Change Your Image
judeknicks
Reviews
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
It's bad, here's why
During previews for the Nutcracker & The Four Realms, there were many children's films coming soon to theaters. After counting all the previews, I found that four of six were remakes of classic stories being remade by Walt Disney Studios. The incentive for making so many films is to make a huge profit, which is a fair enough reason considering the box office takes of Beauty & The Beast, Cinderella, and Maleficent. Those were good movies in their own right, which is something that simply cannot be said about this movie. I thought the critics would be wrong, but they were certainly right about the film being bad. If Disney wants this next slate of remakes to be critically and financially successful, it must do everything it can to not to follow in The Nutcracker's footsteps. This is my first bad review in quite some time, so shall we begin?
I am not used to writing reviews in the format reserved for bad movies, but since this is one, let us begin with the great aspects of The Nutcracker & The Four Realms. With a budget of $120 million, the producers and visual artists had quite a bit to work with, but certainly not enough to match the effects of the most visually splendid films, such as Avengers: Infinity War ($316-400 million), Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($300 million), and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ($200 million). Usually, films that have the same budget as this film have very noticeably CGI effects that don't come off great at least in my eyes, such as Rampage and Ghost Rider, which also aren't good film company to serve as comparison. To compare to a fellow Disney remake, Beauty & The Beast has a budget of $175 million, which was used very well. However (in a good way), The Nutcracker's visuals were absolutely on par with those visually splendid films. The world's created with the CGI were beautifully rendered, and the set design in the real-world scenes was extravagant and fitting for the Christmas-based period in time. The costumes were also well-designed and fitting for the settings. Due to the bad reception, it is unlikely, but I truly believe that this film should be nominated for an Oscar for its costume design. Visual splendor cannot carry a film towards overall excellence, but the visuals for this film certainly keep it from sinking rock bottom.
Another positive element of the film was the beautiful film score that incorporated Tchaikovsky's classic pieces and some new content very well. Of course, being a film based on classic ballet, it must have Tchaikovsky and classical music or else it would be as dumb as Gotti using Pitbull music even though it was based in the 1980s. Along with the proper incorporation of classical music, the first half of the film was a great set-up that felt homely and harkened back to some childhood memories. The sets were great, we got more of Morgan Freeman, and the ballet performance by Misty Copeland was among the best scenes in all of the film industry for 2018. That is where the praise for this film ends.
With the runtime clocking in at only one hour and 35 minutes, there is so much film to pack out in such a short timeframe. With these limitations, the movie moves too fast as we enter the world of The Four Realms. There is a lot of missing information that would allow the circumstances of conflict presented to make sense if they were properly explained. Instead, there is little explanation as to why there is any form of conflict. I've begun to care less about plot holes by understanding that filmmakers seek to reap box office results first, but when a film does not give explanation as to what events occurred for conflict to exist, it just doesn't make sense.
I'd say that another atrocity committed in the film was its use of clichés from other Disney films while utilizing them in the worst way possible. I was shocked by how much content and elements that The Nutcracker borrowed from other Disney films, especially considering that this is a Disney film itself. It was made worse by the fact that these elements were ultimately executed in the worst way possible. This movie borrowed heavily from the first Chronicles of Narnia, which seems like a bad sin made worse considering both films are made by Disney.
Since the film aims to appeal to young viewers aged 10 and under, there was a lot of childlike humor and tone that made the film feel corny. It isn't impossible to include quality humor in a kid's film, but The Nutcrackerfell into the bad side of appealing to children. I should've expected that, but considering the maturity found in many Disney films such as The Incredibles 2and Big Hero Six, I was very disappointed and felt like I was an adult with a child's mind for sitting through the movie.
The last disappointing aspect of The Nutcracker & The Four Realmswas the performances of the main leads. Mackenzie Foy, whose claim to fame was in Twilight along with a great performance in Interstellar, was largely lifeless in this movie. The delivery of the lines came out flat, which contributed to the film's corny feel. Keira Knightley exacerbated this feel with her awful, nasal voice and too many moments of overacting. I'd say that Jayden Fowora-Knight, who played Captain Philip who was supposed to be the Nutcracker but there never was any Nutcracker, also had the same problems as Mackenzie Foy. A few other actors weren't bad but just overtly childish. Helen Mirren did well with what she had, but she was barely in the movie.
When trailers for the film were released in December of 2017, I was really excited for the film. The release date came perfectly in time for the beginning of the Christmas season, and the story is a timeless classic. After months of waiting and doubting the bad reviews, I can verify that those reviews were warranted. Despite a great beginning and some very positive attributes, the film largely gets lost within Disney clichés and corny moments. If you want a very good version of the classic Nutcracker story to make your holiday mainstay, just watch the Barbie version or see a live ballet. The Nutcracker & The Four Realmshas unfortunately earned its place among the very worst films of 2018, and worst films that Disney has ever made.
