Change Your Image
SmashandNasty
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Five Feet Apart (2019)
The Fault in Our Stars Pt II
Stella (Haley Lu Richardson) is a teenager that spends most of her time in the hospital as a cystic fibrosis patient. Her life is full of routines and she has got everything figured out until she meets Will (Cole Sprouse), another teen with the same terminal and chronic illness. Flirtation quickly turns into broken rules with potentially deadly consequences.
Our Take: If you're in the mood for a good cry in a dark theater, it's a good watch; but it will be just as good when it is on Netflix and can be watched in the comfort of your home with your favorite stuffed animal and a box of Kleenex.
Post-Credit Scene: Nope, you can run to the bathroom as soon as they start rolling.
Let us guess: you loved The Fault in Our Stars. So are you in the mood for another sick kids movie? Well, this checks all the boxes. There are kids. The kids are sick. Plus, it tugs on all the appropriate heartstrings. But if you look beyond the trope, what is there?
Here, there's actually a lot to unpack.
This was the directorial debut for Justin Baldoni (of Jane the Virgin fame) and he did a decent job putting the movie together. The cast was the right mix of a popular teenage heartthrob, a kid you remember from some show you used to watch, and a talented girl next door. There's an appropriate amount of chemistry between Richardson and Sprouse. The soundtrack assembled every indie rock song that mentioned medicine or illness, but it was employed in a very tasteful manner. There were a few moments of questionable shakey cam footage that made watching difficult. There was a scene that was purposefully dragged out for the purpose of making the audience uncomfortable in a completely unnecessary way. The dialogue was a bit weak at times, but for characters that you knew had an impending expiration date, they were all fairly well developed. It wasn't perfect, but in the grand scheme of sick kid movies, it certainly ranks and in some ways, set itself apart.
Unlike similar films of the past (A Walk to Remember, The Fault in Our Stars, and Everything Everything to name a few) this one wasn't based on a book (plot twist: there's a book based on it). It is also set primarily at the hospital and over a fairly short period of time, which tightened the narrative in a strange and at times off-putting way that other films have managed to escape. The film stayed fairly true to treatment mechanisms that are available to those with cystic fibrosis thanks to its consultant, the late Claire Wineland, though it fell into the same controversy its predecessors have by casting able-bodied individuals to play diseased and disabled characters. Some have called the film disease-appropriation, but as two people who don't have cystic fibrosis, this film did bring our attention to a disease we'd never heard of. It's not our place to say whether this newfound awareness is good, but we do hope that it has a positive impact by showing a snippet of what some people with CF deal with.
Truth or Dare (2018)
You'll never get the time you spent watching this movie back.
There is no way to really articulate the exact place where this movie went wrong, other than to say that it did.
It lacks the redeeming qualities of some of Blumhouse's other outings: it isn't as charming as Happy Death Day was; it's not a socially aware as Get Out or the Purge franchise; it doesn't have unique techniques the original Paranormal Activity or Unfriended did. While most of those movies have things that are wrong with them (as most movies do), they also had something that made them worth watching. After struggling to find its footing, Truth or Dare had little to nothing redeeming about it. What you're left with is a largely unsatisfying narrative with skewed (and uncharacteristic) character motivations culminating in a fairly predictable climax and then quickly falling from there to a conclusion that - while somewhat elver in its execution - made the film that much more frustrating.
In short: It feels a lot like any other teen slasher flick. They just put a different spin on things and then marketed the hell out of it.
If you're looking for something more than shallow and undeveloped characters finding an interesting way to get themselves into trouble that they can't manage to ever get out of played by B-list stars who couldn't find anything else to do after the end of their TV careers, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you're looking for strained diversity in a cast with zero emotional depth or chemistry, headed by two skinny white women - this is the movie for you. If you want petty relationship drama, alcohol abuse, bullying, scenes on a "college campus", the occasional promise of gore/blood/or anything that might actually be considered scary (followed by the subsequent disappointment in camera angels destined to keep the film PG-13), and jump scares - this movie is for you.
It really isn't for everyone, and while we can respect that there's an audience out there somewhere that might appreciate it for what it is, we know it could've been a lot better and feel justifiably disappointed that they didn't seem to try.
Featuring: Some weird facial contortions that undercut the film even further, if that was even possible.
A Quiet Place (2018)
Uniquely tense, a great thriller
Our take: See it in theaters and hope that the rest of the theater can stay quiet.
Post-credit scene: No.
Krasinski shines in his directorial debut, keeping the audience's attention from start to grand finale. The whole film keeps you tense but also allows for moments of laughter and tears. It's shot exceptionally, and there's really nothing to complain about directorially.
