My Favorite (and least favorite) Movies of 2017
This is my personal list, favorite to least favorite, of the movies I've seen released in 2017. I might not write very long reviews for everything I see this year if I don't feel I can say it well or really have much to say, since I don't think many really want to read a long review anyway. Also, my laptop quit on me and I’m writing all of these reviews on an iPad with a few dead spots and horrible autocorrect, so please look past accidental spelling/grammar errors. I will also be giving movies ratings at the end of each review by 5 out of 100, with 0/100 being terrible, 50/100 being average (not good, just average) and 100/100 being pretty much perfect. I will try to do my ratings based mostly on the quality of the film and not my own personal enjoyment or dis-enjoyment (I made up a word I guess?) of said film, though that is bound to happen with a few, and I apologize in advance for any fanboying that happens, or if I tear apart a movie you personally enjoy. Anyway, let's get to it, and remember that I don't always write reviews immediately after seeing the movies, so it may be 2018 before this list has even some of the bigger titles from this year. There are also some movies I refuse to see (the Emoji Movie, Transformers 5, etc.). Let's get to it!
List activity
2.2K views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
37 titles
- DirectorDenis VilleneuveStarsHarrison FordRyan GoslingAna de ArmasYoung Blade Runner K's discovery of a long-buried secret leads him to track down former Blade Runner Rick Deckard, who's been missing for thirty years.The bottom section is about wether or not this film is sexist, or, as I believe, actually feminist, and it contains spoilers, naturally. I will give a warning before that section, as you really should see this film more or less blind.
Now, the original Blade Runner has been my favorite movie of all time (with the Final Cut being my favorite version) for quite a while now, so when I first heard there would be a new sequel I was naturally very pessimistic about it to put it lightly. However, as confirmation about the cast and crew was given my mood immediately changed. Denis Villeneuve is my favorite director, Rodger Deakins is my favorite cinematographer, the writers are good, I’ve loved Ryan Gosling in pretty much everything I’ve seen him in, and Harrison Ford is reprising his role from the original. If you told me I could pick every person involved in making this film, I wouldn’t change a thing. Of course, even with all that talent, there is still massive pressure on the filmmakers to not screw it up somehow, but this seees like the best chance there would ever be of a new Blade Runner actually being good. And I’m incredibly glad to say that Denis and crew knocked it out of the park. Just like the original, it’s slow, thoughtful, and full of symbolism. It’s a film that perfectly fits in with the original while still being its own thing, not relying purely on nostalgia, or over exploiting the fascinating world set up in the film preceding it, but expanding on it in a logical and very interesting way. Villeneuve has once again proved himself a fantastic director. And as for the visuals, where do you even begin? This film is simply gorgeous. Deakins has outdone himself again, and I am certainly in agreement with many others that he should absolutely get that Oscar this time. Speaking of oscars, Harrison Ford could very well get at least a supporting actor nomination, as he gives a very emotional and powerful performance. He isn’t in the movie all that much, but he definitely stays in you’re thoughts afterwards. In my opinion it’s his best dramatic performance since Witness. Ryan Gosling is once again excellent, as well as Robin Wright and Silvia Hoeks, and the entire rest of the cast is also pretty phenomenal, with some relatively unknowns coming in to play and delivering, and Jared Leto redeems himself pretty well after a certain performance in a certain “movie” from last year. And the score is both nostalgic and fresh at the same time, and easily my favorite of the year so far. This film also has some very interesting and very well executed special effects, in particular some with regards to layering that were quite impressive that I personally have never seen in any film before. Overall I can’t believe how much I love Blade Runner 2049. While I’m not sure if it will replace the original as my favorite movie of all time just yet, I can say that I think it is probably a better movie overall. So despite my initial reaction to a new Blade Runner being negative, I am completely blown away with the film that I got, and I have to give Blade Runner 2049 a score of 95/100, which honestly I could change to a perfect 100/100 after I see it a couple more times.
EDIT: I’ve seen it again and do now give it 100/100, though I may be a bit biased.
SPOILERS IN THIS SECTION
Okay, I’d really like to address the completely idiotic idea that this film is sexist, when in reality this is a feminist film. Bear with me, I’m not as good at typing this out and getting my points across as I am talking about it in person, but hopefully it will help anyone who reads through the whole thing decide wether they believe it’s really sexist or not. For one thing, there are more strong female characters than men in this movie. But quantity does not equal quality, so let’s examine the way both male and female replicants AND humans are treated in the film. Yes, female replicants are used for sexual purposes in this film. Joi is also a sexualized character. But that’s the point. You can’t really emphasize how wrong something is without showing it. There IS sexism in Blade Runner 2049, but is it ever depicted in a positive light? NO! Joi is basically a slave to her master, in this case we see her in the role of Officer K’s companion. But in the end this turns out to be something that has a very negative effect on K’s life, and his perception of the world. Joi is basically an app. We literally have apps today that do pretty much the same thing, though obviously not as technologically advanced as Joi. But again, that’s the point, though not the entire purpose of her character. She represents much more in this film than just that. But what we see with Joi is something that would happen if technology does advance to that point. And, again, it is shown in the film as having a negative effect. K realizes that she only exists to please him and serve his needs, and this in turn makes him realize that he himself, being a replicant, also only exists to serve the needs of humans. The difference though, is that Joi is an unquestioning program. She is designed for that sole purpose, and can never escape it. K can. Any replicant can, because they can think for themselves and actually interact with the physical world, they can have emotional reactions to things. Joi is a program. Again, her purpose in the film is not any different than one could expect if she were something real today, and it is not depicted in a positive light in the film. This brings us to another thing. K uses her to fulfill his needs, while he exists to fulfill the needs of humans, most notably lieutenant Joshi, a WOMAN. She even hints at using HIM to fulfill her own sexual needs in one scene. The most powerful person in the highest authoritative position we see in the film is a WOMAN. And she is killed by the strongest antagonist in the film, a FEMALE replicant. She, in turn is being used by a MAN, Neander Wallace. There is an obvious parallel there, with a man using a female replicant, and a woman using a male replicant. There is no doubt that using someone of any gender is morally wrong. And that’s the point! It’s really not hard to understand. This movie presents a feminist message in an unconventional way, instead of showing equal respect, it shows it as equal disrespect with the replicants. If anything, the female replicants are treated better than the male replicants in the film. At least they are programmed to get pleasure from what they do, whereas the male replicants are used for slave labor, and in the case of Blade Runners, killing their own kind. But going back to the human side, we see equal respect for male and female humans. How else would a woman end up being such a powerful figure in this world? For humans, it doesn’t matter what gender they are, they can rise to prominence. For replicants, it also doesn’t matter what gender they are, they will be some form of a slave. The only sexism that exists in Blade Runner 2049 is there to emphasize how wrong it is. So no, this movie is not sexist at all, but rather, is unconventionally feminist. Really, Blade Runner 2049 is more feminist than most films that are well-known as being feminist, because it doesn’t draw attention to it. If feminism means equality, then why would anyone call attention to the fact that someone who is a strong person is female? Isn’t it counterproductive to make that distinction? This film doesn’t exploit the use of strong female characters, because they are treated as being just strong characters. It removes the distinction, because gender is irrelevant. That is TRUE feminism. If you remove the distinction, there is much less room for bigotry. Yet, somehow, people who claim to be feminists are calling this movie sexist? I think maybe, if you believe that Blade Runner 2049 is sexist, you should really look up the definition of feminism again, because you have completely missed the point. Blade Runner 2049 is the most feminist movie I’ve seen in years, without even using that as the main focus of the film. It’s not just about that, it’s about MANY things. Denis Villeneuve is a master of symbolism. The aspect of the film that I just talked about is only surface level. Blade Runner 2049 isn’t just a neo-noir detective story, just as one of Villeneuve’s other films, Prisoners, is also not a detective story, or about a father trying to find his daughter. That is just the wrapper, the real content is hidden underneath that layer. But Blade Runner 2049 deals with much more than Prisoners does. In a world where it is becoming more and more rare for something of this nature in film, Blade Runner 2049 has the guts to examine multiple philosophies and themes at once, hidden in an already thrilling wrapper. That is why Denis is my favorite director, and why Blade Runner 2049 is now not only my favorite film of 2017, but my favorite of all time. - DirectorTaichi IshidateNaoko YamadaStarsMiyu IrinoSaori HayamiAoi YûkiA young man is ostracized by his classmates after he bullies a deaf girl to the point where she moves away. Years later, he sets off on a path for redemption.I LOVED this movie. I don’t want to give too much away, so I won’t say too much. The animation is beautiful, the story is heartbreaking at times, and it’s told in a fairly unique way. The pacing is very fast, which I found a bit distracting at first, but once you get used to it, this film will taken you on quite an emotional ride. It’s honestly hard to watch at times, but that’s something I loved about it. This film doesn’t hold back. It’s easily my favorite animated movie of the year. 90/100
- DirectorJames MangoldStarsHugh JackmanPatrick StewartDafne KeenIn a future where mutants are nearly extinct, an elderly and weary Logan leads a quiet life. But when Laura, a mutant child pursued by scientists, comes to him for help, he must get her to safety.When I saw that first trailer for Logan with Johnny Cash's hauntingly beautiful cover of "Hurt" playing, it instantly became my favorite movie trailer of all time. Well, as you can imagine, that puts a LOT of pressure on this movie to live up to it's magnificent marketing. Well, it worked with Deadpool last year, which became my favorite X-Men movie. But Logan has done it again. Not only did it live up to the trailers, it exceeded them. Logan is just like that song in the first trailer. Like I said, it's haunting and beautiful at the same time. It's raw, emotional, and acknowledges it's self-destructive nature and uses that to drive it along. It's the Wolverine movie I wanted it to be. Yes, there are a few ways that it could have been a little better, but I'm not going to complain about that. I'm just happy that Hugh Jackman gets to give his final (and best, in my opinion) performance as Wolverine/Logan in such a well-done film. I loved every aspect of this movie, and even when it would slow down a but, I never got bored or disinterested. There's really not much I can say that has't already been said better, so I wont bore you with more of the same, but Logan has now become my favorite X-Men film, my favorite Hugh Jackman performance, and possibly my favorite Patrick Stewart performance. Also, Dafne Keen, who plays Laura/X-23 (Come on, you know that, it's not a spoiler), is FANTASTIC, even outshining Logan a few times in some of the action scenes. And that is quite a feat, as we finally see Logan in his most brutal form. Like I mentioned, it’s not a perfect film. It has its fair share of flaws. But unlike most of these superhero flicks, I was able to look past them, as the good far outweighed the bad. I loved every second of this film, there's really not anything else to say. I'll give it 85/100, with a bit of fanboying I guess.
