiosity is finally answered, is the movie any good? Well, bloody yes.

It as a film in general succeeds on all facets. It was creepy, scary, funny, heartfelt and emotional. Imagine a very good episode of Goosebumps, throw in good child acting, Conjuring-styled suspense, buckets of blood and a focused unrelenting villain – the results of this beautiful concoction would be It. It could have easily been a mess of a movie, been accused of copying latest horror trends of James Wan or Eli Roth, but Andy Muschietti was able to hone everything down neatly into a spectacular package. Right from the get-go, we were able to see how beautiful the cinematography is; the basement, things lurking in the shadows, rainfalls, glowing eyes, etc. Visually, this is a gorgeously shot movie. The buildups of scares are very reminiscent of modern ghost films, but that is a good thing because they are done right with good payoffs, usually a nightmare-inducing image that sent chills down the audience's spines. I am not the kind of snotty movie goer who despises jump scares because I feel they are cheap and unearned, no I actually believe they are a vital ingredient in a horror movie and without them, even the sharpest film tends to dull out. Jump scares need to be well-timed and be used to unleash the tension at the climax of a scary scene, and It understand this very well.

On one hand we have a hardcore horror film that mixes the best of both worlds of scares and violence, and on the other we have a retro old- school, band of misfits, kids adventure. This film proves you can have terrifying scares and at the same time not sacrifice well-developed characters. These protagonists are not cannon fodders who merely exist in the script to bite the dust, instead they are well fleshed-out human beings with their own problems and motivations. Bill loses his brother Georgie early on and is eager and impatient to find out what happened to him. Ben is the overweight perpetual new kid in school who is smart but has trouble making friends so he stays in the library. Beverly suffers from sexual abuse from her father at home. Individually each child actor brings it in this adaptation, they were all likable and funny, but together the Losers form a chemistry so good you would feel distraught if anything were to happen to even one of them.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise gives one of the best villain performances I have ever seen. I would put this Pennywise up there with recent cinematic antagonists such as Hans Landa, Calvin Candie and Heath Ledger's Joker. Skarsgard's body movements, facial twitches and speech patterns were all unsettlingly creepy but at the same time still magnetic to watch. To expand upon my initial question on what is exactly is It: Pennywise the Dancing Clown is just one of the many of forms It the entity takes in the novel, but Tim Curry's performance in the miniseries popularized this particular form, so to most people It is synonymous with Pennywise, thus it makes sense for this remake to keep him as the main face.

Perhaps the one thing that really made It so amazing to me is despite the villain is relentless and the protagonists are just kids, seemingly insurmountable for the Losers to defeat him, Pennywise has a clear weakness and without spoiling anything, he could be defeated. It is so refreshing to watch a horror movie of this kind where the supernatural villain is not a ghost or a demon that cannot be hurt and always wins in the end, but is someone who could lose if the protagonists work together and outsmart him in a meaningful way. This gives hope and creates a sense of earnestness and sincerity to the picture, where the underdogs can eventually overcome the adversary if they do not give up.

Overall It is probably my favorite recent horror movie, and as a film on a technical perspective, it is probably the best ever. The scares worked, it looked great, and the characters and acting was amazing especially by Bill Skarsgard. I love the whole authentic 80's feel, it added a lot to the whole thing. I do not know what more I can ask for in a film in general, because It is easily one of 2017's best.

Death Note is directed by Adam Wingard based on the anime and manga by Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata. I have seen the 2006 Japanese live-action film and I thought it was okay. As with most other live-action movies made in Japan, it has an imaginative idea but fails in technical departments like editing, cinematography and special effects. How does this new reincarnation of the beloved anime fare? I liked it about as much as the 2006 film, probably even enjoyed it a tad more, despite its numerous problems. Once again, the best thing about Death Note is its concept: a high school kid called Light learns he can kill anyone, anytime by writing their name on a notebook. Originally only wanted to make the world a better place, he begins to abuse the notebook for his own nefarious gains and to evade his rival, the intelligent detective "L." It is story of mental chess games and an interesting study about how absolute power corrupts absolutely. For this review I am going to judge Wingard's film as its own thing, trying to not hold it to the standard of its source material, however one thing I cannot do is sit idly by and pretend Death Note's great original premise was invented by this version.

Critiquing it merely as its own entity, the movie is still very middle of the road. It started out great with top-notch cinematography and music choice giving the whole thing a surreal feeling. However right after Light finds the notebook and makes his first kill, which was pretty cool, the film goes downhill from there. Light went from a high school awkward loser to a revered god called Kira with a hot cheerleader girlfriend within four minutes of montage. This is simply unacceptable as even for someone like myself who is not super familiar with the manga knows the transition from Light into Kira is a very important aspect and fast forwarding through it was a huge mistake. The rest of the film is devoted to L attempting to uncover the identity of Kira. While L is supposed to be the greatest detective in the world, some of his actions were pure idiotic and out-of-character. Not to mention many times his deduction skills to reach certain conclusions were far-fetched, contrived and unearned. Throughout the entire running time, it felt like I was watching something very abridged, like a 22 episode television series being cut down into a 90 minute motion picture. The end result you might imagine is a film that is messy and choppy with an artificial narrative and baffling character motivations.

