Reviews

13 Hours is directed by Michael Bay and stars John Krasinski, James Badge Dale, Pablo Schreiber, David Denman, and Dominic Fumusa. The story follows a terrorist attack enacted upon an American embassy in Libya, called Benghazi. When Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security were under attack, all soldiers were told to stand down. However, a handful of men went to lend aid, despite what their superiors told them.

To get it out of the way, this film barely touches the political issues behind the film's story, and that was a good move. What 13 Hours does is takes the exact truth of what happened in the terrorist attack, and sets it on the audience's lap, leaving them to form their own opinions upon the topic. This aspect of the film adds a layer to it that isn't too politically preachy, as many feared this film would be.

As far as Michael Bay movies go, 13 Hours is amazing. Not that Michael Bay is a terrible director, he just doesn't have the best filmography under his belt. However, he's created a few good films in the past, such as Transformers (just the first one), or the 1998 blockbuster, Armageddon. I don't hate the guy, because I believe that he truly tries to make quality content, he just doesn't always succeed. Despite his issues in the past, he did a really good job with 13 Hours. I enjoyed it, and appreciated almost every aspect of it.

While on the topic of Mr. Bay, his direction was great. The only issue I took with the camera work was very small, and that was just the over abundance of slow motion shots throughout. All of the slow motion was done well, but it was used just a little too much. Other than that, however, I had absolutely no problems with any work that Michael Bay did on the film. The direction was perfectly fine, and it worked very well for what the film was wanting to achieve.

The best thing about 13 Hours is the acting, and all of the talented actors working on the project. In specific, John Krasinski delivers one of his best performances to date, leading the film brilliantly. All other actors do good as well. Although I wouldn't use the word "outshine," I feel that John Krasinski does stand out a bit next to his co-stars, due to his higher level of acting, despite the other actors doing well in their roles.

On the flip side, the worst thing about the film is the suspense, or, rather, the lack thereof. Throughout the entire film, our main protagonists are under near constant attack, yet I barely ever felt any tension in their situation. I never truly got attached to any of the characters, and thus I never feared for their lives. Although the story, and the real men who tragically gave their lives, is very sad, I never felt any tension or fear almost at all, and that pulled the film down a lot.

Like mentioned above, I never truly cared for the film's characters, and I'm basing that critically on the characters in the film, not the real men. This was completely the fault of the script, because of its inability to make me feel for the characters in the film. Although I feel that Chuck Hogan did a good job with the script, he didn't make me, as the viewer, care too much for the characters, which isn't a good thing to say about a writer.

Overall, I did enjoy 13 Hours, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again, I just wouldn't pay much for that chance. I'd recommend 13 Hours to anyone who likes action or war films, or is regularly involved in anything politics.

The BFG is directed by Steven Spielberg and stars Ruby Barnhill as Sophie, a little girl living in an orphanage in England, who believes in tales of giants coming during the night to eat children. She thinks that these giants come at around 3 in the morning, the only time of the night when she's awake, and nobody else is. One night, a giant whisks her away to giant country, but she learns that he's a Big Friendly Giant (or BFG), and doesn't eat children. However, the older giants do, and it is up to the BFG to protect Sophie from the giants that are much bigger than him, him being the runt of the giants.

I don't even care what the title is, or what the story is about, if Steven Spielberg is directing it, I know I'm going to enjoy the movie in the long run. Steven Spielberg is a legend when it comes to filmmaking, and his name is enough to get me to buy a ticket. As expected, The BFG is a pretty good movie. There are some points where it somewhat falters, and I wouldn't call it Spielberg's best, but it was enjoyable in many different ways.

The first point that I have to address is the motion capture work done by Mark Rylance as The BFG. We have gotten to the point in cinema in which CG can, if done right, look better than makeup or practical effects. The motion capture done on Mark Rylance is the best motion capture work put to film since Andy Serkis' Caesar in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014). I loved the CG put to use in this movie, and not just in Mark Rylance's motion capture, but in the magical world of giant country. All of the CG used in this film is utterly impressive, and took The BFG to the next level.

Mark Rylance did great as far as acting as well. The BFG (the character) does have a speech impediment, and Rylance pulled off the lines containing odd words used by The BFG in a great way, heightening his filmography by another great movie. Ruby Barnhill as Sophie was a great casting choice, and did amazing in the film. This is one of the best child performances of Spielberg's career, and one of the best child performances of the year. All of the other actors do pretty well, especially Jemaine Clement as the unspoken leader of the giants, Fleshlumpeater. I likes his motion capture a lot, and his character was the type that the audience really begins to dislike, which makes the main characters all the more likable.

Now, towards the end of the second act, I was really getting into the movie. I started enjoying it on a high level, and was wanting to see what happened in the next act. However, with the start of the third act, the movie completely fell apart for me. I don't want to spoil it, but Sophie and The BFG's plan to take down the mean giants metaphorically threw me out of the theater. I was getting very immersed into the world that the filmmakers had created, but was sucked out of it very quickly once the third act had started.

Also, some of the humor fell flat. Most of the comedy was genuine, and I enjoyed it, but, I'd say probably a quarter of the jokes weren't all that funny. However, there were some jabs at comedy that I don't normally like, but had me laughing pretty hard in this film, because it was done right. Anyone who's seen the movie most likely knows what jokes I'm talking about, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone that hasn't seen The BFG.

Overall, The BFG is a very fun family film, with a lot of good laughs and some amazing motion capture and CGI. I'd suggest the movie to anyone who can sit down and just have fun with a movie.

The Secret Life of Pets is directed by Yarrow Cheney and Chris Renaud and stars the voices of Louis C.K., Eric Stonestreet, Kevin Hart, Jenny Slate, and Albert Brooks. The story follows Max, a dog who loves his owner, Katie. They both get along very well, and live in a small apartment in New York City. However, Katie goes away every day (most likely to work), and Max has no idea where she goes. During this time of day, Max and all of his animal friends get together and have parties, or just have casual conversations. When Katie returns home with another dog named Duke, Max gets jealous, and his envy sends both him and Duke on a journey that gets them lost in the big city that they live in.

I wasn't too excited for this movie. The trailers looked decent, yes, but Illumination's last movie was Minions (2015), and we all know how great that was. Most of the voice actors working in this film are pretty good, so that was enough to drag me to the theater. I walked away just slightly surprised. The film doesn't bring anything new to the table, but it wasn't horrendous. I enjoyed some aspects of it, and didn't find myself wanting to leave the theater.

First and foremost; this movie directly, step by step, rips of the 1995 Pixar film, Toy Story. Nearly everything that happens in this movie happened in Toy Story, and even some elements of Toy Story 2, the 1999 sequel. At first I didn't really notice it, but once time went on, I started to realize it more and more. Each and every scene borrows something from Toy Story, and it really becomes noticeable after quite a while.

The best thing I can say about The Secret Life of Pets is the main characters. Despite there being way too many characters in the movie, the ones that were the most important were good. I liked Max and Duke, and their characters arcs throughout the film. I started out liking Snowball, the bunny voiced by Kevin Hart, however, as time went on, the character just started to get annoying. My favorite character was Gidget, the small white dog voiced by Jenny Slate. Her personality was very likable, and she was a very compelling character. Her friendship with Max, and her desire to rescue him really pushed the story along, and I enjoyed her character very much.

On the topic of characters, there was way too many. Max and Duke are the characters that the film really centered around, but the amount of supporting characters was just ridiculous. There were a few characters that were given more attention, like Gidget, and Snowball, but Tiberius, Chloe, Pops, Buddy, Mel, Tattoo, and Viper weren't, and that's just a short list compared to to rest of the characters. Many different characters could've been cut out of the film, and that probably would've improved it.

Most of the unnecessary characters are thrown in for attempts at slapstick comedy, and it doesn't always work. After awhile, the slapstick starts to get a bit annoying, and the movie really should just focus a bit more on the story. The attempts at humor throughout start to give the film a Tom and Jerry feel, as if you're just there to see small animals beat each other up with miscellaneous items or methods. The slapstick starts to get old pretty fast, and drags the film down by a lot actually.

Overall, kids will like The Secret Life of Pets, and adults will think it's a cute kids movie. I wouldn't pay much to see it ever again, if I ever did. It's a step by step rip off of Toy Story, except with animals, and I wouldn't pay more than matinée price if I were to see it.

Miracles From Heaven is directed by Patricia Riggen and stars Jennifer Garner as the mother of a sick child named Anna, played by Kylie Rogers. The child is diagnosed with a rare disease that doesn't allow her body to digest food. Stay away from the trailers for this movie if you plan on seeing it; they spoil the entire film. That's all I'm going to say, because I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone.

I was somewhat excited about seeing Miracles From Heaven, but I was expecting the movie to be as the trailers said it would be, and it was a completely different movie, despite it still being pretty good. The marketing team for this movie should really be fired, because the advertisement for Miracles From Heaven was marketing a separate movie. The film does have some flaws, but it was good overall.

My favorite thing about Miracles From Heaven was the performances given by the actors that play the little girl's parents, that being Jennifer Garner as the mother and Martin Henderson as the father. These two did pretty great together, and made a very believable married couple that are struggling with their ability to cope with the sickness that their daughter has. Although I wish the film went a bit deeper into their conflicted relationship based on stress and disagreements, both actors did very well, and deserve some recognition by receiving future roles.