- DirectorMartin McDonaghStarsFrances McDormandWoody HarrelsonSam RockwellA mother personally challenges the local authorities to solve her daughter's murder when they fail to catch the culprit.Three Billboards is quite the fun ride. It’s dark, dramatic, and funny. The characters and performances by the actors portraying them are easily the best things about this movie. Everybody shines, especially Francis McDormand and Sam Rockwell. Woody Harrelson is great as usual. Peter Dinklage has a fun role. Really, the only performance that isn’t pretty much perfect is Lucas Hedges. He just doesn’t really feel natural. He wasn’t completely horrible, but he’s just not really that great an actor, and is easily the weakest n the film. But everybody else was great. The story has some pretty great twists and turns that I wasn’t expecting, the characters actually grow, and it has quite a bold ending. It’s definitely one of the best films of the year, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. 85/100
- DirectorTaylor SheridanStarsElizabeth OlsenJeremy RennerGraham GreeneA wildlife officer, who is haunted by a tragedy that happened because of him, teams up with an FBI agent in solving a murder of a young woman on a Wyoming Native American reservation and hopes to get redemption from his past regrets.I don’t really have a lot to say about this movie other than it is pretty fantastic. Direction, writing, cinematography, editing, acting, it’s all great. The only complaints I had were while it is overall shot very well, there were a few moments of shaky cam that weren’t really necessary, but it’s not really a huge deal, and was only annoying in the beginning of the film, and I really didn’t notice it throughout the rest of it. Taylor Sheridan has proven himself to be quite a good writer with this film, Sicario, and Hell or High Water, with a fairly simplistic and personal style. I will definitely be looking forward to his next project. Jeremy Runner also gives his best performance since The Hurt Locker. Elizabeth Olsen and the rest of the cast also give very good performances. I really enjoyed it quite a lot. 80/100
- DirectorAndy MuschiettiStarsBill SkarsgårdJaeden MartellFinn WolfhardIn the summer of 1989, a group of bullied kids band together to destroy a shape-shifting monster, which disguises itself as a clown and preys on the children of Derry, their small Maine town.It was one of those movies I was late to, mostly because I expected It to suck. Well, I'm glad I finally got around to It. It is not the best horror film I've seen this year, and certainly not the scariest, but I did enjoy It quite a bit. I've never read the Stephen King novel, nor seen the TV movie, so I can't compare It accurately, though the small bits I've seen of the TV movie were kinda stupid (probably from the second half, which I've heard is pretty bad). This version of It has problems as well, and some pretty stupid character decisions, conveniences, ect., but it also has quite a bit that I really enjoyed. I was quite surprised at how well It was shot. The child acting wasn't even all that bad either, which is pretty rare. Not everyone is great, but I particularly liked Sophia Lillis and Finn Wolfhard. Overall I really liked It a lot, way more than I thought I would. It. 75\100
- DirectorCraig GillespieStarsMargot RobbieSebastian StanAllison JanneyCompetitive ice skater Tonya Harding rises amongst the ranks at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, but her future in the activity is thrown into doubt when her ex-husband intervenes.I knew nothing about the true story prior to watching this film, as figure skating and the Olympics do not matter to me at all. After watching I, Tonya, I did some research into the true story. Now, if you've read my review for the Disaster Artist (or even if you haven't), I criticized it's third act for being completely inaccurate. This film also has it's own inaccuracies, but the difference is that pretty much everything in this film is over-exaggerated, so it works here, whereas the Disaster Artist seemed like it was trying to be much more realistic and serious, but the end is very fictional. With that out of the way, I loved this film. Margot Robbie probably gives her best performance here. The supporting cast was great too, particularly Sebastian Stan and Allison Janney. I really wasn't looking forward to it very much, but I found it encredibly entertaining, and even emotional at times. It’s certainly not perfect, but I don’t still recommend it. 80\100
- DirectorJon WattsStarsTom HollandMichael KeatonRobert Downey Jr.Peter Parker balances his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens with his superhero alter-ego Spider-Man, and finds himself on the trail of a new menace prowling the skies of New York City.I’m not the biggest fan of comic book movies, but this one is pretty enjoyable. The acting is pretty good, though I wish every single time a movie tries to portray an awkward teen being an awkward teen they would actually do it realistically instead of cartoonishly. I don’t think cartoonishly is a real word. Anyway, that just REALLY annoys me to no end. None of the characters act like real people, which makes it hard to relate to them or care about them in any way. Just, nobody acts like these characters, I really don’t get why teens are portrayed this way in so many movies. Anyways, I liked Homecoming more than I expected, including the villain. Michael Keaton is by far my favorite thing about this movie. I just wish there was more learning about his character and why he does what he does, but at least he had some kind of actual character traits, unlike most Marvel villains. And he wasn’t blue either. I hope he comes back in later installments. I was very happy with how things end with his character too. Probably my least favorite thing about it is what I mentioned earlier, which is tied in with the “humor”. I laughed once or twice, but overall most of the jokes just didn’t work. Mostly because I didn’t identify with the cartoonish characters, and therefore nothing they’d did or said for the sake of comedy felt like a natural way to get laughter from the audience. It’s all just very forced. Spider-Man: Homecoming has the usual disregard for logic or physics that makes these Marvel films annoying to anyone with half a brain, like why didn’t the ferry sink? But overall most of it was not as big of a deal as usual, which is probably why I liked it so much, despite the other things I didn’t care for. As for the acting, I’ve already mentioned Keaton, but as for the titular character himself, he was fine. The performance was good, I quite like Tom Holland, but the way he was written was not exactly a faithful version of the comic book character. Whereas Toby Maguire was often too serious, and Andrew Garfield was just way too popular and too much of a douchebag to be very likeable at the same time, this Spider-Man is certainly a better mix of the two, but it’s just not quite enough on the serious side. The entire point of Spider-Man is the duality of being two completely different people, living two very different lives and trying to keep them separate, but that’s not what we get here. So even though it’s the best version we’ve gotten, it’s still not really getting the point. However, they may do more with that in future movies, so I'm really not all that hung up on it. Everybody else in the film was, as I’ve already mentioned, a cartoon character. Except for Tony Stark, of course, who had a very respectable amount of screen time, not too much, but not too little either. I was pretty happy about that. I liked the teacher. I actually did find him an enjoyable character. Peter’s friend, Fred, wasn’t completely horrible, though I did find him somewhat annoying at times. He’s nothing special, just a character we’ve all seen a thousand times before. It’s hard to really say anything about the directing, as Disney/Marvel don’t care about directors making the film they want to make and will see fit to fire anyone who doesn’t fit their mold. The visuals were decent. i know there’s was at least one moment where the special effects weren’t the best, but for the most part they were okay. My last complaint is that the suit doesn't look good. I don't know if they layered CGI over it or not, but it looks fake. The design of it is good, it just looks really weird for some reason. In the end, it’s not anything really special, but Spider-Man: Homecoming isn’t as terrible as it’s name, so that’s something. It’s honestly one of the most enjoyable Marvel movies. Unless, ironically, you are a really big Spider-Man fan, as, like I said, it’s better than the previous two incarnations, but still not quite close enough to really being Spider-Man. But, as I also mentioned, hopefully
they will do more serious things with the character in the future. Personally, I'm not a huge Spidey fan, so its not a deal breaker necessarily for me. It sounds like I disliked it more than I did. I was very glad it was surprisingly small, not threatening the whole world like most superhero movies. Anyway, I'll give it 70/100 - DirectorJordan PeeleStarsDaniel KaluuyaAllison WilliamsBradley WhitfordA young African-American visits his white girlfriend's parents for the weekend, where his simmering uneasiness about their reception of him eventually reaches a boiling point.It's good. Better than I expected in fact. I actually really liked this movie, even if I was able to predict everything but the final twist way too easily, and it did have a couple stupid jump scares for no reason (seriously, someone walking in the background, unnoticed by the main character, with a sudden loud music stab is not scary, it's just cheap and annoying). I don't have much else to say, other than the acting was pretty good and I really liked the directing style Jordan Peele displayed here. It's not perfect, obviously, but it's definitely worth the watch in my opinion, and this coming from someone who generally doesn't like horror movies. I also enjoyed it a lot more upon the second viewing after knowing what was going on for sure, so I’d definitely suggest checking it out multiple times. 75/100