It's also not often that a film is so drastically different from everything else in theaters. This one would almost be better seen at home on Netflix where a viewer could control their surroundings. At the same time, the film is exceptional on the big screen if the rest of the audience can cooperate. The film is almost entirely shot without verbalized words, but even without speaking, the characters are able to connect and communicate their devotion to one another through something as simple as eye contact, which is often taken for granted in film. Silence is often unnerving and its use in the horror genre is relatively pervasive, but to take the suspense of silence and extend it to something feature-length. The creativity and the guts to commit to something so risky really paid off.
One of the best aspects of the film is the casting of deaf actress Millicent Simmonds as the deaf daughter, Regan. Not only is the representation important, but the way Krasinski handles the character herself is impeccable. Even in the aspects of sound mixing when the movie is from Regan's point of view is amazing - there's a complete lack of even ambient noise. Following an Oscar year where the Best Picture film was both praised for featuring a character with a disability in the lead and criticized for failing to cast an actress with that disability to play her (the mute Elisa played by Sally Hawkins in The Shape of Water) it's good to know that directors and storytellers are taking the steps to ensure that not only are they including representation in film, but they are actually being representative.
Featuring: Some serious lapses in logic, but that doesn't take away from the film. It's a horror movie after all, what would it be without the need for some serious suspension of disbelief.
Blockers (2018)
Funny and raunchy and surprising
Our take: Wait for Netflix, you'll enjoy the fast-forward feature.
Post credit scene? No, but there is a scene at the beginning of the credits.
While overall it's not a bad film, it's probably not something that you need to go out of your way to watch in theaters. It surprisingly very well-balanced narrative. There weren't any points where there was too much focus on the adults or too much focus on the younger generation. Beyond that though, even within the adult group and the younger group, every specific character was allotted equitable screen time. Everybody got a chance to have their own scenes, to develop as characters, and to forge their own relationships independent of the group dynamics. It's not often that a movie with a three-person ensemble can share the love this well and this one did it with two ensembles of three.
It didn't hurt that the cast was well-selected. Cena is finally coming into his own, following in the footsteps of fellow former-wrestler-turned-actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Mann plays the perfect cool-mom and Barinholtz provides the perfect foil to the otherwise put-together parenting set. Their daughters and the respective high-school tropes they're dating did pretty well as well.
While Blockers was an otherwise fine movie - there were a few extremely crude moments that we could have gone without, from full frontal nudity to projectile vomiting. Thankfully, most of the jarring scenes were contained in a 10-minute section that could be ignored. While we understand that it's hard to make a movie about prom night without vomit, this film went overboard reminding us of the worst parts of Pitch Perfect 2.
Featuring: Very poignant commentary on the societal pressures of losing one's virginity and the different ways young men and women are treated in that respect. We were worried that this film was going to misogynistic and sexist, so this came as a surprise.
Pacific Rim Uprising (2018)
Improved fight sequences; everything else is a disappointment
Ten years after Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) helped close the breach in the Pacific Ocean, his son Jake Pentecost (John Boyega)returns to the Pan Pacific Defense Corps to help train a new crop of Jaeger cadets in case the Kaiju return.
Our take: Don't waste your time.
Post credit scene? There is a "beginning of credits" scene.
If you haven't seen the first one, don't worry this movie gives you a quick recap in the first 60 seconds. At the same time, if you haven't seen the first one, watch it instead of these 111 minutes of giant "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em" robots.
The first movie was not without its faults, but at least it was watchable. This sequel has none of the heart, emotion or intrigue that the first one had.
What made the original film exciting and interesting was the newness of it all. It was a new take on the Kaiju genre. It was a new and interesting way to utilize giant robots. The aliens were cool. The doomsday anticipation was intense. The talent was impressive - Elba, Rinko Kikuchi and Charlie Hunnam (as Mako Mori and Raleigh Becket respectively) were strong in their roles and helped viewers ignore any missteps the film made. And sadly, no sequel was ever going to be able to capture any of those things in the same manner. Even so, we expected more than the bad writing, hanging plot points, and poorly-developed characters and lackluster relationships that we got.
Boyega is fairly believable as Elba's offspring - except for the fact that the character came literally out of nowhere. And while otherwise there's generally nothing wrong with his portrayal and he's decently charming, he alone does not have the Elba charm to carry a film surrounded by weak castmembers.
Scott Eastwood (as Nate Lambert) is nothing more than a pretty face in the film. He doesn't fit his role as a soldier and commander and certainly doesn't play well off of Boyega in the role of frenemy/buddy. But the lack of chemistry doesn't stop there. Cailee Spaeny is quite impressive in her debut role as Amara Namani, yet the character ultimately falls flat due to the same lack of chemistry with Boyega. Her storyline basically amounts to a poorly copied reiteration of Mako's story from the original without any of the heart. And while the rest of the teen actors aren't necessarily bad, they are also not utilized much in the film, have zero backstories or character development and ultimately serve as nothing more than plot devices needed to drive robots. Even Charlie Day (as Dr. Newton Geiszler) failed to impress.