I do like the look of the film as I find the color tones and overall visual and feel of the picture to be dark and cold in a positive way, with flashes of color to balance things out. As for the performances, Nat Wolff's Light was annoying and whiny, but Lakeith Stanfield's L was interesting and enigmatic. It was more due to the film's horrid writing that stopped this version's L from becoming a great character. Willem Dafoe is the voice of the death god, Ryuk, and as with his other works, he was very good. I was never bored while watching the film, because the movie was just so visually stimulating, even if it is only on a superficial level. I would be remiss if I do not at least mention the controversial whitewash casting of the film. The original characters were Japanese, and they are white and African Americans here. I understand the producers want to make an American reworking, but likened to my feeling for other stateside manga adaptations, was an Asian American cast not an option? Will Ludi Lin or Edward Zo really perform worse than Nat Wolff? Granted even if Asian leads were cast but everything remained the same, the movie's quality probably will not improve leaps and bounds. The issue is about job opportunity for a minority group, which is its own discussion for another time.

Overall Death Note is a not good movie, but it is not the train wreck others make it out to be either. It is visually interesting with some really nice gory deaths for the gore hounds, but the plot is chaos and the motivations of the characters are poorly defined. If you are a fan of the source material, I can tell you right now this is a butchered version and you will hate it. But you still might find some entertainment if you settle to see it as just a cheap Final Destination knockoff, and not the cerebral chess game of the original.

The Defenders, the culmination of Daredevil season 1 and 2, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron fist is an eight-episode mini-series produced by Marvel Television and released exclusively on Netflix. I enjoyed to various degrees all of the prelude series, especially Daredevil season 2, which might just be the greatest television season I have ever seen. However, three episodes into Iron Fist, I tapped out and resorted to reading the plot summary for the rest of the trudged episodes. I just found the show to be too slow, drab, boring and Finn Jones' Danny Rand was whiny and unlikeable. Despite of that I was still looking forward to The Defenders because one, the other three heroes' shows were all good, and two, I was curious to see how well they could do "Avengers on a TV budget." What results is a season that is ultimately disappointing for everybody who has been following the Marvel Netflix series since the beginning.

By far the best thing about the series is the interaction between the four leads. The acting is generally pretty good, with the standouts being Charlie Cox and Krysten Ritter. All four of the Defenders are very different people with very different objectives that are brought together to stop a threat. The filmmakers certainly were able to emulate to an extent the banters and interactions of the Avengers for this team, which got the biggest smiles out of me while I was watching. The Defenders is easily the funniest and most lighthearted of the Netflix shows due to the many situational humor involving the protagonists. Iron Fist is the 'thundering idiot' that believes in 'destiny' and other mysticism which causes skeptical straight-man Luke Cage looking at him like he is crazy. Jessica Jones is the take-no- crap, hard-ass who just wants to settle things as soon as possible and Daredevil is the 'weirdo' being the only one dresses in a costume. It is these distinctive characteristics and clashes amongst them that brought charm to the show.

While the interactions are great, they do feel a little bit forced sometimes. Daredevil and Iron Fist might have obligations to defeat the Hand, the main antagonists of the series, but Jessica Jones and Luke Cage really felt like they were just along for the ride. Many instances when Jessica was accompanying Matt Murdock on an excursion, I cannot help but to feel she just did not need to be there. The scene would have not have been any different if she was absent, in fact, the show's plot will remain unchanged even if you were to remove Jessica and Luke entirely. Crossovers are good, but they are usually even better if there are organic reasons to justify it, and the reasons for Daredevil and Jessica to work together are just too superficial.

Daredevil season 1 and 2 and Jessica Jones season 1 were the best of the Marvel Netflix series because they were committed to their tone, and not to mention they also were just expertly crafted by very talented people. Daredevil season 1, the Iron Man of the Netflix MCU, was gritty and very street-leveled with tons of religious allegories supported by a great villain in Kingpin. Season 2 introduced ninjas, Elektra and most importantly the philosophical dichotomy between the eponymous hero and the Punisher. Jessica Jones season 1 dealt with sexual and relational abuse, power and control with David Tenant as Kilgrave in a commanding role. But the Defenders was just… all over the place. They could not settle on one tone, because they wanted to do so many things at once and all four leads justice. With too many cooks in the kitchen, no central themes or focus, it turned the show into a meandering tonal mess.

The action was highly disappointing after the awesome fights from the Daredevil series. Even compared to Luke Cage, the Defenders looked low quality as they are never properly lit; either it is completely bright in an office building or completely dark in a sewer. There are no hallway fights, stairwell fights or prison brawl to be had here, just a bunch of shaky, close-up, darkly shot dance sequences the filmmakers call fight scenes. It was bad, and I could not believe how much the quality has dipped since Daredevil season 2, as it does not even look like it is made by the same people. I really thought as we move forward, even low-budget television series can have quality fights scenes like The Raid, as it is the talent behind the choreography that often makes the difference, not pure money.