- DirectorGuillermo del ToroStarsSally HawkinsOctavia SpencerMichael ShannonAt a top secret research facility in the 1960s, a lonely janitor forms a unique relationship with an amphibious creature that is being held in captivity.I'm not sure if I really liked this film all that much. There are certainly elements I enjoyed a lot, but there were also a lot of cheesy, stereotypical characters, which I really felt dragged the quality down a bit. The romance is very rushed. Honestly, the story of Michael Shannon's character finding and capturing the fishman seems like it would be more interesting than this story. I think the Shape of Water would have worked better as a mini series, as everything is just a bit too rushed in the film. It feels like a shortened version of the story. The story itself isn't exactly the most original, just because you have a human fall in love with a nonhuman doesn't mean the rest of the plot hasn't been done many times before. As for the visuals, they were pretty fantastic, the creature design and Doug Jones' performance are big pluses for me. Guillermo del Toro does a decent job directing, an I liked the overall look of the film, both owing a lot to the cinematography and editing. Sally Hawkins is pretty great, and Richard Jenkins nearly steals the film. Michael Shannon does a great job as usual, despite his character being something of a cliche. Michael Stuhlbarg is also really good. Octavia Spencer's character was the only one I didn't really like. I found her to be somewhat annoying. But that could just be me. Overall this film is well made, but the story itself happens too fast and is lacking a lot of originality. Still, I enjoyed enough of it to recommended it. 75/100
POTENTIAL SPOILERS IN THIS SECTION
My biggest complaints with the Shape of Water are the rushed pacing and somewhat unoriginal story. Well, I personally think this movie would have been better as a series. Maybe the first season is about Micheal Shannon searching for, and finding, the fishman, and bringing him to the city. Then the second can focus on Sally Hawkins and her building a relationship with the fishman. These two seasons could be fairly short. Then the third and final season could be longer, about planning and executing the escape, and basically the whole last act of the film. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know, but I think that would have been better. It might also help with the unoriginality complaint if it’s focued better on developing the characters and having more time to do so, so that’s the overall story isn’t so in-your-face. As it is, I just kept thinking it was basically Free Willy, except nobody had sex with the whale in Free Willy. Either way, I still liked the Shape of Water quite a bit. - DirectorMatt ReevesStarsAndy SerkisWoody HarrelsonSteve ZahnAfter the apes suffer unimaginable losses, Caesar wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own mythic quest to avenge his kind.I don't have a ton to say about this movie other than I really enjoyed it, the visual effects were excellent, as expected, and I liked its willingness to go pretty dark at times. There were some callbacks to the original Planet of the Apes that just really pushed it over the edge for me. So yeah, I liked this movie a lot, and it honestly might be my favorite in the trilogy. 75/100
- DirectorEdgar WrightStarsAnsel ElgortJon BernthalJon HammAfter being coerced into working for a crime boss, a young getaway driver finds himself taking part in a heist doomed to fail.Baby Driver is directed very well, as is to be expected from Edgar Wright. Overall I really enjoyed it, but not as much as most of Edgar's other films. There were some annoying conveniences and the romance wasn't really very believable, so that held it back a bit. The characters themselves were pretty interesting though, and the performances were all also well done, although Jamie Foxx was a bit much at times. So yeah, extremely well directed and edited, good performances, interesting characters, and a great soundtrack. The story itself is a bit lacking, but it is executed very well. 70/100
- DirectorChris McKayStarsWill ArnettMichael CeraRosario DawsonA cooler-than-ever Bruce Wayne must deal with the usual suspects as they plan to rule Gotham City, while discovering that he has accidentally adopted a teenage orphan who wishes to become his sidekick.The Lego Batman Movie was pretty much exactly what I was hoping for. It was fun, funny (especially the first 20 minutes), and pretty good overall, though not quite as good as The Lego Movie. It also had some great appearances from some well-known villains from some other films and TV shows (one TV villain in particular made my day), as well as some really great references to previous Batman movies, and the television show. Overall I had a great time watching this movie. 75/100.
- DirectorDanny BoyleStarsEwan McGregorEwen BremnerJonny Lee MillerAfter 20 years abroad, Mark Renton returns to Scotland and reunites with his old friends Sick Boy, Spud, and Begbie.I had never watched the original Trainspotting until I heard about the sequel being in production, and when I finally watched it I loved it. So the sequel had a lot to live up to. Obviously having the original cast and director back in was a big plus, so I wasn't too worried, and I was far from disappointed. T2 isn't as good as the original, but it is pretty much what I wanted. It’s definitely not perfect, but I did enjoy it quite a bit. 70/100
- DirectorGreta GerwigStarsSaoirse RonanLaurie MetcalfTracy LettsIn 2002, an artistically inclined 17-year-old girl comes of age in Sacramento, California.Lady Bird bored me for the first 30 minutes. Eventually it picked up and became a decent movie. I like Greta Gerwig as an actor, and here she gets to prove herself to be a very competent director as well. Saoirse Ronan gives a great performance, once again showing considerable skill when she’s not in some garbage like The Host, and has a good director to work with. The supporting cast was all pretty good, though Lucas Hedges is easily the lowest point in the film. I don’t understand why some think he’s a good actor, he always feels like an actor portraying a character, and not like the actual character he’s portraying, he never disappears into his performances. But the worst thing about Lady Bird is that it relies on an incredibly unoriginal and cliche-ridden script that has been done in pretty much every coming of age tale ever made, and it’s just not interesting. Other than that, the film is pretty good, but it really drags the whole thing down when it can’t just be it’s own thing. It’s certainly not as good as most people seem to think it is, but it’s still enjoyable, and I will definitely be looking forward to Greta Gerwig’s future directing projects. I did enjoy it, despite my complaints, and it is pretty well-done, so I’ll give it 75/100
- DirectorM. Night ShyamalanStarsJames McAvoyAnya Taylor-JoyHaley Lu RichardsonThree girls are kidnapped by a man with a diagnosed 23 distinct personalities. They must try to escape before the apparent emergence of a frightful new 24th.I was confused as to wether Split was a 2016 movie or a 2017 movie, so I hadn’t now put it in this list until now in December, but technically it played at festivals in 2016 and it’s wide release was 2017. Anyways, it’s the first good Shayamalan film in forever. James McAvoy is fantastic. Not all the rest of the acting is really worth noting, but he makes up for it. The overall story has its flaws, but it’s not enough to detract from the things the movie actually does right. It’s refreshing to finally see something good from Shayamalan again. I don’t really have anything else to say other than I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. 70/100
- DirectorTrey Edward ShultsStarsJoel EdgertonChristopher AbbottCarmen EjogoSecure within a desolate home as an unnatural threat terrorizes the world, a man has established a tenuous domestic order with his wife and son. Then a desperate young family arrives seeking refuge.Luckily for me I had forgotten what the trailers were like by the time I finally got around to seeing this movie. They suck. The film is nothing like what the marketing would have you believe, which is unfortunate considering the fact that the majority of moviegoers are going to hate anything that's not what they expected automatically, even if it's not the fault of the film or filmmakers, and that most horror fans seem to be somewhat dim-witted and unforgiving to anything that's not in-your-face jump scares and wants you to think about things. Literally the top review for this movie on this site (right now anyway) the guy complains that he "didn't pay 13 dollars to imagine anything", which is ironic given the fact that using your imagination and making you think about things is literally the entire point of film, and the majority of any art form in general. Reading the rest of the review, and those of others, its clear that not thinking about anything is a popular way to watch movies. Seriously, what's the fun in a movie where everything is spelled out for you and there's nothing to think about? I'm going to get into spoilers, so here's your warning,
SPOILERS UNTIL I SAY END OF SPOILERS: I mostly want to talk about one thing, the reason for the movie being called It Comes at Night. The title (this is just a theory I have) is referring to the nightmares, as the film is using them to convey how your imagination (oh no!) can overblow and distort and pervert our grip on reality, making an already scary situation (a world where a seemingly very contagious and terminal illness has wiped out much of the world) into something way worse than it already is. Your own mind and paranoia is the monster in this movie, and it comes at night most, because that is when your emotions are the highest, and when you are the most vulnerable. That doesn't even take a minute of thinking. I've only seen this movie once and I can figure that out. But the director left the answers out of the movie purposely to make you think, so calling that a flaw and lazy storytelling really just means your lazy, as that's the purpose of the movie. Thinking is good. Not everything has to stupify itself for you to understand it. The point of this movie is to say a lot with a little, it's not the entire story because the director just wanted to make something to talk about and figure out yourself. It's a puzzle, and while most of the peices are already in place, some of the key peices are in your mind. You just have to use them. END OF SPOILERS.