There is one improvement from the first film and it is the cinematography. The fight scenes are beautiful to watch and are masterfully staged. Yet, without a half-decent plot, coherent dialogue or emotional stakes, they aren't worth the two minutes of occasional thrill. On top of that, this is the first film where we can actively say the sound mixing is genuinely treacherous - while the dialogue was nothing to write home about, we did want to hear it and that was made virtually impossible half of the time.
Featuring: A female character that has no purpose except to facilitate an unnecessary love triangle that isn't even explored.
Tomb Raider (2018)
It's a great kick-off to what we hope will be the newest female-led franchise in film.
Our take: It's a good action movie if you're into that.
Post credit scene? Extra scene at the very beginning of the credits.
This new Tomb Raider franchise reboot introduces a video game movie that everyone, even those who haven't played the game, can watch. Unlike the 20003 Angelina Jolie-led version, it's created for more than just the male gaze. This film excels because it actually gives viewers a plot and character development.
They obviously went in a different direction with this film - Vikander delivers a Lara much different from Jolie's; while Jolie was all big guns and sex appeal, Vikander presents vulnerabilities and depth. This results in a film that feels more like Indiana Jones or National Treasure.
The movie isn't perfect - the script is weak, the plot is predictable, it gets off to a bit of a slow start, there are bits that are completely unbelievable, but as a whole, it is an enjoyable action film. It's a marked improvement from the 2003 film which was full of plot holes making it confusing and ultimately unsatisfying.
It's a great kick-off to what we hope will be the newest female-led franchise in film. It focuses on Lara's early days, and while she is still athletically impressive, she doesn't automatically resort to guns or violence and often has to use her brain to solve the issues in front of her. She's a strong and independent female character who could carry a franchise well into the future.
Featuring: An archer only using a realistic amount of arrows.
Love, Simon (2018)
Sets the bar incredibly high for the modern high-school movie
Simon (Nick Robinson) hasn't told anyone his deep dark secret: he's gay. One day, a classmate reveals anonymously on an online message board that he's also closeted, Simon finds a friend and confidant. This American romantic teen dramedy is based on the young adult novel, Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda follows Simon as he attempts to balance adolescence, his new pen pal, his friends, and the possibility of being forcibly outed to the world.
Our take: See it in theaters.
Post credit scene? No.
Love, Simon is a coming-of-age-while-coming-out movie and it has all the elements of an instant classic. It's touching, heartwarming and refreshing view at the awkwardness of navigating high school - and will pull at even the most cynical viewers' heartstrings. Rarely does a movie so effortlessly combine knee-slapping humor and poignant, tear-jerking authenticity. This movie recycles some of the oldest tropes in the book in a fresh way and sets the bar incredibly high for the modern high-school movie.
Robinson is a standout, but there is not a single weak performance in the film. From 13 Reasons Why Golden Globe-nominee Katherine Langford's to the Flash's Keiynan Lonsdale each actor is believable and relatable. Whether high school is an ongoing saga for you, or it's been a decade since you set foot in a classroom - this film has something in it for everyone.
This movie was also aggressively marketed in clever and captivating ways. Other studios ought to take note of the outstanding push this film has gotten in the months leading up to its release because it's been stellar. Overall, it's a film that's enjoyable enough to see in theaters multiple times (and purchase the DVD) - and it's relevant and necessary in a world filled with heteronormative love stories.
Featuring: Jennifer Garner's continued seamless transition into the cool movie mom.
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
Despite its flaws, Wrinkle is an enjoyable 109 minutes of film
Meg Murray (Storm Reid) and her little brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) embark on a cosmic journey to find their missing father (Chris Pine). Joined by Meg's classmate Calvin O'Keefe (Levi Miller) and guided by the three mysterious astral travelers known as Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling) and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), the children brave a dangerous journey to a planet that possesses all of the evil in the universe.
Our take: It's pretty enough to see in theaters.
Post credit scene? No.
While Wrinkle has its flaws and it may miss a few marks, it is ultimately an enjoyable 109 minutes. Director Ava DuVernay takes the viewers on a journey and if they allow themselves to suspend their disbelief and remember what it is like to be a child, it's an undeniably gratifying, beautiful, and inspired movie.
First of all, Disney stretched their production budget as far as they needed to and it is clear that no expense was spared. From the celestial couture of the "Mrs." and their frequent extravagant costume changes to the sweeping CGI landscapes and the shimmering waves of the "tesser" this production team really outdid itself in spectacular fashion. The visuals alone make it worthwhile and certainly worthy of a trip to the theater.