The buildup to the Hand from the Daredevil series is finally paid off here but failed in epic proportions. They got Sigourney Weaver here to play the main villain, Alexandra, but she was utterly wasted. None of the main villains in the Hand was intimidating, and after two plus years of buildup, it seems like this secret, powerful organization is nothing more than a bunch of pushover thugs. The Five Fingers of the Hand was supposed be the best fighters around, but they are neutralized so easily it was frustrating to watch. Plus, aside from Weaver, the D-list actors who play them are all uninteresting. I believed for the villains, Marvel should have gone all out and hired more brand-named actors to play the roles, lending more credibility.

The Defenders was overall a disappointing romp that does not hold a candle to the previous solo series (except maybe Iron Fist). Nevertheless, I still found myself enjoying it as it is the culmination of the Marvel Netflix shows, but I do not enjoy it enough where I would watch again. Overall, the show was unfocused, forced, had average action, and ultimate dissatisfied the hell out of me. The mingling of the four leads might be its saving grace, but it is not enough to bring The Defenders out of mediocrity.

Dunkirk is a historical war action drama, written and directed by Christopher Nolan. I have always been a big Nolan fan so naturally I was hyped for this movie. Nolan has knack of taking a genre he has never done before and somehow make it appealing to the masses and intelligent at the same time. A superhero trilogy? Check. A dream heist film? Check. A space travel sci-fi? Check. Admittedly, I am not a big fan of the war genre, but I was still very curious to see how Nolan would tackle it.

The film is unquestionably extremely well-made, and I could see why people would love it and claim it as one of the best movies of the year, but to me it was just far too dull. While the interweaving of three perspectives is interesting, I did not feel any tension during the lackluster action scenes because I did not care about any of the characters since their development was non-existent. A lot of the times, unless it was Cillian Murphy or Tom Hardy, I could not even tell which character was who, complicating things to an already unexciting movie. Hans Zimmer's soundtrack was also a miss, which is shocking because I loved all his previous Nolan efforts. Also for a war movie, it really could have benefited from an R-rating, as the bloodless PG-13 makes things even duller than it already is.

There are a few things I really liked though, namely the sound design when the spitfire jets were descending down the beach, wailing terrifyingly like monstrous banshees. The acting was also mostly well performed throughout by everybody especially Mark Rylance as a civilian going into Dunkirk to save the men. The film's technical excellence cannot be denied, but with uninteresting action and monotonous characters, Dunkirk was just a disappointment. You can say I do not understand the film, but I believe I understood it just fine; I was just not as enthralled as should be to Nolan standards.

Detroit is a historical drama thriller directed by Kathryn Bigelow, based on true events during the Detroit riots of 1967. Knowing next to nothing about the infamous Algiers Motel incident, I was still excited to see it based solely on how intense and gripping the trailer was. It would be a very interesting movie even if the story was completely fictitious, but knowing everything actually occurred in one form or another really added an extra ounce of gravity to the experience. In fact, the script was pieced together using real-life testimonies and court records, and Bigelow even invited living people from the incident as consultants on set during filming to ensure accuracy. End result is a movie that is not only entertaining, but also relevant and keeps you cognizant of issues in the real world.

What I really like about Detroit is how it goes about its business in a very a matter of fact manner. Even though there are a lot of racist white characters in the movie, it certainly does not present the black individuals as completely innocent, which is heartening as reality is not always black or white, but instead shades of gray. The meat of the story is a hostage situation at the aforementioned motel, where three demonic white cops terrorize a group of people, trying to force a confession out of them for a crime they did not commit. The performances are all stellar, especially Will Poulter as the head of the racist cops and John Boyega as the security guard who witnesses the entire event. The acting in the film really helped ground the story in reality, making scenes of sudden violence all the more shocking.

The film does drag a little bit outside of the motel confrontation. It could have removed the historically contextual, but cinematically irrelevant back stories of the characters and just drop us right in the middle of the main conflict at Algiers. I feel it would have made the movie tighter and less bogged down if it sans the onus of attempting to cover the entire riot. Regardless, Detroit is an enthralling, powerful, and at times hard to watch drama thriller that really stays with you after viewing. Even without knowledge of history, it is still a very enjoyable film in its own right that deserves your time at least once.

Annabelle: Creation is the sequel to 2014's Annabelle and the fourth film overall in the Conjuring universe. The first movie was an unremarkable foray, as I have forgotten about 80 percent of what happened, thankfully however, Creation is actually a prequel so knowledge of the first movie is not necessary. It also makes this movie a prequel to a prequel based off of real events, which does not exactly scream 'quality'. Everything about the movie before release indicated it will be terrible, but the man behind the camera, David F. Sandberg, not only made sure it was not a train wreck, but was able to create a prequel that surpasses the original.

