Creed II - Film Review

Creed II fits the mold of your standard Rocky sequel. That is to say it’s bigger, louder and much, much dumber. You’ll be able to predict nearly every move it has up its sleeve because we’ve seen this movie a dozen times already. The carefully crafted, grounded aesthetic of writer/director Ryan Coogler’s Creed has been replaced with the hokey dialogue and bombast found in the series’ weaker entries. If Rocky Balboa and Creed I redeemed this franchise from the abyss Rocky IV and V created, Creed II is the start of its descent down the same path that led to its needing redemption in the first place.

Creed II kicks off in high energy fashion with Adonis winning the title of Heavyweight Champion of the World under the tutelage of his mentor Rocky Balboa. Things are still great with his girlfriend Bianca. He’s just proposed to her and they’re about to have their first child. But then along comes Ivan Drago, the evil, one-liner spouting Russian who killed Adonis’ father in Rocky IV. Drago has been training his son Viktor for a match against Adonis, an attempt to regain his former glory in Mother Russia, a glory lost when Rocky defeated him back in 1985. Naturally, Adonis jumps at the opportunity to avenge his father’s death, but his cocky, headstrong nature estranges him from his friends and family. When Rocky refuses to support Adonis’ decision to fight, Adonis decides to go it alone. You can pretty much figure out what happens from here. Think Rocky III, but without Mr. T or Survivor’s Eye of the Tiger. So basically, way less entertaining.

Creed II suggests some interesting ideas, but never bothers exploring any of them to their fullest potential. Everything about it feels pronounced and obvious, following the well-worn path of superior entries. The screenplay, crafted by Sylvester Stallone and Juel Taylor, is subpar, saddling this otherwise talented cast with some truly embarrassing dialogue. Performances suffer as a result. As Adonis, Michael B. Jordan is still as likable as ever, packing the role with every ounce of emotion he can muster, but the character isn’t given a worthwhile drive this time around. The same goes for Tessa Mae Thompson, who the screenwriters struggle to give anything worthwhile to do. A particular attempt during the film’s climactic showdown to have her be more involved is just as embarrassing as anything you’d find in Rocky IV or V. Stallone himself mumbles and stumbles through the role that made him a star forty years ago. It’s difficult not to love Rocky, but the character is reduced to being the standard mentor, spouting lines of wisdom when needed and the angle is already starting to get old.

Perhaps the biggest casualty is the Drago father/son storyline. Dolph Lundgren isn't given much more to do aside from scowl and repeat his best lines from Rocky IV. Florian Munteanu follows suit, throwing in some quizzical looks and emotional outbursts for good measure. Their relationship reaches a surprising and touching conclusion, but it comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel earned, undermining the whole thing.

None of this is helped by newcomer Stephen Caple Jr.’s direction. Caple Jr. had a tough act to follow, and he does an admirable job stepping up to the task, but his directorial stylings feel more pronounced and far less refined. His creative choices are bland and obvious, calling attention to themselves in all the wrong ways. This applies not only to the cinematography and color palette, which is more extreme and stylized, but to the sound design as well, which is extremely odd in places. For instance, there’s a scene in which Bianca and Adonis' mother Mary Anne sit in Mary Anne’s living room and have a conversation about Adonis’ struggles. This is intercut with Adonis training in a swimming pool in a completely different location. The conversation between his mother and Bianca plays over the soundtrack and, for some reason, every time Adonis submerges, the audio becomes muffled as if he’s hearing it from underwater. But they’re not in the same location and he can’t hear them, so why does this happen? I guess because Caple Jr. thought it sounded cool, even though it’s completely unmotivated in any creative sense. It feels amateurish, like a film student showing off without any justification for doing so. The fight scenes and training montage have a spark of life, but you can always expect as much from these movies. Even Rocky V had a decent training montage. Nothing about Creed II pulses with the same life as Coogler’s previous effort.