There's no denying that Wrinkle is a story that played well when it was written originally in the 1960's, nestled in the pages of a book that you might have read in the 4th grade. It's an easy read, but a hard movie to bring to the screen. The plot of the book is choppy, and the film stayed true to that, making sharp jumps from mesmerizing planet to planet, as well as scene to scene. There are some departures from the source material that seemed to be an attempt at overcoming the issues with the narrative therein, but it was clear that it hurt more than it helped. And while there weren't any gaping holes in the plot, there are quite a few moments that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense - even though we've read the book. But bridging the gaps in the narrative seemed to take a backseat to reinforcing the overall themes of the film, and perhaps that's okay.
The end result is a film that's completely digestible, regardless of the issues it might have. Every performance is strong, the message is powerful, and it makes strides for diversity and representation. As we said in our Annihilation review, we are all for smart, POC women taking the screen in roles as doctors and scientists, and in this case, a twelve-year-old physics prodigy that learns to love her natural hair.
Featuring: An immaculate performance by Reese Witherspoon. And one cannot ignore Disney's typical outstanding ability to sound mix, perfectly matching the orchestral arrangements to the mood in every scene, down to the second.
Darkest Hour (2017)
A good companion movie to Dunkirk
During the early days of World War II, the fate of Western Europe hangs on the newly-appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman), who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler or fight on against incredible odds.
Our take: Watch it if you're into historical or political dramas, but watch Dunkirk if you're looking for an exciting, Oscar-Nominated film about WWII.
Post credit scene? No.
Interestingly, this year's Best Picture category contains two films that cover the same time in history. Actually, not just the same general period of time in history, but the months and days. Both Darkest Hour and Dunkirk follow the beginning of World War II, specifically the time around May of 1940.
However, the films cover two very separate aspects of the war. Unlike Dunkirk, this film does not contain a ton of action, it is definitely much more of a political drama. For that reason, this is not the average crowd-pleaser movie. But if you're a history buff, you can't miss this one. The script is tight, the narrative is gripping and at times the film is extraordinarily witty.
Oldman provides an Oscar-worthy performance in this film. He is completely unrecognizable as Churchill, and it's not just the prosthetics. From his mannerisms to his accent, he embodies Churchill better than anyone else has before. Even so, not enough can be said about how impressing and believable the prosthetics were in this movie.
Some may have issues with the female characters in the film. The truth is that Kristin Scott Thomas (as Clemmie Churchill) and Lily James (as Elizabeth Layton) are props in the film, with barely any backstory and are used just to serve the whims of men. As two female viewers, we did not have an issue with their portrayal. We came in knowing that this would be a biographical film about Churchill, and would feature a time when women did not have the rights they do today - we aren't expecting any more or any less.
Featuring... Ben Mendelsohn as probably the best King George VI we've ever seen. (Sorry Colin Firth.)
Also, a corgi brilliantly portraying the role of a Royal Corgi.
Darkest Hour picked up five nominations in addition to Best Picture: Best Actor in a Leading Role for Gary Oldman, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, and Best Makeup. While it might not win Best Picture, we would be interested to see if anybody can take down Gary Oldman in his prime. And if Iron Lady (Meryl Streep's 2011 spin at British PM Margret Thatcher) can win best makeup, you better believe this can too.
Black Panther (2018)
Marvel has finally cracked how to create a good origin story
After the death of his father, T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), returns home to the isolated and technologically-advanced African land of Wakanda, to take his place on the throne. The appearance of a powerful enemy threatens T'Challa's place as king, Wakanda, and the whole world.
Our take: See it in theaters.
Post credit scene? There's technically a mid-credits scene. And a post credit scene. It's Marvel movie, just stay.
There is no doubt that you should see Black Panther and you should see it in theaters. It is a culturally groundbreaking film that deserves, and needs, support. It's a fresh look at the beauty of a movie with a nearly all-black cast. However, it doesn't escape some of the major Marvel pitfalls of the last ten years.
On the positive side, Marvel has finally cracked the code on origin stories - instead of getting bogged down with a full-fledged introductory movie, they introduced T'Challa in an earlier film. It worked for Sony's Spider-Man: Homecoming, and it works here.
The visuals are extraordinary, and much like Avatar, they are best viewed in 3-D or IMAX. One cannot watch the film without appreciating the costume designers, make-up artists, and production design teams. It's a masterpiece in all of these regards.
Yet, the film has issues that can't be easily ignored. Black Panther's plot is a throwaway when taken in the grand scheme of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Many viewers going into the film know that T'Challa will persevere as the Balck Panther and king of Wakanda leading into Infinity War. As such, any tension that could have existed is non-existent. Even for those that weren't armed with this particular knowledge, it was incredibly contrived and predictable. It's a low-stakes film and that's felt throughout.
