Change Your Image
CyclopsKnowsBest24
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Gossip Girl (2021)
The Good and The Bad
"Gossip Girl" 2021 is a reboot/sequel series to the original and popular "Gossip Girl" (2007) tv show. The original show followed two main characters Serena (Blake Lively) and Blair (Leighton Meester) whose glamorous lives and scandalous secrets were the focus of an anonymous blogger named "Gossip Girl" whose identity was not revealed until the end of the series finale. The original "Gossip Girl" show was famous for it's glamorous focus on the Upper East Side New York, beautiful fashions, cinematography, and of course absurd soap-like drama involving it's 6 main characters (Serena, Blair, Dan, Chuck, Jenny, and Nate) and some recurring side characters.
Fast forward to 2021, and "Gossip Girl" (still narrated by the iconic voice of Kristen Bell) has decided to comeback and teach a new set of students in the Upper East Side "a lesson" after being away too long. This new Gossip Girl has a different more "vindictive" tone and doesn't seem as fascinated with the new students lives as she seems more intent on taking them down.
Unlike the original series where the biggest question "who is Gossip Girl?" wasn't answered until the finale, the new series does something unique where Gossip Girl's identity is revealed right at the beginning of the show. We learn that the teachers at Constance St. Jude's are the one's who decide to resurrect Gossip Girl to keep the kids "in line" and also help secure their jobs at the school (after a teacher gets fired because of the students). The students of course are unaware of who the identity of Gossip Girl is (at least at this time), and at first think it is a prank until secrets start to come out via Gossip Girl's Instagram.
The new show focuses on two new main characters: Julien Calloway (Jordan Alexander) and Zoya Lott (Whitney Peak) who happen to be half-sisters reuniting secretly at the beginning of the show. Their relationship seems to be a similar to Serena/Blair's friendship from the previous show, where they seem to go back and forth as to whether they are friends or not, and have a lot of power play/drama revolving around them. Also, Zoya seems to be somewhat of a mix of Dan Humphrey's (played by Penn Badgley in the original show) character where she is new to the world of the Upper East Side and trying to find her place as an outsider.
These two characters so far are the most interesting of the new students, while sadly the other characters seem to fall to the wayside or not have great development. Thomas Doherty's character is very charismatic and has a similar vibe to Chuck Bass (Ed Westwick), and seems to have potential to be an interesting character going forward. Otto (played by Eli Brown) doesn't seem to be much else than a "love interest" for our main two leads to fight over, and could easily become this shows Nate (Chace Crawford), which most older Gossip Girl fans know is not a fun character to watch or care about.
As for other side character's, Audrey Hope (Emily Alyn Lind) is visual striking in her looks (a similar, but toned down look/style to Blair Waldorf), but seems very uninteresting and her only motivation so far seems to be having a threesome with her boyfriend, Aki (played by Evan Mock) and Thomas Doherty's character. If this is supposed to be her "big secret" it seems like something Gossip Girl and the world could care less about (and even her boyfriend seems aware of her fantasy and plays along with it). As for Zion Moreno and Savannah Lee Smith, they seem to be similar to Blair's "minions" from the original show (this time they are minions for Julien), but are given more screentime despite not having interesting character arcs/developments so far (their main trait seems to be "mean girls").
Overall the show seems to have too many characters that take away from the drama rather than contribute to it. I personally would have cut out at least Audrey and Aki's characters as they seem to be very useless to the overall plot/drama, and have not come across as interesting characters to watch.
As for the shows transition to modern day, I think there are hits and misses. For the positives I think the show is right that Instagram is a huge/popular platform as of this day and age, and one Gossip Girl would most likely use. It will be interesting going forward to see how Instagram is used both by characters like Julien (who seems to be a commentary on Influencers) for social clout, and Gossip Girl for "cancel culture."
As for the misses, I think the show comes off a little too idealistic with it's view of diversity in a high class wealthy institution like the Upper East Side, and it's commentary for how those types of students would react to the world around them.
While I do think the characters of Julien and Zoya are interesting and overall well casted, I think the whole cast is too "diverse" for where they are (at least the students). I have a hard time believing that the majority of students of wealthy families on the "Upper East Side" would not be mostly white rich snobs. This seems like it would be great modern day commentary for a newcomer like Zoya who is black coming to an almost "all white" privileged school and not feeling like she fits in, and how her half-sister Julien (who has been in that system her whole life) changes herself to fit that mold and isn't her "authentic" self. I hope the show will have some commentary on that in the future, but so far there has been no mention of it.
It would also be cool to see how the characters "put on shows" to be liked/accepted by society or get caught by "cancel culture"/Gossip Girl and have to give out apologies that are forced/change their image or risk losing their reputation.
Also, some dialogue in the show was on the cringey side and seemed out of touch for how teenagers would actually talk. One example that comes to mind was when Doherty's character teased Audrey of being monogamous/married at age 16 and she responded "don't straight shame me." Lines like that and similar seemed like someone who scrolls twitter all day and thinks that is how people really talk in person.
