"Arrival" Review

     Arrival is a sci-fi drama starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, and Forrest Whitaker. Helmed by talented director Denis Villenueve, Arrival tells the story of an alien invasion from the perspective of a linguistics expert, played by Adams, who is tasked with translating the alien's language to find out why they have come to earth in the first place. Arrival is a thought provoking and tense film with great writing and even better acting, primarily from Amy Adams. Villenueve's surefire direction coupled with lush cinematography makes Arrival a visually beautiful and mind-bending experience. If you are not afraid to be challenged and not subject to classic alien invasion tropes, then you will definitely enjoy this movie.

    When large spherical "spaceships" land all across the planet in seemingly random areas, governments around the globe are struggling for answers and desperately try to reach diplomatic solutions and avoid war. But as some nations perceive peace offerings as threats, the need for mutual understanding becomes crucial to maintaining peace in the trying times. Louise Banks (Adams) is called upon by the US government to try and decipher the alien language and discover why the alien race arrived in the first place. Arrival is a very cerebral, brainy sci-fi movie that tackles dense and complicated themes. It isn't in the vein of Independence Day in that it is a showy action flick, but it is an entirely different movie filled with more subtlety and substance. This film is not remotely action packed or fast-paced. It is a slow burner that gnaws away at you long after you've left the theatre. It's beautifully written and lends to discussion about it's intricate plot and deep ideas about communication and the importance of language. Sweeping visuals and great acting make Arrival a must-see and one of the best movies of the year. 

Arrival does suffer from slight pacing issues. While the slow build up ultimately makes the film more rewarding, there are times where the film meanders and could use some time shaved off to benefit the viewer's overall experience and extend attention spans. Jeremy Renner's character basically portrays the audience. He asks all the burning questions and acts amazed and baffled during the majority of the runtime. Renner is a very talented actor who has shown the scope of his acting chops in oscar-nominated turns such as The Town and The Hurt Locker, but here he adds little to the movie and is a character more like the lesser parts he's had recently like in The Avengers and Mission: Impossible movies. He's relegated to side-kick duty and it doesn't seem to suit him very well. Renner doesn't hurt the film in any way, but does not add a whole lot either, making him a neutral bystander at best. 

Arrival is a very different and creative movie that is unlike any other alien invasion movie you will ever see. Lifted by a great lead performance by Amy Adams and fantastic direction by Denis Villenueve, Arrival thrives as a thought-provoking and suspenseful movie with great twists and turns. 

A-

"War Dogs" Review

War Dogs stars Jonah Hill and Miles Teller and tells the shocking true story of how two young men managed to manipulate the weapons trade to their advantage and have their small business spiral out of control. The film is directed by The Hangover trilogy's Todd Phillips and showcases the great acting of its two leads, particularly Hill, who plays a truly slimy and hilarious scam artist to perfection. While War Dogs does have stretches where the pace screeches to halt and the melodrama seeps in, much to the viewers dismay, it still is genuinely exciting and entertaining for the majority of its runtime. It has elements of the Wolf of Wall Street that are hard to ignore, aside from Jonah Hill, and is perhaps a little too excessive at times, but again, I found the movie to be funny and enjoyable and could excuse a monotonous final act. 

"There are sequences where the comedy flies around in a way that is both blissful in its playfulness and biting in its criticism. But these moments of cinematic splendor are far and in between, and perhaps front-loaded in the film's runtime. "

War Dogs benefits from having an intriguing, and relevant, premise. Teller's portrayal is solid as David Packouz, and the film's narrator, is solid. Jonah Hill really stands out as Efraim Diveroli, an unhinged, maniacally laughing arms dealer with virtually no moral compass. He is both easy to laugh at and hate, making his performance a stand out in this film. War Dogs gets off to a quick start, moving briskly and quickly through a very entertaining, and relevant plot line. It swiftly establishes the great chemistry between its stars, and the narrative kicks into gear relatively early into the runtime, which is always nice considering how many movies like to meander and waste time with exposition. The snappy dialogue and absurdity of the premise are where War Dogs succeeds. Its story about how two young men are able to manipulate the U.S. military's weapon contract system is relevant, and the film makes sure to be very biting in its criticism of the system. This film is shot well and has something to say, and most importantly, is entertaining. There are sequences where the comedy flies around in a way that is both blissful in its playfulness and biting in its criticism. But these moments of cinematic splendor are far and in between, and perhaps frontloaded in the film's runtime. The late second, early third, acts are derailed by the film's self seriousness. War Dogs stops being fun and takes time to reflect on the weight of its message and the consequences of Diveroli's and Packouz's actions. This isn't a problem, per see, but it is executed in such a monochrome way that it detracts from the movie as a whole. 