In some ways, Killmongerer (Michael B. Jordan) is a step up from previous Marvel villains. Fueled by the anger stemming from years of oppression, he is the most relatable human antagonist that Marvel has ever seen on screen. Yet, none of that changes the fact that he is a disposable-one-film, one-dimensional villain.
And failing where most Marvel films excel, the film's score leaves more to be desired. It makes The Amazing Spider-Man's score seem decent, and that's saying something.
Another note to make about the film is how carefully utilized the few non-POC characters are. The presence of Martin Freeman (as Everett K. Ross) and Andy Serkis (as Ulysses Klaue) in this cast can't be overlooked, but the filmmakers knew what to do with them. They are background characters, but they didn't seem to be there superfluously. They didn't draw attention to their presence in exceptionally negative or positive ways. They were the token white men in a diverse cast, but it was tastefully done.
Featuring: an original soundtrack curated by Kendrick Lamar.
Annihilation (2018)
Pretty to look at but ultimately an unsatisfying experince
A biologist (Natalie Portman), a psychologist (Jennifer Leigh), a physicist (Tessa Thomspon), an anthropologist (Tuva Novotny), and a paramedic (Gina Rodriguez) embark on an expedition into "The Shimmer", a mysterious quarantined zone.
Our take: See it in theaters if you like pretty things, but skip it completely if you can't handle frustrating plots.
Post credit scene? No.
Not your standard sci-fi flick, Annihilation has a slow but promising start. It is full of excellent performers that give the caliber of performance you'd expect from them - Portman stands out, but the rest of the female ensemble all hold their own while facing their personal demons and also facing a weird, and a seemingly hostile alien landscape invading Earth. Rodriguez is probably the most surprising. From her hair to her attitude she's 100 miles away from Jane Villanueva, the role she's probably most well known for.
Stunning visually, yet not quite on par with Avatar's Pandora, it features the same sort of colorful flora and fauna. The score is compelling and well-matched to the film. But ultimately, it loses itself in convoluted science mumbo-jumbo and truly bizarre alien stuff.
There are too many plot holes throughout to make a satisfying film. If you're looking for answers, you'll be sorely disappointed in the few if any, you receive. The "science" is shoddy at best. Only a few brief lines of dialogue are afforded to explaining the mutations in "the Shimmer" and they are unsatisfying and incomplete. It doesn't come off as the sort of movie you would be able to understand if you were just a little smarter, or a bit more well-read, instead it seems as if the issues it has are largely narrative. The screenplay purposefully doesn't give enough information and rather than feeling bogged down by too much science and explanation, we were distracted by the lack of it.
The film just - got too weird too fast. And there wasn't enough good in it to make up for that. We're all for strong female ensemble films. We're all for talented WOC playing scientists and doctors. We're also all for smart and well-written sci-fi. This just didn't deliver.
Forever My Girl (2018)
A sad replacement for Nicholas Sparks movies
Our take: Not worth the time. Change the channel when it ends up where it belongs, on the Hallmark Channel.
Post credit scene? No.
Say what you want about Nicholas Sparks movies, but at least they were good movies. Even the Hallmark Channel makes some decent films. And comparing Forever My Girl to either is an insult to Nicholas Sparks, the Hallmark Channel, and to romance movies in general.
The movie is emotionally bankrupt, stars C-list talent you've never heard of for a reason, and had the plot of a bad Lifetime movie that you'd turn off after five minutes. No part of the film is believable, from the chemistry to Southern accents to Roe's eyebrows.
Billy (Abby Ryder Fortson) was the best part of the movie, but unbelievable as a seven-year-old. She provided a good amount of comedic relief that was desperately needed, but her dialogue at times seemed to be pulled straight from The Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper.
We're all for cliché, mindless, and poorly-acted romance movies, don't get us wrong. We both really loved Netflix's holiday offerings, for example. And we miss Nicholas Sparks movies because they were well-written, had good talent, and weren't cringe-worthy in their execution. But if you plan to make a movie, pay this much to market it, and have to spend money on the rights to what seems like a really crappy young adult book series for source material, the result should be a lot more fulfilling than this mess.
Featuring: A genetically impossible child (we know how Punnett squares work).
Proud Mary (2018)
The most disappointing part of this movie is that it is so disappointing.
Our take: Not worth the 88 minutes of your life.
Post credit scene? No.
There was so much potential in this movie that was squandered. Henson shines in almost everything she's been in, and Billy Brown (as Tom) has held his own on How to Get Away with Murder. The plot isn't the worst either. Yet, what came out was a mediocre movie.