Overall the new Gossip Girl seems like it's off to a semi-rough start, but if it adjusts some of its kinks and focuses on good storylines/interesting characters (and has fun with it) there is potential there. It will be interesting to see where the show goes, especially with the identity of Gossip Girl being known to the audience, and if that will bring about serious consequences if the students find out (or better the REAL Gossip Girl comes back).
X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
Not the worst X-men film, but not the best either
"Dark Phoenix" (2019) is the very last mainline X-men film that will be made by the Fox film studio before being purchased by Disney. This film since release has been criticized heavily as the "worst X-men movie" and a "horrible finale to the franchise." Let me start by saying this is not the worst of the X-men films (as I believe that honor goes to "Origins: Wolverine" 2009). I also don't believe this film was meant to be a finale to the franchise either prior to the Disney buyout.
If I was ranking this among other X-men films I would say that it falls around where the mid-range X-men films such as "X-men: The Last Stand" (2006) and "X-men: Apocalypse" (2016) are in terms of storytelling, entertainment, and quality. In fact I would say "Dark Phoenix" tries to take the problems of "The Last Stand" and fix them with better acting and emotion for the story, but fails in comparison when it comes to big/fun X-men action which is something "The Last Stand," for all of its faults, did really well.
Now let me break down the things I loved and didn't like about "Dark Phoenix":
Pros:
-Amazing Acting:
Let me just say every actor brought their A-game for "Dark Phoenix" and this film showcases some of the best performances in the franchise. Of course the major standout is Sophie Turner as Jean Grey/Phoenix. I'm not sure what happened between her performance in Apocalypse to this, but she brought her best performance yet and did an excellent job portraying one of the most iconic and conflicted comic book characters. Other standouts were James McAvoy as Professor X, Nicholas Hoult as Beast, Michael Fassbender as Magneto, and surprisingly Jennifer Lawerence as Mystique. I really thought Jennifer may have tried to phone in her performance like she did in "Apocalypse" but she seemed much more emotionally invested in this film (maybe because she knew it was the last one).
-More accurate to the comic book:
While not perfect, "Dark Phoenix" did explain the origins of the Phoenix Force better and showed it's corruption of Jean Grey in a similar way to the comics. There are a few missed opportunities with certain plot points and characters missing from the original comic book story (which will be in the cons section), but compared to "The Last Stand" this was a much more accurate portrayal of the original comic book story.
The Dark Atmosphere:
"Dark Phoenix" is definitely the darkest X-men movie so far and it surprisingly works. Nowadays it seems comic book movies (especially Marvel ones) seem to be afraid to go dark, but "Dark Phoenix" and the cast weren't afraid to go there and it works for the most part. My only complaint is that it may not have gone dark enough...
Score:
The score for this film is fantastic and possibly the best for any modern superhero film. Hans Zimmer did a fantastic job for a not so amazing X-film.
Cons:
First Time Director:
"Dark Phoenix" is writer Simon Kinberg's first debut as a director, and sadly it shows. The film lacks memorable cinematography and action set pieces that we have come to expect from these films. While obviously Bryan Singer was going to be replaced after his behavior both on and off set during "Apocalypse," you can definitely see a drop in quality from a filmmaking perspective since his departure. Had "Dark Phoenix" had a more experienced director working on it, it may have turned out better (especially the action sequences).
Villains and Missing/New Characters:
Why Kinberg decided to go the route of generic and unknown alien villains (who are probably Skrulls) we can only wonder, but when given the original "Dark Phoenix" storyline and many other great X-men villains to choose from it was a very strange decision. Why not bring back Emma Frost and the Hellfire Club? Or do a new villain such as Mister Sinister who happens to have an obsession with Cyclops and Jean Grey? It feels like wasted potential for something that could have been better. Also, what happened to characters such as Psylocke, Jubilee, and company? It seemed like their roles could have been expanded after "Apocalypse" and there also could have been some newer X-men added to the team such as Gambit, Iceman, etc.
R-rating:
Lastly in my opinion, "Dark Phoenix" would have done much better with an R rating given it's dark tone and the seriousness of the story. This is definitely a hard PG-13 and I don't think many families will enjoy it due to it's serious subject matter. I understand why the studio wanted to make it PG-13 for safety of the brand, but an R-rating would have been much better.
In the end "Dark Phoenix" isn't the worst X-men film, but it definitely had room for improvement and sadly this cast/franchise didn't go out on the bang they deserved prior to the Disney purchase of Fox. We will see how Disney/Marvel uses these characters in the future, and if they ever choose to approach this dark storyline and the character of Jean Grey again after several mediocre attempts. My hope is that they will give it a shot after a few X-films and some good character development, but we will see.
Suicide Squad (2016)
When compared to the trailers, it's disappointing. When compared to other superhero films, it's average.