Creation is a fine, watchable horror movie with some very good scares. While it is not as good as Lights Out, Sandberg's previous horror effort, his terrific direction still permeates throughout. Once again, he makes good use of darkness and blurry backgrounds to unsettle viewers. The presence of the monster in horror films is always a tricky issue: show too much of it, it may become a joke like Freddy Krueger; do not show enough, the audience will feel cheated. The film balances the appearances very well, resulting in very satisfying terror. There were some legitimate creepy scenes in the movie too, with my favorites being one involving a scarecrow and another involving herky-jerky movements.

I was having déjà vu of Conjuring 1 and 2 during the movie since it draws so heavily from those two James Wan films. Once again, a group of young girls are terrorized by an entity in an old house with each night playing out like episodes; starting with a girl hearing a noise and ends with a jump scare and then fade to morning. It is effective, but predictable by now, so I felt the film should have disguised itself a little more to distinguish from the parent series. Nonetheless, Annabelle: Creation is still a solid horror film that you will enjoy at the moment, but probably will not care much about a year from now.

War for the Planet of the Apes is the third film of the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise following Rise and Dawn, directed by Matt Reeves who also directed the second film. The Apes series is one of those series that I never really feel hype for leading up to it, like I do with a Marvel movie or a new Disney movie, but once I sit down in the theater and actually watch them, they never cease to amaze me on just how well made they are. Main reason I think for that is because each film of the series is not made to be part of a cinematic universe filled with setups for other films; instead they are just focused on making one good movie each time. And despite taking this approach, this Apes trilogy of Rise, Dawn and War perfectly flows from one film to the next seamlessly with character and story growth that makes sense. We see the leader of the apes, Caesar going from a naïve baby chimpanzee to a benevolent leader to someone who has just seen enough of mankind's cruelty and wants to strike back in this third entry.

First off, without spoilers, the movie's title is bit of a misnomer, as the "War" referenced is not what you might imagine, especially after the much more action-packed Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The movie has action scenes, but they are the consequences of the drama, and they are there to serve the emotions, not the other way around like most blockbusters nowadays (i.e. Transformers). In fact, if you were to replace the CGI apes with a persecuted minority group portrayed by live action actors, the film would be more similar to an art-house historical drama like Schindler's List than anything else. For this reason, the movie should been titled "Emotions of the Planet of the Apes," because my god, this movie has like 10 super emotional moments, where most big budget films would be lucky if they receive two or three.

The movie worked very well for me because of amazing CGI, character development, suspenseful action and emotional, sometimes gut-wrenching scenes. The film also paces itself pretty well, with very little exposition, and jumps straight to the point in most instances. Right from the beginning, we get an ill-fated scene that pushes the character of Caesar to give him a new motivation for the rest of the movie. Everything that was established before that scene sets up it up perfectly, and I was in shock when it happened. This film did not let up, as moments like this happens again and again, without ever feeling forced or sappy, all appropriate for the circumstances within the story. My particular favorite moment being a very tender scene between the little girl and the gorilla character involving a cherry blossom tree; with no dialogue and only performance and music, the moment was still able to tug on my heart strings.

Andy Serkis plays Caesar, and once again his performance is the key to the film. Unlike the first two where Caesar was more reactive to situations, in War, Serkis has to play him filled with rage, and it worked. He has nuances of someone who has had enough of being hunted and victimized, which directly combats with his innate compassionate nature. Andy Serkis plays this inner turmoil to perfection and the fact he did this wearing a mocap suit is even more of a testament. A movie is only as strong as its main villain and Woody Harrelson as the Colonel was one bad man. Intimidating, scary and a worthy adversary to the apes, Harrelson's character is willing to go to places I could not have imagined before for an Apes movie. The rest of the apes were also very likable, the standouts to me being Maurice and Bad Ape. Maurice is again the trustworthy right-hand man to Caesar and aside from his effects being fantastic, he gave off a sweet, sympathetic vibe that you cannot help but like him. Bad Ape is the new comedic relief character, and if done wrong, could have been the movie's downfall, but I feel his inclusion as the zoo Ape who does not know Ape speech is very important as a contrast to another character. The little girl Caesar and crew finds, Nova was a very good character and might be the heart and soul of the film. I love her sweet interactions with the apes, to juxtapose how seemingly more humans the apes are becoming.

The good guys in the movie are placed in an impossible situation facing a villain who is uncompromising; this makes each action sequence tension-filled and enthralling. You really feel like not everyone is going to make it out alive and there is no plot armor for anybody, not even Caesar. I rooted for the apes, and wanted nothing more than for them get out of their circumstance. This is only possible because the characters were so well established throughout the movie, making us care about them and their plight.

War for the Planet of the Apes is a great natural ending to this awesome trilogy. It is a desolate, sometimes depressing film that is lightened up only by sweet, tender moments and highly emotional scenes. I would not call this an action movie, so those looking for a movie with a chimp riding a horse wielding dual machineguns again, I suggest you go and watch Dawn. But if you want a human drama with the central characters being ironically, non-humans, War is a must-see.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is the fifth live-action Spider-Man movie and the first iteration to take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, making it the sixteenth film of that mega franchise. On par with popular opinions, I did not like the two Amazing films that much. I do not hate them like many others do, but I felt gone was the heart that existed in the Raimi films. To say this movie came back with just a faint pulse, is an understatement; Spider-Man: Homecoming wears its freaking heart on its sleeves! Back in 2014, Sony and Disney struck a deal to essentially share the character and allow the Web Slinger to be back in Marvel's hands where he belongs. As evidenced prior by Tom Holland's small but fantastic role in Captain America: Civil War, it was a good move. But witnessing Homecoming's excellence reaffirms it is probably the best decision the two companies ever made.