Translating my frustrations into a rating, I would give this movie 5 stars out of 10, which means the movie is simply not worth your time. I really loved the first twenty minutes of the film, so those portions of the film would be worth watching. Otherwise, there are other ways to be productive.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Electrifying & Dazzling, with some cheese
Music biopics are arguably more entertaining than documentaries since they tell a (largely) true story about the subject matter while following a cinematic movie formula. However, this happens to be the biggest weakness for them, as history is often rewritten and edited for the sake of dramatic effect. Since this review is overall positive, I will begin with the negatives by addressing historical inaccuracies as one of the films biggest weakness. For Bohemian Rhapsody, the same issue occurred during the writing of the script, which made many of the dramatic elements seem overacted and unnecessary. Many moments of Freddie's real life are implemented into the story to add tension and drama to the relationship among the band members when in actuality there was not nearly the same level of tension. The film is being heavily criticized by liberals for being demeaning towards the LGBTQ, where really the issue I have is that it often portrays Mercury as the cause of all the band's problems just for dramatic effect. While largely paying homage to the legend, many parts of the film make him look like the stereotypical asshole diva superstar that was not the complete truth. I will not further describe which scenes are historically inaccurate, but I will leave a link to a page that will gladly do so, if you dare.
Another aspect of weakness that I found with the film was the dramatic "cheese", moments added to add drama to make the film more like a film. To me, these attempts to make the biopic more cinematic came across as, to quote Childish Gambino, "unnecessary". Even with the largely amazing performance from Rami Malek (more on him later), there were moments where his dramatic acting fell short and the scene came across as almost laughable. While I do have more to say on his performance and the performances of the other cast members, I do not believe that Malek deserves an Oscar nomination.
With that said, the film also seemed to rush through the rise of Queen as a band and their ascent to fame. It takes a matter of twenty minutes or so for the band to go from starting off to signing with John Reid (Aiden Gillen, did good), which was a big deal since Reid was the manager for Sir Elton John. Many biopics follow suit with this as well; Straight Outta Compton, still the best biopic ever, had the rap group's rise and breakup happen within the first half of the movie, which left room for other aspects of the lives involved with the band members. Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't able to use this formula the best way nor did the movie suffer as a whole, but I certainly would've liked to see more scenes centering on the band's rise. Overall, the film "needed" to add drama and fake history to add to the cinematic effect and fill in the runtime. While these aspects may have hurt Bohemian Rhapsody from being truly amazing, the music and performances were amazing.
I must bestow praise to all those involved with camerawork, film editing, and set designers for their amazing artistic input that brought the movie to life. Every music biopic that I have seen has made me appreciate the music and the artist(s) more. I have felt a connection with these films that have made them worth investing time into over and over again. All previous biopics, however, pale in comparison to the magic of Queen that Bohemian Rhapsody brought to life with such realism. The settings, costumes, and perfect recreation of the band's performances allowed this film to emerge from its weaknesses to become a truly enjoyable experience. It also set this film apart from other biopics by adding a unique style and flair that exemplifies what Queen as a band embraced back in the day. It'll send chills through your spine and maybe inspire you to become the next great music artist, because God knows we need much help fixing music (except rap).
The performances by the cast members themselves were amazing across the board, from the band members of Queen to the supporting characters of the story. The highlights were Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury (obviously), who prevails through some bad moments by nailing all the movements and mannerisms of Mr. Mercury. The live performance scenes in particular were perfectly executed, as the lip-syncing and Mercury theatrics would make you believe that Rami was Freddie himself. I was also impressed with Gwilym Lee's excellent turn as guitarist Brian May, achieving the perfect recreation of May from accent to acting according to the scene's tone and objective. One more performance I would like to highlight was Lucy Boynton as Mary Austin, who I believe brought the most emotional complexion among the cast, being able to properly add drama to an otherwise lighthearted film.
Even though I highlighted the recreation of the setting and band performances already, I must write a separate paragraph to highlight the final scene of the film. That would be the re-enactment of Queen's legendary Live-Aid performance at Wembley Stadium in 1985. I have already pronounced it personally as one of the greatest movie scenes of all time, because it perfectly recreates the excitement, energy, and spectrum of the band's performance that they gave many years ago. I felt that I was apart of that crowd and that Rami Malek was in fact Freddie Mercury while being inspiring. When a film can do that to your emotions, it is a truly well-crafted work of art. Call me melodramatic, but I am somewhat of a Mercury-level diva myself.