Let me start by saying that "Suicide Squad" (2016) was my most hyped up film of the year, mainly due to my love for the characters, actors, and brilliant marketing. From the first dark and moody trailer to the fun and action packed Bohemian Rhapsody trailer, I knew this film had a lot going for it. To say my expectations were high would be an understatement, and sadly I feared they wouldn't be meet.
After seeing the film twice, I have come to terms with how I really feel about it. The best way I can sum up how I felt about this film is by making a list. This is a good, the bad, and the ugly of "Suicide Squad."
The Good: "Suicide Squad's" best thing it has going for it both in the trailers and the film is the cast (aside from the Enchantress (Cara Delevingne). Margot Robbie completely steals the show as Harley Quinn, and it is so refreshing to see an actress bring to life such an iconic role and do it justice.
Viola Davis was the standout in this film as Amanda Waller. Every time she is on the screen she brings a powerful and commanding presence, you can actually see why the Squad takes her seriously.
Will Smith's Deadshot of course gets a lot of screen-time, though his performance doesn't feel out of his usual range.
Every other character is good to fair, but unfortunately we do not get enough time to really get to know them.
The Bad: Sadly, the Joker (Jared Leto) gets very little screen-time in "Suicide Squad," even though he was probably the second most anticipated character next to Margo's Harley Quinn. It is obvious to see that a lot of Leto's scenes were cut out of the film, especially ones that depicted his abusive relationship with Harley. If you were looking forward to finally see a great depiction of the iconic "Mad Love" comic book story, you will sadly be disappointed.
It seems that "BVS" being seen as too dark and moody, may have heavily influenced David Ayer and company to get rid of those intense/dark scenes. Sadly, we will never know if that was a good choice to remove them or not.
The Ugly: The areas where "Suicide Squad" clearly fails are editing and writing. Sadly, the film is an editing mess. You can tell that Ayer didn't have clear direction for the story he wanted to tell, and if he did, someone else must of have strongly suggested to change his original idea.
The film tries to combine several different tones, but sadly it can't quite identify what kind of film it wants to be.
The writing is sadly also weak and very typical to many other action films. It has a generic villain (which is kinda hilarious in a film all about them) played by a very weak actress, Cara Delevingne. Her powers mainly involved her "dancing" and when she was possessed by the witch her voice was dubbed over, so if Cara could actually deliver a threatening line we will never know.
The humor is also hit or miss. Some lines are funny, while others are just generic. For a film with both Harley Quinn and the Joker you would have expected some better material.
In the end, "Suicide Squad" isn't the worst superhero film ever, but it doesn't meet it's hugely possible potential. The film had a ton of material to work with from the outstanding "Mad Love" story to a great core cast and characters. Sadly, it did not take full advantage of these things with the writing, directing, and editing. I truly hope WB/DC gets their act together with "Wonder Woman" (2017) and "Justice League" (2017),especially in the writing/editing department.
The Shallows (2016)
A Modern Love Letter to "Jaws"
"The Shallows" (2016) is a shark based thriller that manages to be unique from past shark films, but also pays homage to where this genre has been. From the beautiful scenery to the high tension, I have not felt a film come so close to what Jaws (1975) did in a long time.
First off, the camera/editing work in this film is so beautiful I would often times find myself caring less about where the shark is, and instead being distracted by how stunning everything looks. The colors are so vivid, the camera moves with the ocean and wind, and the scenery is often breathtaking.
Of course once the shark attacks, that is when the suspense spikes. Nancy (Blake Lively) is our main protagonist as well as our eyes and ears. We feel her fear, pain, and courage throughout the film. Blake Lively gives her best performance to date showing a strong, determined woman who has many layers of emotion. This film proves that she is a lot more than a pretty "Gossip Girl" (2007-2012) TV star.
While the film has a few flaws with the CGI, it mostly goes by unnoticed. Learning from "Jaws" this film took the approach to show less of the shark until the end of the film. This is a smart approach because it creates more tension and mystery about where this shark is, and causes greater frights when he appears.
I also really appreciate that this film used modern scientific knowledge when it comes to sharks, showing that it isn't just some psycho killer after humans but instead a complex hunter. It showed that sometimes we are at fault for making ourselves prey, which is a very different standpoint from what "Jaws" took.
Don't let this modern outlook fool you, though. It is very much a scary Great White shark and the characters are in a lot of danger throughout the film.
One complaint I do have is that towards the end of the film, the action and writing feels very different compared to the first 2/3rds of the movie. It seemed a little too fast paced compared to the rest of the film, and the build up didn't quite pay off in the way I expected it to.
If you are looking for a suspenseful summer movie or are a fan of the shark thriller genre, I highly recommend seeing "The Shallows." It might just be my favorite shark movie behind the original "Jaws."