War Dogs, while fast paced and enjoyable for the majority of its runtime, does endure spans of muddled focus and tediousness. Its nearly derailed by a complete tonal shift and melodrama worthy of a Lifetime movie, but manages to get back on track for a solid, albeit predictable, finale. Bradley Cooper has an entertaining character role in this film, and contributes a great deal of humor and suspense. Overall, War Dogs, at the very worst, is a film that showcases great acting and has a very interesting and relevant story to tell, but is far from perfect in terms of polish and execution.  

B-

"The Legend of Tarzan" Review

The latest Tarzan reboot, installment, thing or....whatever stars Alexander Skarsgaard in the titular role, flanked by Margot Robbie, Samuel L. Jackson, and Christoph Waltz. Plagued by a confused narrative and an unbelievably drab performance from Skarsgaard, The Legend of Tarzan gets points for keeping the exposition light and actually taking storytelling risks., even if it doesn't amount to much. It avoids retelling the same story and makes its own way, while also making tidy references to the original story without force-feeding the audience information. However, the film's often tedious nature and muddled story, along with some lazy acting, make this film not really worth your time. 

The movie starts off with Tarzan being a civilized, English lord, far removed from his days as a vine swinging, primal renegade. He is married to Jane, played by Margot Robbie, and lives a wealthy gentleman's life. However, he is forced to return to the sprawling jungles of Africa once he learns of a devious plot by Leon Rom, Christoph Waltz, to enslave the natives and cultivate the land for diamonds. The film is littered with flashbacks that paint the picture of Tarzan's past life and do a good job of setting up the plot. They provide insight into Tarzan's internal conflict and also his unusual upbringing. I found these to be much preferable to a complete re-hash of the old story and admired how efficient they were in getting across a point. They weren't meandering, they always played a vital role in adding to the current narrative, and were one of the better parts of the movie. These flashbacks, along with the performances of Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson, provide most of the positives for this film. In a movie that is so self serious and painfully melodramatic, Jackson's character was the only one who looked like he was having fun. While the film's central themes include that of slavery and imperialism, that doesn't mean that a movie about a man swinging on vines and screaming on the top of his lungs couldn't have a bit more of a sense of humor. 

"No charisma and no heart, The Legend of Tarzan feels like an extension of its main character who the audience struggles to care about. "

On top of the self serious tone of the movie, The Legend of Tarzan is very rushed yet tedious at the same time. That's seriously hard to do, but this film accomplishes that rare feat of treading water incredibly fast against a strong current, essentially going nowhere, fast. There are prolonged stretches of this film where nothing noteworthy happens and the pace halts to a crawl. Then when moments of intrigue and compelling storytelling do occur, they are resolved swiftly and unsatisfyingly. There is a lot left to be desired with how the movie chooses to spend its time. Timing is a serious flaw in this movie. Moments of bore are fleshed out in detail while the times of actual excitement are quickly brushed aside. Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is Skarsgaard's lifeless portrayal as Tarzan. Having virtually no personality cannot be saved by his abs, and his lack of distinguishing traits or even visible emotion make him the prime reason why the film falters. No charisma and no heart, The Legend of Tarzan feels like an extension of its main character who the audience struggles to care about.  There was simply something missing here, there was a void that couldn't be filled. Pacing issues and a disposable performance from Skarsgaard are likely the culprits for this lack of emotional connection, but there is something not exactly tangible that gives this movie a feeling of emptiness... On a side note, it is strange how a movie that struggles with timing is also released at an inopportune time. The tale of the white male lead holding dominion over thousands of African men and primates isn't exactly a great story to be told during times of race violence and police controversy. But this doesn't detract from the movie, just something highly ironic and interesting to consider.

Christoph Waltz may have just nailed his coffin as a type cast villain. He is fine in this movie, but there is a lingering concern about his range as an actor. Another one of his "menacing yet soft-spoken and proper" villain roles and we might be talking about Waltz as one of the more wasted talents of his generation. Director David Yates, known for making some of the better Harry Potter movies, struggles to capture that same magic of Hogwarts and craft an enjoyable movie, or a memorable one, as I have already forgotten most of it...