As with all films, Bohemian Rhapsody is not without flaws; there are moments of overly-dramatic elements, and some of the actual history has been rewritten to add to this effect. These flaws should only be in a made-for-TV movie on Lifetime Network, but certainly not the film's positive qualities. Bolstered by the set design, amazing cinematography, editing, and cast performances, the film is certainly an achievement for music biopics. It brings one of the greatest songwriters and vocalists to life, and gives audiences a movie centered on a band who made music for the people. Critics can say what they want, but ask the fans of rock and they'll place Queen among the greatest acts of all time. The film brought them to life in astounding fashion, and has allowed to world to gain a greater appreciation for art that we may never encounter again.
Overall, I would bestow this film an 8/10, which translates to being worth your $12.
I have already seen this film twice in a span of three days, so it may be worth buying on Blu-Ray eventually.
The Meg (2018)
Average, and not much fun
Every summer, there seems to be a new shark movie that is released just as folks are heading out to the beach. Maybe they're made to scare people off, or maybe it's based on the fact that these movies make a lot of money. The Meg is by far the most high-profile, effects driven shark movie since Jaws. No, the terribly awful Sharknado films do not count, and they are made for TV. Going back to this film, the previews marketed the film as a fun time and exhilarating ride. However, even though I can say that the movie was not terrible, it definitely wasn't much fun, and that is the major disappointment.As always, let us begin with the aspects of the film that were good.
First off, we have Jason Statham as the lead role, which is an opportunity that he makes the most of. His character, Jonas Taylor, is a former rescue diver haunted by an incident in the past that resulted in the lives of two scientists. Living a quiet life in Thailand, he is recruited by Mana One, an ocean research facility, to rescue trapped members in a submarine that have been attacked by an unknown creature. His character develops as the movie progresses, going from a loner who wants to live a quiet life to a leader who places the lives of his crew mates above his own. Along with Statham, I also felt that Dwight K. Schrute (I mean Rainn Wilson) was entertaining as Dwight K. Schrute being a billionaire and fighting a prehistoric shark.
Of course, the most important aspect of an action movie is the action, in which the film di not fail to deliver entirely. The effects were realistic CGI, which is an achievement considering that computerizing a 75 foot-long shark to fight props and submarines is a hard feat. We can thank the Chinese production companies that spent the money to make this film when a Hollywood-based probably wouldn't do so. However, even though the action sequences are intense, there are much fewer scenes than I would've preferred to see.
This leads to the main weakness for this film: the lack of action sequences and fun. I care about quality more than anything, but when a film is marketed as a fun, action-packed adventure, that is the expectation that you go into the theater with. Unfortunately with The Meg, there is a lot more talking present. It ruins the pace of the film because the action will be interrupted multiple times by dialogue that, while relevant, is misplaced with the pacing. Also, the lead actress, Li Bingbing, did quite poorly when speaking English lines that it was distracting. When she spoke Mandarin, the scenes were well acted. It may be strange, but the same thing happens in Bollywood films. Since english is not the first and primary language for these actors, it is hard to speak and act it out properly in a movie.
I went into the theater expecting to have a good time, but a good time is not exactly what happened. It wasn't a bad film because there was a clear objective for the characters as part of the plot and it wasn't cheesy. However, it wasn't fun or action-packed, which was seemingly the goal that the movie had in order to attract audiences. It certainly has, with over $460 million made across the globe at the moment. However, it definitely isn't worth viewing in theaters. I say, it may be worth your $2 renting it on Redbox, but only if you want to see Jason Statham and Dwight take on sharks.
Rating wise, I would bestow this film 6 stars out of 10. No shark puns here.
BlacKkKlansman (2018)
Entertaining, but not quite amazing
I never wish to address politics, but I feel like Hollywood has made more socially-conscious movies ever since President Trump was inaugurated in office. It may be a coincidence, but I don't think so. In 2018 alone, there have been three major movies that have dealt with racial inequality. We first had Sorry To Bother You, which was tremendously overhyped and overall a bad movie. Then we had Blindspotting, which was an excellent and realistic look at the injustice that people of color often face. Now, we have Spike Lee's BlacKkKlansman, which has been showered with praise. While not perfect, it certainly has plenty of quality moments that overshadow it's lack of a plot objective. Let us begin.