Having said that about the two parents, and the actors that played them, not many other characters, or actors, stand out. Most of the other actors do fine, and don't really have anything special to do with their screen time, while also not exactly doing bad. Queen Latifah was marketed as playing a big character in this film (her name is on the poster), yet her character was given a good amount of depth, and then forgot about by the script. Her character just disappears from the film entirely, and it was pretty disappointing, to be honest.

Kylie Rogers, who plays Anna, the sick little girl, does pretty good. Her performance isn't very distinctive, but she does okay for a little girl. Both of her sisters seem like wasted characters overall. I really wish the film would've dived into the difficulties that the sisters were dealing with, as in having a very sick sister, but it didn't. The sisters, played by Brighton Sharbino and Courtney Fansler, were partially wasted as characters that could've been interesting.

The direction was pretty good. No shots really stood out as good or bad, and the overall camera work did what it should've done, it just wasn't as interesting as it could've been. The script was pretty nice, with some very good dialogue at points, and some pretty bland dialogue at others. There were a couple different subplots that really should've been either cut out, or given more attention to, that were kind of stuck in between the two, and those elements are what dragged the story down.

The absolute worst thing about Miracles From Heaven is the pacing, particularly with the time jumps. There are more than enough time jumps, yet the film fails to explain how much time has passed. Coming out of the theater, I didn't know whether or not the film's setting lasted 6 months or 6 years. These time jumps really pulled the movie down by an entire letter grade (or so), and was pretty underwhelming.

Other than the few complaints I mentioned, I liked just about everything about Miracles From Heaven. It didn't get too preachy, and was constructed as a film pretty well. I'd recommend Miracles From Heaven to anyone who can handle watching something somewhat sad, because there are a couple sentimental moments.

Inglourious Basterds is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and stars Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Michael Fassbender, Eli Roth, Daniel Brühl, and Mélanie Laurent. It tells many stories throughout its World War II French setting, all of them leading into one, spectacular climax. Brad Pitt plays Lieutenant Aldo Raine, an American soldier with a furious hatred of Nazis, who leads a group of men looking for a Nazi officer named Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz. This quest leads these characters, as well as much more, on an epic quest for redemption and blood lust.

Two years after his 2007 film, Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino released to the public Inglourious Basterds, a film in which he subliminally claims to be his masterpiece. Is it his best film? That's a matter of opinion, but whether or not it is a great film isn't a matter of question. Inglourious Basterds is the best World War II film since Saving Private Ryan (1998), without a doubt. The excellent script, compelling characters, and amazing direction create a fantastic film, one could call a masterpiece.

The astounding characters are really what push this film to the next level. The two leads, Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine and Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa, set up Inglourious Basterds as a cat and mouse story of sorts. Lt. Aldo Raine chases after Col. Hans Landa, and vice versa. When the film eventually comes to a confrontation between the two, the dialogue is nothing short of genius. Both Pitt and Waltz do superb in their roles, bringing to life two stereotypical, yet seemingly fresh, characters that are more than compelling.

Every other actor in Inglourious Basterds holds their own as well, and aren't outshadowed by the two leads. Michael Fassbender portrays an American soldier under the command of Lt. Aldo Raine, and does so very well. His character is very refreshing, and seems grounded compared to the other, more "over-the-top" characters. Diane Kruger plays a famous actress named Bridget von Hammersmark, who is loved by both the Americans and the Germans. Her character is very likable, and grows on the audience very quickly. All other actors, such as Mélanie Laurent and Daniel Brühl, do great as well, just don't hold down as large of roles as the ones mentioned.

The script in this movie in brilliant. Specifically during the interrogation scenes, the suspense that is built up through flawless dialogue is simply incredible. Each character says exactly what their character needs to say exactly when they need to say it. The actors also aid the tension through their incredible acting abilities. In fact, the most interesting scenes in this film are the ones in which the characters just sit down and talk. Just through the dialogue, Quentin Tarantino, who also wrote the script, can get an entire audience on the edge of their seats, and that's a rare thing for a writer to be able to do.

The direction, by Tarantino, is, as always, great. There's one specific shot in which the camera follows a character as she walks through a few different rooms, all while the camera is tracking from a ceiling view. This shot goes on for more than a few seconds, and my jaw dropped while watching it. This specific shot, and many more like it, add so much to the already magnificent film that Inglourious Basterds is.

Overall, Inglourious Basterds is a fantastic film. I wouldn't necessarily label it as a "masterpiece," but it still is a great movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who can handle the violence (which isn't too much, should I add), and some bad language.

The Shallows is directed by Jaume Collet-Serra and is the story of a young girl (college, to be exact) named Nancy, played by Blake Lively, who visits Mexico in order to go to a hidden beach that her mother used to go to. She's a surfer, so she goes for a surf, along with two Spanish men that were in the area. However, when the men leave earlier than expected, a gigantic great white shark attacks her, wounding her leg, and leaving her stranded on a small rock just 200 yards away from shore with no help in sight.

After the disappointment that was Independence Day: Resurgence (2016), I wasn't too excited to go back to the theater, but I'm sure glad that I did. I was expected a decent, B rate shark flick with The Shallows, but I got so much more. Almost everything about The Shallows works on tremendous levels, and I was very impressed by the film as a whole. All of the acting was good (even though one of the two characters with the most screen time being a seagull), the direction was amazing, and the special effects were fantastic.

Blake Lively does excellent in her role, playing a strong female character (which isn't a common phrase in most films nowadays) with a will to survive. Her conflict with both the shark, and to get the mindset of survival down, was near perfectly displayed through both the script and Lively's acting talent. The viewer really wants this character to win, and roots for her continuously, breathing a sigh of relief each and every time she gets to a temporary safe zone. Her acting was terrific, and I look forward to seeing her in future films.

The special effects done on the shark are astounding, Each and every shot that the shark is in looks amazing, showcasing the film's great effects. Since the shot was in one of the trailers, this isn't a spoiler, but the shot in which the shark jumps into the air, grabbing a man in his jaws (no pun intended), and curving back down into the ocean looked absolutely incredible. Many other moments like the one mentioned are in The Shallows, which, alone, make this movie worth seeing.

The direction, by Jaume Collet-Serra, is amazing, especially in the underwater shots. This man brought such a high level of suspense to this film with his directing capabilities. Almost every shot is present simply to prepare you for the next, and the next, and so on, until the suspense drops the floor from under you, and lets off the steam that it needed to. The jump scares can get a bit predictable at times, but aren't overused to the point of exhaustion like most "scary" movies tend to do with them.

My only issue with the film was the exposition. We learn a lot about Nancy through some video chats and messages between her and her family/friends. This gets old after the first five minutes or so, and the restless audience really just wants to see a shark eat somebody. Although that sounds a bit unprofessional, it's completely true. Once the tension starts, and the shark comes into play, learning more about our protagonist no longer seems like a way to lazily establish the character anymore, it just feels like a break from the suspense, which is the exact way scenes like such should be filmed.

Before my overall conclusion, I must give props to Steven "Sully" Seagull, the seagull who played the seagull. All joking aside, he did very good for a bird.

Overall, The Shallows was a very pleasant surprise, and I'm glad that I watched it. I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't have small children with them, because it can get pretty intense at some points in the film.

Independence Day: Resurgence is directed by Roland Emmerich and takes place 20 years after the original Independence Day, which came out and was set in 1996. In this film, the aliens from the first movie are back, and have brought reinforcements with them. Their technology has improved, and so has their numbers in soldiers. David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) has to work with his old partners son, played by Jessie T. Usher, and a new pilot named Jake Morrison (Liam Hemsworth) in order to stop the aliens from wiping out the human race.

I loved the first Independence Day. It's a perfect definition of a fun summer blockbuster. Most of the aspects of that film still hold up today, and it's a film that I, along with many others, cherish even on its twentieth anniversary. However, Independence Day: Resurgence wasn't that good of a movie. There are certain parts of it that are great, but, overall, it's pretty mediocre. I really wanted to like this film, yet I walked out of the theater disappointed.

No matter the faults, Independence Day: Resurgence does have two amazing things going for it: Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman. These two actors do great as David Levinson and (former) President Whitmore. Their performances are easily the highlight of the film, and provide a very high level of contrast against most of the other actors, who didn't do very well at all.

Liam Hemsworth plays one of the biggest characters, that being of Jake Morrison, a pilot who is currently stationed on a moon base. He does, overall, decent in his role, but does nothing special, or even noteworthy. The best thing about his character is the charm that Liam Hemsworth gives through his performance. Other than Hemsworth, however, none of the other actors give even an "okay" performance. Jessie T. Usher, playing Dylan Hiller (the son of Will Smith's Steven Hiller), doesn't do that great. His character is, in a way, just there. He doesn't do much, and seems more like a supporting character than a main character that the film is trying to make of him.

The biggest character that I took issue with, however, was that of Brent Spiner's Dr. Brakish Okun. I enjoyed this off-his- rocker character in the first Independence Day, but his character is just plain annoying in this film. Rather than being dead, as we presumed him to be at the end of the first film, he was in a twenty- year coma, which was a very cheap move on the writers' parts. The character is given far too much screen time, and really could've been eliminated from the film entirely.