The story simply isn't up to snuff. There’s no emotional drive. It’s all about the fight, which is never a good sign for a Rocky movie. The best films in this series were never about the fight, not really. The first Rocky is a love story about two lonely people who desperately need one another in order to feel their lives are worthwhile. In that film, the fight is an extension of Rocky’s internal journey with the character striving not to win, but to prove to himself that he isn’t just some bum, that he can stand toe to toe with the greatest and hold his own. These themes are reflected in Rocky Balboa and Creed I; it’s why they’re so compelling and engaging and, in my not so humble opinion, the best this series has to offer.

And what do all these movies have in common? The main character loses the fight. This presents a dilemma for any sequel. What angle is left except for the main character to win? And if winning the fight is the main thing driving everything that happens, it’s not nearly as interesting. Every other Rocky sequel is about besting bigger and badder opponents to the point where it descended into cartoon territory. Creed II follows suit, and if you think my bringing this up is at all spoiling Creed II’s ultimate outcome, you clearly haven’t seen one of these movies.

It all boils down to this: Creed I was made because a talented filmmaker had something meaningful he wanted to say. Creed II was made because Creed I made money. Might I suggest throwing in the towel before things get any worse?

Here's how I'd rank the series overall:

1. Rocky
2. Creed
3. Rocky Balboa
4. Rocky III
5. Rocky II
6. Creed II
7. Rocky IV
8. Rocky V

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Film Review

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the cinematic equivalent of a rainy day: it’s cold and grey and it made me long for a nap. Now let’s be clear, I do enjoy watching a rainy day from time to time, but I’d prefer to watch from inside with a warm drink in hand and a pair of pink, fluffy slippers on my feet. (Yes, they have to be pink, and yes, they have to be fluffy.) The Crimes of Grindelwald isn’t something I appreciated watching, nor is it pink or fluffy. In fact, this movie is more like being stuck outside in the downpour, ruining my pink, fluffy slippers in the process. This is something I cannot forgive.

This is all to say that The Crimes of Grindelwald, which from here on out I will refer to by its acronym ‘CoG,’ a fitting descriptor as these movies aren’t so much interested in telling a story as they are in serving as a cog in Warner Bros’ money making machine, is a miserable viewing experience and further indication that this prequel series is in dire need of a revamping or, better yet, a complete dismantling.

Just so you know where we stand, I wasn’t a fan of the first Fantastic Beasts either. In my review, I called it ‘a plodding, tonally inconsistent mess’ and noted the glaring absence of either an involving storyline or compelling characters. Those complaints apply tenfold to CoG. At every turn, author turned screenwriter J.K. Rowling fails to craft a compelling story from a number of disparate pieces. Remember when Warner Bros. announced this new series and Rowling stated it wouldn’t be a sequel or a prequel to the Harry Potter series? My guess is Rowling originally wanted to tell a fun, standalone story, but Warner Bros. got greedy and forced her to connect this series more explicitly to Harry Potter, hence the awkward, jumbled storytelling and clashing tones. CoG feels like a whole lot of filler and you feel the strain of Warner Bros’ decision to turn Fantastic Beasts from a trilogy into a five-film series every step of the way. Did we really need to know Nagini’s origin story? No. No, we didn’t, but for some reason it’s included here and it’s just as pointless as you’d imagine.

Rowling throws multiple plotlines, characters and Potter references into the mix, but despite the overwhelming amount of things on screen, nothing seems to actually happen. Everything in CoG is disconnected, every character motivation is independent of what seems intended as the driving story. Most of the film’s runtime consists of stern, serious looking characters sitting in bland, nondescript rooms, wearing bland, nondescript outfits and talking and talking and talking. There’s a lot of talk of Grindelwald leading his followers into battle against the wizarding community and a great deal of discussion regarding the true identity of Credence (Ezra Miller), which seems to be a topic of large concern. Maybe all this would matter more if Rowling gave more attention to the characters most directly affected by and involved with the story, but for some reason she opts instead to focus on Newt and his companions, making them the primary players even though they have very little, if any, personal connection to what happens here. The story functions outside of their involvement, making it all the more apparent how little they matter in the grand scheme of things.