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Apocalypse feels like an X-men comic, but it comes at a cost
"X-men: Apocalypse" is the first X-men film (aside from the "Deadpool" 2016 spin-off film) that feels like it almost completely embraced the comic book series. The new characters are mostly teenagers who are unsure/frightened of how to use their powers, and the villain, Apocalypse (played by Oscar Isaac), is the first straight-up comic book style X-men villain that isn't Magneto (Michael Fassbender), or another human villain such as William Stryker (Josh Helman).
This entry in the XCU has been met with mixed reviews from professional critics. Some are saying it "paves the way" for the franchise to grow in a new and fresh direction, while others are bashing it when comparing it to ground breaking films in the franchise (such as "X-men: Days of Future Past,"2014).
I happen to see a lot of strengths in this film, but also a few weaknesses as well. Let me start with the strengths.
"X-men: Apocalypse," first of all, does not feel like another typical "Bryan Singer X-men film" (which might be where some of the criticism comes from).
Singer does not repeat the slow build up that films, such as "X2" (2003) and "X-men: Days of Future Past," had before they build up to the final climax. The whole film (despite being one of the longest running films in the franchise at 2 hours and 24 minutes) flows by rather quickly. I never once got distracted or started wondering when this film would end, like I have with other comic book films.
Singer also manages to make the action flow throughout the whole film. Many complained about how little action there was in "X-men: Days of Future Past" when compared to the dialogue, but "Apocalypse" manages to make equal time for talk and action and often combines the two together.
The new cast members also impressed me, though some get more screen time than others. Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) finally is given his due justice, and has some of the best character development than he has ever had in the previous films. Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) also impressed me (I was very concerned about her casting after the first trailer), and Nightcrawler (Kodi-Smith McPhee) proves yet again that he is one of the most likable characters, next to Quicksilver (Evan Peters).
Other new characters get decent amounts of screen time, though maybe not as much as they deserved from a fans standpoint. Psylocke (Olivia Munn) was one who I really enjoyed on screen and hope to see more of in the future (possibly in an upcoming Deadpool sequel or X-Force movie).
Also, don't worry about the "First Class" cast, they get great and equal amounts of screen time as well. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) didn't take over the film like the trailers tried to make you believe, and she was written in a way that made her character's previous development useful for the plot, and not forced because of a contract.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy both impress yet again in their strong emotional performances as younger Magneto and Charles Xavier. I hope the X-franchise continues to use them in future films, because they are magic on screen.
Lastly, Evan Peters Quicksilver proves yet again that he has the most fun character in the film. If you liked his "Days of Future Past" scene, you will absolutely love his newest scenario. His role is much bigger in this film and a lot of the humor comes from his character alone.
Now that I've sung my praises, it is time for some negatives. The biggest flaw in "X-men: Apocalypse" is that the film doesn't quite reach the intellectual and emotional impact that we have come to expect from previous films in the franchise (especially the ones made by Bryan Singer). There isn't much to talk/think about with the "Civil Rights" metaphors (in fact this film barley acknowledges it), and even the religious metaphors and ideas such as Apocalypse being a "false god" fall short and aren't given enough time to sink in.
Apocalypse as a character also feels somewhat one-dimensional in how he wants to destroy/cleanse the world. He is never truly defined as a character, despite Oscar Isaac giving his all to the role. When he is convincing the horsemen to join him, it isn't given much thought or reason to why they join him (other than Magneto). Towards the end of the film the character improves as a villain, but by then we still don't really understand much about him. In a way this is refreshing though, because it gives the other X-men room to grow as characters and we get to watch them have fun fighting someone other than Magneto, again.
In the end, "X-men: Apocalypse" is a solid film in the franchise and is probably one of the most entertaining films they've made. Intellectuals and fans of Bryan Singer's older X-men films may be somewhat disappointed, but the film has proved that this franchise still has new life and stories to tell.
I look forward to seeing where things go from here.
Deadpool (2016)
The Deadpool Rises...
"Deadpool" (2016) is the first superhero film to arrive this year, and sure has a lot of competition from giant blockbuster superhero films such as "Batman vs Superman" (2016) and "Captain America: Civil War" (2016). Do to it's risqué R-rating full of violence, foul language, and awkward sex scenes/comments, it seemed that "Deadpool" had a lot to possibly loose or gain, especially for 20th Century Fox and their X-men character rights.
Even though "Deadpool" is not the first R-rated superhero film ever made ("The Punisher," 2004 and "Watchmen," 2009 to name a few), it is the first to push full on Marvel style fun with a raunchy R-rating. The film succeeds in being fun entertainment, while also staying true to the character of Deadpool.
Ryan Reynolds completely redeems himself as Wade Wilson/Deadpool (after the underwhelming and dull "X-men: Origins Wolverine" 2009), and proves that this is the role he was meant to play. His snarky immature humor, hyper active personality, and especially his voice help make Deadpool one of the most lovable (or maybe unlovable to some) characters in superhero cinema today.