The story of the film focuses on Ron Stallworth (a most entertaining John David Washington), a rookie African-American cop on Colorado Springs who decides to open an investigation on the KKK. Stallworth communicates with them through the phone using his "white-voice", and fellow cop Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver, who did great) meets with them face-to-face. What makes the movie so engaging is the dynamic between the two cops and the concept of acting as someone else. The phone conversations between Stallworth and the KKK alone provided many great moments. As if that weren't entertaining enough, the scenes at the meetings were well-executed and engaging, if not very sad. All of the major-billed actors, with the exception of Stallworth's girlfriend Patrice (played by Spider Man's girl in Homecoming), performed very well, especially John David Washington and Corey Hawkins (Kwame Ture was his character). During the scene with Ture, it was an empowering moment for the film to highlight the faces of the crowd and the true statement that "Black is Beautiful". However, there were a few aspects that prevented this film from being amazing. Allow me to explain
I've stated the importance of a clear plot before, and that is where BlacKkKlansman falters most. The movie just does not have a clear plot; there isn't a purpose to the investigation except to highlight that the KKK is racist. They are absolutely corrupt in the mind, but what they do technically isn't illegal. Throughout the course of the investigation, the Stallworth Brothers (as Ron says) try to uncover a plan for an attack; they talk about doing things, but they never create or carry out any plans. This hurts the film because the investigations never lead anywhere. They just show what KKK members do during their meetups, which is basically drinking beer, chatting about life, and being racist. Basically, they are frat and f**k boys. The lack of an objective hurts the film the most, along with the poorly executed remembrance of the Charlottesville protests.
After seeing the trailers, I had been excited and looked forward to seeing BlacKkKlansman and even more so after seeing all the rave reviews. Once again, reading reviews prior to seeing a movie set high expectations that weren't quite met. I was highly entertained and found this film to be one of the funniest films of the year, but this is largely credited to the character, chemistry, and two-in-one dynamic between Ron Stallworth and Flip Zimmerman. They, however, did not have a specific objective with the investigation, which is what the movie focuses on. Overall, I would say that this film is worth your $12 to see it in theaters. After watching John David Washington in Ballers and this film, he is definitely a star in the making. Maybe one day he'll reach the level of his dad Denzel; he was easily the best part of the movie.
Rating wise, I would say that this movie deserves an 8 out of 10. If only all movies so close to being amazing just had a definitive plot.
Sorry to Bother You (2018)
Overrated, lacks focus and message gets lost
Many times, movies that don't deserve to be critically lambasted (i.e. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) end up being critically lambasted. Simultaneously, movies that don't deserve critical praise (i.e. Wonder Woman) end up receiving a heap of critical praise. When I see movies receive critical praise, I become more interested in seeing them. I know I said that I don't check reviews, but every time I get on the internet its hard to avoid seeing such content.
I unfortunately saw reviews and commercials that raved about how good and true Sorry To Bother You was. It was described as a fresh, relevant, and hilarious take on the sci-fi/comedy genre that meant so much to what events are transpiring in our world today. I'm guessing that, based on the director, actors involved, and just just watching the commercials seeing Lakeith Stanfield doing a "white voice", it had something to do about race. Whatever it's hidden message about racial equality was, it got lost behind direction that was non-parralel almost on a Gotti level and a crazy twist that was a major WTF. I don't think the twist had anything to do with our modern world; if it did, then i missed it completely.
I will first begin with good things since this is a negative review that should end with the bad. The good aspects included Lakeith Stanfield's standout performance as the main character Cassius "Cash" Green. He was able to transition from a non-social loser who carries himself as a timid individual to an entitled selfish prick when he earns the promotion. That is not a spoiler; it is explicitly in the trailers that he moves up the ladder in his job. He does a great job in creating a character that makes us think about how we would become if we were to leave behind our friends and beliefs in pursuit of wealth and personal gain. It made me beg the question as well, even though the situation Cash was in is definitely unrealistic. It is a movie after all. Stanfield's performance along with the rest of the cast is the main standout moment in the movie. That about does it. Time to move on to the bad stuff.
In my opinion, just about everything else with this movie is bad. The directing is misguided and all over the place, which is also bad credit towards the editing. The transitions between each scene make the film feel that it was made using Microsoft PowerPoint slides. All these different fades and transition effects are misplaced, which is distracting and harms the focus that viewers should be placing on the movie. The directing isn't the only bad thing; the overall message and plot of the film is unknown. I have no idea what the movie is trying to say about "white voice" and "black voice". As established in the trailers, Cash is able to move up the echelon of importance in his workplace by using his "white voice" to have his phone clients pay attention to him. He seems to move up the ladder very fast, but the film loses whatever message it was trying to parlay from there. Many of these films that criticize race relations in our nations only point out issues with African-Americans, and they seem to be exaggerated. It can get annoying when people continue to complain about issues by being preachy in entertainment only; it takes away from the joy of entertainment.
After I walked out of the theatre, I was very disappointed with the film. There was so much hype surrounding it that I could not avoid any press or reviews. I tried to, as they have altered my expectations in the past, but I could not avoid it. I myself had been interested in seeing the movie after watching the trailers; the premise looked interesting, and I am a big fan of Lakeith. However, the message of the film was not clear to me. It got lost within a large array of unnecessary content that did not push the film forward. There is one major shocking and disturbing twist at the end, and all I have to say about that is WTF.