The direction, once again by Roland Emmerich, is pretty great. His wide shots of mass destruction are very well taken, and show off the film's special effects is a fantastic way. The effects in Resurgence take after its predecessor, that being amazing, and looking completely believable. Each ship, no matter how big or fast, looks very convincing, and added a sense of threat to the film, which was a good touch.

The special effects leads me to the biggest problem this film has, and that's its yearning to do what the original did. Bigger isn't always better. Independence Day: Resurgence tried to do what Independence Day did, except bigger, and that doesn't always work. There's a subplot (that's unnecessary, may I add) about an African tribe that learned about the aliens through a long land battle with a group of them that never left Earth. Why couldn't this film be about that? "A small African tribe has to stand up against the aliens that were left behind;" that sounds like a great pitch. But, the writers decided to create an over abundance of new characters, and have them fight an alien ship the size of North America, which wasn't a great idea.

The last subject I'll touch on is the pacing of the film, which was fantastic. The two hour movie went by in the blink of an eye, and that really propelled the film forward by a long shot. Before I had even realized it, the credits were rolling, and everyone around me was abandoning their seats, which was a very impressive feat for the filmmakers to do.

Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence can be described in one word: disappointing. Bigger isn't synonymous with better, and many filmmakers don't understand that. I'd recommend this film to die hard fans of the original, but I wouldn't suggest spending too much money on seeing it.

The Nightmare Before Christmas is directed by Henry Selick (no, not Tim Burton), and is the story of Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King, and the leader of Halloweentown. After years of seeking something more than simply scaring people annually, Jack eventually wanders off in thought, and stumbles across Christmastown. He decides that Christmas is a superior holiday to that of his Halloween, and sets up a plot to overthrow Santa Claus and control Christmas as his own, with good intentions for the special day of the year.

Growing up, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of my favorite movies. I had every song memorized (except for "Something's Up With Jack," I could never remember that one), and loved every single character in the film. Rewatching it recently, it isn't a perfect film, but it sure is a really good one. From the fantastic music, to the compelling characters, to the incredible stop motion animation, everything about The Nightmare Before Christmas is simply amazing.

To start by jumping in, the hands down best thing about Nightmare is the music. The music, composed and partly sung by Danny Elfman (voicing Jack when singing), is absolutely fantastic. Almost every song is excellently written, and choreographed (with small figures on tiny sets, may I add). However, the music is also where my one problem lies. There is one specific song, called "Making Christmas," a song in which doesn't hold up a fight against the other songs in the film. To be completely honest, it isn't a bad song, but, in comparison to the other songs, it stands out tremendously. Besides that one song, however, the music is superb, and a soundtrack worth buying.

The characters, along with the actors who voice them, is another astounding thing about The Nightmare Before Christmas. Jack Skellington is, in my opinion, one of the greatest animated characters of all time. He stands up there with Grumpy (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs), Simba (The Lion King), and Woody (Toy Story). He is perfectly well rounded, and is a flawless example of a character that literally anyone can relate to. The entire audience can find at least one attribute of Jack's that that specific person can communicate with. Jack Skellington is one of my personal favorite animated characters of all time.

All of the other characters are great as well. Sally, the rag doll, and Jack's sort-of love interest is an amazing character. Her insecurity on whether or not Jack's plan of owning Christmas is a great attribute that adds a subtle layer of conflict between her and Jack. The actress that voices her, Catherine O'Hara, does great with her character, especially in the song she sings, entitled "Sally's Song." The main villain of the film, Oogie Boogie (or the Boogie Man) is a very clever choice for a villain for a movie that takes place in "Halloweentown." His weakness, which I won't spoil, was a brilliant idea to add to the film, and gives a layer of humanity to a seemingly unstoppable villain. His voice actor, Ken Page, does amazing in both speaking and singing. Every other supporting character is great as well, but just aren't filling as big of roles as the three actors/characters mentioned.

The stop motion animation is nothing but the best. For every second of film, around 12 shots were taken of the small sets. That is absolutely incredible. The time that the filmmakers spent on getting the exact right shots and movements is substantial, considering it took three years for the film to be completed. For every person involved in the filmmaking, I commend you on the excellent job you did, this coming 23 years after the film's release.

In final conclusion, The Nightmare Before Christmas is an amazing animated film, a great holiday film, and an excellent movie all around. I implore anyone, except for a hand full of small children, to check out this film; it's, simply put, brilliant.

Peter Pan is directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske, and is a post war Disney animated film about a young man named Peter Pan that lives in Neverland, a place in the sky in which no one physically grows up. When Wendy, a teenage girl living in late 19th century Britain, decides she doesn't want to grow up, Peter escorts her and her two younger brothers to Neverland, where an evil pirate named Captain Hook is out to get revenge on Peter Pan.

Many older Disney films are considered classics, and Peter Pan is definitely one of them. From the characters, to the top notch animation, Peter Pan is one of the most iconic animated films of all time. Even 60 years later, most everyone has seen Peter Pan, from people who grew up with it when it came out, to children who are growing up with it today. Rewatching Peter Pan, however, I found a few problems with it that stand out along with all of the great aspects of the film.

To start, the animation in Peter Pan is absolutely timeless. Every hand drawn fame of the characters or environment looks amazing, and engulfs the viewer into the bright, whimsical place that is Neverland. All of the characters are also excellently animated, especially when in action. The two characters that stand out the most are that of Peter Pan and his rival, Captain Hook. This particular aspect demands that, in each scene, the viewers' eye is drawn to either of the two enemies, which was a very smart move on the filmmakers' part.

On the subject of characters, all of the voice acting is very good, with great performances being given by, specifically, that of Bobby Driscoll (as Peter) and Hans Conried (as both Hook and Mr. Darling). These two play off of each other brilliantly, washing away all suspicion of two men recording in a studio. The other actors also do very well, and aren't necessarily outshadowed by that of Driscoll or Conried.

One big issue I did find with Peter Pan was the pacing. It may be confusing to read, but the pacing in Peter Pan is so good that it makes a 77 minute film feel like 45 minutes. Each and every scene is so necessary that the film flies by very quickly. One blink could cause major confusion with how a character got from point A to point B, or where the characters even are. It may be hard to comprehend, but, once seeing the film, this problem is understandable.

Another issue I found with the film is the writing for Peter Pan himself. Peter Pan, as written in the original play, is a fun loving child that never grows up. He is supposed to be free- spirited, and a caring person. However, the script for this film seems to portray Peter as a cocky, selfish jerk. He feels as if he's above the Darling children, and, at points in the film, is pretty close to being hated by the audience. He begins to get a bit annoying, and has the viewer rooting for Wendy and her brothers, therefore indirectly rooting for Peter, rather than having us root for Peter himself.

Overall, Peter Pan isn't as fantastic as I had remembered it to be. Is it a good, timeless film? Yes, it is, but it has a few more problems that I see more clearly now than I used to. Anyone who isn't too hard on films will enjoy Peter Pan, and others will, too, because it is a pretty good movie.

A Fistful of Dollars is directed by Sergio Leone and stars Clint Eastwood as the Man With No Name (or "Joe"). When Eastwood travels to a town in western Mexico, and accidentally gets involved in a rivalry between two local families, he must Clint Eastwood them to death, and try to keep the civilian deaths to a minimum, as well as stay alive himself.

Many call A Fistful of Dollars the first spaghetti western, and they may be right. This was the film that established Eastwood's reputation of killing people with his pinky finger. Thanks to A Fistful of Dollars, Clint Eastwood is a name that almost everyone recognizes 40 years since its release. A Fistful of Dollars is not just a good western, it's a good film as a whole. Most of the elements work in its favor, and make the movie a great one overall.

Easily the best attribute of A Fistful of Dollars is the suspense built up throughout the entire film, leading to the climax. This incredible level of tension is stacked up due to Sergio Leone's direction, the acting, specifically by Eastwood, and the fantastic script. The script takes bold turns, such as having two characters partake in a brief conversation prior to a shootout involving the two. Each and every action scene is much better with this suspense present than it would have been without out it. This tension is what so many action films are lacking today.

The acting, as mentioned above, is outstanding as well. Clint Eastwood is one of many in the cast that delivers a great performance. Standing beside Eastwood is a cast that includes Marianne Koch as Marisol, the young woman being torn apart between the rivaling families in her town, and Gian Maria Volontè as Ramón, the greedy villain of the film that stands as a character wanting to kill and to steal. Besides the three actors mentioned, the rest of the cast does do well, they just don't exactly stick out next to the three leads.

The direction, by Sergio Leone, is a great element of A Fistful of Dollars. As stated earlier, his clever direction sneaks in a layer of suspense on top of the already great film. His camera angles and movements add a feel of boldness to this film that is almost necessary for a story such as this one. Speaking of the story leads me to the script, which is also amazing. Of all the leading characters, Eastwood's "Man With No Name" (aka "Joe") probably has the least lines. This is a very brilliant thing to do with his character, because it makes the moments when he does speak much more significant. This is an astounding factor adding to the greatness of the movie as a whole.

The score, composed by Ennio Morricone, is yet another aspect of the film I can't go without mentioning. The score for A Fistful of Dollars is a landmark in musical history, defining the score for all western films to come, led simply by subtle whistling and guitar music. Most of the score is more of the background type music, until an action sequence breaks out, which it then turns very intense, giving the atmosphere a feel of desperation, as if the audience is The Man With No Name, needing to survive the bloody gunfight that our protagonist is currently in.