The first issue we noticed was the weird scene changes both literally and tonally. At times, a transition would come in the middle of a scene, out of nowhere, in an extremely obvious, and not at all sophisticated fashion (think the screen-wipe transition you can use on PowerPoint). Tonally, all scenes would start out fairly mundane, jump immediately to something that was meant to be profound and thought-provoking, and then fall right back to a casual exchange in less than five minutes. It was awkward and left a bad taste in the mouth. Moviegoers are lucky that the movie is only 88 minutes long.
The half-assed dialogue, the utter lack of character development and non-existent chemistry made it impossible to recover from these mistakes. Essentially, it seemed that this movie's main goal was to have a shootout scene set to "Proud Mary."
Big wheel keep on turnin' BAM BAM
Proud Mary keep on burnin' BAM BAM
Rollin', BAM BAM rollin', BAM BAM rollin' on the river BAM BAM
It would have been an effective short, because this scene was really awesome, save for the fact that members of a major crime family can't seem to land a single shot.
In a world where people are hungry for more movies featuring POC and women in the lead, the filmmakers do a big disservice by making a subpar movie. Couple that with the complete lack of marketing budget this film seemed to have (perhaps because they had already sunk $14M into what they realized was a lackluster final product) and it's no wonder this film opened 8th behind a busy holiday release slate.
Featuring: A movie set in Boston with ZERO Boston accents. But the Russian was good? (Probably because they hired actual Russians.)
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
It is watchable. It is also enjoyable.
It's a French comic book, sci-fi sensation that you've probably never heard of, but that served as the inspiration for many of its successors (not least of which was George Lucas as he developed the good ole Star Wars saga). It's also from the director who brought you Fifth Element, who finally realized there was enough movie magic to make his dream a reality – Valerian is a visually stunning and more than occasionally cliché –but holistically entertaining — film.
Dane and Cara were excellently cast for their respective roles as the title character and his partner Laureline. Dane perfectly inhabits the macho, military, "I don't need a map, Playboy trope; while Cara is the rule-breaking, smart-but-can-still-kick-ass, under respected female in the military. They also have excellent chemistry with each other, making even the weakest parts of the film bearable. However, it is strange that in the 28th century, the only human couple we see consists of two white people who seem very much like siblings, in looks and mannerisms. Perhaps one of the more major missteps.
It's by far not a perfect movie, but it is very enjoyable. The flaws it did have were outweighed by the positives. There's some weak dialogue, a few jokes that land poorly, a very predictable plot, and stock characters that have been recycled for decades (although you could argue that these comic books are the ones that introduced them). But none of it overshadows what they got right.
It was extremely well-paced and had just the right balance of action to plot with subplots and side characters that were well developed, interesting, and intentional. Hold on, it may seem like it has a slow start and the narrative doesn't start until you're 30 minutes in, but it's a fresh take on storytelling. And of course, it was just beautiful. They introduced us to a brand new world so elegantly and introduced so many new species in the nonchalant way that we probably haven't seen since Men in Black or the Fifth Element.
There's nothing like it this summer and that alone should give you the incentive to head out and see it.
Featuring: A lesson on sex trafficking, a few other political undertones, a great new take on the Phorcides (they have beaks!) and the best casting decision ever made (yes, Rihanna is in this movie).
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Fun, fresh, and fast-paced -- the movie we've been waiting 3 installations for
Our take: See it in theaters. The extra $2 for a 3-D showing will not be a waste. Post credit scene? Yes, two, so just wait until that last Sony logo appears to get up and leave.
You would hope that when they do a reboot every three years they'd learn something. And they did. Spider-Man: Homecoming is a fun, fresh, and fast-paced installation and the movie we've been waiting years for. Forget the doom and gloom, forgot convoluted side plots, forget Oscorp and the Bugle, forget the awkward emo dance moves — this movie eliminated it all and tucked the canon neatly into the MCU instead. Somehow, it was even able to give the newly introduced villain, Vulture, a grounded backstory in the universe. After his backdoor- pilot mission in Civil War, Holland finally gives us a coming-of-age, high school Peter Parker story instead of just handing us an amazing Spider-Man. With very little exposition necessary (sorry Uncle Ben, but we've seen you die, A LOT) the movie was allowed to explore the character and struggles that Peter Parker has in both high school and as a hero, in ways the other films failed to (Incredibly, movies about high schoolers are so much better when you cast younger actors instead of British men in their 30s that you have to get out of high ASAP because the aging process doesn't stop.) Added to the mix are a sidekick (Ned played by Jacob Batalon) that often steals the show a lot of sidekick comedy, a stupid high school crush (Liz played by Laura Harrier), and an MCU caliber villain creating an instant hit for all ages. Even with the occasional plot or character stumble, the film was able to deliver an amusing and entertaining look at the new Spider-Man franchise. But The film leaves you with a familiar feeling, and yet, it also feels completely new — it's an increasingly delightful dichotomy and direction for these films to be heading in.