Overall, I would say that this movie is not worth your $20, $12, $2, or your time. If you never watch it, you won't miss a thing.
Rating wise, I would give Sorry To Bother You 5 stars out of 10. Just don't.
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
Ant-Man & The Wasp: Generic Story & Slow Start, but a great 2nd Half
It's another year in Hollywood, and that means that it's time for another round of Marvel movies. Each year since Phase 3 began, Disney and Marvel Studios have been releasing three movies per year. That may seem like an overload, but each film has come to feel like a fresh and unique take on a similar story. The last of 2018's Marvel movies, Ant-Man and The Wasp, also offers its own signature take on humor and action to move the typical storyline forward. That storyline is to defeat bad guys who are chasing what the good guys are chasing, but there are definitely different elements added to the story that set this film apart. Overall, I enjoyed this movie and wish to watch it again. Now, I am going to elaborate on this.
I like to begin with the negative aspects of a movie because a positive view on life is to view the good in everything in the end. I have also been superstitious for many years, with one aspect of superstition being that I believe that the best is always saved for last. With this viewpoint established, I will say that the movie does begin quite slow and doesn't have the greatest initial buildup. This isn't to say that I don't like slow films; many award-winning movies are slow, and even Star Wars films are slow. However, there is a purpose to a movie having a slower pacing if there is something that it is building up to. I did not feel that the information provided to us as the audience was valid enough for this movie to feel boring. To me, the main villain wasn't that interesting as a character, and the secondary villain was not villainous enough. The motives for the latter was a very generic corporate money-driven motive. At least Ghost, the main villain (not a spoiler, since she's featured in the trailers) has a reasoning for wanting what our heroes want. In fact, it is more of a need. Fortunately, slow pacing in the beginning of the movie is the last of the problems, as things just get better.
First, I would like to recognize the great Paul Rudd for bringing a quirky and charming humor to his character of Ant-Man that makes him a unique MCU villain. He is certainly more entertaining than boring ol' Captain America, and I would definitely prefer his character over T'Challa (The Black Panther), who lacks interesting qualities. Along with Ant-Man himself, the rest of the main cast does a great job making this movie feel unique in its approach to generating laughs. It is more awkward, random, and situational humor that elaborates on it's random jokes until another character has to get everyone back on board. If you remember the first movie, you'll remember that Scott Lang's friend Luis (Michael Peña) has a fantastic way of retelling a story and how everything happened that led to the present moment in time. He uses this storytelling method once again, but this time it lasts longer and is even more humorous than before. For me, the comedy of the movie was its main draw for me to watch it again, just as it had been for the first film.
What also sets apart Ant-Man and The Wasp from other Marvel movies was its different kind of action. Generally, action movies have the same kind of action that includes punches, explosions, and chases. Many MCU movies also have this kind of action. A few exceptions include the emphasis on hand-to-hand combat in Captain America films, spaceship-driven action in the Guardians of the Galaxy films (my favorite MCU series), and trippy wizardry in Doctor Strange. Ant-Man films have their own approach to action in that they constantly involve shrinking. It's so much fun to see regular real-world environments from a microscopic perspective. The chase scenes with vehicles turning small and regular sized, The Wasp's flight while using shrinking, and the Quantum Realm were delightful to watch. Its crazy that this movie's visuals were so much better than Black Panther visuals even when work with $38 million less (budget of $162 million compared to $200 million). No other action movie can boast action sequences as unique and fun as in the Ant-Man movies, and it is even better the second time.
After watching the movie, I completely forgot about the generic plot and mostly uninteresting villains because I had a great time. The humor and action sequences along with Paul Rudd's great starring turn as our hero made this Marvel movie a great watch. Unfortunately, the plot and slow pacing in the beginning of the movie can't make this movie worth buying on Blu-Ray. However, it is certainly worth spending $12 for a theatre ticket and $2 for RedBox. Since Disney and Netflix have an agreement, it will eventually appear for streaming. When it does, I say make the most of its availability and watch it a few times.
Overall, I would bestow Ant-Man and The Wasp a solid 8.25/10.
Gotti (2018)
Gotti: Not good, but not trash either
If you check the review site Rotten Tomatoes or follow any news related to John Travolta (which at this point no one would), then you probably heard of the movie Gotti. It has become a little notorious for being the latest film to receive a rare 0% out of 38 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. That means that no reviewer had anything good to say about the movie. Even with the horrible reviews, I was intrigued to see it to make use of my MoviePass subscription before the company fades away. Maybe the movie would be so bad it would be good. That is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot, but it did not apply to this movie. The movie was quite bad, but it certainly wasn't trash.