The other supporting characters don't have as much to go on as Deadpool, aside from Colossus (whom shines more here than in any past X-men film). The rest of the cast seems to just be there for the story elements (a villain, henchman (or woman), girlfriend, and best friend). This is a Deadpool film, however, so Deadpool wouldn't want any other characters stealing his show.
"Deadpool" is well filmed, and the way he breaks the fourth wall feels natural and not out of place. Director Tim Miller may not have a lot on his film resume, but he proves that he knows this character through and through with his technique.
This film is great entertainment and proves that you don't have to be associated with a PG-13 rating, or Disney/Marvel Studios to make a successful superhero movie. It will be interesting to see how Deadpool affects the future of its X-men franchise, and other superhero franchises in the years to come (especially now that the "Deadpool 2" is being made). I'm hoping that studios take this as a lesson in making a true character to the comics, not just making an R-rated film for the sake of an R-rating.
The Age of Adaline (2015)
Had potential to be outstanding, but a certain flaw made it fall short
"Age of Adaline" (2015) is one of the top drama and romance driven films I've seen in the last few years. It honestly had the makings to become one of the greatest dramatic films this year, but sadly one major error made it fall short. Let me start by saying what I think this film did right.
The plot in "Age of Adaline" is perfectly fine. No, it doesn't win any original points for using the story of someone who doesn't age (Of course it's very hard to find something that is totally original nowadays). The plot plays out, however, in a romantic and somewhat mysterious way, while also being very scientific in its explanations (which is also its major flaw... but more on that later).
Though many like to rip apart Blake Lively and her acting range, she was very good in the role of Adaline. This film proved to be her best work to date. She captures the emotional range that a woman growing up in the early 1900's would have. She is never ditsy or a loud mouth American, and uses facial expressions that are totally the opposite of women in our "instagram" culture today. Lively holds herself up with class, humility, and maturity throughout the whole film.
It is clear that Lively wasn't trying to win an Oscar for this film, but she accomplished exactly what the character needed to be successful. Any other actress would have pushed this role into something more dramatic and over the top, but Lively keeps the character subtle and real throughout.
Most of the cast in "Age of Adaline" work together well. I was amazed at how outstanding Harrison Ford and Blake Lively were on screen together. The emotional impact in their shared scenes was a great highlight.
Now that I have given my praises, I do have a big criticism of this almost great film.
The issue that bothered me most was narration by an unknown male narrator. At the beginning of the film, this wasn't too annoying because it gave a scientific explanation as to why Adaline doesn't age. This explanation, while somewhat needed, eventually comes across as an insult to the audiences intelligence, especially at the end of the film. As a viewer, I do not need to know every little detail and I want to be able to think for myself.
Not only does this narration take away intellectual value, it also ruins the emotional impact this film is trying to deliver. When I want to worry about Adaline, or what is going to happen next, the narrator comes in and kills any suspense that was built. If good cinema has taught us anything, it is that you should always try to first explain things through actions and dialogue. This is where "Age of Adaline" clearly fails, and makes me wonder how this narration got past the editing floor.
"Age of Adaline" is still entertaining and romantic despite that huge flaws, however, it never reaches its full potential. The performances, romance, and mysteries of how Adaline's life played out make this a fun watch. Just don't go into it expecting to learn something profound or figure things out for yourself.
Sicario (2015)
A marvelous cinematic journey into a corrupt and very real world...
"Sicario" (2015) was a film that I walked into knowing only the basic plot. The film follows an FBI agent (Emily Blunt) who joins a special U.S. task force to aid against the war on drugs near the border in Mexico. From the plot description, I figured this film could either succeed by being an intense, suspenseful character driven film, or it could be predictable and boring take on an issue we (as US citizens) know little about.
Thankfully, "Sicario" proves to be a film driven by intriguing characters, claustrophobic scenarios, and a very relevant and modern view of the war on drugs.
The acting and character development in "Sicario" delivers Oscar winning performances. Emily Blunt proves, yet again, that she is more than just a pretty face who can deliver a line. Her characters mannerisms, accent, and mental changes are portrayed in such a way that it is hard to believe she is acting.
Josh Brolin takes a unique turn portraying a character who is so casual and relaxed, that it's hard to believe he was the opposite in "No Country for Old Men" (2007). Benicio Del Toro also captures an emotional and subtle take on his character Alejandro. He doesn't ever overact in this film.
The acting isn't the only thing to brag about in "Sicario," however. Most of the credit, in my opinion, should go the screenwriter, Taylor Sheridan. The writing in this film does a outstanding job of blurring the lines between the corrupt and not corrupt. "Sicario" is never black and white with this war, and it really causes the viewer to actually be interested in this issue. Very few films take on a political issue like this, leaving the viewer questioning if the US is always in the right with their methods.