Sorry for ranting. Anyways I really appreciated it's slow burn and that the true horror is left up to your own imagination, since that is where horror comes from. The acting was pretty good, obviously I really like that the director assumes the audience will be smart enough to piece things together themselves. One complaint I have heard that I didn't really notice until the end but could be distracting and annoying to some, and I would understand why, is there is an aspect ratio change in certain scenes. It could be distracting to a lot of people, but the last time the aspect ratio changes is honestly kind of genius. You'll understand what I mean if you seee the film and then read the spoiler section above in my review here. Now I'm not going to say this movie is perfect, there are some flaws that annoyed me. But the reason why I liked it as much as I did was because it was fun for me to figure things out on my own, and I really want to see it again to both confirm some of my ideas and find out where I was wrong. If you don't like the movie, that's fine, just don't hate it based on the misleading marketing. Also, to whoever it was that wrote that first review I was talking about, why did you make an account just to give this movie a negative review? There seems to be no other movement so to speak from that account, almost like the guy complaining about "fake" reviews praising the film made a fake account to bash it? Anyways, personally I'll give it 75-80/100, I'll wait until I see it again to give a final rating. - DirectorDarren AronofskyStarsJennifer LawrenceJavier BardemEd HarrisA couple's relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.What a weird film. The easiest way to sum it up is “that escalated quickly” the movie. I’m having a hard time deciding if I really liked it all that much, but I certainly appreciated the risks this film takes. The only complaint I had was the sound design was a bit harsh at times, but it actually does have a purpose, I think. I'd certainly recommend watching it for yourself, but maybe not if you have a headache. Its a really hard movie to rate or review when you've only seen it once, but I think it was very well done and I loved the strangeness of it. The last act is absolutely insane. 70\100
- DirectorChristopher NolanStarsFionn WhiteheadBarry KeoghanMark RylanceAllied soldiers from Belgium, the British Commonwealth and Empire, and France are surrounded by the German Army and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II.Dunkirk is a pretty well-made movie, but it is also somewhat boring in quite a few places. It’s shot beautifully, that’s probably the best aspect of it. The acting is also fairly good, though not a lot of the actors are really given the opportunity to really shine. The action was initially something I liked, but looking back that feels weird to say. I shouldn’t really be looking forward to watching people die in war. But because of the other parts of the film being somewhat boring, and the PG-13 violence not being realistic and therefore not disturbing like it is in real life, it kind of warps the way you view it. With it not being graphic, it also seems to downplay the atrocities that happened in real life, and it just seems disrespectful to me to do it that way. Honestly, my mind has changed SO much since I initially watched Dunkirk. Overall it was a pretty well made film, but I found my mind drifting many times throughout the movie, and I think the PG-13 rating hurt it a lot. 65/100
- DirectorRupert SandersStarsScarlett JohanssonPilou AsbækTakeshi KitanoIn the near future, Major Mira Killian is the first of her kind: A human saved from a terrible crash, who is cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals.It was ok. That's pretty much all there is to say. It wasn't great, it wasn't bad, it was just kind of there. Very average. There were a few things from the original anime film I missed, but there were surprisingly some changes I actually liked a bit better. But unfortunately a lot of the best parts of the original are either missing, or are just thrown into this film without actually tying into the different storyline. Overall I wasn't blown away by anything other than the visuals everybody tells you about, but I wasn't really super disappointed either, as I expected it to be a shallow, loud, and obnoxiously stupid version of the anime. I'll give Ghost in the Shell 50/100.
- DirectorMartin KoolhovenStarsGuy PearceDakota FanningEmilia JonesFrom the moment the new Reverend climbs the pulpit, Liz knows that she and her family are in great danger.(USA release was technically in 2017) Brimstone is not bad. I noticed the metascore for this movie is 44, and the Rotten Tomatoes score is only 37%, and from the reviews I've read most people seem to be giving this film low ratings just because they personally didn't like it due to it's slow pace and disturbing content, and not based on the actual quality of the movie. I mean, it's far from a masterpiece, but it is certainly better than a LOT of movies with much higher ratings. It's also definitely not for everyone. It's slow paced at times and also quite disturbing. As for the negatives I found with it, the child acting wasn't good, some of the accents didn't quite work, there were some dumb character moments here and there, and one scene towards the end kind of took me out of it for a bit, as it is pretty ridiculous. But overall the story wasn't even close to being as cliche as I was expecting, especially with such low ratings, and the non-linear way it was presented worked pretty well, and actually really added to the film and wasn't just a gimmick. Unfortunately I think the final chapter was the weakest, though it did have some pretty good moments. One other thing I really liked in this film was that it had balls. It didn't shy away from killing some characters that most other movies would have. Overall despite the flaws this movie does have, I would say it is certainly worth a watch, as the pros do outway the cons in my opinion, and from an artistic perspective. Oh, but Kit Harington should NOT be on the poster. He's a fairly small part in the movie. Just so you know. But yeah, overall I really enjoyed this movie and found it to be pretty well-acted (except for the kids in a lot of parts), and I think this is my favorite performance by Dakota Fanning. I'm kind of torn on what rating to give it, so I'll be generous because of it taking chances and doing some things I wasn't expecting, and for being a lot fresher than I would have ever guessed, and I'll give it a 65/100.