The comparison between the Rotten Tomatoes score and how I perceived the movie continue to support my idea that I cannot trust Rotten Tomatoes. I have explained this before in depth so I will not waste time again. The movie may be bad, but it definitely doesn't deserve an equivalent of 0 out of a possible score of 10. Even the average rating that it received, a 2.3/10, is too low in my opinion. Sure, the main aspect of a movie's goodness was the worst part about this film, but there were definitely redeeming qualities that keep it from being pure trash.
I will first begin by going into detail the main reason why this film was so critically panned, and why I myself couldn't like it very much. The directing was truly horrible, as there is no sense to time and how fast the events of John Gotti's life are moving. The movie feels as if multiple scenes were filmed with occurring simultaneously, yet they were cut-and-paste together using Windows Movie Maker. This is the first movie for director Kevin Connolly of Entourage fame, which shows. Not all actors can go into directing just because of Hollywood experience, and he should never direct a movie ever again. Along with the pacing of the film, moments that bring it down include the cheesy movie score that sounds like it was made using sound effects from a keyboard, some of the try-hard acting, and all the common mafia-movie tropes that this film fails to improve on. I almost forgot to mention that Pitbull made some music for the film, and in some party scenes that were set in the 1980s and 90s, they were playing Pitbull songs made in the 2010s. This was a truly horrible move because it did not fit the time period, and it just added to the movie's dumb moments. Overall, the lack of a fluid storytelling that allows you to feel the changes in time is what drags Gotti
However, not all is bad with this movie. For once in his long history of terrible movies, John Travolta wasn't one of the worst parts.
For the most part, the acting was not bad. I've seen much worse from star actors such as Bryce Dallas Howard in Jurassic World and Vin Diesel in Furious 7. John Travolta actually did a good job in his role. He nailed the New-York accent and played his role seriously. With the exception of some exaggerated facial expressions, he did not overact like he has done in other flops. It was interesting to see Gotti on screen because Travolta made his presence feel worthy. The actors who played members of his mafia did a fine job, and the actor who played John Gotti Jr. (Spencer Lafranco) didn't do as bad as critics said. The acting was not the weakness of the film; I was actually still interested in the film because the people did a good job.
This review seems like a defense of the movie, but I want to make clear that it is not. What I do defend is that its not pure trash like critics say it is. The directing may be garbage, and thats the main aspect of what makes a movie good or bad, but the acting and setting isn't. If you don't care about seeing a bad mafia movie, I would say watch it to see just how poorly it stacks up against other great movies in its genre, such as Goodfellas, The Godfather, and A Bronx Tale. I would one day watch it again because I enjoyed Travolta's performance and the setting in New York, along with all the thick accents. However, as a movie reviewer that cares about having you watch a good movie, I say that this movie isn't worth your $20, $!2, $2, or your time.
My overall rating would be a 4.5/10. It's bad, but not pure trash.
Uncle Drew (2018)
Funny as heck, but generic
I am here to review Uncle Drew, a feature-length film that all began with a four-minute long Pepsi commercial. Kyrie Irving, the best point guard in the world, returns as the titular character we sports fans have come to love. That may actually be a red flag, however, as an NBA player with no professional acting experience taking on a movie role may seem like a free entry into the Razzie Awards conversation. After watching this movie with my doubts on acting, I can confirm that there aren't any acting weaknesses among any of the NBA player-actors (except for Shaq). The acting is not what's wrong with the movie; the direction, cookie-cutter story, and super undeniably predictable plot hold the movie down.
The story begins with Dax (Lil Rey, who is really funny) on his quest to build a new team to compete in the Rucker Park 50 Tournament against his rival Mookie (Nick Kroll). He meets Uncle Drew (the great Kyrie, who did mighty fine in this movie) during a pick-up game, and after seeing him unleash his skill, he decides to have Drew form his team of oldies to compete in the tournament. Along the way, we have the team come back together, comprised of Preacher (Chris Webber, probably the funniest), Lights (Reggie Miller), Boots (Nate Robinson), and Big Fella (Shaquille O'Neal). Another former basketball legend in the movie is Lisa Leslie who plays Preacher's wife Betty Lou. All in all, everyone except for Shaq did a great job in their film debut; they were hilarious, played their roles well, and also had a lot of dance moves to bust down. It's disappointing to see Shaq not do so well, considering he is the most "seasoned" of all these players.