It would help if these characters were likable in the slightest, but they’re not. They’re as bland as the oddly colorless Paris portrayed in the film. Eddie Redmayne continues to play Newt Scamander as emotionally disconnected from everything and everyone around. He’s incapable of making eye contact with anyone, and I’m not sure if Redmayne intended to portray Newt as if he’s on the spectrum, but that’s exactly how it comes across. This would be fine, except it has zero bearing on anything that happens in the story and isn’t reflected in the script or the way other characters interact with him. Newt lacks a compelling motivation and his general disinterest in everything happening makes the prospect of following his character through three more films extremely unappealing.

The supporting cast returns too, though they aren’t given much to do except stand on the sidelines. As Newt’s best friend Jacob Kowalski, Dan Fogler flails about, making odd noises and giggling at random moments, which I guess is supposed to be funny? Katherine Waterston looks like she’s either on the verge of tears or in need of a decent nap. Probably both. She and Newt are supposed to be madly in love, but there’s a glaring absence of chemistry between them. And then there’s Alison Sudol’s Queenie, who is saddled with one of the film’s more nonsensical character arcs. To her credit, Sudol gives it her all, but it doesn’t make it feel any less ridiculous.

The new characters don’t fare much better. The most prominent is Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz). She and Newt have some kind of past relationship that’s barely hinted at and for some reason she’s decided to marry Newt’s brother Theseus (Callum Turner). There’s no explanation as to why this is, though, to be fair, an explanation probably wouldn’t make me care anyway, so why bother? There’s also Johnny Depp’s take on big baddie Grindelwald. He’s weird in his special Johnny Depp way, but he makes a minimal impression. To be fair, Rowling’s screenplay doesn’t give him much to do, so it’s not entirely his fault, but having him in this role still seems like an odd misstep.

And then there’s Jude Law’s performance as Albus Dumbledore, which provides the only genuine spark of life in this entire enterprise. (It’s a toss-up between him and that adorable cat-dragon thing) Even with his limited screen time, it’s clear Law is the right man for the job. The brief time we spend with him, which includes a stop-in at Hogwarts, is the only time the film manages to conjure up any magic or delight. This has more to do with the familiar setting and elements than the storytelling itself. The soundtrack takes great delight in recycling the soaring Harry Potter theme in this moment and it’s a sad reminder of the days when this franchise was something to celebrate. More and more, this series is shaping up as an epic showdown between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. When CoG focuses on these characters and their relationship, it manages to find its footing, however wobbly it might be. Why, then, does Rowling and co. insist on bothering with the story of Newt and his blank slate companions? They are by far the weakest element of these films and, seeing as how they have so little bearing on what happens in these stories, the easiest to jettison.

Now. Let’s talk about David Yates, shall we?

Watching Yates come into his own as a director during the latter half of the Harry Potter series was a delight. With each entry, he became more and more confident as a director, peaking with his work on Deathly Hallows. With Fantastic Beasts, it’s the complete opposite experience. We’re watching the disintegration of Yates’ talents as a filmmaker. The ability to construct a coherent narrative or frame a shot with even a touch of inspiration is long gone; his action sequences are borderline incoherent and he demonstrates such a lack of understanding regarding the basic principles of visual storytelling you can never tell what’s happening.

To make matters worse, Mark Day’s editing hasn’t improved either. Following Yates’ example, Day continues to demonstrate a seeming disregard for the basic rules on how to string scenes together in a way that makes a modicum of sense. One moment characters are talking in a room, the next, they’re standing in a completely different location with no logical connection as to how they got there. This happens CONSTANTLY, and yes, I need to use CAPS to emphasize how bad it is. That’s what CoG has reduced me to.