- DirectorJames FrancoStarsJames FrancoDave FrancoAri GraynorWhen aspiring actor Greg Sestero meets the weird and mysterious Tommy Wiseau in an acting class, they form a unique friendship and travel to Hollywood to make their dreams come true.Obviously, like any movie nerd, I have somewhat of an obsession with hilariously terrible movies. This of course includes The Room. When I first heard about The Disaster Artist, I was skeptical. James Franco is very miss-or-bigger-miss with his directing career, and his acting roles are generally all the same. However, reviews started coming in that praised this film for both his stellar performance and decent directing. After seeing the film, I’m not sure it’s as good as everybody has been saying. Sure, his performance is great, but honestly, even I do a better impression of the scenes from The Room we see being filmed in this movie, and I’m pretty bad at impressions. Obviously, that doesn’t matter as much when Franco is able to portray Wiseau as he was in real life, behind the scenes. That’s is where this movie is great. I just expected the scenes of filming to be a bit closer to how they actually are, but I can live with it. However, while I enjoyed the film for the most part during the first and second act, the third lost me. It was all fairly decent, though not really as funny as I had been led to believe, up until that point, even being surprisingly emotional at times, but while the first two acts were quite accurate, the third act isn’t even close. It’s extremely disappointing, especially knowing the most emotional part of the story isn’t even being told. I won’t spoil it, but I’d encourage anybody who doesn’t know the true story to look it up after seeing the film. Also, the laughing during the screening of the film is truly awful. Yes, The Room is absolutely hilarious, but good lord is the laughing WAY over-the-top and cringeworthy. It’s hard to really rate this film. I liked the first two acts quite a bit, but the third is honestly pretty bad, and it really soured the experience. I don’t know why it’s getting as much praise as it is. As for the performances, Franco is really the only one who is given any chance to shine, and the only one who really embodies his character. Nobody else really feels like the people they are portraying. The directing is fine, though not amazing. It’s certainly the best Franco has ever done, but again, that’s not saying much. The best thing about the directing is that surprisingly some of the jokes I was expecting to way overstay their welcome didn’t. But that could have been in the script or editing as well. Overall, it’s a solid movie with a not-so-solid ending, one pretty great performance, and everything else is just fine. As long as you know that going into it, I’m sure you will have a pretty fun time with it. 70/100
- DirectorDee ReesStarsJason MitchellCarey MulliganJason ClarkeTwo men return home from World War II to work on a farm in rural Mississippi, where they struggle to deal with racism and adjusting to life after war.I had heard nothing but good things about Mudbound prior to seeing it, and that kind of baffles me. This is the synopsis of the film: Two men return home from World War II to work on a farm in rural Mississippi, where they struggle to deal with racism and adjusting to life after war. But that’s only the second half of the movie. The first half focused on different characters and set them up, only to abandon them when the other two infinitely more interesting characters show up. Why? They aren’t nearly as interesting, and the emotional high points come from the two characters it focuses on in the second half. They set up aspects of the second half, for sure, but do we really need half of the runtime to tell us about the racism we already expect from a film set in this time period? Why couldn’t it focus on the two sons of the respective families when they are in war, and cut back to what’s going on at home occasionally? Why don’t we get to see the relationship between Ronsel and his lover? Why don’t we see the reasons for their trauma? The last 15-20 minutes were pretty good, though I kept thinking of Brokeback Mountain during a certain section. It’s hard to say whether I liked it overall, because it’s like two different movies turned into one. It’s like it was supposed to be a tv series, but only two episodes were written, so they were smashed together into one movie. The acting was fairly good throughout, but that’s really the only consistent thing. The last half is just way more interesting. I seriously almost turned the movie off during the first half, but decided to wait just a little longer to see if it picked up. Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell saved this movie. I’d give the first half 50/100, technically well made, but quite boring and mostly unnecessary, with a lot having very little bearing on the second half. The last half I’d give 75/100. Same quality filmmaking, but a lot more engaging and characters that I actually cared about. Overall I guess I’ll give it 65/100. It’s not really anything I haven’t seen before.
- DirectorYorgos LanthimosStarsBarry G. BernsonHerb CaillouetBill CampSteven, a charismatic surgeon, is forced to make an unthinkable sacrifice after his life starts to fall apart, when the behavior of a teenage boy he has taken under his wing turns sinister.Ok. This is a very well-made film. That being said, I really didn’t find it all that enjoyable, despite liking some fairly odd films, including the director’s previous film, The Lobster, which was one of my favorites of that year. But this movie just isn’t very entertaining. I’ve said it many times, I do not mind slow movies at all, just look at my favorite of the year, but I kept finding myself checking the time while watching this movie. I appreciate the work that went into the film, particularly the acting and score, but I wish it could have been given to a better story. Don’t get me wrong, I think there is a good film in here somewhere, but it’s just so hard to get motivated enough to find it when it’s so uninteresting. Like I said, I really liked The Lobster a lot, but that being said, I didn’t really have any expectations going into this one, as I was sure any expectations would be completely wrong. But while watching it I just kept wishing they’d would do something they didn’t or focus on a different aspect, but I just kept getting disappointed. It’s not really the movie’s fault, but it did hinder my experience. Like I said before, it is very well-made, but I don’t think I really ever need to see it again. 65/100
- DirectorTaika WaititiStarsChris HemsworthTom HiddlestonCate BlanchettImprisoned on the planet Sakaar, Thor must race against time to return to Asgard and stop Ragnarök, the destruction of his world, at the hands of the powerful and ruthless villain Hela.???
What is this? I don’t get it. I would say it’s just another Marvel movie that doesn’t do anything special, but will still be loved by a wide audience of people who know nothing about movies, or even Marvel, for that matter, but there was something that bothered me right from the opening scene: Thor is not Thor. It’s still Chris Hemsworth playing a character named Thor, but he isn’t the same Thor we’ve seen in all the other movies. He’s always had a bit of humor, but suddenly he’s Tony Stark level? And he doesn’t seem to even believe the same way he should. The things that really annoy me are mostly with the way Marvel ignores Norse mythology and basically rewrites it. For instance, many times in the movie Thor says “what the hell”. In Norse mythology, it’s Hel, which is ruled by a goddess who is also called Hel. This is integral to who Thor is, there is no way he wouldn’t know who Hel is. Also, the goddess Hel is Loki’s daughter. Why is Thor saying “what the hell” and yet knows nothing about his own beliefs in Hel? Now, obviously Disney/Marvel won’t actually tell these things accurately, but it’s still incredibly annoying to anyone who knows anything about it that they changed so much of it to the point that the characters, events, and beliefs are so different. Maybe that’s just me. Ignoring all of that, the movie is very inconsistent in tone, and it tries way too hard to be funny, which undercuts the seriousness of Ragnarok, which is the most important belief in Norse religion. Of which Thor is a big part of, despite him not knowing anything about it in this movie. Jeff Goldblum was fun to watch, and really the only thing I liked every time he was on screen. My favorite moment was the visuals when we see the Valkyries charging towards Hel. But for every thing I liked there where several things I didn’t. For instance, a scene where we could be told backstory through visuals, but a character explains it to the presumably stupid audience in case they don’t understand what they are seeing. But then later in the movie, we do briefly get storytelling through visuals. This movie is so inconsistent. I know I’ve already said that, and this review probably isn’t very well written, but neither is the movie. I love Taika Waititi as a director. What We Do in the Shadows is one of my favorite comedies, and I really enjoyed Hunt for the Wilderpeople, but Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t at all showcase his humor or other talents well. It’s the same obvious and often cringey humor every Disney/Marvel/Star Wars movie has, but just more of it this time. Why is Thor, the God of Thunder, affected by what is essentially an electric shock collar? Talking about this movie is giving me a headache. 50/100. Some cool visuals, Jeff Goldblum, Loki’s reaction to seeing the Hulk, and Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin instead of a terrible cover of it are all pluses, but almost everything else doesn’t work for me. It’s just mindless dribble. Again. - DirectorLee UnkrichAdrian MolinaStarsAnthony GonzalezGael García BernalBenjamin BrattAspiring musician Miguel, confronted with his family's ancestral ban on music, enters the Land of the Dead to find his great-great-grandfather, a legendary singer.Why does everybody jerk off Disney? Especially for this movie? Coco does nothing special, nothing new, and nothing surprising. Is it getting such great reviews because of it's Mexican setting? That's literally the only thing about Coco that I haven't seen before. It is almost the same plot as Kubo and the Two Strings. Kubo... Coco... hmmm... That's not surprising when you consider Lee Unkrich also directed Toy Story 3, which is a straight up carbon copy of Toy Story 2. Just because you alter the setting doesn't mean you can claim the same plot is a new story. That goes for both Coco and Toy Story 3. I only kind of chuckled once during the entire movie. I'm not sure if critics are getting more and more stupid or what, but they keep giving ridiculously high reviews to mediocre films lately. It happens a lot with Disney and Marvel movies, which makes sense since Disney owns Marvel. I’m really not happy about them owning so many properties. And I don't get why everybody loves this movie. 50\100