The only complaint I would take up with A Fistful of Dollars is the pacing of the film. There are a couple different moments where the film stalls, just a little. For instance, the opening scene. For about 2 to 3 minutes, we are given a slow tour of the setting through a camera tracking through the small Mexican village. These moments can drag on, and feel endless at specific points in the film. It's a very small nitpick, but it is an issue, and pulls the film below a perfect score by just a tad.

In completion, A Fistful of Dollars is a landmark in cinematic history, marking itself as the first spaghetti western, and the film that made famous the amazingly talented Clint Eastwood. I'd recommend this film to anyone that would feel up to seeing it, because it's really worth anybody's time.

Finding Dory is directed by Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane and is Pixar's latest sequel, following up to 2003's Finding Nemo. In this film, Dory begins to envision flashbacks of her childhood, including her parents and activities she would do with them. She remembers where she used to live, and, along with Marlin (Albert Brooks) and his son Nemo (Hayden Rolence), swim across the ocean once again to find her long lost family.

After 13 years of waiting, I was pretty pumped for Finding Dory, despite the underwhelming trailers. However, from the trailers, there were a few things to look forward to, such as the, once again, amazing voice acting, bright, vivid animation, and intriguing quest to find Dory's parents. Although I enjoyed the film, I couldn't help leaving the theater somewhat disappointed. There were more than a few elements that I felt could've been done better, despite the film being good as a whole.

The best thing about Finding Dory has got to be the voice acting, specifically the lines delivered by the voice of Dory herself - Ellen DeGeneres. If anyone were to ask me what I would consider as a perfect blend between voice actor and character, I wouldn't hesitate to give them my answer, that being Ellen DeGeneres as Dory, from both Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016). DeGeneres brings a hilariousness, as well as a sincerity, to the character of Dory, completely bringing this character to life.

Most of the other voice acting was pretty great too. Albert Brooks reprises his role of Marlin, the clown fish, and Hayden Rolence has taken over as Nemo on behalf of Alexander Gould, whose voice has changed since his turn as the character in '03. The film introduces a few new characters as well, such as Destiny, the near- sighted whale, voiced by Kaitlin Olson, and the beluga whale named Bailey, who can't echolocate due to a past injury, voiced by Ty Burrell. However, my favorite of all the supporting characters was that of the octopus escapee named Hank, voiced by Ed O'Neill, whose hidden care for Dory and her ultimate goals was expressed greatly through his brilliant character arc throughout the entire run time of the film.

The animation - need I say - is produced by Pixar, therefore it looks incredible. Each and every fish (that matters) pops out on the screen exactly as the animators want them to. Each time the audience is supposed to see something important, we see it, thanks to the fantastic animation team working on Finding Dory. All of the colors magnificently stand out from the overall bland backgrounds, and make the film look astounding.

My main complaint with the film is the pacing of timed events. Every once in awhile, the film finds itself standing still for a good few minutes, before it begins to pick up again. These stuck-in-the-mud moments are usually supposed to be emotional ones, which, I oddly didn't connect with too much, which is strange to say about a Pixar film (without "Cars" in the title, at least). The pacing wasn't the greatest, and seemed to drag the film down a bit, which was disappointing.

Another problem I found in Finding Dory was the elements it took from its predecessor, that being Finding Nemo (2003). Much like the 2010 film Toy Story 3, many elements depend on the nostalgia of the viewer. Being a child when Finding Nemo came out, I should've been struck with nostalgia when watching Finding Dory. However, I decided to take off my nostalgia goggles for this one, and was surprised by how much the film relies on the nostalgia of the audience. Although it isn't a huge issue, the similarities between this plot and Finding Nemo's stood out quite a bit.

The last complaint I have with the film, which is a small one, is the lack of characters from the first film showing up in this one. We get to see a bit of Crush (Andrew Stanton) and his son Squirt (Bennett Dammann), Mr. Ray (Bob Peterson), and a glimpse of Gill (Willem Dafoe) and his friends, but no other original characters show up in Finding Dory. Personally, I would've liked to see Bruce and his shark friends, more of Gill, and even a bit more of Crush; his appearance was more of a cameo. The film spent too much time developing a multitude of new characters that it forgot to include the older ones, it seems.

Overall, I did enjoy Finding Dory, it just wasn't as good as Finding Nemo, which is one of Pixar's best. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the first film, because you will appreciate it.

Bolt is directed by Byron Howard and Chris Williams and is the very original story of a dog that regularly stars in an action/adventure television show. Despite it being a fictional television show, Bolt, the dog, believes in every second of it. When he mistakenly gets shipped from Hollywood to New York, Bolt must, with the help of new companions Mittens the alley cat and Rhino the small hamster, get back to Penny in order to save her from the threat that he wholeheartedly believes is real.

Bolt is, as far as animated films go, one of the most underrated films ever created. With its combined amazing voice acting, animation, and very clever writing, Bolt is a great film, with a lot of style and substance. Coming from Disney in a dark streak of theirs, Bolt didn't have any expectations from me, yet it impressed me on every level. The low amount of recognition Bolt gets is unacceptable, because it is a substantial film.

The voice acting is what really elevated Bolt to the next level. The talent of John Travolta, Susie Essman, and Mark Walton add for a great team littered throughout the film. John Travolta pulls off the brave, big hearted Bolt with a passion that live action actors can't usually bring to an animated movie. Both Susie Essman and Mark Walton as supporting characters Mittens and Rhino back up the lead role with a large amount of vigor, and play their characters considerably.

The animation is top notch for the standards held these days, and impressed me greatly. The animators smartly knew to blur the background while giving the foreground much detail, which, overall, made the characters pop like a bubble. Each and every character stood out, be it Bolt, the superdog, or Penny, his "human." Although the background was blurred, like mentioned above, it doesn't look cheap. None of the animation looks rushed, and it all looks very clean.

My main issue lies with some conveniences thrown into the plot. Despite Bolt's target audience being smaller children, it was obviously directed somewhat to an older age as well, proved by its tear inducing moments cluttered throughout the movie. At certain times in the plot, the characters may be in a place in which the writers didn't seem to have a plan to get out of, yet, soon enough, a large factor in the film will suddenly purpose itself, and everything will work out for our heroes. Although this issue isn't that prominent, it really bothered me, and took enjoyment away from film altogether.

The clever writing in Bolt impressed my on a very large scale. Almost all of the dialogue, particularly between the characters of Bolt and Mittens, is absolutely flawless, with great banter and sly exposition thrown in the middle of it all. Once thing going for this is the difference between their species, a dog and a cat. Their characters' contrast added for a great relationship between the two of them; a relationship the entire audience can relate to.

Another minor issue I found in Bolt was the slow exposition. Due to the extravagant plot, the film takes its time to set up for the adventure that's about to come. Once the adventure kicks into gear, the film begins to move very quickly, but the exposition seems to drag on just a tad too long. If the script would've removed a few unnecessary characters, namely a pair of annoying cats, then the first fifteen minutes (or so) may have moved faster.

The last thing I have to mention about Bolt is the fantastic score. The musical score, composed by John Powell, is absolutely golden. Every single minute that any sort of action was taking place, the score was pounding, demanding that the audience sit on the edge of their seats. The viewer already cared about the characters, and their goals, but with the astounding score booming from the speakers, the audience begins to care all that much more about everything that's taking place in the film.

Overall, Bolt is one of the best animated films that Disney has made in a long time. Pretty much anyone will relate to, and enjoy, this excellent movie.

Django Unchained is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and follows a slave named Django, played by Jamie Foxx. While Django, and some other slaves, were on their way to their new "masters" plantation, a German bounty hunter named Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) stops the traveling slaves and collects Django due to his knowledge of what three wanted slave owners look like. During the process of hunting these three men, Django and Dr. Schultz go on a journey to save Django's wife, who's a slave living on a Mississippi plantation owned by the evil Calvin Candie (Leonardo Dicaprio).

Being written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, I had high hopes for Django Unchained, yet I was still surprised in almost every way. The acting, direction, script, score, and pacing all make Django Unchained a phenomenal movie, and a very enjoyable one at that. At its three hour run time, Django Unchained never stops, or even slows down, at all. Every single minute of this film keeps going, and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Rarely does a film have a perfect script. However, in the case of Django Unchained, the script is nothing short of flawless. Every single line of dialogue is perfectly written, with thoughts of what has and what will happen throughout the film. The banter between characters, particularly Dr. Schultz and Django, is both compelling and hilarious at the same time. Each line amazingly builds suspense for what is about to come in the next scene, and the next, and so on. The script is truly fantastic, and is the best thing about Django Unchained, which is saying a lot.

The acting is also incredible. Jamie Foxx gives the performance of a life time, portraying one of the best character arcs in cinematic history. Towards the beginning of the film, Django is still a slave, and he doesn't know whether or not he should respond to white men most of the time. However, he eventually learns that he is no less than any white man, and begins to buy nicer clothing, and talk back (both respectfully and sarcastically) to white men, and becomes his own person, complete with memorable lines and a sly, bad tone to his voice.

Christoph Waltz gives one of the best supporting actor performances of all time, with great sarcasm and hilarious dialogue. Many of the lines Waltz delivered had me gut-busted laughing, thanks to both the actor and the astounding script. Leonardo Dicaprio actually gives one of the best performances of his career, playing the polite, yet ficious, Calvin Candie. His character is cruel, and has no conscience about anything he does (involving his slaves, at least), and Dicaprio plays this menace brilliantly.