Despite this, "Sicario" doesn't try to be a "high and mighty" film that totally bashes our government. It shows that both sides are in the wrong and the war on drugs is never going to be a simple issue to solve. The final scene of this film captures every emotion the audience is feeling throughout this film... frustration, fear, and hope that we can one day stop this terror.
"Sicario" is not a film that you should watch for mindless entertainment. It causes the viewer to become emotionally invested and frustrated all at the same time. The violence on innocents can be very grotesque and realistic, which may turn some viewers off.
As for this film being an Oscar contender, it does have the possibility to win something (especially the screenplay). I fear that it may be over looked towards the end of the year, however.
If you are in the mood to watch a great film that is relevant to issues of today, I highly recommend "Sicario."
My movie recommendations:
If you like it:
"No Country for Old Men" (2007), "The Departed" (2009), "American Beauty" (1999)
If you don't like it:
"Jurassic World" (2015), "The Martian" (2015), "Interstellar" (2014)
Crimson Peak (2015)
Great visuals, directing, and solid acting... The story is it's weakest link
"Crimson Peak" (2015) has almost everything that can make a movie a masterpiece. Guillermo del Toro has made a return to form after his last underwhelming film, "Pacific Rim" (2013). While that film made a decent impact at the box office it lacked heart, originality, and talented actors who made the most of their roles. "Crimson Peak," however, shows that del Torro still has magic left in his hands to craft beautifully haunting scenery and images.
Throughout the film, the audience is shown dark Gothic scenery mixed with vivid colors. These contrasts constantly catch the eye, making it hard to take your eyes off of any scene. "Crimson Peak" is one of the few films in recent years that knows how to use outstanding set pieces and mix them with brilliant colors, and beautiful cinematography.
The visual aesthetics aren't the only thing great about this film. The four lead actors are captivating in their emotions and motives. Mia Wasikowska is an actress who I've only seen in one other film, Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" (2010). Honestly at the time, I wasn't impressed with her, so I had my concerns that she could pull off the leading lady role in "Crimson Peak." She ended up making the perfect Edith with her ability to emote joy, sorrow, innocence, and more. I was amazed at her performance, and I expect bright things in her future.
The two male actors, Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Hunnam, do a great job at being romantic interests. Tom Hiddleston's character is more developed and complex then Hunnam's, but Hunnam holds his own with what little time he has.
Jessica Chastain steals the show as Lucille, however, proving yet again that she can take any role complex or not and deliver a solid performance. Seeing how well she changes and develops from the first act to the last act truly took someone of her emotional caliber to perform that way. It'd be hard to picture another actress in that role after Chastain's viciously cold performance.
Despite having great visuals and acting, "Crimson Peak" does fall flat in its storytelling. If you have watched many Gothic types of film, or are an avid film watcher, like myself, you can see what's coming a mile away. The plot is very predictable, and though it flows nicely, it isn't at all shocking or surprising in the way in wants to be. I could easily figure out what would happen next, which took away from the shock value and frightening scenarios.
Despite that flaw, "Crimson Peak" delivers on entertaining and well filmed cinema. It may have a "been there done that" approach, but it is solid entertainment. In the end, isn't that why we go to the movies?
My movie recommendations:
If you liked it:
Edward Scissorhands (1990), Pan's Labyrinth (2006), Sleepy Hollow (1999), Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
If you didn't like it:
The Sixth Sense (1999), The Others (2001), Scream (1996)
The Vampire Diaries: Day One of Twenty-Two Thousand, Give or Take (2015)
Feels like a new show
"The Vampire Diaries" (2009-Present) has had a lot of people worried since the announcement that Elena (Nina Dobrev) would be departing from the show. It seemed that her departure might really hurt the show, and its characters such as Damon (Ian Somerhalder) and Stefan (Paul Wesley). After watching the first episode of season 7, I'm happy to say that isn't the case.
The whole cast of characters seem to start out in a more refreshing light. Damon is shockingly not hung-up on Elena's "somewhat-dead" state, and isn't in his usual pouting, depressed, and angry mood. Yes, he is very saddened by Elena's eternal slumber (until Bonnie dies that is), but he still has typical "Damon humor" and seems to cherish Bonnie (Kat Graham) as a good friend.
Stefan seems to have completely moved on from Elena. He now has his eyes fully set on Caroline (Candice Accola), and their romantic tension hits a real high in this episode. The "will they or won't they" question is going to be something to look forward to this season, and will be a much needed breathe of fresh air from the "Stelena" drama.
Bonnie seems to be her same self, as does Matt Donovan (Zach Roerig). There are hints that Bonnie may dive into something more than a "friendship" with Damon, but only time will tell.
Not everything is wonderful and romantic though. The villains this season are unique hybrids of witches and vampires, led by the suspicious Lily Salvatore (Annie Wersching). Lily and her "family" seem to want different things, Lily wants them all to live in a calm peaceful state, while her "family" wants to go out into the world. This creates a big conflict, and it will be interesting to see how Lily's expectations play against her "families." Someone will lose out eventually, and it seems that right now Lily is outnumbered.