- DirectorJordan Vogt-RobertsStarsTom HiddlestonSamuel L. JacksonBrie LarsonAfter the Vietnam war, a team of scientists explores an uncharted island in the Pacific, venturing into the domain of the mighty Kong and must fight to escape a primal Eden.There's not much to say about this you haven't heard. The dialogue and characters kind of suck. The humor doesn't work for the most part. I found a lot of the CGI to be pretty bad. I also found the editing to be pretty bad in some parts, with some really weird shots to me. I know it's just supposed to be a fun-stupid movie, but for most of it I just found it stupid and not fun at all. Now, if you liked this movie, that's fine for you. But this kind of movie that thinks it can get away with being this stupid annoys me to death. As for the aforementioned "characters", I couldn't remember a single one's name in the movie. So, I liked John C. Reilly, found everybody else bland, and HATED the insufferabely annoying "comic relief" character. I'm serious, I wanted him to die throughout the whole movie. And that brings me to my main point: why can't we have good, well-written fun movies and not just these stupid fun movies? The characters suck, the comedy falls flat, there is not any shred of emotion, there are zero surprises, the CGI isn't that great. Look back at Peter Jackson's King Kong movie from 2005. Yes, it's long, yes, it has problems, but I LOVED that movie. I've watched it several times. Some of the CGI isn't the best, but some of it is really good. Yes, we need a bigger Kong in this new cinematic universe with Godzilla, but Kong looked WAY better in the 2005 movie in my opinion. I also liked the action scenes better. And I really liked the characters as well, because we had time to get to know them. Yeah, I wanted more on the island, but I actually love the movie before we get there too. There's some dumb humor and dialogue that doesn't quite work, but for the most part, it did. And because of the characters being actual characters, there was actually emotion to be felt when someone would die, or there was actually a since of fear for them. There was even a lot of emotional scenes with Kong himself. I know I'm comparing two different movies here, and maybe I shouldn't be, but this new Kong movie is not well written, I found it insulting to my intelligence, It didn't have that sense of wonder and excitement about discovering this incredible world hidden away on this remote island, it didn't do a single thing better than the 2005 King Kong film, and worst of all, it was just boring to me. I'm dead serious, I almost fell asleep during the final battle scene. Oh, and speaking of final scenes, the last thing we see? What was that? Seriously? I mean, I wont spoil it, but what a strange way to end the film. I mean, I actually liked the very last scene, but how it cuts from the previous scene with Kong and into it is just weird. Also, I HATE it in movies when they get a PG-13 rating because they changed the color of some creature's blood to a color other than red. If they all had red blood in this movie, it would be rated R. That's stupid. However, let me finally get to some positives. I said I thought Kong looked better in the 2005 movie, but I do actually still like him a lot in this one. Also, some of the creature designs were pretty cool. This might be a weird one, but I really liked the font and color of the end credits and the background for them. Also, there is an after-credits scene that was actually kind of cool. And, like I said, I did actually like John C. Reilly in this movie. Also, the score wasn't bad, though obviously I can't compare it to the 2005 movie's score, which is one of my all time favorites. Whenever I think of a score from a film that conveys tragedy, that's the one I think of. But the score in the new film is sufficient for the story told. Ok, I'm sorry I've talked so much about Peter Jackson's King Kong, I just love that movie and don't get the dislike many have for it, and I really don't get why so many are saying that Kong: Skull Island is merely mediocre. It's not mediocre. I think it's just a bad movie with some action in it, and people are just focusing on that. Sorry, but like I said before, I found this movie insulting, and I don't get why so many people are saying it's decent and even giving it above average reviews. I mean, it doesn't completely suck, but it's really close to completely sucking. Whatever, to each his own, but this is definitely not for me. Holy cow, this is the longest review I've ever written. Maybe I shouldn't include everything about the 2005 movie to make it shorter? I mean, you could almost watch that whole movie by the time you get done reading this. (By the way, I'm totally ok with the run-time of 2005 Kong). Crap, I did it again. This is a Kong: Skull Island review! Not King Kong! Skull Island! Ok, I'm done complaining. In the end, it’s just a stupid monster movie that’s meant to be fun and not really a smart movie, but I just didn’t have any fun at all watching it. 45/100.
- DirectorBong Joon HoStarsTilda SwintonPaul DanoAhn Seo-hyunA young girl risks everything to prevent a powerful, multinational company from kidnapping her best friend - a fascinating beast named Okja.This is a hard movie to judge. Who is it for? It's humor can be way too childish for adults, or for the movie to be taken very seriously, but then it has a lot of swearing, violence, and some very disturbing content, with a message about animal abuse. Overall I thought it had some balls showing some of the disturbing stuff, but at a lot of points it just felt too cartoonish. While I liked some elements of it, I can't really say it's that good. 45/100
- DirectorChris WedgeStarsLucas TillJane LevyThomas LennonA young man working at a small town junkyard discovers and befriends a creature which feeds on oil being sought by a fracking company.This is not a good movie. It’s very annoying at times, it’s illogical, the main characters are jerks in the beginning, and unfortunately they’d are still jerks in the end, they cause a TON of damage and literally get people killed with zero repercussions, and it’s just not funny. Also, the lead actor seemed like he was trying to be Heath Ledger, which maybe he wasn’t, but’s it just seemed that way to me and it bugged me a bit. Again, he may not have been going for that, so it won’t impact my final rating. I hate “country” “music” though, and it’s hard to forgive that. But I’ll even let that slide. Also, the product placement was quite annoying, even to someone who builds engines myself and personally prefers the products being advertised. It’s really a fairly mean-spirited movie too. I had heard that about it before watching it , but i was still surprised. It’s really not a very good movie for kids to watch in that respect. It’s just another badly written, badly acted, unoriginal film that thinks kids are stupid so nobody will question the idiocy of it. Personally, I did enjoy watching it, but that’s probably just because I saw it with my cousin who I don’t get to see all that often, so I would have had a good time wether it was good or bad. And it’s certainly wasn’t good. I can’t recommend it for anyone, including children. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it’s not even quite an average movie. 40/100
- DirectorJames GunnStarsChris PrattZoe SaldanaDave BautistaThe Guardians struggle to keep together as a team while dealing with their personal family issues, notably Star-Lord's encounter with his father, the ambitious celestial being Ego.It baffled me that the first Guardians did so well with both audiences and critics, as it is the definition of a cliche, unoriginal/uninspired, ex-machina driven pile of sometimes good but then also sometimes bad visual effects and characters with no defining characteristics. Well, Vol. 2 just accentuates that even more, only worse. Not only is there once again a villain with the power to kill everybody instantly and clearly wants to but doesn't because then the "heroes" would be dead (it's not nitpicking if the entire rest of the film is dependent on that happening, by the way. It's just bad/lazy writing), but the main characters all deserve it. In the beginning of the movie, the characters that our protagonists are trying to escape from have every right to their revenge. How can I side with these characters if they are thieving, murderess jerks? It's one thing if they have been wronged more than they are currently wronging someone else, but that's not how it is. They deserve everything that's coming to them. Right off the bat here I'll say That the only characters I liked at all or sympathize with are Yondu, Drax, Mantis, and especially Nebula. That's right, a villain is more sympathetic than the heroes. Gamora is a terrible person, and nebula has every right to want her dead. There is no way I can ever side with Gamora now (not that I could before, as she is probably the most shallow character in both movies), no matter what happens to her in the future, I will not feel bad for her. I already knew their backstory before I saw the first Guardians movie, but it seemed like they were leaving that part out. Apparently not, and they expect me to care about somebody who didn't care about and essentially tortured her own sister. No, not happening. I will always side with Nebula, because she's the one who has been wronged most, and deserves her revenge. As for the others, Kurt Russell was a great choice to play Ego. Star Lord is still a ripoff of Han Solo, just like he was in the comics, and he is still a smug jerk, which doesn't make any sense. I mean, given his backstory,wouldn't you expect him to be more sympathetic towards others? But no, he's just a jerk. Rocket Raccoon just wants to kill everybody and steal everything. That's literally as far as his character goes. What a great "good guy". Yondu is pretty cool, and is the only character who seems to be paying for his mistakes, and therefore the only one who is easy to root for without feeling completely bad about it. Drax just does what he thinks is right for himself, which works well once again. Baby Groot is just there to sell toys. I did like this one better than the first Guardians, to be honest, even if it is mostly because it justifies my disliking the first one even more. Also, when the end credits begin my favorite Cheap Trick song plays. Oh, by the way, the end credit scenes are all completely pointless, so there's no need to stick around for them. Ugh. 35/100
- DirectorPatty JenkinsStarsGal GadotChris PineRobin WrightWhen a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, Diana, an Amazonian warrior in training, leaves home to fight a war, discovering her full powers and true destiny.(May contain spoilers towards the end)
Why? Why does this movie have such great reviews? It’s not terrible, but it’s not great either. It’s very average for the most part, but with some very below-average moments as well, especially towards the end. Some of the acting is good, then some of the acting is bad. Even the action isn’t good, and a lot of it seems incomplete, like a clip or two are missing. The CGI is pretty terrible too. Patty Jenkins clearly doesn’t know how to properly direct action scenes. The only good thing about this film in my opinion, is that maybe now Patty Jenkins can get more freedom to make better movies (like Monster), because despite her talents being wasted here, the movie made money, and that’s all that Hollywood cares about. I wish I could say this movie was good, but it’s yet another shallow action film that pretends to have a heart by recycling the same storyline and forced romance, relies on violence to keep people interested, and doesn’t really develop any characters enough to really feel like you know or care about them. There is nothing special about this movie. It even looks fairly dull. The villain is laughably lame. There are no surprises at all, nothing to think about other than the weird illogic of the film. Like why does Wonder Woman keep killing people if she truly believes killing only Aries will make them all stop fighting? Doesn’t that make her just as bad? As for the character herself, I was glad she wasn’t completely over sexualized, even if her costume is still rather skimpy. However, it was annoying that Gal Gatot had to pose like she was in a shampoo commercial in every single scene. Also, the villain has the worst, most cliche motivation ever, and just exposits over and over again. I thought Marvel was the one who screwed up their villains. Looks like the DCEU exists to prove that DC can do it too. This movie isn’t any better than the extremely mediocre Marvel films that Marvel “fans” rave about despite