Samuel L. Jackson is actually in this movie, and he plays one of Candie's slaves, yet he's somehow "above" all of the other slaves due to his abundance of time spent on Candie's plantation, self titled Candieland. He orders the other slaves, and even some white men, around, and uses the "n" word a lot. Samuel L. Jackson, of course, is amazing in this role, partly due to Tarantino writing it with him in mind.

The direction, also by Tarantino, is unexplainably fascinating. The direction reeks of older styles, with a newer vibe mixed in as well. There are many moments where the camera will zoom in twenty feet from a far off shot straight into a close up of a character's face. These great directing styles add an interesting aspect to the entire film, and make it look very nice as well. The action is also filmed very nicely, with no shaky cam or quick cuts. Each of the ridiculously violent blood splatters from a bullet wound is shown without hesitation, which adds a grotesque, yet revealing, side to Django Unchained.

The score, composed by Ennio Morricone, is also exhilarating. Each main character has his own theme, from Django to Candie, and the score gives a distinct feel to each character. The smart choice of including older western songs in the film also added to the great feel of the film. Each time Django does some "awesome" act that's noteworthy, music accompanies him as he rides off into the next scene, and makes the viewer want to pat him on the back and ride off with him.

The only issue that I could see some making for Django Unchained is the run time. Although the run time is a bit long, I ask those people: what scenes would you cut out of the film? There isn't any. The run time is lengthy, yes, but the story of Django is a long one to tell, so all support to Tarantino for making the film as long as he saw fit, because if it was any shorter, people would complain about its rushed script and plot holes, so I see the run time as fit at three hours.

Overall, Django Unchained is a fantastic film, with great direction, acting, music, and a flawless script. I'd recommend Django Unchained to anyone who can handle the over the top violence, because there is a lot.

X-Men is directed by Bryan Singer and is the origin story of the X- Men, a team of mutants that turn superheroes in order to stop a mutant named Magneto that is preparing, and attempting to start, a full on war between mutants and humans. When Magneto, and a few other mutants, threaten civil society as we know it, the X-Men must put aside their differences and fight to stop an all out war between the two classes of people, mutant, and human.

X-Men is the first successful Marvel film, and it's easy to see why. Although Marvel films have been better, X-Men, in a way, paved the way for every other Marvel movie to come, from Spiderman (2002) to Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). With likable characters, great direction, and fantastic special effects, X-Men is a very enjoyable film in whole, and works in every genre of film it was going for, be it action, superhero, and even a sci-fi.

X-Men offers some amazingly relatable characters that the audience immediately feels for in each and every situation. Although this was my favorite feature of the film, I feel this is where its biggest weakness lies as well. Although characters like Wolverine, Professor X, Rogue, and Magneto are very well-rounded, most of the others aren't. We get to know a little bit about Jean Grey, Cyclops, and Storm, but not too much all in all. We know that Jean Grey hopes to be much like Professor X when older, but that's about it. We also know that there is conflict between Cyclops and Wolverine due to their mutual affection for Jean Grey, but nothing else about their characters.

The characters of Mystique, Sabretooth, and Toad, who are the mutants working with Magneto, aren't given much depth to either. Although it's cool to see Mystique transform into other people, but we aren't given much, if any, information about her character on a personal level. Sabretooth and Toad are both characters that have special powers, but no personalities. They both feel as if they are basically the "grunts" of Magneto's team, and don't really serve that large of a purpose in the movie.

The direction, by Bryan Singer, is actually quite amazing. Every action scene, as well as exposition scene, is so nicely filmed in every way. All of the action looks very nice, with no quick cuts or shaky cam to be found. Bryan Singer did an excellent job with the camera, and made X-Men look very good. The special effects are probably the best thing I could say about X-Men. The CGI throughout the entire movie is revolutionary, from Mystique shapeshifting to Wolverine's metal claws coming straight out of his knuckles. There's not a single shot in which the audience might call out "fake," due to the amazingly impressive special effects littered all throughout X-Men.

The acting is also very impressive. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as we all know, is a perfect casting choice, and he does fantastic in his role. Both Ian McKellan and Sir Patrick Stewart as Magneto and Professor X play two age old rivals magnificently, and are very believable as life long friends. All of the other smaller casting choices, such as Anna Paquin as Rogue, are also chosen very well. I must say, however, that I didn't like Sabretooth's character or the actor who played him, Tyler Mane. Although he was a good casting choice for the character, Mane didn't really impress me with his acting abilities.

Another complaint I have, which may be small, is a small portion in the film in which a couple different characters do certain actions that don't fit their personalities, but solely to advance the plot. Their actions are necessary, as called for by the script, but their nature and deeds don't match up. This only occurs at a specific time that's tough to talk in depth about without spoilers, but it's still present, and stands out as a negative on the script's part.

Comprehensively, X-Men is a great film. It stands out as a landmark in the superhero genre of film, and contains much enjoyment in it. Despite it being flawed, I would recommend X-Men to anyone who enjoys superhero, or action, movies.

Secondhand Lions is directed by Tim McCanlies and stars Haley Joel Osment as Walter, a boy living in the 1950's with a mom that is a very irresponsible parent. When his mother decides that she's going to college, which Walter is suspicious of being dishonest, she drops him off at his two great uncles' house in Texas. He's never met these uncles, but, while living with them, will learn and experience many different things about life and being a man.

I was raised on Secondhand Lions. I remember watching this movie for the first time as a five year old with my grandmother. I recently rewatched it, and it isn't' the perfect film I remembered it to be, however still being an amazing story. The lessons that Walter learns while living with his uncles are very coming-to-age worthy, and fit perfectly well with the theme of this movie, that being that believing in specific things, true or not, is necessary to live a happy life.

The best thing Secondhand Lions seems to offer is the incredible acting talent delivered by each and every actor credited. Michael Caine and Robert Duvall, two legendary actors cast as uncles Hub and Garth, both do amazing as the characters they're cast for, however different they may be from each other. Hub likes to fight, and give "becoming a man" speeches to teenage "punks" that he beats up, while Garth likes to garden and tell tales of the past, however accurate they may be. Both of these actors do great in their roles, and play great parenting figures for young Walter, played excellently by the mid-adolescent Haley Joel Osment.

The direction is nothing to clap for, but it isn't bad, either. Secondhand Lions is the second film directed by Tim McCanlies, after Dancer, Texas Pop. 81 (1998), and, while his abilities have improved, he could still use a bit more practice. Although the action scenes aren't abundant, they are filmed well, and deserve recognition. Other than that, however, most of the rest of the movie is just exposition or "talking" scenes. Although said scenes are entertaining, the direction is pretty usual, and doesn't exactly add anything particular to the film.

The pacing isn't the greatest either. Throughout almost the entire film, Uncle Garth is periodically telling Walter about his and Hub's past together. However, the spacing of these flashback scenes is actually pretty substandard. Within thirty minutes, twenty of it will have been dedicated to the flashbacks, and then we see no flashbacks for another half hour. The film also takes place in a single summer, and a lot of the film will focus on a particular day, and then jump forward in time without explanation. The pacing of the film is collectively poor, and could've been improved upon.

The last thing I'll mention is unfortunately a negative, but not a huge one. There are a couple characters that seem somewhat unnecessary, and are spontaneously thrown into the plot for a small purpose, or no purpose at all, and then are abandoned by the script. This stole attention from the story's true intention, which is to tell a great story. If some of these characters were removed, or served a greater purpose, then this complaint would be put to rest very quickly.

In conclusion, Secondhand Lions is actually a really good film, there's just a few smaller aspects of it that are sub-par. If the filmmakers would've tweaked a couple things, Secondhand Lions would be one of the greatest coming-to-age films ever made. However, I still would recommend this film almost anybody, because it is an enjoyable time.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is directed by Rupert Wyatt and is the first film in a trilogy of prequels to the 1968 film Planet of the Apes, in which an astronaut finds himself on a planet completely run by apes. Rise of the Planet of the Apes displays just exactly how the apes came to power on Earth, and the early life of their leader, Caesar. Caesar was a test subject for a drug that was said to cure Alzheimer's disease, and became irregularly intelligent due to it. Once the creator of the drug, Will Rodman, smuggles Caesar home to raise him, some difficult things start to happen.

After the cinematic disaster that was Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes (2001), I was very uneasy about the thought of a prequel to the original 1968 film, which still holds a landmark spot in cinematic history. However, I was completely surprised in every single way. Almost everything about Rise of the Planet of the Apes is very good, and it's easily one of my favorite films of 2011. The acting, direction, and especially special effects (namely motion capture work) of Rise of the Planet of the Apes was exactly on point, and I loved almost every minute of it.

The one thing I simply have to mention about this movie is the motion capture work and acting displayed by Andy Serkis. Not only does Andy Serkis give an Oscar worthy performance (seriously, give him an Oscar) in this film, but he does some of, if not the, best motion capture work ever put to film. The incredible depth and emotion given to Caesar's character, played by Serkis, was absolutely flawless in any way possible. Serkis' performance mixed with the fantastic writing given by the script made for an all around flawless character with that of Caesar.