Anyways, as I have pointed out in detail, the aspect of the film that I thought would be the worst part was far from it. Instead, the I found the pace of the movie very off. It wasn't that it was inconsistent; instead, it felt rushed almost the entire time despite the fact that the movie is at least 90 minutes long. Everything happens so quickly; whatever emotional tension is supposed to happen based on revelations from these players' past, it seems to be immediately resolved. In the end, the story is clear-cut but certainly the same exact plot from dozens of sports movies. The player reconnects with old friends to make a comeback, facing odds stacked against them but eventually overcoming them exactly as you imagined they would.
The players made the movie watchable, and the humor is very present. In fact, I would say that it's one of the funniest movies of the year. What makes this an average sports movie is the predictable plot and the lack of a present emotional conflict that would normally be faced in movies. However it is still a good time, and definitely enjoyable and worth watching for basketball fans. I just wouldn't't pay for a movie ticket to watch it.
I say, it is worth your $2 on RedBox. If you have any interest in watching this movie, just wait for it on rental.
Final Verdict: 6 out of 10
Incredibles 2 (2018)
Funny and visual impressive, but direction is off
So, it has been 14 years in the making and 14 years in the waiting. When I watched the original in theaters back in 2004, my little brother was a newborn. Now, he's a little brat who is going into high school, plays too much Fortnite, and gets mad easily. Talk about temper, you just have to meet my bro. Anyways, I definitely have been waiting a mighty long time for this sequel. As I abide by my philosophies, I did not check any reviews prior to watching the movie so that my expectations weren't sky high. Thank goodness, because then I would've been massively disappointed. Instead, I am only disappointed.
When I used to read movie reviews, I would lose focus after two sentences because the reviewer would keep going on with backstory and filibuster stuff. So I'll keep things short by summarizing my thoughts. The action and animation was slick, Frozone finally got to shine, and the music score was one of the best ever. However, I was disappointed by how quickly the movie moves without being cohesive. This is a knock on the direction. The scenes kept jumping back and forth between different settings, which removed any tension that was building up. Also, the villain and his motives were generic, especially when compared to Syndrome, the villain from the previous installment.
In the end, the film has more positive aspects than flaws, but based on its flaws, I can only give it a 7.5/10. That rating would translate to: worth your $12 but not your $20. Obviously, you will all see it in theaters because this is a long-awaited sequel. Do as you wish, because this is American and you don't want to be caught slipping up. Maybe my opinion will change when I see it again on Tuesday. Oh wait, I'm seeing Solo again, and that is a really good movie. That was another movie that I trashed the first time but enjoyed immensely the second, so things change and rearrange as so do I (J. Cole).
Superfly (2018)
Not so bad: Trevor Jackson and Jason Mitchell shine
What happens when you mix the glamour and flash of a Migos music video and add an element of Straight Outta Compton? You get Superfly, the reimagining of the 1972 classic of the same name. This time, it's remade to fit modern tastes such as strip clubs, dollar bills, nice cars, and hip-hop. You've probably seen the trailers or heard the Future-produced music. Honestly, only rap fans would know that it exists. I'm here to tell you whether or not it's worth your hard earned dollar bills.
On this day, June 18 of the year 2018, I attended a ten hour-long orientation at UNC Charlotte, which was largely boring and tiring. It made me feel somewhat exhausted about the thought of being only halfway through college. Sometimes when I think of this, I feel a personal lack of motivation to work hard and do my best. I often need a refresher to get me back on track, such as looking at Miami condos on Zillow or listings of the Porsche 911 Carrera 4S on CarGurus. Today, I decided to use my MoviePass on a movie that would flash everything nice about money, which in turn would motivate me. Hence, we have Superfly.
Hearing that it was directed by a guy who only had experience with Drake music videos, which is not a good resumé, I had major doubts. It would probably end up being as crappy as the Tupac movie, which was also directed by a music video director. While there was a lack of a coherent plot along with cringe-worthy moments, I ultimately enjoyed the movie. Well, its more like an extended music video, but with strong central characters. Allow me to explain.
Throughout the movie, there was too much focus on the boujee atmosphere rather than being an actual film. There were also multiple actors and actresses that were trying too hard to act and did poorly. Along with those things, it was hard to understand what the plot of the movie was, with characters being too distracted with atmosphere rather than allowing the film to progress. However, the two central characters, Youngblood Priest (Trevor Jackson) and Eddie (Jason Mitchell), were very compelling and interesting to watch. They had their own personalities, and the moments they shared showed excellent chemistry. Action sequences, though not prominent, were well-executed and the twists at the end allowed the movie to finish on a high note.