C-

"The Shallows" Review

The Shallows is a thriller of sorts that stars Blake Lively as a surfer who finds herself stranded on a rock on a secluded Mexican beach only 200 meters from shore, only catch is that a 20 foot great white man eating shark is on the prowl and serves as a formidable foe for our protagonist. At a tidy run time of 126 minutes, The Shallows is a quick ride that doesn't waste too much of your time, but that doesn't mean its an enjoyable one. Granted, this movie is exactly what it wants to be, but being a campy shark thriller that belongs in the '80's isn't a good thing necessarily. Boasting one of the most pathetically drab and awkward scripts in the history of film dialogue, as well as a lazy tacked on ending, this film sinks far below the shallows, but rather to the depths of mediocrity. 

This movie has some positives though. Blake Lively does a good job for the most part, and the CGI for the shark was pretty good. This film is shot well, and has a sleek, expensive look that lends some credibility to it in some sense. Essentially, The Shallows is a Ferrari with the horsepower of a Prius, looks nice but is underwhelming. At its core, The Shallows is shallow, which I guess makes the title fitting, so that's another plus. Other than that this film is very below average. Attempts at fleshing out the main character are derailed by the flimsiness of the lame dialogue. It got so bad that I sunk in my seat due to its awkwardness. However, dialogue is at a premium in this movie, so it spares you somewhat, and that can serve as another positive. When the director tries to give the viewers hints at what is happening or give us insight into the main character's, Lively simply mutters her every move and realization. It's lazy direction and simply moves the plot forward without any style or substance. Visual storytelling and acting usually do that, in a good movie that is...

"Boasting one of the most pathetically drab and awkward scripts in the history of film dialogue, as well as a lazy tacked on ending, this film sinks far below the shallows, but rather to the depths of mediocrity."

There are moments where the film is actually thrilling, thanks to solid visual effects and Lively's performance, but these moments are fleeting. Far and in between are the times where action or excitement are in the forefront. For a film with a tidy runtime and not much plot, it really drags. Too much time is spent watching Lively groan and recoil in pain, or muttering, or talking to a seagull for cheap laughs. The thrilling sequences that are in this movie sometimes don't even feel deserved, as there isn't much suspense leading up to them. They feel somewhat empty and the journey getting there isn't remotely fulfilling. The Shallows may appear better than it is because it enters a historically weak film genre, that being the shark attacking summer blockbuster post- JAWS, but trust me, it isn't. It's cheesy, campy, and tossed together without much effort. To compound it all is the worst movie ending of the year, and its only June. A cliched, lazy, and preachy ending a predictable message. It's aggressively lame and unenjoyable, and tacked on. The Shallows could've ended 5 minutes earlier not only to stop the profuse bleeding from my eyes, but also be better from a filmmaking stand point. 

D

"Central Intelligence" Review

Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart star alongside one another in this spy comedy, Central Intelligence. Hart plays Calvin, an accountant who feels as if he peaked in High School, and Johnson plays Bob, a former High school punching bag who has come a long way... After shedding a couple hundred pounds and becoming The Rock, Bob and Calvin cross paths once again and Calvin is dragged in to a CIA conspiracy. The plot doesn't make a ton of sense, and suspends disbelief for the duration of the runtime. Central Intelligence is harmless and light hearted fun with a good message and great chemistry between Johnson and Hart. However, this movie really is not very funny. Few jokes hit, and when they do its a feeble nudge more than a smack...

Dwayne Johnson's career path has been unorthodox, entertaining and awesome. Failed NFL player to WWE legend to one of Hollywood's most sought after actors... It's been a ride. He's charismatic, talented, and undeniably likable... but he comes off as very annoying in this movie. His character is annoying, and the Rock can't help but be a cloying and childish lumbering mass. He plays off of Hart well, but is still pretty irritating. He plays a damaged man child with issues, but he is more so obnoxious than endearing. Hart is funny in this movie, as usual. There aren't really many written bits in this movie as much as there are situations. Hart's reactions to his ever-complicating situation make up the majority of the movie's funny moments. He remains a genius in terms of being a spastic energizer bunny oozing with charisma and excitement. He does a great job of keeping all eyes on him and being one of the few sources of comedy in this movie. Still though, it seems as if Kevin Hart picks bad projects. I've yet to see him in a really good movie. Maybe some of his movies are enjoyable to some but I still find his overall filmography to be objectively underwhelming. At a certain point, one has to wonder If he's just hitched his wagon to a number of doomed projects, or if he's part of the problem.