All of the other performances are also very good. James Franco does really good in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Although I was doubtful of his ability to play a scientist, he did very well, and exceeded any expectations I had for his performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. His relationship with Caesar was given a large amount of depth; the exact amount of depth it required to work in the film. Tom Felton pretty much played his best known character, Draco Malfoy (from the Harry Potter franchise), but he still played him well. His character earned much hate from the audience, which is exactly the way the filmmakers wanted it. All of the other acting, such as John Lithgow and Brian Cox, was also very good.

The main issue I had with Rise of the Planet of the Apes was the smaller characters that were written in to serve a single purpose, and nothing more. Some of the characters seemed to be in the film for one specific reason, be it a setup for a sequel, or exposition for the climax and resolution of the film itself. Not many characters were like this, but there were some. Once these characters had done the actions required by the script, they were erased from the movie one way or another. This got under my skin, but was only apparent after evaluation of the film.

Other than that small nit pick, I had no issues with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I enjoyed the film overall, and it was a very fun film to watch. Great direction, amazing acting, and absolutely perfect motion capture work by Andy Serkis added for a fantastic film, revitalizing the Apes franchise.

Fury is directed by David Ayer and stars Brad Pitt as Don "Wardaddy" Collier, the leader of an American World War II tank squad. During this time, German tanks were very superior that of the American models, so being in a tank squad was a hard job to commit to. However, once Logan Lerman's character, a drafted clerk named Norman, is assigned to Wardaddy's tank squad, he learns the true nature of war, and just some of the horrible things humans can do to one another.

I would, in a heartbeat, call Fury one of the best war films ever made. Fury almost perfectly follows in the footsteps of other legendary war films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Platoon (1986), which are both recognized as amazing feats in filmmaking. Fury is very close to perfect, and does almost everything right. Besides one very small issue, I loved every single minute of Fury, and felt that it's a fantastic movie.

The absolute best thing about Fury is the comradery between the men in the tank squad. The close friendship between Wardaddy (Pitt), Bible (Shia LaBeouf), Gordo (Michael Pena), Coon-A*s (Jon Bernthal), and, eventually, Norman (Lerman) is incredible. Due to the comradery expressed between the men, the audience begins to feel for each and every character, and have large amounts of both sorrow and pity on their behalfs. All of the actors do great as well. Fury is Logan Lerman's best work to date, being slightly better than that of his performance in The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), and way better than the Percy Jackson series. Brad Pitt also does amazing, as usual, along with Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal. Although I don't like him as an actor, I do have to say that Shia LaBeouf did really good in his role. His character was near flawlessly well rounded, and I felt for him and his situation.

The direction, by David Ayer, is amazing. Each and every shot of just how grotesque and awful war really is was shown magnificently, and brought a harsh realness to Fury. Also, however small the tank may be, the direction impressively seemed to enlarge it, as if there was actually room for five grown men to live regularly. The tank, called "Fury," is given the feel of a home, and begins to feel comforting to both the characters and the audience. However, it also feels claustrophobic, which was a great movie on Ayer's part. While giving the tank room to open up, it also felt very closed, which was a great aspect of Fury.

My only real problem with Fury was a small portion in the middle of the second act in which roughly twenty minutes of the runtime takes place in one small apartment. Although we learn insightful things about our characters, and the scene does feel necessary, it tends to drag on incredibly, near boring the viewer, and makes the film seem a lot longer than it actually is. This sequence was good, no doubt about it, but it was too long, and dragged on to the point of slight exasperation.

The last point I'll make about Fury is the gruesome aspect of it. Although some people can't handle over the top violence, Fury goes for the R rating with open arms. The war violence is over the top, almost to the point of insanity, but it gives a realistic feel to the film, as well as adding some gut wrenching scenes of death and destruction. Not everyone likes violence in movies, and that's understandable, but, for a war film like Fury, it works in every way possible. The extreme violence is acceptable for Fury, because of the point it tries to express: war is bad. War is disgusting, grotesque, and not a pretty thing. However, as humans, we have to accept that as a fact of life. This message is wonderfully displayed through the utmost violence and death.

Overall, Fury really is a great movie. Almost everything about it works in a positive way, and there's much enjoyment, and a good message, to be had in it. I'd recommend Fury to anyone who can handle a large amount of war violence.

Captain America: The First Avenger is directed by Joe Johnston and stars Chris Evans as scrawny Brooklyn kid Steve Rogers, who has a passion for joining the military and serving in World War II. However, he has a long list of health issues that prevent this, so he signs up for a super soldier program. This program involves him being testing upon so that he can be stronger, faster, and all around better at physical tasks. But, when a Nazi organization called Hydra, led by a man named Johann Schmidt, better known as the notorious Red Skull, comes in contact with a powerful object called the Tesseract, Steve Rogers, now called Captain America, must put his skills to good use.

Captain America: The First Avenger is actually a really good movie. Not many people expected much from this movie, but it was, overall, great. There were some issues with it, but not many, and the many positive aspects of the film highly outweighed the negative ones. The acting, direction, action, and script combine to make a respectable film that is Captain America: The First Avenger.

There's an old saying that applies to film that goes: "a movie is only as good as its villain." This is true in almost every single film, including the first Captain America. Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was a perfect casting choice, and an immensely overlooked villain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The character is understandable, and well rounded, which add for a great character altogether. Hugo Weaving does great as Red Skull, as expected, and put a newer spin on this older character.

Hugo Weaving isn't the only capable actor in this movie, however. Chris Evans, as Steve Rogers/Captain America is not only a great casting choice, but he lives up to the hype of his abilities. His large character arc is expressed in depth all throughout this film, and Cap is a great protagonist to follow. Hayley Atwell also does substantial in her role as Agent Peggy Carter. Her two sided bitter/sweet character was displayed amazingly by Atwell, and her performance stood out as one of the best. Other smaller role actors such as Tommy Lee Jones, Sebastian Stan, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, and Toby Jones all do fine as well.

The way that Joe Johnston directed the action is really good. Each action scene is cleanly cut, with no shaky cam present at all. Wide shots of snow permeated forests are very nice to look at, so props to Johnston and the cinematographer, Shelly Johnson. The score, by Alan Silvestri, is pretty nice as well. The main theme ("Captain America Main Titles") stands out to me the most as superior to the rest, however opinionated that may be. Despite my having a favorite, all of the themes are great, and add a whole lot to Cap's origin story.

Now, my biggest (and only) issue with Captain America: The First Avenger is actually a big one. Once Steve Rogers becomes Captain America, the film quickly montages over many of his cool moments, and it was quite disappointing. After the audience patiently waits to see Cap in action, the film practically skips over a ton of cool scenes, and wasted a lot of potential. Parts of the film that could've been really cool turned into a massive let down. However, once the film picks up, it picks up fast, and partially makes up for its montage sequence.

Besides that, I didn't have any major issues with Captain America: The First Avenger. Overall, it was a great film, and I enjoyed almost everything about it. I'd recommend Captain America: The First Avenger to anyone who likes superheroes and well filmed action.

Life of Pi is directed by Ang Lee and is the story of a young man who, after surviving a sinking freight ship, is stranded in the Pacific Ocean with nothing but a single life boat and a tiger named Richard Parker. As older Pi is explaining the story to an author, the film goes very in depth upon the relationship between Pi and Richard Parker, and the psychological and physical journey that young Pi goes on.

What I got from Life of Pi was much more than I expected. Due to the trailers and its Oscar for visual effects, I expected a color orgy with no heart to it, made purely as Oscar bait. However, Life of Pi was a lot more than that. This film was deep, and was all around a great story. There were some poor aspects of the movie, but overall it was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself when watching Life of Pi, and thought it was a great movie.

As far as cinematography and special effects go, Life of Pi is a masterpiece. Few films have ever looked better than this. Almost the entire film is complete CGI, and it works on incredible levels of expertise. Besides Pi himself, and the small boat, everything was completely CG, and I was blown away. The detail on the ocean, and fish, and especially the tiger, Richard Parker, was amazing. I would honestly compare the cinematography in Life of Pi to that of Avatar (2009).

The acting was fantastic as well. Suraj Sharma, who portrayed young Pi, did great. His kindness, with a burst of ferocity, was displayed on screen very well. Through most of the run time, Pi was a calm and collective young man, with a large amount of both patience and faith. However, he occasionally would have outbursts of rage, due to his situation, and Sharma pulled this off very well. Irrfan Khan, who played older Pi, also did very well. This man is already a highly respectable actor, with great capabilities, but he brought a lot to this film. His character was very wise and experienced, and this was shown greatly by Khan.

Ang Lee's direction was astounding, to say the least. Each and every shot was fantastically filmed, with easily believable CGI mixed in with a real environment. During suspenseful sequences, the film lacked any shaky cam or quick cuts. Many shots were underwater, and they, especially, looked great. One particular shot which involved a sinking ship already halfway underwater looked so amazingly real my jaw literally dropped. Most of these shots were great, and added a scary depth to the oceanic aspect of the movie.

Another really good thing about Life of Pi that is worth mentioning is the realness to the tiger, Richard Parker. Although his character is an animal, and is completely CGI, the film gives so many personality traits to the tiger just through his actions and relationship with Pi. Richard Parker is given more depth than most animals in film, and really grew on the audience quickly. His relationship with Pi was also very deep, which felt nice to see in the movie.