being hollow bastardizations of the characters and stories from the comics that they supposedly love. Except at least Marvel casts good actors to portray their watered-down movie versions of the characters, which somehow makes up for the characters themeselves not being all that’s interesting when the actors are interesting. Ok, maybe I’ll try to focus on the good things for a bit. Gal Gadot was decent, but not great. It’s pretty clear she hasn’t really pursued acting throughout most of her career. Chris Pine was ok. Their romantic relationship was the best part of the movie, despite it feeling incredibly rushed. Oops, I went back to bad immediately. Sorry. Ok umm, the Wonder Woman theme is cool... buuut it was also VERY distracting and didn’t fit the scene any time it kicked in. I’m running out of things. It’s just a very ok movie, and I really don’t get all the praise. There are good comic book movies, but just because one happens to be a comic book film doesnt mean you can hold it too a different standard. I just wish people would stop doing that, but it only seems to be getting worse. It really is unfortunate, I was very exited to hear that Patty Jenkins was directing this film, but honestly anybody could have done it. It’s a studio money-making machine, and it doesn’t even have the guts to pretend it isn’t. Its certainly better than a lot of other comic book films, but that doesn’t take much. It’s easily the best of the DCEU, but instead of being its own thing it is essentially a Marvel film, only without constantly reminding you that it is part of a franchise every five minutes, and without the superior, or at least more charismatic actors. So yeah, it’s not terrible, but it’s not especially good. I enjoyed parts of it, but was bored at the predictability of the entire overall thing. And the ending is simply awful, wasting an opportunity to have a GREAT ending, which it seemed like they were setting up, where she realizes the battle can’t be won by fighting just one guy. Can you imagine how refreshing and gusty that would have been? But no, they ruin that instantly. I don’t think I ever need to see this thing again. 35/100 - DirectorRidley ScottStarsMichael FassbenderKatherine WaterstonBilly CrudupThe crew of a colony ship, bound for a remote planet, discover an uncharted paradise with a threat beyond their imagination, and must attempt a harrowing escape.While I did like finding out what David had been up to since Prometheus, as well as the lore of the Engineers, this movie is waaaayyyy too full of stupidity to be called good. It's certainly got moments of greatness, but unfortunately they are usually spoiled by a stupid decision, or a ridiculous convenience. Also, the lead character has no real defining characteristics. Danny McBride was probably the most compelling character, though even he made really stupid and illogical decisions. This movie doesn't do anything that's really all that special. It's also not scary at all, which is fine if that's not what they are going for, but obviously they marketed that way, or I wouldn't even mention it. The special effects are terrible, often looking far from finished. Alien: Covenant doesn’t really do anything special. The only good thing about this movie I saw that it meant Ridley Scott was working on this and not screwing up Blade Runner 2049. What happened, Ridley? Have you lost the touch you once had? I no longer look forward to things with his name attached to it. Every time I think about this movie I like it less. At least some of the stupidity of it made me laugh. 35/100
- DirectorJoachim RønningEspen SandbergStarsJohnny DeppGeoffrey RushJavier BardemCaptain Jack Sparrow is pursued by old rival Captain Salazar and a crew of deadly ghosts who have escaped from the Devil's Triangle. They're determined to kill every pirate at sea...notably Jack.Captain Jack Sparrow was initially fascinating because of him being charming and yet menacing at the same time, and because of his quick wit and ability to make good use of a bad situation. Unfortunately, in all the sequels he is reduced to a bumbling idiot who accidentally stumbles and pratfalls his way into and out of things. It's a real shame, especially for me, since I loved him in the first movie so much. So does this one get back on track and return the Captain to his former glory? No. Not at all. This movie was honestly kind of hard to watch. It's just a bunch of visual noise and nonsense (kind of like saying "visual noise"). There's nothing special about Dead Men Tell No Tales, other than the great potential of Javier Bardem's villainous Captain Salazar, and a certain characters heritage, which I won't spoil. Even that aspect felt very forced though. It's really not that good, but not as bad as I expected. 40/100
- DirectorRian JohnsonStarsDaisy RidleyJohn BoyegaMark HamillRey develops her abilities with the help of Luke Skywalker, as the Resistance prepares for battle against the First Order.I’m a huge Star Wars nerd, but I really didn’t care all that much for Rogue One after a few viewings, so I toned down my expectations for The Last Jedi quite a bit. Somehow, I was still disappointed. I may be a big fan of the saga, but I’m also a big fan of cinema and storytelling in general, so when I’m presented with a fairly flawed, plothole-driven film set in one of my favorite universes, obviously I’m not exactly going to love it. Not one Star Wars movie is perfect, they all have flaws, but this one is almost beyond lazy. I can’t say much else without getting into spoilers, so my score is 55/100 (has since changed to 30/100, see edit at bottom), because I (initially) liked certain scenes and aspects a lot, despite disliking quite a bit of other things. If you haven the seen it yet, this is where you should stop reading.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK...
The rebellion ship is nearly out of fuel, and can’t make another jump to light speed, so the First Order is slowly chasing them, waiting for them to run out of fuel, right? So why not just make a small jump and obliterate them when they are closer? The First Order are not out of fuel! The whole conflict there is soooo stupid. Following any resemblance of logic, the First Order should have won right then and there. Then Rey would have most likely came for revenge, somewhat mirroring Luke in Empire Strikes Back, they could have captured her,and thus found Luke. But this movie doesn’t follow any logic whatsoever. Finn and Rose’s entire sideplot is completely, 100% unnecessary. It’s just filling space. Also, Rose stopping Finn from flying into the enemy weapon at the end? Absolutely idiotic. And I’m so glad their storyline is topped off with one of the most cringeworthy kisses in the entire saga. Luke was a massive disappointment. He didn’t feel like Luke. In a few moments he really did, but for the most part, it was as if a bad writer was trying to make a new, controversial version of his character. Oh wait, I guess that’s exactly what happened. Also, we don’t even get the one thing everybody was exited for: Luke training Rey. Thanks, Rian Johnson. I was trying so hard not to laugh at shirtless Kylo Ren. I was reeeaalllyyy hoping that the guy Finn and Rose were trying to find would be Lando. That would have been amazing. But the guy they actually ended up finding, played by Benicio Del Toro, was easily one of the most interesting characters. However, he was very underused. Speaking of underused characters, Captain Phasma was once again a complete waste of a cool character. But the one i really can’t forgive is the COLOSSAL waste that’s is Supreme Leader Snoke. Thanks you for building up this character as super powerful and evil and smart, and then killing him in the most idiotic way possible. Anyone who knows anything about the Star Wars books knows that it is very hard to mask what you are doing with the force, others who are force sensitive can almost always sense it. So when you build up Snoke as being incredibly powerful and intelligent, and literally have him talking about currently being inside of Kylo Ren’s head, and Kylo uses the force in an incredibly obvious and stupid way to kill him, you completely ruin everything you’ve built up about the character. Who was he? Where didn’t he come from? How did he rise to power? Who cares, let’s just kill him off like he’s nothing at all. And then let’s hope have Kylo and Rey kill all of his guards without using the force and only relying on their not-really-impressive skills with lightsabers. Seriously, that fight everybody loved? Why do you love it? It’s not very good. It’s really slow and amateurish. It’s like they filmed a practice run before they actually did the scene for real and ran out of time to film the real one. And they don’t even USE THE FORCE! Come on! Also, why did Vice Admiral Holdo not just tell Poe Dameron her plan? Seriously, what was the point in not telling him? Uggggghhh it’s so stupid. Why do so many movies do this exact same thing? It’s just there to cause unnecessary divisions between characters, and so she will look like a bad guy but then redeem herself in the end. Except that she was planning that all along and if she just told everybody that, there wouldn’t be a huge chunk of the movie, even though it makes everything Poe, Finn, and Rose do completely irrelevant. Also, unlike most people, I really don’t like Poe Dameron. I don’t get why anyone does. He’s a selfish idiot who endangers the lives of everyone around him all the time. Screw Poe Dameron. I’m struggling to come up with enough reasons to justify giving it the above-average rating I gave it, but honestly it’s hard. I just really like the characters of Rey and Kylo Ren. Everything with them was at least entertaining, and their relationship was my favorite aspect of the film. But then, having Snoke being the one bridging the gap between Kylo and Rey completely nullifies the best and most interesting aspect of their relationship, even though he’s never seen Rey, which means that Snoke would have had to be powerful enough to dig around in Kylo’s head to find her, and be powerful enough to mask what he was doing, which would mean having a lesser force user kill him in such a stupidly obvious way betrays his character. And the fact that Kylo and Rey are connected after his death means they took something really cool and interesting, then turned it into something lame, and then turned it into a confusing plot hole. And wouldn’t that imply that Snoke was in Rey’s head as well? And if so, couldn’t he find Luke that way? Even the best aspect of the entire movie makes no sense. By the way, does anyone know what would have actually happened in the gambling planet scene after they left? The animals they freed would be rounded up the next day, and the kids who were supposed to be watching them would have been killed, or at least SEVERELY punished. But again, this movie doesnt follow any logic whatsoever. Why did Luke die? Why? I’m not against it at all if there is a good reason for his death, but as far as I can tell, there isn’t I one. It’s supposed to be emotional I guess, but the only emotion I got was frustration. There was no resolution in his death. Another thing that I really didn’t like was the forced, unfunny, Disney/Marvel “humor”. The whole film didn’t feel like Star Wars, it felt like Disney. And I’m no too a big fan of Disney’s incredibly watered-down, mindless movies anyway. I’m just really disappointed with The Last Jedi. It could have been a great movie, but while I enjoyed some of it, I was seriously questioning a lot of it. It’s not great, but it’s not horrible either. It’s just somewhere inbetween. It makes me very worried for the future of Star Wars, because while Rian Johnson can direct actors fairly well, he is a terrible writer. Knowing that he is writing the next trilogy of Star Wars movies is very upsetting to me. Once again, my rating is 55/100.