"Central Intelligence is harmless and light hearted fun with a good message and great chemistry between Johnson and Hart. However, this movie really is not very funny. Few jokes hit, and when they do its a feeble nudge more than a smack..."

There are scenes in this movie of entertaining action. The action set pieces are creative and fun, but the espionage aspect of the film is arguably where it falters most. It is riddled with glaring plot holes and takes the viewer out of the experience. It's messy and poorly written, simple as that. Not to mention that the hand to hand combat sequences are riddled with a million cuts and some unsavory angles. The editing and camera work is distracting, compounding the fact that the "Spy Thriller" part of this movie is not well organized, or wanted. It takes us away from Johnson and Hart, who make the movie watchable. While Johnson's Bob is irritating for the most part, he still serves as the larger half of the comedic "odd couple" here, quite literally. His character sets into motion the entire film, but also anchors the movie's important message and interesting character arcs. Hart and Johnson's characters feed of of each other and give this movie some actual meaning, even if it isn't that funny. They find what they lack in their own lives, in one another, and that makes the film slightly more engaging. 

Ultimately, writing was the film's downfall, the plot being muddled, the Rock's character being more bothersome than funny, and the lack of hard hitting jokes. Still though, the movie's memorandum about self acceptance and its anti-bullying message make it have a positive impact. It definitely has more heart than your average comedy, but ultimately less laughs.

C-

"The Nice Guys" Review

The Nice Guys stars Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling in a retro buddy cop flick that takes place in Los Angeles during the early '70's. Crowe plays a hardened "enforcer for hire" if you will, while Gosling portrays a talented, yet substance abusing private detective. The two cross paths and become involved in an elaborate crime intertwining pornography, the auto industry and pollution in a whirling and whimsical ride that benefits greatly from fantastic chemistry between the two leads. Crowe's character, Jackson Healy, and Gosling's, Holland March, are an odd couple who meet on unusual circumstances. The duo, joined by March's charming daughter Holly, played by Angourie Rice, set out to solve a string of murders in a thrilling and hilarious film that is easily one of the best of the year. 

One of the reasons why The Nice Guys was so delightful was the undeniable chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe. The pairing was odd and lended to some great comedic bits, and their respective performances elevate the film both dramatically and comedically. The magnetic chemistry of the stars, paired with an original and refreshing script make this movie awesome. The Nice Guys has a groovy atmosphere, a lush and retro feel that is unique in today's franchise based CGI film economy. The throwback nature of its story is also nice to see, as its been a really long time since the last good buddy cop comedy...(even though none of the characters in this film are actually cops). It was great to see Russell Crowe in a good movie again, as it has been a while... Films like A Winter's Tale or Noah, even his miscast role in Les Miserables have perhaps tarnished his reputation just a little bit, but he is in familiar territory here and back in his character comfort zone. Gosling continues to be one of the better actors in the business and his knack for picking great roles has never been stronger. Despite great acting and writing, and some great cinematography as well, The Nice Guys isn't perfect. While the script has slick dialogue and the plot is fun in principle, it is a bit narratively flawed. There are some holes in the script and some confusing plot points that become progressively more noticeable as the film wears on. Rice's performance as Holly is charming, as her role could have been a distraction, it actually added a lot to the movie. Usually a child character in her position could be viewed as dead weight, or a damsel in distress, but she proved to be very resourceful, and at times, better than her dad at his job. 

Crowe and Gosling play off of each other masterfully, and their contagious chemistry is The Nice Guys' biggest strength. Despite a convoluted plot, this film excels due to a fresh and whimsically fun script that engages the viewer in a fun and chaotic world. 

A

"Captain America: Civil War" Review

Captain America: Civil War is the third installment in Marvels Captain America series, or may just be the third Avengers movie depending on how you look at it. With Chris Evans in the titular role, Captain America: Civil War excels as a fun and bewildering movie that plays to the strengths of its stars while also introducing new, and very cool characters. With greater depth than previous Marvel flicks, but also a nuanced sense of humor that makes sure the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, Civil War is, most importantly, entertaining. However, it also suffers from a convoluted plot with enough characters and story to fill like three movies. Nonetheless, this issue does not succeed in dragging down the overall product, as the thought provoking questions the film poses, and the spectacular action set pieces, do a great job of lifting this movie. 