This kind of film targets a certain demographic: the hip-hop crowd. I'd say I fall under that crowd, even though I am by no means a rapper. Don't ever ask me to freestyle; I'm worse than the women's edit of This Is America. But if the premise of the film interest you, I'd say it is definitely worth your $2 at least two times. Overall, I would bestow this film a 6.5 out of 10. It isn't an inventive take on the action-drug-crime drama, but the performances from the two leads, the twists at the end, and the Lexus LC500 outpacing a Lamborghini Gallardo make it entertaining and worth a re-watch.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Plotless and Pointless: Visuals can't make up for wack "story"
As a kid who grew up loving dinosaurs and knowing everything about them, the prospect of seeing a movie with these creatures brought to life enamored me. However, after finishing every one of those movies, I was not too impressed by the final product. When Jurassic World was released in 2015, the excitement returned but quickly diminished after watching it. All that to say, I went into the theater without high expectations, and I left satisfied that I didn't expect too much.
As my philosophy believes, I do not check movie reviews before watching a movie. Reading reviews alters what I expect. If the movie is something that I am interested in, I am going to watch it regardless of the reviews it gets. Plus, I have MoviePass so until that company becomes defunct, I will watch what I wish to watch. Anyways, I felt that Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom had a terrific first half. The action and visuals were great, the atmosphere created through the setting and music score was tense, and it felt like the movie was going somewhere. As I elaborate on this point, I will say that the main premise of the story is spoiled in the trailers.
For anyone who watches TV or a lot of YouTube, you have certainly seen trailers for this movie. A blockbuster of this scale is certainly going to have a lot of marketing to back it up. The trailers show how a certain group plans to save a few dinosaurs from Isla Nubar, the home of the now-desolate Jurassic World theme park, and sell them to bidders. Naturally, whatever intentions that bad guys have must be brought down by the good guys. This premise is shown in the trailers, but the beginning of the film seemed to be building on that premise. It may have had a message about the effects of animal abuse and capture for personal gain, as well as potentially negative aspects about genetic modification. However, the second act of the film is a dud that takes the premise and crashes it, becoming mindless and dumb.
I do not wish to spoil anything about the movie, but I will say that the second half is drawn out just to fill in time. It is effective in being tense and scary, with some jump scares, but it just doesn't go anywhere. The last movie also did not have an actual plot, but at least there was an objective that made sense.
To summarize, the good parts about the film include it's visual effects, tension-building atmosphere, connections to prior Jurassic Park films appearances made by Rolls-Royce vehicles, and Chris Pratt. Star Lord is the best (or my personal favorite MCU) character, mostly due to Pratt being awesome. However, it is severely hampered by it's mindless second half and overall lack of a plot. I would give this film a 5.75 out of 10, which makes it at least worth your $2. However, I would also say rent it once and never watch it again.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
A great, fun movie that feels more like the classics
When I first heard this movie was coming out, I thought it was unnecessary and just another cash grab (which instead became a box office bomb), but I was still interested in watching it. I have been a Star Wars fan for a might long time. The first time I watched it with my homies in Baltimore, I hated it. However, two weeks later in Georgia, I watched it again and liked it very much. In fact, I almost loved it. How did I not like it the first time? I must've been high on something. Oh right, I was high on stupidity. But now that I really like the movie and will be watching it a third time soon, I'll summarize why.
Initially, my complaints about the film were its lack of humor, pacing, and the performances by Han Solo himself (Alden Ehrenreich) and Lando (Childish Gambino who can almost do no wrong). After the second viewing, the initial problems with the movie were actually its positives. The direction is fantastic, which each scene following after the other in an orderly, comprehensive matter. I dislike when films skip between and settings between different characters, but since the focus is mainly on Han, the movie progresses with his development. The performance from Solo himself was amazing, as he was cocky and arrogant yet charming and entertaining. To enjoy a movie, you need a strong central character who balances humor and personality. That's something that was missing from the hero of Black Panther, but I don't want to trigger the internet and start a race war against Indians.
When I asked people, mainly Star Wars fans, whether or not they would want to watch this movie. Most said no because they weren't interested in paying $15 to watch a movie about how the events that made Han Solo legendary played out when they already know what allowed him to earn his fame. That is an understandable reason, but to see how it all happened made for a very fun and interesting movie. In fact, I would place Solo among the top three of the ten Star Wars movies (behind Rogue One and Revenge of the Sith). If my top three conflicts with yours, I'll just say this: my top three is better.
Forget my cockiness; it's all for show. The point is, it's really unfortunate that Solo failed to make a lot of money because it really was one of the best movies I've seen this year. The premise may seem like a money-grabber, but it really has heart and purpose, with a good message and a character with change. For the real Star Wars fans, it all teases a big future with more crossovers and references. No franchise does world-building better than the Star Wars franchise. I say, I'd give Solo: A Star Wars Story an 8.5/10, which means it is worth your $12, $2, and your time. In fact, it's worth your $20. A worthy investment, just one that shouldn't be overplayed or else the novelty will wear off.