I love this movie, it was simply marvelous. The film was funny, heartfelt, emotional and a visual delight. It discards the cynicism and "grit" found in the Marc Webb's series, and instead makes Peter Parker, a pure, innocent kid who just wants prove his worth and do the right thing. No more moody, Twilight Peter snooping around saying mean things or being angsty, instead we have a protagonist here that is likable and relatable in a genuine way. It also helps that the high school setting was well utilized with a vibe that is completely different from the previous series, as it takes a more realistic, but cheerful approach to its tone and atmosphere. I really appreciated the diversity amongst the cast, it was beautiful to see representation candidly showcase on screen.

Tom Holland was excellent as Peter Parker and Spider-Man, he was funny and witty, but not sarcastic or harsh. Multiple times in the film, Peter is presented a choice to either be a regular kid, stay with his friends and perhaps get the girl or fulfill his duty as a hero and pursue the crime. You can just how torn Holland is with this choice each time through his face. A lesser actor would not have been able to portray this internal conflict this exceedingly well. Michal Keaton as the Vulture was great; he is probably my favorite MCU movie villain thus far, because I bought into his motivation on why he does what he does. I also appreciated they gave him a personal connection to the hero to further the emotional impact. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May was very lovely and my eyes were glued whenever she was on screen as her motherly charm and beauty enchanted me to no ends. God she is beautiful. All the kids here actually behave like real kids and they are all hilarious, especially Peter's best friend Ned, played by Jacob Batalon. He was so natural in his performance, watching the two's relationship unfolded almost made me feel like I am part of the group as well.

Most people go see a Spider-Man film for its action, and rightfully so, Spider-Man 2 has some of the best action sequences in film history to date. Homecoming is pretty exciting and great to look at, and because I did care for Peter and his friends and wanted them to be okay, the action scenes were suspenseful. However comparing it the previous movies, it definitely lags behind just a little bit. It still is visually stunning, but we just did not get a Doc Ock level of excellence here. We do get a great climatic battle on top of an aircraft that ends on an emotional note. I really appreciate this movie taking a smaller approach and not have the climax be a beam-in-the-sky, end of the world scenario like most other superhero movies nowadays. Because it just gets played out, we know the world is not going to end, so unless it really is the last film of a franchise, why keep doing it? It is nice to see the filmmaker's objective here is to display the emotions of the characters and not just trying to one-up the explosions from last big blockbuster.

Homecoming is probably the heartiest MCU film to date. I am big fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I have seen all sixteen films multiple times. There is one common problem amongst each movie and that is the disservice of dramatic scenes by injecting humor into them at the wrong moments; my emotionally connection with the film is greatly weakened because of this. I think the only movie that successfully avoided this tonal problem in my opinion was Ant-Man and the first Iron Man. You can now add Spider-Man: Homecoming to that list because this movie juggles the balance between humor and drama perfectly. Using the natural charm of the cast, the jokes land on target at the correct moments when they are supposed to, and because of good character development, the dramatic scenes also flourishes in genuine fashion since they are not diffused by humor.

Overall Spider-Man: Homecoming is now my second favorite movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and probably my third favorite Spider-Man movie behind the second and first one. I am glad to see it correct many of the tonal problems I had with previous movies like Doctor Strange and Amazing Spider-Man 2. Fun, earnest and dramatic, Homecoming stands on its own two feet in a genre full of end of the world climaxes and world-building expositions. No matter what happens in this universe moving forward, it will always be smaller movies like this and Ant-Man that will have the biggest impact on me because they understand it is not about the punch, but the emotion behind the punch that matters.

Your Name is a Japanese animated film written and directed by Makoto Shinkai, based off his own novel of the same name. I was reluctant to watch this movie at first because besides the works of Studio Ghibli, I am not the biggest fan of anime. However, Your Name was making waves around the internet, with people considering it the best anime movie of all time. I am someone who is naturally gravitated towards hype, and with expectations leveled, and my mind opened, and I went ahead and saw the film. And boy, when the credits rolled, I was stunned, mesmerized and enchanted with just how beautiful this movie was in every way. My relationship with anime does not extend beyond Ghibli films, first few seasons of Pokémon and JRPG cutscenes, the reason being I always feel Japanese animation lacks gravitas and instead replaces it with heavy- handed over-the-top storytelling and voice acting. I was glad to see Your Name not succumbing to any of those tropes, in fact, Your Name being an animated film, was able to make laugh, cry, feel anxious and fulfilled all within 90 minutes, something most live-action movies with real actors cannot even dream of trying.