The latest Captain America film takes place after Age of Ultron, the last Avengers movie, but is more of a sequel to Captain America: The Winter Soldier than anything else. The story once again has Captain America and his 1940's pal turned resurrected-assassin Bucky Barnes, aka The Winter Soldier, going rogue and being pitted against the American government, how ironic. Following the cataclysmic damage that occurred in Age of Ultron, the Avengers are forced to decide whether or not restricting their powerful influence is beneficial to the greater good or would cater to various governments, with agendas. This dilemma pits Tony Stark, or Iron Man, who is in favor or restricting the Avengers power and being held accountable for their potentially destructive actions, against Rogers, who believes the super team should have freedom to intervene in global issues whenever they feel necessary. This ideological clash spurs the film's best action sequences and fuels most of the visual spectacle, but the interactions between Stark and Rogers also serve as an emotional and ethical center for the viewers. It is where the film is most gripping and entertaining. The performances by Downey Jr. and Chris Evans are as usual, top notch, and their chemistry on screen is undeniably solid. As a resut the "Civil War" aspect of the movie flourishes. There is an overabundance of superheroes here, each who need their screen time and few moments of fame. This can lead to a bit of an overstuffed narrative and a ton of exposition, but this movie succeeds in keeping the pace of the film fast and crisp, not plodding and delving too deep into each of the many characters. The new additions to the cast, Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman, and Spiderman, played by Tom Holland, are both wildly entertaining and give great first impressions as Marvel prepares for their stand alone movies in the future. Boseman as Black Panther especially stands out in this movie. He does a fantastic job of being a scene stealer but also being integral to the plot of the movie. His character is very well developed in his short screen time and Boseman's performance manages to make his character one of the more intriguing Marvel Characters in recent memory. Captain America: Civil War thrives on making the most of the dense cast and displaying their plethora of colorful characters in a great light. This film even has a compelling villain who is portrayed greatly by Daniel Bruhl. His motivations are clear and his character is very well written, even if he isn't powerful or physically imposing, he his noticeably more compelling than the CGI monster thing that most superhero films like to make the center of their final acts these days. 

Captain America: Civil War is not perfect. The plot of this movie is a bit convoluted at times, and the film requires almost too much information retention from the audience. The need for viewers to comprehend and keep up with the sprawling Marvel cinematic universe can be a bit exhausting at times. This is understandable for a huge sequel to be reliant on previous entries, but it is a little much. This coupled with some unforgivable plot holes, such as when proven powerful characters are useless in critical junctures of the film, make up for the majority of the film's flaws. Overall though, the Russo brothers did a fantastic job directing a film that could have been dragged out by a congested cast and a myriad of plot lines, and making it a solid flick. 

B+

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" review

The first major installment of DC's attempt at an expanded cinematic universe begins with a very confusing and somewhat disappointing thud, one that has moments of both brilliance and ineptitude but overall makes for a perplexingly dull ride. There are two parts of the title for this movie, and this, for better or worse, accents how splintered the movie is, both narratively and in motive. This movie tries to navigate being its own movie and a film that establishes the tone and storyline for a host of future movies. This is no easy task, and the difficulty the filmmakers had with accomplishing this is all too evident, as Batman v Superman ends up being one of the least cohesive or polished films of the past 5 years. A complete and utter lack of clear direction or anything remotely resembling nuance makes this movie flawed beyond the point where it is even in consideration of being considered great, but this movie has its moments.... all too far and in between. 

An area where this movie actually excels is with the performance of Ben Affleck as Batman. A choice that turned many heads after its announcement, Affleck provides arguably the most stable and faithful portrayal of the main actors. He had a clear motive, and a righteous cause that made getting behind him relatively easy, especially when pitted against a lifeless and poorly written drone that is Cavill's Superman. This, coupled with some very well handled and dazzling action sequences is what clearly works in this movie. Henry Cavill continues to struggle at making Superman remotely interesting and flounders as a result. He makes the best of this villainous position DC has pigeonholed him into, but it isn't enough. Superman's character as always been bland and makes little sense. His vague list of powers, his questionable decision making on which powers to use... and when... ,his boringly perfect demeanor and complete lack of depth are troubling. Or perhaps the most disbelief suspending disguise in the history of cinema, essentially a running joke, that is his alter ego of Clark Kent, who wears glasses to become unrecognizable as the most famous man on the planet, is what is most irritating. Its insulting to the audience, and hard to take seriously...