Alaric (Matthew Davis) is in a very dark place as well, now that his wife was killed last season. He is looking for a way to bring her back to life. This will surely have consequences in the future, whether it works or not.
Lastly, the episode ends on an intense note. 3 years later we see a wounded Stefan running into some warehouse with two coffins. The one coffin Stefan opens has Damon inside it. After Stefan wakes up Damon, he tells him they have to leave cause "she" is after them. Next we see an unidentified woman shooting wooden arrows at Damon and Stefan, and they flee the scene just in time.
That last scene has created a great mystery to be answered later this season, as well as what has been going on during those 3 years. "The Vampire Diaries" feels new and refreshed, and it is nice to see that all of the main and supporting characters still work well without Elena there. Time will only tell how the show continues, but hopefully it will still deliver great suspense, action, and of course romance.
The Vampire Diaries (2009)
What "Twilight" should have been
To put it simply, "The Vampire Diaries" (2009-Present) is what "Twilight" (2008) should have been. This show is leaps and bounds better than "Twilight" in terms of acting, vampire folklore, writing, and direction.
The love/hate relationship between the three leads Elena (Nina Dobrev), Stefan (Paul Wesley), and Damon (Ian Somerhalder)is a refreshing and less cheesy take on the "Twilight" relationship between Bella, Edward, and Jacob. These characters are more complex, and having Stefan and Damon be blood related brothers adds great drama and character interactions with each other.
The supporting cast shines as well. Throughout each season every character actually develops and grows into something new. You will see relationship dynamics constantly change, as well as who is good and who is bad.
"The Vampire Diaries" is bloodier and darker than "Twilight," but not as bloody or adult as shows like "True Blood." It is impressive, however, that for a show that airs on a teenage friendly network, it manages to still shock you with intense violence and blood from time to time.
I recommend "The Vampire Diaries" for anyone who is tired of the "Twilight" franchise and other similar takes. This is a show that has great character development, suspenseful and addictive storytelling, and an amazing cast. You will always be hungry for the next episode.
My movie/T.V. recommendations:
If you like the show: "The Originals" (2013-Present), "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" (1997-2003), "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" (1994)
If you don't like the show: "Twilight" (2008), "Pretty Little Liars" (2010-Present), "Gossip Girl" (2007-2012)
Once Upon a Time (2011)
A good show that does exactly what it wants to do: Entertaining fantasy
"Once Upon a Time" (2011-Present) has an excellent premise, taking fairy tale characters and putting them into our modern world through a curse cast by an Evil Queen/Regina (Lana Parrilla) where they don't remember any details of their past. Their only hope to regain their memories lies in Snow White's (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Prince Charming's (Josh Dallas) only daughter Emma Swan's (Jennifer Morrison) hands. If this skeptical woman can believe in magic, then she can save all of them from the curse.
"Once Upon a Time" is similar to shows such as "Lost" (2004) and "Arrow" (2012) in that it uses flashbacks to tell the past stories of these characters forgotten memories. It is fun to see how Snow White meets Red Riding Hood, or Prince Charming fighting Maleficent. The show combines many classic Disney and fairy tale elements, twisting them in a unique and exciting way.
I recommend this show for people who love classic Disney and fairy tales, want something clean and decent to watch on television, and who love family dynamics and the idea of true love. Don't let this show fool you though, it has plenty of well acted villains and intense dark moments as well. Sometimes you may even find yourself rooting for the bad guys over the good.
"Once Upon a Time" may not be like shows such as "Breaking Bad" (2008) or "True Detective" (2014), but it isn't trying to be. It is an entertaining show with lovable characters that you root for. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained and mesmerized by this new and modern fairy tale.
My movie/T.V. recommendations:
If you like it: "Enchanted" (2007), "Frozen" (2013), "Maleficent" (2014), and "Modern Family" (2009-Present)
If you don't like it: "Game of Thrones" (2011-Present), "Breaking Bad" (2008-2013), "Snow White and the Huntsman" (2012), and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
A fun popcorn sequel... Not much else
"Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015) is one of the many newer sequels to the ever growing Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel has it's hands full with building this cinematic universe, especially after last years critical and commercial hits "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) and the surprise summer smash "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014). After those two films and the seeing the dark trailers for "Age of Ultron," I was expecting Marvel to bring something very exciting and new to the table.
Unfortunately, Marvel stuck to their easy formula which is to make an almost identical movie to "The Avengers" (2012) and past Marvel entries. The trailers which promised a darker take on the film and villain did their job to fill in the seats, but sadly it didn't deliver on its marketing.
The main problem with this sequel is the villain, Ultron (voiced by James Spader). While James does an excellent job sounding menacing, the writers do a poor job of making Ultron's actions just as evil and creepy. Most of Ultron's lines are meant to make the audience laugh (I hardly smirked), and there is one scene where Ultron commits a scary action but then undermines his villainy with an apology. If good superhero films have taught us anything, it is that a good villain makes the hero. Ultron sadly feels like he could have been any other villain and he still wouldn't be memorable.