Despicable Me 3 (2017)
It isn't THE GREATEST MOVIE YOU'LL EVER SEE, but it is a good 1.5 hour escape from the world.
You're going to read a lot of reviews that tell you this movie isn't worth it, mostly because it contains a lot of Minion fart jokes and similar adolescent humor. But what do you expect having seen the first three films? Also, there really aren't that many fart jokes.
This threequel (that definitely should have been the sequel, like another summer movie that recently premiered after taking a spin off detour *cough* Cars *cough*) picks up where the second movie left off: Lucy is desperately trying to fit in as "mom" in Gru's little family, while Gru fights crime in the AVL (Anti Villain League). Once again, focusing more on family relationships than worthless villainy-type plotting, this movie put the overarching plot on the backseat and let the subplots shine. Rather than make the movie feel crowded, this gave it a lot of heart, a plethora of amusing moments, and plenty of instances where we almost, maybe, teared up a little bit.
Let's be fair, the film isn't THE GREATEST MOVIE YOU'LL EVER SEE, but it is a good 1.5 hour escape from the world. Plus it's got everything that you loved from the previous incarnations: Minions speaking and singing gibberish, Agnes and her adorable obsession with unicorns, and Gru being a basically worthless but lovable villain/anti-villain. At the same time, the movie introduces new dynamics: Lucy isn't as annoying as she was in her first movie and the giddy camaraderie between Gru and Dru is infectious.
Essentially. it's a feel-good, summer flick that you can take your kids to in order to get away from the summer heat that will also provide you with a few of your own laughs. Do you have to see it? No. Will it be a waste of your time if you do see it? Also no.
Featuring: Balthazar Bratt, the washed-up, has been of a character that serves as a dire warning for child actors and brings along a whole lot of 80s pop culture references that even we're not old enough to fully comprehend thrown in for the mommies and daddies out there.
Cars 3 (2017)
Everything you hoped for and didn't get in Cars 2
They realized that when they make a movie just so they can continue to merchandise the brand, people will probably be angry. Well, it took them a few movies to realize it (Cars 2, Planes, Planes 2), but that's right, folks, Cars 3 wasn't a horrible, plot-less, mess of an excuse for a toy commercial. Instead it was heartfelt, eclectic, smart, and finally delivered the sequel that Cars deserved, just a few years and a total flop later.
What made the original Cars great was the fact that it managed to easily weave interesting and likable characters within a plot that was equal parts "hot-shot popular athlete learns a lesson" and "remembering Main Street U.S.A in its glory days." Cars 3 triumphed in similar regard. Lightning McQueen is back and knocked down again, there's same eclectic look back at the past (with great shots of US highways scenes that make you want to take a road trip), and all the old characters you love being utilized properly (yes, we are still salty that Mater got his own sequel because he cannot carry a movie on his own). Add that to the subtly feminist plot-line (be prepared for boycotts), intriguing and well- written new characters, a whole lot of heart-string tugging and you've got the movie we all wished we could've seen when Cars 2 came out.
It's far from perfect. There are some issues with the story line and at sometimes it was so slow we were bored (and obviously so were some of the children in the audience based on the noise and commotion). The narrative starts at a very high point and then takes a few dips and dives as it rolls along, but thankfully makes it's way out of those potholes quickly and grabs your attention back just as quickly as it lost it.
The soundtrack leaves a lot to be desired with no more road-tripping, car driving, top down tunes left after the first (though the score of this film is far superior and samples from not only the original, but also other Pixar outings, which is fabulous). It's predictable, but it's also a Disney movie so that's not completely off-the-wall. It was good for a sequel, especially knowing that it could've been another disaster, they've learned their lessons well.
The Mummy (2017)
Not worth the 107 minutes of your life. But, you're basically going to have to watch it if Universal actually goes through with this "Dark Universe" universe.
Our take: Not worth the 107 minutes of your life. But, you're basically going to have to watch it if Universal actually goes through with this "Dark Universe" universe. Post credit scene? No.
If you're a fan of the original 1999 Mummy movies, go watch those because this will not satisfy you. This movie can be summed as Mission Impossible but with: 100% more zombies, 100% more mummies and almost, maybe, set near (?) Egypt (for awhile?).
It's a rather shaky start to a franchise we are getting whether we like it or not. It lacked the charm that the 1920's setting and Brenden Fraser's effortless charisma lent the original reboot. But even if you step back from that romp with a mummy, you're still left with a bad taste in your mouth.