Speaking of taking something seriously, this movie holds itself in such a brooding and depressingly dark regard that it probably shouldn't. Comic book films are supposed to be fun in theory, but apparently Zack Snyder forgot how to make a movie with a sense of humor, then again he never has. Trusting the guy who made the frighteningly melancholic and twisted films "Watchmen" and "300" to make something even in the same area code as "fun" was a pipe dream. Then again, trusting the guy who made "Sucker Punch" and the "Owls of Gahoole" to make a good movie was probably an even more empty gamble. Zack Snyder is below average at this whole "directing" thing and was probably the wrong choice to put at the helm of the DCU's most critical entries. Snyder's inability to make the movie fun or whimsically enjoyable doesn't even begin to due this film's issues a justice... Comically bad writing and seriously bad casting choices, cough cough Jesse Eisenberg cough, are what drags this movie down even more than its director's inability to cater to a film audience actually looking to have fun. The writers here left so many blatant plot holes and employed such lazy screenwriting conventions that it's almost pathetic. They had the audacity to introduce the rest of the justice league through pdfs and emails...They repeatedly make Superman look like a fool and hinge the emotional climax of the film on the name Martha... Its frustratingly lazy and makes the audience wonder how stupid the filmmakers actually think they are, which is a bad thing. Jesse Eisenberg was genuinely annoying and didn't really fit the Lex Luthor role, a suit worn so well by Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey in the past. He was finicky and lame and pretty far from menacing.

The whole movie was essentially spoiled in the trailer, the film ends with a lifeless, disengaging CGI monster mash fest punctuated by loud effects and nauseating sequel building. This film forgot that it was a movie, with an actual obligation to viewers, and decided to try and set up several future flicks instead. It lacked attention to detail and polish, and wasted what might have been something less disappointing with the right people in place.

C-

"Deadpool" Review

Deadpool stars Ryan Reynolds as the irreverent and titular superhero alongside Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, and T.J. Miller.  In his directorial debut, Tim Miller expertly crafts a bitingly funny and throughly entertaining superhero flick that was shockingly good. The trailers leading up to this movie made it look unfunny, riddled with dated 90's references and just overall stilted chemistry. This was not the case during the actual film, as it was a hilarious and unique ride that while not necessarily important, still felt necessary. 

Deadpool is the story of a hitman named Wade Wilson who, needless to say, is a complete and utter a**hole. This doesn't really change throughout the film, however Reynold's portrayal becomes more layered and personal once he meets his love interest Vanessa, played by Baccarin. Wade and Vanessa's relationship is fleshed out in detail, literally fleshed out, and is very endearing, in a way that would only really work in this movie. The two live happily for a while, that is until Wade is diagnosed with cancer. However, he is given the opportunity to revert the disease and be made into a "superhero". He reluctantly accepts, only to find out that he has signed up for a series of violent torturing and pain inducing "activities". Our villain, played very well by Skrein, is introduced here and turns Wilson into a hideous killing machine after releasing his mutation. What follows is a revenge film that is abrasive and callous affair that is whimsically satirical and fun. Deadpool shamelessly pokes fun at itself and the entire superhero genre, taunting the overload of franchises and expanded universes and boasting a confidence and self-awareness that is refreshing and appealing. Deadpool as a character is incredibly crass but also clever and quippy, and he is undoubtedly the driving force behind the comedy in this movie. He anchors its weird sense of humor but it also the emotional core, but the latter isn't a good thing. Deadpool is a lighthearted movie that meticulously walks the tightrope between clever and absurd, but unfortunately wasted its potential to be something more. This movie succeeded at what it wanted to be, which was an irreverent and funny satire, but it does leave a lot to be desired. Deadpool never really broke character, which in this case meant that it never let its guard down and connected with the audience, even as the fourth wall breaks tried to. Speaking of the fourth wall breaks, I don't really think that they worked, they only really took you out of the experience and kept reminding you that deadpool is a souless douche whose vanity is his only motivation. Deadpool was still an objectively solid movie for what it wanted to be, but it could have been great had it perhaps had more nuance and attention for detail. Deadpool would have greatly benefited from some subtlety and perceptive filmmaking, and maybe risen above being just a good movie. Then again, maybe taking itself seriously could have been detrimental to the experience, its very tough to tell. 