Now, the main thing I disliked about Life of Pi was the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film, in which Pi's childhood is displayed. Not all of his childhood was slow, but the beginning of it was very bland, slow, and all around just not entertaining. There were a few things in Pi's childhood that actually mattered later on in the film, but there were a couple unnecessary subplots that just felt like failed attempts to flesh out both Pi and his family, and they just didn't work that well. However, once the story picks up, it really starts going, and going fast.

Another thing that I felt was somewhat disappointing was a certain part in the film in which Pi finds temporary shelter. However, the film later tries to explain the shelter, and ruins the effect it had on Pi. It's hard to explain without spoilers, but it felt as if the film had just stopped, and the movie later on blows the idea out of the water, no pun intended, and makes it slightly irrelevant. Other than that, however, I didn't find any other issues with Life of Pi.

Overall, Life of Pi was a really good movie. It had mind blowing visuals, great direction, and some really good acting too. I enjoyed Life of Pi, and I would recommend it to anyone who would enjoy an adventure, as long as you don't get seasick easily.

Fight Club is directed by David Fincher and stars Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf, and Jared Leto. Edward Norton's character, known only as the Narrator, is living a depressing life. His day job is behind a desk, and he accompanies himself by buying things that he doesn't really need in order to find fulfillment in his life. He begins attending support groups for conditions that he doesn't have, in order to feel relief through expressing his pain to those who have it worse.

Once Bonham Carter's character, Marla Singer, begins showing up to these meetings, he begins to feel remorse in his life again. However, once he meets cool guy Tyler Durden (Pitt), he, along with Tyler, start a "fight club," a place in which men who seek fulfillment may find it through beating each other up. Once things with both Tyler and Marla begin to get a bit shaky, our Narrator must fix his own problems without the help of others.

It's very rare to find a film in which you completely love everything about. In my humble opinion, however, Fight Club is easily one of the best films ever made. With its eerie direction, fantastic acting, and more than compelling characters, Fight Club is as close as it gets to perfect, with no issues to be found in it. The flawless script contributes to my liking of this movie, due to amazing dialogue and great detail upon the current setting.

If anyone has ever read the script for Fight Club, it's just shy of 200 pages, and that is magnificently impressive. The detail the script goes into is purely astounding, and the lines are written, and performed, perfectly. The script, written by Jim Uhls (and based off of the novel by Chuck Palahniuk), is incredibly written in near every way, with great in depth depictions of how each shot was to be set up, and how the actors were to perform their lines.

The direction, by David Fincher, is exemplary, with great camera angles and surprisingly memorable shots. The shot I remember most particularly is when Tyler Durden is delivering the final rule of fight club (that being the eighth), and the camera zooms on the side of his face, passing his head and spinning quickly to the next shot of two men fighting. Every single shot, like the one just mentioned, is brilliant, excellently pulled off by Fincher.

The characters, combined with the talented acting behind them, is also very unique. Although the Narrator is supposed to be a boring everyday man, the viewer cares for his situations deeply. Throughout the film, he breaks the fourth wall multiple times, and this adds a very personal level the caring for him through the entire run time of the film. Norton plays this character wonderfully, thanks to his great acting abilities. The character of Tyler Durden is easily one of the best, and coolest, characters ever put to film. Every line that Pitt delivers as Tyler is flawless, and deserves all the recognition that a character, and his actor, could ever receive.

The other characters, such as Bonham Carter's Marla, Meat Loaf's Bob, and Jared Leto's Angel Face, are also amazing. The audience quickly sympathizes with everybody in the film, thanks to great acting and dialogue. Once again, the script's lines are written and delivered flawlessly, with each actor giving his or her line ideally. Each character is well rounded, and has a great arc throughout the run time of Fight Club.

The pacing of Fight Club is also astounding. An almost 2 hour 30 minute film goes by as if the story is told in 20 minutes, and flies by so quickly. This is mostly due to the quick, yet detailed, script, and fantastic direction. Both Fincher and Uhls make this movie zoom by, as if no time has gone by at all. Each of the actors also contribute to this aspect, ultimately making the film feel very short.

The last thing I'll mention is the plot twist. Without spoiling anything, Fight Club has one of, if not the, best plot twists in film history. Everything throughout the film sets up for the twist, yet we, the audience, don't pick up on the clues when watching the film for the first time. Fight Club is a rare type of film in which contains a better experience watching it for the second time than watching it for the first. The twist is perfectly built up to, and flawlessly executed in every way.

Overall, Fight Club is one of my favorite films of all time, and I like to say that it's one of the best movies ever made. I'd recommend Fight Club to anyone that can handle violence and language, because it's truly worth anyone's time.

Spiderman 3 is directed by Sam Raimi and is the final installment of the Raimi Spiderman trilogy, after Spiderman (2002) and Spiderman 2 (2004). Now that nerdy college kid Peter Parker has got the girl, he can focus solely on being Spiderman during the day, rather than having to deal with girl drama, right? Well, when three (yes, three) new villains come to town, he must put aside his relationship with Mary Jane and fight Venom, Sandman, and Green Goblin number 2.

The above paragraph sounds confusing and partly inconceivable, and that's pretty much how this whole film was. Spiderman 3 was an absolute mess, relying just on the nostalgia of fanboys to carry it. Not much was going for this film, but, to its credit, what was going for it was really good, such as direction and special effects. However, an overabundance of characters and subplots, a bad script, and some very poor acting pulled this movie way below the bar.

The thing that surprised me the most about Spiderman 3 is Tobey Maguire's acting. All throughout the first two Spiderman films, Tobey Maguire was great as both Peter Parker and Spidey. However, Maguire's acting abilities in Spiderman 3 were just not present. In this installment, Maguire had to play Peter, "bad" Peter, Spiderman, and "bad" Spiderman, and he just couldn't handle it. It pains me to say that Tobey Maguire's acting in this film was less than mediocre, and he could've done way better, to say the least.

Not much of the other actors did that great either. Both Kirsten Dunst and James Franco as Mary Jane and Harry Osborn play their same old selves, with not much going for them. As seen in the end of Spiderman 2 (2004), Harry has taken up his father's legacy of the Green Goblin, so he has a new dark side to him. However, Franco doesn't pull this off at all. His "dark side" is more a whiny brat not willing to listen to reason about the truth of his father's death, and it got excessively annoying. Kirsten Dunst doesn't bring anything new or special to the character of MJ, and Topher Grace was probably the best actor throughout the entire film, playing Peter's competitor at work, Eddie Brock.

The direction and special effects are really good, to be completely honest. Sam Raimi once again does great behind the camera, and uses his skill to film clean, nice looking action sequences. The special effects in Spiderman 3 are even slightly better than that in the first two films, which is impressive, considering how good those effects were. This may be due to Spiderman 3's bigger budget, but it still is a nice thing to see in an overall boring movie.

The tiring amount of villains is really what hit this film hard. Although the audience may understand the motives and actions of Goblin, Sandman, and Venom, their characters aren't greatly developed. Sandman is just trying to collect money to help his sick daughter, which is nice and all, but his subplot changes a sturdy event that occurred in Spiderman (2002), which was a bad move on the script's part. Venom was quickly shoehorned in during the last act of the film, and his character was overall boring and quite dull. Goblin's motives were easily changeable, which took away from the character a lot.

The script was also pretty bad. The entire film has some awful dialogue, and jumps around often. The abundance of subplots is very bad for the film, and screws it over in unimaginable ways. Many lines were either cheesy, or just horrible, and, without good line delivery from the actors, the script ends up being a convoluted mess, too heavily relying on characters and actors to carry the film, which just didn't happen.

In conclusion, Spiderman 3 isn't completely terrible, it just is an extreme let down from the amazing heights presented in the first two installments. With poor acting, characters, and a bad script, I'd recommend Spiderman 3 to anyone who enjoys superhero (or Marvel) movies, as long as you prepare yourself for a mess before hand.

Alien Resurrection is directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and once again stars Sigourney Weaver, this time as a clone of Ellen Ripley. 200 years after the events of Alien 3 (1992), Ripley is resurrected, hence the title, so that scientists can extract the alien queen that was inside of her. However, this Ripley is a hybrid of Ripley and an alien queen, so she has a few extra perks, such as super strength and acid blood. When an alien breaks loose on the ship she's on, she must team up with space pirates to ultimately stop it from killing everyone on board.

Simply put, this film was trash. I found nothing good about Alien: Resurrection; even Sigourney Weaver's acting was pretty bad.. Not a single thing in Alien: Resurrection was good, and I could barely force myself to keep watching it. The direction, the script, the characters, the acting, and even the special effects were bad. Everything about Alien: Resurrection was completely awful.

The worst thing about Alien: Resurrection was the characters and the actors that portrayed them. Sigourney Weaver doesn't do bad, but she's far from good. All of the other actors are pretty bad, and were disappointing in every single way, especially that of Winona Ryder. Both her acting and character, Call, was horrible. Her character was annoying and got in the way of any productivity, and Ryder didn't even play the part well. All of her lines were delivered as if a 9 year old child was delivering them.

The script and direction are both incredibly lazy. Not a single shot in the entire film stands out, and the lines written are either boring or bad. The few lines that aren't complete garbage are bland, and feel like a premature script writer with no experience had written them. The saddest thing is, Joss Whedon wrote the script. His abilities have obviously matured since that of Alien: Resurrection, but that doesn't excuse the bad writing. All of the direction was pretty boring and grim, and didn't provide the film with a decent atmosphere.