Mitsuha and Taki, our two leads are very charming and funny. The main hook is you hardly see them as themselves, instead they are mostly in each other's bodies. Because of this, we see their characters develop as they literally walk in each other's shoes.The first act to my surprise was candidly funny. I found myself laughing out loud at the fish out of water and situational jokes. There is a running gag where every time Taki would wake up in Mitsuha's body, he would feel her boobs to make sure he is not in his own body, this is when Mitsuha's little sister would burst in the room and see her "sister" touching herself. Comedy like this is perfect, because it is within character, situational and not forced.

I am going to avoid all spoilers for the second act onwards because I went in the movie knowing very little, and I wish for anyone watching this film to do the same.I will say there is an obstacle in the third act that is suspenseful and tension-filled but not in a Hitchcockian way. Instead, you just want to see the characters succeed and achieve the impossible so much, that when an obstacle stands between them, you cannot help but to be on the edge of your seat. I was rooting for them because I was emotionally invested in Taki and Mitsuha as human beings, and I care about them, and genuinely want a happy ending for them.

Having some time to think about the movie after seeing it not too long ago, I felt Your Name connected with me on in intimate level few films have done before. Ever since I was young I was a romanticist, always believing the meeting with the love of my life is bound by some sort of fate and destiny since the beginning of time, and I simply have not found her. The movie explores this subject, what if you are tied to a person by a string? You two through thick and thin, chaos and peace, no matter the time difference, spatial difference, are destined to meet? A story of this kind would have touched my heart regardless of the quality of the actual film, but thankfully, besides having an excellently written script, the movie's supplemental elements like animation and music do not lag behind.

The hand-drawn animation in this movie is probably the best I have ever seen. Every frame was perfectly crafted and colors are rich and vibrant. I especially appreciated the little details like water droplets on a spider web during the raining scene and of course, the deliciously animated food throughout. The movie was truly like a painting coming to life and rivals with even some of Ghibli's best. Another thing I need to mention is the music, composed by Japanese rock band, Radwimps. It was simply fantastic, amazing, incredible, heart- warming, heart-wrenching and every adjective that is associated with the word "nostalgic." Funny how a piece of music you have only heard for the first time recently can give you the feeling of nostalgia, but that is the power of this film's soundtrack. My favorite piece is Date that plays during Taki's date with his co-worker. The track accompanying the sunset imagery and Tokyo café evokes a poignant, bittersweet sentiment within me, and I absolutely loved it. It makes me think back of times in my life where I was in a similar situation as Taki, and the feelings I had then, the moment, the sunset, the yearning of days gone by.

Your Name is a brilliant, heart-felt animated film about two different people's absolute desire to meet one another despite being separated by space and time. Taki and Mitsuha's conviction that leads them to the end of this emotional journey should be viewed by everyone, no matter if they like anime or not. This film is simply a masterpiece in storytelling that has everything you want in a romance. Go see this movie, you will not be disappointed.

Transformers: The Last Knight is once again directed by Michael Bay and written by many people. It is the fifth movie overall in the Transformers franchise, and the second shortest one at "only" two hours and 29 minutes. For a movie with a running time this long, it certainly did not utilize it very well. Once again a Transformers movie juggles between seven different subplots cutting through them back and forth shamelessly with no sense of artistic merits. This movie was very pretty to look at, but it is a loud, bloated mess that ran about an hour too long. I like the Transformers franchise. I have now seen all five films in theaters. I know they are not the most well written movies, but between Shia LaBeouf's odd charisma, Optimus Prime's gravelly voice and kick-ass robot fights, the movies are just enjoyable as hell. The fourth one, Age of Extinction I have major problems with, because I felt losing LaBeouf lost the series' heart and soul, amongst other problems. This issue was sadly not corrected with The Last Knight.

Mark Wahlberg, who is a tremendous actor, was just not right for the part. The Transformers series is first and foremost a franchise for kids, based off a toy line for kids, thus having the main character being a grown man instead of an adolescent lessens the emotional connection with the major targeted audience. The reason why I think the first three are way more enjoyable than this one and the fourth one is because Sam Witwicky, a teenager was the main character of the movies. Even if the plots were thin, we could still follow the young protagonist's journey and watch his growth from a boy to a man. With Wahlberg's character of Cade Yeager, he is already a man, a middle-aged one with a daughter at that. Instead of continuing Sam's story from high school to college and beyond, we get a stereotypical muscled action hero that just does not fit in with a series that started off as just a story about a boy and his first car.

The best character in these movies to me has always been Optimus Prime, and even though he is never featured as much as the humans in any of them, this movie was just egregious about his absence. Optimus is probably in the movie for about 15 minutes out of its extremely bloated running time. It is not a coincidence the movie reaches its most exciting whenever Prime is on screen, and it could have used more of him, instead of constantly cutting back to subplots the audience could not care less about. Once again we get a military subplot, with generals and lieutenant characters that really do not add anything except making certain scenes sound more important as they spew pseudo- complex jargons. We also get a ton of cringey robots talking and behaving like human stereotypes and an annoying, douchebag science guy whom nobody likes or listens to. All the while I just wanted to see Optimus Prime with his heroics destroying robots in one take slow motion.