The action in this movie was great. The acting all around was pretty good, namely from Reynolds and his sidekick Weasel, played by comedian T.J. Miller. The two of them have awesome chemistry and combine for some of the funniest bits in the entire movie. Ed Skrein played one of the more convincing Marvel villains in recent memory, and Baccarin was increcibly charming. The Negasonic teenage thing and the CGI metal dude were weird. Sort of jarring, but gradually grew on me. Marvel has successfully reflected themselves in the mirror in an entertaining fashion, but it doesn't really mean anything will change. Satires by definition are meant to critique and in the process, try to cause change, but we know good and well that by now, Marvel is waist deep in their cinematic universe that is so unbelievably sprawling and diluted that it feels like despite the success of Deadpool, their quality of films will steadily decline. There is no way I can imagine enjoying watching the next Avengers war-tie into future plots-set up the next franchise excuse for a movie. Upcoming Marvel films won't change their lazy CGI riddled messes that are only concerned with pumping out more action figures, which makes Deadpool feel like an outlier and an anomaly, one that won't change the game for super hero movies. It is essentially Marvel saying "hey our movies are becoming money-mongering sequel-breeding behemoths, so here's an intelligent movie that agknowledges that, but don't expect anything more like it." Deadpool already has a sequel scheduled so that is not what I mean, it's that the new Deadpool franchise might be the confined space where Marvel actually makes good movies. Deadpool is necessary in what it stands for, and as an individual movie it is very good, but its actual release sends a confusing message to Marvel's loyal fanbase. Analyzing the saturated super-hero spamming exercise of audience command that Marvel is performing is an article for another time, but for now, enjoy Deadpool, the breath of comedic and violent fresh air. 

A- 

"13 Hours" Review

Michael Bay is at the helm of the true account of the American soldiers stationed in Benghazi during a time of true chaos and mayhem.  John Krasinski stars in the action flick that surprisingly provides heft and respects its story, which is truly surprising given the enigmatic director's previous work. Known well for turning the American tragedy at Pearl Harbor into an action packed love story that featured an entirely fictional cast, Bay refused to honor the real subjects of the fateful attack and over saturated and packed explosions into a tragic true story of death.  Needless to say, there were skeptics regarding Bay's ability to take a serious subject, well... seriously.  

13 Hours is not exactly a dialogue driven drama so much as it is an action flick that succeeds at being an action flick, and nothing more than that really. Bay goes in political directions that make the film more engaging and help establish more relevance in this film, which was an interesting angle. The Benghazi situation is still a hot topic to debate with regards to U.S. foreign policy, and the things that could have been done differently to save lives in the violent affair. And while Bay successfully incorporates the political implications of the predicament into his movie, the scenes of actual meaning and significance are too far and in between. 13 Hours is an exhausting and tiresome movie, in only a way that Michael Bay can make a movie exhausting and tiresome. This movie is essentially a Call of Duty mission for three quarters of its runtime, while the remaining portion is comprised of awkward dialogue and a very preachy ending that refuses to let the actual filmmaking do the story a justice. 13 hours is a poor man's Black Hawk Down, full of nauseating action from a director who is half as talented, and twice as obnoxious, as Ridley Scott. Consequently the film needs a tacked on ending that sums up everything with dramatic music in the background to force-feed the audience the films' significance, rather than letting he film actually do this throughout its runtime. 13 Hours has good intentions, but is a lazy film, made by a director who has shown that serious subject matter isn't exactly his forte. I was actually surprised that the director of the distasteful Pain and Gain and Pearl Harbor was going to take a stab at honoring real events, with casualties, without being gimmicky and annoying with color saturation and too many explosions. While Bay has matured as a filmmaker, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's improved. He is still too flawed narratively and stylistically to make this movie work, and while his style may appeal to some viewers, he wasn't the right choice for this movie.

The action in this movie is well done, but very repetitive. The acting is solid, but will unlikely blow you away. 13 Hours is average, simply put. It is quite forgettable, which is sad given the potential a movie about these events had to be truly great. A good movie is hidden in here somewhere, but amidst the chaotic filmmaking mess, its impossible to find.

C-