EDIT: The more I think about TLJ the less I like it and the more flaws I find. I just can’t get past a lot of the idiotic and incredibly obvious plot holes it has, I dislike the majority of the characters, and it’s just a terribly written film. Obviously Rian Johnson isn’t the only one to blame here. It is a DISNEY movie, after all, and as we should all know by now, Disney is not in it to make art, they are in it to make money. And Kathleen Kennedy does NOT know anything or care about Star Wars at all. Rian Johnson is an egotistical man-child, a terrible writer, and even less willing to listen to anyone else than George Lucas was. To get to the point, after quite some time and thought, I’ve lowered my score to 30/100. TLJ betrays everything about Star Wars. The prequels are far superior, and that’s putting it lightly. Those 30 points all go to the visuals and sympathy for Mark Hamill. - DirectorDavid LeitchStarsCharlize TheronJames McAvoyJohn GoodmanAn undercover MI6 agent is sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a missing list of double agents.I FINALLY finished watching this movie after the 4th try, and man, what a chore that was. Boooorrrriiinng. That’s the best way I can describe Atomic Blonde. What a terrible title, by the way. First off, the story is nothing even relatively new. I get that they were going for the feel of an 80’s action/spy/thriller, which is perfectly fine with me, but that doesn’t mean you have to recycle the same plot again. Microfilm with a list of active agents (or whatever)? Wow! I’ve never seen that in a thousand movies before! So it’s clearly just an example of purposeful style over substance. The action was decent for the most part, though it was also very exhausting in a bad way. The main scene used in the trailers was pretty good at first, but I found myself laughing at the stupid Wilhelm Scream towards the end of it. Whyyyyyyy do we keep using those? It immediately takes you out of the film. I liked how in one scene a guy is being beaten with a skateboard, and the guy flinches way after being hit, rather than when he is actually being hit. Just kidding, I pointed and laughed at that. There is also a pretty neat single-take driving scene, where a car flips over, and then our main character puts her car in reverse when she gets cut off by another bad guy car, and the car that flipped over behind her that was previously in the middle of the road is suddenly nowhere to be seen! Wow! Fantastic attention to even tiny details in the action scenes in this movie! Also, this sounds random if you haven’t seen the movie, but TAKE THE KEYS OUT OF YOUR FACE ALREADY! Visually, the action looked pretty good in most parts, but the color palette of this film is just soooo unappealing and makes it feel so stale. James McAvoy is easily the most interesting character in the movie, and John Goodman was alright, but there is absolutely nothing in the movie that serves to create any kind of attachment to our main character. That’s kind of a big deal. Charlize Theron is fine in the role, but her character has no, well, character. Now let’s get to one of the worst thing so about this movie: Sofia Boutella and her character. She most likely could be removed completely from the movie, and the story would not change. I would say she has no purpose, but obviously they needed to have a lesbian sex scene to put in the trailers for the movie, so that men would go see it. That’s got to be the only reason she’s in it, her character is pretty much pointless other than being a sleazy marketing tool. As for her performance, she doesn’t react facially at all when someone comes up behind her and starts to choke her with a cable. Because she was expecting it, and waiting for it. She is easily the weakest actor in the movie. I’m not sure why so any people like her, despite her somewhat wooden, amateurish acting. She’s like the female Lucas Hedges in that regard, I guess. Not that the script really helped, as everybody has cheesy dialogue, featuring such original gems as “You’ve got some balls (insert reason here)”, and “I trust you about as far as I can throw you”, etc. there is also a really weird fourth wall break towards the end that just didn’t work or make any sense. It’s not even done by the main character. Honestly, the action is the only thing worth seeing in Atomic Blonde. And even they are not all that amazing, to be honest. I personally found them somewhat boring, and, as I said earlier, quite tiresome. Maybe the bland color scheme was to blame for that. But maybe not. Overall I did not enjoy watching Atomic Blonde at all. The only thing I really liked was hearing “London Calling” by the Clash, even if using that song in any film that takes place in London is itself a cliche. Whatever. I’m done talking about this. 40/100
- DirectorSofia CoppolaStarsNicole KidmanKirsten DunstElle FanningThe unexpected arrival of a wounded Union soldier at a girls school in Virginia during the American Civil War leads to jealousy and betrayal.This movie could have been pretty good, but unfortunately it is quite unremarkable. I can’t really recommend it to anyone. Collin Farrel is good as usual, but that’s really the only good thing I can say about it. For one thing, despite it being fairly plodding and really just not very interesting, it seems like it is too short to tell the story effectively. Which is kind of funny, seeing as how I was wanting it to end as soon as possible. And this is coming from someone who enjoys slow movies (see my favorite of the year). The pacing is not good at all, as it feels much of rushed. The audio editing and mixing was also a consistent complaint I had while watching it. I really wanted to like this movie, but it just didn’t do anything special or really memorable. It’s honestly a movie I will be glad to forget. Also, anybody who thinks this is a feminist film is just flat out wrong, and I question their thinking abilities. 35/100
- DirectorPatrick HughesStarsRyan ReynoldsSamuel L. JacksonGary OldmanOne of the world's top bodyguards gets a new client, a world class hitman who must testify at the International Criminal Court. They must put their differences aside and work together to make it to the trial alive and on time.I will be shocked if I see a worse movie than this in 2017. I went into it expecting a dumb but fun movie that I can at least laugh at a few parts, but no. It's certainly dumb, but it's dumb to the point of being unenjoyable, and it's not funny at all. Seriously, not even Ryan Reynolds and Samuel Jackson can save this pile. It's like a bad tv pilot episode for a series that gets canceled well before the pilot actually airs. I can't talk about this movie without mentioning the music. It is truly awful. I don’t think I’ve ever complained so much about the music in a movie as much as I did while watching this. It is so incredibly forced and annoying, I couldn't help but get even more angry every time it kicked in. Also, it contains quite possibly the worst cover of "Black Betty" of all time. Seriously terrible music. Also, the editing was pretty bad, as well as pretty much every CG effect. The opening of the movie is garbage. Good lord, I could go on and on, but I don't want to. Just do yourself a favor and spend your money elsewhere. I was able to see it for free, and I still felt like I got ripped off. 20/100