Truthfully, it was just not a good movie: poorly written, poorly paced, poorly cast, and poorly conceived. The barely-there plot was strung together by long expositional monologues, unnecessary action scenes, zombie attacks, and the occasional bit of comic relief that was often forced and less relieving than it is annoying. Nobody in this movie seems to have chemistry with anybody else and it's hard to decide whether it was a casting issue or a writing issue, though we will give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was both.
We were excited to see a female mummy, but another disappointment awaited us. Ahmanet is little more than an over-sexualized, often nude, otherwise scantily clad higher-budget version of Suicide Squad's Enchantress (with less hip swaying and fancy light shows). And in a step back for female action heroes everywhere, both she and the pretty, well-read Egyptologist Jennifer are both pining after and actively pursuing Nick, whose character not only has none of the charm of Fraser's Rick O'Connell, he is outwardly terrible, blatantly misogynistic, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and naturally gets the girl anyway. Though to note, it does technically pass the Blechdel Test.
For all of the things that it got wrong, I will say that there were no plot holes (minus the science and history aspects). This is an impressive feat for any movie, but it was exceptionally impressive for a movie that was otherwise riddled with issues. The baseline for the franchise was well-set, and I hope that they can learn from their mistakes moving forward, because it is a franchise I'd really like to see succeed.
Featuring: An Avengers-esque franchise launch, linked together by a Nick Fury- esque Dr. Jeykll who works at a S.H.I.E.L.D-esque secret facility for monsters and evil things. (And an excellent performance from Russell Crowe as our favorite dissociative monster/man.)
Also featuring: Jake Johnson being amazing. But sadly in the wrong movie. His character didn't fit and was just a pile of awkward, but he brought a smile to our faces every time he came on the screen.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)
Forget the 4th film, this is a much better followup to the original trilogy
Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Daddy Issues. This film will remind you of all the reasons you love and hate the Pirates franchise (we can ignore the fourth since Disney is going to.) Jack Sparrow is one of Depp's best character: he is hilarious, drunk and wildly inappropriate — but unlike the fourth movie, his presence is tempered by the addition of Will and Elizabeth-esque characters (Henry and Carina). Scodelario shines as Carina and is a breath of fresh air in the essentially all-male cast. There are a lot of other familiar pirate faces, including Captain Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who are all great, but there are just too many characters at this point for any of them to get adequate screen time.
Yet, the film cannot stop itself from falling into the same issues as the other movies in the series. There were too many plot lines, most came out of nowhere and were completely absurd, and at 2 hours and 9 minutes, it became too long for us to keep caring about the conclusion. However, it's cute, featured good acting, stunning visuals, an impeccable soundtrack— and it actually has an ending, unlike the other films.
Baby Driver (2017)
Fast Cars, with less fast cars and more plot
It's Fast Cars, with less fast cars and more plot; the movie cares more about the soundtrack than it does the cars on screen and more about the plot than it does stringing together driving sequences. The film is an absolute trip from start to finish, with all the action and sometimes over-the-top violence you might expect, toned down considerably by the character-driven plot. Elgort is a truly delightful male lead who —with a touch of charm, innocence— brought the humor needed to temper the less-than-savory company he keeps.
The supporting cast is also no disappointment. Jon Hamm (Buddy) found the perfect follow up film to Mad Men playing an angry criminal, head-over- heels in love with his wife, Darling (Eiza González). Jamie Foxx embodies bat-sh** crazy as Bats and Spacey plays a very familiar type of criminal mastermind (he's basically a chubbier version of Frank Underwood). Jon Bernthal (Griff) is more of a cameo than an actual cast supporting cast member, which is surprising and a bit disappointing.
Silly name aside, if you like any of the cast members, heist movies, good music, fast cars, quick plot turns or Edgar Wright's brand of action this is certainly a film worth seeing.
Featuring: Brogan Hall as Samm, reminding us all that it is, in fact, the #YearOfTheChildActor and notable allusions to some of the greatest films of all time: Monsters Inc. and Little Rascals.
Baywatch (2017)
A lot of great things that couldn't come together to make a good movie
A late eighties/early nineties TV show rebooted for a modern audience and turned into a raunchy movie romp that departs drastically from the original in an occasionally endearing, but mostly stupid fashion. Didn't we already do this with 21 Jump Street? This reboot has a lot of good parts that just couldn't come together to make a good movie. The plot was barely there and wasn't enough to string together the enjoyable bits, leaving the viewer with a feeling that something was off. There was no one bad thing about the movie and — to be clear — the cast and characters were great, the writing had its moments, the premise might have been successful had they tried a bit harder – but what we were left with instead was a lot of wasted potential, hanging plot points, and a bad taste in the mouth that most unnecessary reboots do.