I cannot knock the film for its looks, because it is really gorgeous to look at. The CGI and cinematography are both top-notch. Michael Bay can direct the hell out of an action scene and make nearly anything on camera beautiful. However, being beautiful to look at it does not mean it is exciting to watch, because the latter requires tension and good editing, something this movie does not have. To build tension, we first must understand the stakes, to have stakes we need to know and care about the characters, rooting them for them to succeed. The frantic pace of the film, jumping from scene to scene, means we never get a chance for quiet moments to develop the characters or give us a reason to care about them, outside of expositions.

The movie has the potential to be very good. It looks good, the actors do try, and the musical score is awesome, so I believe a couple of tweaks here and there could have definitely fix this. One way in my opinion would be to make the little girl, Izabella the main character instead of Cade. As mentioned, it would provide the audience with a more innocent, sympathetic lens to this world of violent robots and destruction. Isabela Moner who plays the girl was extremely impressive with all the moments she was in the film, so this would be one way to have more of her instead of Mark Wahlberg. If Marky Mark really is not returning for the sequel, I hope they do make Izabella the heroine for the sixth movie. Moner will be 18 by the time Transformers 6 comes out… Wait never mind, it is probably not the best idea with Michael Bay as the director knowing his track record with young actresses.

This is not a very good movie, but it is not a terrible one either. It is overlong, it is unnecessarily complex with its plot, it does not have good characters and it is edited like a music video. These problems combine makes a bad film, but not an unwatchable one. It will be enjoyed by many who are just looking for mindless explosions and loud, metal clanging against one another for two and a half hours. However, for those who want a film with actual character development, tension in the action scenes or well-written plot, The Last Knight will fall way short. If your friend is treating you to the movies, or it was on Netflix, watch it for free. Otherwise, I can think of a 100 other ways to spend nearly three hours.

Journey to the West: The Demons Strike Back is a sequel to 2013's Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons, which I really liked. It is directed by Hong Kong veteran, Tsui Hark and written by Stephen Chow, who did not return to direct this one. The movie stars an all-new cast playing characters from the first movie, with the only person returning being Shu Qi. The first movie I thought was a really good Stephen Chow movie without Stephen Chow, and what really worked for me were the characters and their likability and humor. I really liked Wen Zhang and Shu Qi's chemistry with each other, and it made me root for their forbidden love to come to fruition. This movie loses Wen Zhang, being replaced by Kris Wu, and Shu Qi is delegated to a cameo appearance, and man are they big losses, because the actors in this movie did not hold up well at all. Neither did the script though, as frankly I felt this movie is just a mess. Drastic character changes out of the blue, inconsistencies and conveniences to push the plot forward litters throughout.

Unlike the first film where it was more of a prelude to the classical story, Demons Strike Back actually plays out the episodic narrative from the classical novel, with memorable arcs such as the spider demons and white skeleton being rendered in Stephen Chow slapstick style. We actually get to see Tang Monk along with the three disciples he conquered during the first movie journeying to the west this time around. While the plot moves along episodically, the main focus here is the tension between Tang and the Monkey King, as the former still blames the latter for Shu Qi's character's death. This relationship between master and disciple is so poorly written I spent the entire time not really caring for either character, since they themselves do not seem to care judging by the terrible things they do to one another. Tang is having visions of Shu Qi from the first movie, and blames the Monkey King for her death. I am very disappointed to see this is route they went with for the sequel, after all Shu Qi tempted Tang the entire first movie, but he did not once gave in once to her. Now that he is enlightened and is journeying west, all of a sudden he is lusting for her? That just seems very inconsistent. But I guess consistency is the last thing you should expect in these types of movies.

Even though Stephen Chow did not return to direct the movie, his style of humor is still emulated here. However, being a Chow fan since I was a kid, I was sorely disappointed with how unfunny this movie was. Not that they did not try, but the actors just do not have the comedic chops to pull off this type of humor. At times, things got really dumb and silly with a mind control dancing scene which is recycled from the first movie, and a crying grown man trying to pass as funny. Another thing that was off putting was the characterization of Piggy, who was always a pervert, but never the serial rapist as he was in this one. He literally attempts to rape every girl he encounters and it is played for laughs. As someone who has watched enough interpretations of Journey to the West, this was simply not funny and kind of ruined things for me. I did chuckle a few times throughout, and there are a few good gags such as when Sandy got turn back into a giant fish, but overall this was not the clever Stephen Chow film I am accustomed to.

The action in the film was good, but it is typical C-grade special effects-laden Chinese film affair. There was never a moment where I felt danger for any of the characters because the build-up to these action scenes tends to be humorous and lacking of tension. The main highlight for me is definitely the spider demons scene, it is by the far the most exciting action set piece in the movie. The CGI is pretty average, but at least the Chinese and Hong Kong film industries are improving in this department since the disastrous eye sore that was the Donnie Yen Monkey King movie.