The special effects, while not as bad as in Alien 3 (1992), still aren't that good. Most of the shots of an alien swimming, or climbing a ladder, or running on walls looked really fake and inexcusable. Most of the "suspenseful" moments with the protagonists running from the aliens were completely tensionless, mostly due to the audience not even caring about the characters. Even Ripley's character has no feel to her, because she's not even Ripley; she's a clone of the actual Ellen Ripley, who was killed 200 years prior to this film's setting. All dynamics were stripped from the characters by the poor script, and left the characters as nothing more than names and bad acting.

The worst part of Alien: Resurrection is the main antagonist towards the end of the film. I don't want to go into details and end up spoiling it, but the alien that Ripley is forced to fight at the end of the film is just awful. Nothing about this villain was compelling, or even scary. Not only was the character in itself bad, it also looked terribly unpleasant. Although the aliens are regularly grotesque, this particular antagonist was just horrible in every single way.

In conclusion, Alien: Resurrection never should've been made. Not only is the script lacking, the characters are appalling, and aren't portrayed well. Alien: Resurrection is a step down from all three of its prior films in every single way, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Alien 3 is directed by David Fincher and is a direct continuation of Aliens (1986). In this installment, Ripley, Newt, and Hicks have crash landed on Fiorina 161, a planet with nothing but prisoners on it. However, things take a dark twist when they find that an alien was aboard their ship when they landed, and it's now on the planet with them.

Most people hate Alien 3, but I actually enjoyed it overall. It had issues, yes, but they weren't completely abundant, and it had a lot of good aspects to it as well. Alien 3 isn't as good as it's previous installments, but it isn't bad either. The script and acting were both really good, and most characters were likable. Even the ones that weren't likable were written that way, so it didn't affect the film negatively.

The acting all throughout Alien 3 was actually really good. Sigourney Weaver once again kills it as Ellen Ripley, the awesome alien survivor. Charles S. Dutton was actually really good as Dillon, the preacher with a bad past. His character was very well rounded, and the script portrayed him as a peacekeeper, which Dutton played very nicely. Charles Dance was pretty good as Clemens, the nice guy out of all of the prisoners. He was the only character with a soft side to him, and Dance showed this very well through his acting abilities.

The direction, by David Fincher, is good, but also bad in a sense. Although no quick cuts or shaky cam is present, and the overall direction is good, the film is very dark, and depressing, much like most Fincher films. Although Alien 3's direction isn't necessarily bad, the overall tone of the film was more of a David Fincher feel than an Alien feel. At times, I would use the word boring to describe the tone of the movie. The entire planet is dark, and disgusting, and I just wanted out of it.

The script is very well written. All of the dialogue was written and performed very nicely, and brought a great aspect to Alien 3. All of the actors performed their lines very well, and no bad acting was to be found. The pacing of Alien 3 is also pretty strong. Although the grimness of the film is slightly boring, once the story picks up, it really picks up. There were moments when I was on the edge of my seat, and was afraid for the characters' lives, which is a great job on the flimmakers' parts. The eerie direction may have taken away from this feel a little bit, but not enough to ruin an overall good film.

Now, my main problem with Alien 3 is the special effects. When practical effects are used, it's mostly just up close, and it looks great, just like the prior two Alien films. The grotesque alien faces are well crafted, and look perfectly fine. However, the CGI is awful. Alien 3 honestly contains some of the worst CGI I've ever seen in a movie. Every shot of a CG alien crawling along the walls, or on the ceiling, looks horrible, and almost as if a middle schooler used a cheap camera and editing software to create the effects.

Overall, Alien 3 is a pretty good movie. The characters are likable with good actors behind them, and the script is great as well. Gloomy direction and terrible CGI definitely weren't enough to drag this pretty good film down.

The Ringer is directed by Barry W. Blaustein and is the story of a man named Stevie who, when his friend Stavvi loses some fingers, is pressured by his gambling uncle to enter the Special Olympics as a mentally slow man in order to earn a lot of money. After wrongly entering the Special Olympics, Stevie poses as a man named Jeffie, and runs across multiple conflicts throughout his time at the event. That's pretty much the entire movie.

I was actually expecting a complete pile of trash prior to watching The Ringer, but it wasn't completely awful. It had some good comedy throughout parts, and most of the acting was decent. Although The Ringer had some poor direction and a lazy script, it wasn't fully horrible. It had some good aspects.

The best thing for The Ringer was the acting. Johnny Knoxville was pretty good, as both of his characters. He technically was acting as a guy who was acting as another guy, which is somewhat confusing, but he played both Stevie and Jeffie pretty well. Brian Cox, who played Stevie's uncle, was the highlight of this movie for me, due to his good acting. He played a gambling man who was in deep with the wrong people, so he bet on Stevie winning the Special Olympics, and did it well. All of the other acting was fine. Nobody else did great, but there wasn't any bad acting either.

Some of the comedy was pulled off decently well. Although the film was making fun of mentally challenged people, it was supported by the actual Special Olympics, so I guess nobody can really defend them. A few lines that were written for laughs didn't receive any, and some of the jokes were pretty stale. However, a few lines did have me laughing, and laughing hard. Not all of the comedy is bad, just some of it.

The worst thing I found in The Ringer was the direction. It wasn't completely awful, but it was horribly bland and boring. Most of the time, I felt as if I were watching a cheap Lifetime movie, and I shouldn't have felt that way. Most of the shots were very boring, and the direction didn't do anything good for the film at all.

The script was also quite lazy. For example, a specific person's opinion on a subject will change from scene to scene, even though the subject may be a bit touchy. The script quickly brushed over these types of scenarios, and it felt very lazy and rushed. Most of the dialogue was somewhat cliché, and a lot of it was surprisingly flat. Not many lines had me asking questions, or even wanting to see more of the film. That's not a good thing.

Overall, The Ringer wasn't awful, but it most definitely wasn't good. Although it did contain some good acting and some funny comedy, those couldn't save The Ringer from a bad script and poor direction.

Captain America: Civil War is directed by both Anthony and Joe Russo and is a sequel to 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, also directed by the Russo brothers. After an accident occurred while the new Avengers were on the hunt for Crossbones, the United States government proposes that the Avengers be government controlled. Captain America disagrees with the idea, and Iron Man is all for it. This conflict in decision begins to rip the Avengers apart, starting a civil war.

I was really on the edge over Captain America: Civil War. I loved both the previous two Captain America movies, and the two Avengers installments as well. Walking out of the theater, I got all I had wanted and more. Captain America: Civil War is now my favorite Marvel film to date. I loved everything about it, and was so happy to see just how amazingly well everything worked out.

The Russo brothers did absolutely amazing with this movie. Not only are all of the characters flawlessly well rounded, but the direction and script are fantastic as well. The direction perfectly captured all of the action throughout the film, and was handled very nicely. Many wide shots were used, and the action was without shaky cam or quick cuts. All of the dialogue was near flawless as well. The audience is very subtly introduced to the conflict between Captain America and Iron Man, and dives deeper into it as the film progresses. The points presented by both sides are both right in there own ways, and that adds so much to this movie.

The characters in Civil War are as close to perfect as it gets. I cared for every character in the film, whether they be a superhero or not. Black Panther's introduction into the Marvel Cinematic Universe was great, and I can't wait for his solo film in 2018. Spiderman in this film is, in my opinion, the best on screen Spiderman of all time. I like Tom Holland as the web head a bit better than Tobey Maguire, and way better than Andrew Garfield. His suit was great, and he delivered a lot of quips while fighting, just like the fans wanted. Lines such as "You have the right to remain silent!" or "You have a metal arm? That's awesome, dude!" made Spiderman near perfect in this movie. I loved the characters of both Spiderman and Black Panther.

Besides the fact of the new characters, the Russo brothers also went deeper into the characters that we've already seen. Vision was given a lot more depth through Civil War, as was Scarlet Witch. The relationship between the two was great, and was given the attention it deserved. Both Hawkeye and Black Widow got a lot of screen time, and Hawkeye's relationship with Scarlet Witch, which he inspired to become an Avenger at the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), was explored more deeply, and played off very well. Black Widow's internal conflict with which team she truly supported was shown neatly, however not distracting from the main plot.

Both Iron Man and Captain America were fleshed out much more than they have been before, despite how long the two have been in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Their struggles with each other was astounding at how well it was used. Falcon and War Machine were both given a lot more attention than they have been before, and that worked amazingly. As seen in the trailer, War Machine gets injured, and that gave his character a lot more depth. Falcon's friendship with Captain America was expressed more heavily, now that they know each other better. Cap's relationship with Bucky was also incredible. The exploration dealt to Bucky's character was high, and appreciated very much. And, without spoiling anything, Ant Man's character was, simply put, flawless all throughout Civil War.

All of the acting was great as well. Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Sebastian Stan, Chadwick Boseman, Jeremy Renner, Tom Holland, Paul Rudd, William Hurt, and Daniel Bruhl all did fantastic. Each performance was unique in its own way, and all of the characters were played greatly. Each actor's portrayal of his or her character was amazing, and each and every character was given the depth they deserved.

Overall, Captain America: Civil War is my favorite Marvel movie to date, and my second favorite comic book movie, topped only by The Dark Knight (2008). The Russo brothers have made a true masterpiece of a film, heightening all expectations for Avengers: Infinity War Parts I and II (2018-2019).