The second problem for "Age of Ultron" is that our heroes have no threat to worry about. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), have nothing to fear. Ultron doesn't scare them and the heroes seem to act like he is just another easy threat.
I wish I could say "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is unpredictable or does something extremely new and exciting, but it doesn't. It is by far the most predictable entry in the series, which may be a good thing since it is only meant to be a mindless summer blockbuster.
In the end it's up to the audience member to decide if they were entertained or not. While I prefer films that try something new, others may be happy knowing this is exactly what Marvel has been doing in the past. It is not a bad thing, but I'm worried it may get old fast if this trend continues.
My movie/T.V. recommendations:
If you liked it: "The Avengers" (2012), "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014), "Ant-man" (2015), "The Flash" (2014-Present)
If you didn't like it: "X-men: Days of Future Past" (2014), "The Dark Knight" (2008), "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014), "Watchmen" (2009)
Scream Queens (2015)
A new Fall show that isn't afraid to push limits
"Scream Queens" (2015) was the new Fall show that seemed very odd given it's premise (Horror plot) and trailers (Dark Comedy) released. The shows story takes place in 1995 when a pregnant "Kappa" dies after giving birth to a baby, while other sorority sisters are there to witness it. Fast forward to 2015, when a girl by the name of Chanel Oberlin (Emma Roberts) is the newest President of the Kappas. Chanel has the B*tch mentality down to a T, and is even prideful enough to name her lower sisters Chanel #2, #3, and #5 (who knows what happened to #4...).
Everything isn't coming up roses, however, once Dean Munsch (played by the classic scream queen, Jamie Lee Curtis) tells Chanel that she is changing the rules of their sorority, and requiring Chanel to take any pledge who wants to be a part of it. This brings much needed comedy and drama to the show, and it sets up great character reactions. Watching Chanel Oberlin interact with characters like Hester Ulrich (Lea Michele) is pure comedy gold.
The show isn't all laughs, however, once a masked man in a Red Devil costume starts killing students. Throughout the show, we see very gruesome deaths often followed by comical situations. The mystery of who this Red Devil really is, and what their motive is behind these killings is what makes "Scream Queens" so interesting. Every character on this show is unlikable and untrustworthy. Most horror T.V. shows and movies try to make you like the main character and not trust the rest, but "Scream Queens" makes the viewer even question the good guys. Each character has a motive, some more obvious than others, but we can never be sure if the character we want to be good is really good.
"Scream Queens" will not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you love wacky and occasionally offensive dark comedy and don't mind horror/violence, I would highly recommend this show. It is a must watch this Fall!
Movie/T.V. Recommendations:
If you like the show: Scream (1996), Mean Girls (2004), Heathers (1988), Pretty Little Liars (2010-Present)
If you don't like it: The Originals (2013-Present), The Walking Dead (2010-Present), Halloween (1978), Vampire Diaries (2009-Present)
Jurassic World (2015)
A New World?
"Jurassic World" (2015) is a film that has been in the making for many years. Continuing and/or reinventing an iconic franchise is no easy task, and many franchises have failed at this (even Disney/Marvel has just started to loose it's touch with "Avengers: Age of Ultron").
"Jurassic World" is a film I was both extremely excited and nervous about. Since "Jurassic Park III" (2001) was such a disappointment (and possibly one of the worst sequels in movie history), I had some low expectations for this new film. I can happily say, however, that "Jurassic World" has brought the franchise back to what made it good in the first place.
The film opens up to John Hammond's park being fully realized. It is already thrilling to see this park actually be opened to the public and full of people wanting to see the dinosaurs (almost like a SeaWorld replica). Of course as any Jurassic Park fan knows, this peaceful park won't last long.
"Jurassic World" excels at recapturing the nostalgia of the first film by having the iconic film score return, lots of suspense, violence, and action, fun humor, and great special effects. The cast is fun to watch as well and they give good performances all around. It makes it clear that this was a very fun film to make.
The film does have it's share of problems, however. Like most summer blockbusters, some characters have little development and/or have very poor motives. This can take the viewer away from the experience, while also helping them quickly realize what Hollywood tropes are being used again and again.
To sum up, while "Jurassic World" is very entertaining and engaging, it doesn't break any new ground. It takes all of the good from the franchise and puts it into one solid film. If you are looking for one of the most entertaining blockbusters of the year, you should go watch this film immediately. If you want a movie that challenges your thinking or has complex characters, I suggest holding off on this one.
"Jurassic World" 3 out of 4 stars Movie Recommendations (If you like it): Jurassic Park (1993), Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), Star Wars (1977), Jaws (1975) Movie Recommendations (If you don't like it): Alien (1979), X-men (2000), Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), Interstellar (2014)