Kris Wu, former K-pop star musters all of his charms and good looks and gives out a fine performance as Tang. Lin Gengxin, the Monkey King was intense and likable. The rest of the cast did the best they could, but as I mentioned before, they were simply not funny enough in my opinion. The best thing about the movie was the definitely the collection of attractive Chinese ladies assembled here. Yao Chen, Wang Likun and Lin Yun are all beautiful and charming. I love my female eye candy, and whenever these actresses were on screen, my eyes were glued.

Overall the movie is very pedestrian, but passable popcorn affair. Not horrible by any means, definitely watchable for some colorful action scenes. However, too many misses on jokes and poor plot and character developments cannot save the movie from mediocrity. Even those who love everything Journey to the West or the Monkey King should only check it out if it was free and you have a couple of hours to spare.

There are no filmmakers quite like Quentin Tarantino. His ultra-stylized dialogues and savvy characters combined with usually (seemingly) simple stories has been a staple of his since Reservoir Dogs. Lots of directors are cookie cutters of each other, all expendables and mix and matches, but when Tarantino dies, I guarantee there will never be another Tarantino to take his place. The Hateful Eight, appropriately named, is the eighth movie of his controversial but stellar career, and another masterpiece following personal favorites such as Inglourious Basterds, Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained. Like the latter, this movie is a western set circa the Civil War, but unlike the Django, it is a considerably "smaller" movie. Gone are the grandiose landscapes and epic locations of the former and arrived is a mostly one-set film that is performed more like a stage play. However if this is indeed a theatrical play I am not sure if I would like to sit in the front row in fear of the gallons of spraying blood that will undoubtedly ensue.

The Hateful Eight takes place on a snowy mountain in Wyoming, a few years post-Civil War, where sentiments from the majority towards African Americans are still full of suspicion, meanness and hate. Samuel L. Jackson plays Major Marquis Warren, a bounty hunter, in need of shelter from the incoming blizzard. He meets John Ruth, a fellow hunter, en route on a stagecoach to the nearby town with his prisoner, Daisy Domergue, where she will be hanged for her crimes. The three characters soon have to be holed up in a haberdashery where they meet five other strangers: Chris Mannix the local sheriff, Bob the person temporarily in charge, Oswaldo Mobray the town's hangman, Joe Gage a cowboy, and Bruce Dern as retired General Sanford Smithers; and one, some, or if not all of them are not what they say they are.

The apparent obstacle of the film centers on Ruth's distrust of the six other men with his prized bounty prisoner, whom he believes they might be after. This creates a sense of tension and paranoia in the movie, a whodunit, and a "who can you trust?" Being dealt with the dilemma of having to take a side of one of these despicable characters is both difficult and uncomfortable, since as an audience member that is what we are conditioned to do with mediums of fiction – take the side and the perspective of the protagonist. With a more traditional movie, the protagonist will be easily identified, however with The Hateful Eight, it lives up to its namesake as it presents you with characters that are shady and two-faced, so much so even by the time the credits roll, you are still left with uncertainty on who exactly to believe in.

With our modern sensibilities, even the most "likeable" – and I use the word very loosely, character is hard to like since every one of them are either women-beating and/or racist epithet-saying jerks. With every white character using the N-word freely against the lone African American, Major Warren, we cannot help but to stand by his side, if just only for those moments. Race relation is one of the central themes of the film, which I do not doubt the always progressive-minded Tarantino deliberately left in contemporary messages. One of the lines spoken by Warren in regards to black and white relations will surely ring true with the mass and will keep you thinking well after the movie.

The film in whole is a mystery suspense film disguised as a western. Trust, fear, distrust, paranoia all play out in bloody perfect fashion in mostly one setting, not unlike a stage play. Its often eccentric and exaggerated performances mirror Broadway to great effect. The haberdashery, the location where the majority of the film takes place is just a medium-sized one room structure that houses eight strangers. This allows the story to play out more personal and close, and at times gives a sense of inevitable doom. Imagine locking two roosters in a small cage, something is ought to happen, and will probably not be pretty.

Tarantino is no stranger to violence, but a lot of other films are also violent, so what separates those film's violence and Tarantino violence? The answer is simple: the suspension prior to the brutality; Tarantino is absolutely masterful doing it. If you are familiar with his movies you know the setup of two or a few characters sitting around a table, ostensibly talking about mundane things that generally do not push the plot forward, but instead acts as a conduit to envelop the characters' true intentions. The performances from each one of the actors are great and the dialogues are razor sharp to keep you engaged, sometimes laughing, oftentimes holding your breath. Tarantino does a wonderful job in allowing the audience to know that things are not what it seem, he will let you in a little, but not too much. He keeps his secret to himself until he wants to let you know, but for now, just enjoy the ticking time bomb from underneath the table. In a Quentin Tarantino film, it is not a matter of if the bomb will blow, but when. The result is the use of violence that is not cheap shock, but earned reward.

If you liked Tarantino's other films, then this movie is a denser more personal version than all of his past works. If you do not like them, or feel offended by them, then this probably will not change your mind. At close to three hours, the pace is effortless, as lines between the characters will lock the audience in better than any gargantuan action scene from a summer blockbuster this year. Like Tarantino's other masquerading western, this is a violent film that will surely leave you in awe.