To be clear, this isn’t storytelling. It’s placeholding. And sure, you could blame the original Harry Potter series of doing the same, but at least with those we were spending time with characters we loved and there was a semblance of excitement and magic, that it was all leading to a worthwhile conclusion. Fantastic Beasts has nothing to offer except the threat of three more movies, and that may be the greatest crime of all.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout - Film Review

I’ll be honest: this is one of the toughest reviews I’ve ever had to write. The urge to just type ‘WOW’ in all caps over and over again is proving difficult to overcome. I’ll do my best to give you, the ever-supportive reading public, a critique worth your time. This is my mission, should I choose to accept it. Let’s hope I don’t self-destruct in five seconds.

Are there any film franchises out there that can claim their sixth entry as their best? Over the past two decades, Mission: Impossible has proven the rare example of a series that gets better and better as it goes along. With Ghost Protocol, director Brad Bird infused it with new life and now, with Fallout, returning writer/director Christopher McQuarrie and producer/star Tom Cruise have raised the bar for the action genre as a whole. They should have just called it Mission: Impossible - Standout. 

At the film’s outset, things are grim for the IMF (That’s Impossible Mission Force, for you uneducated heathens out there). Ethan Hunt and his team are tasked with intercepting three plutonium cores in order to ensure they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Naturally, things go awry when Hunt makes a split decision that saves the lives of his friends but costs them the plutonium. It ends up getting snagged by The Apostles, a sinister organization comprised of members from the now defunct Syndicate group, which was dismantled in Rogue Nation. It’s up to Hunt and his team to recover the plutonium before The Apostles can utilize it for their nefarious purposes. You know, world domination, explosions, chaos and mass destruction - all that standard bad guy stuff.

From the get-go, Fallout contains a welcome element of grim intensity previous entries in this series have lacked. That’s not to say those films weren’t effective or that Fallout is all doom and gloom. It’s just that McQuarrie, the only director to return for a second Mission, has done an excellent job crafting a stronger set of stakes this time around, upping the ante and making the resulting thrills all the more potent. But while Fallout may have more of an edge than McQuarrie’s previous effort Rogue Nation, its fun quotient is still off the charts, managing to top Rogue Nation’s highest highs with ease. All other puny action movies are left to sputter in the dust. 

That Fallout is such a successful effort is a pleasant surprise. I’ll admit I wasn’t rooting for McQuarrie’s return following Rogue Nation, which I enjoyed, but found a bit by-the-numbers, especially following Bird’s revitalizing and inventive Ghost Protocol. I’ve also been a fan of this franchise’s revolving door of directors, which gave each entry a unique stylistic stamp. Whatever reservations I had about McQuarrie’s return have been wiped clean by the resulting product. In fact, with Fallout, McQuarrie is elevated to the calibre of Great Action Directors of the 21st Century. There are sequences here that are simply unparalleled, made all the more breathtaking by the knowledge that the majority were done practically. In a cinematic landscape overwhelmed with admittedly awesome but undoubtedly cartoonish computer-generated action, Fallout sets itself apart and we, the audience, are the lucky saps who get to soak in all of these delights from the vantage point of of our (hopefully) comfortable theater seats while we munch away on candy and popcorn.

With one epic set piece after another, the danger is losing sight of the characters and stakes. Somehow, miraculously, Fallout thrives in this area, organically tying in storylines and characters from previous films in a way that enriches the plot, anchoring its intricate, criss-crossing happenings with surprising, but welcome emotional weight. We’ve got the return of all our favorite cast members, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Rebecca Ferguson and Sean Harris, plus an excellent turn from Henry Cavill as August Walker, the brutal assassin with a killer mustache. 

But while the supporting cast is superb and undoubtedly a crucial element regarding this franchise’s success, the star of the show, as always, is Tom Cruise, and God bless his monumental dedication to his craft. In the realm of big-budget action, Cruise is without peer. Throughout Fallout’s two-plus hour runtime, he seems intent on raising the threshold for action stunts so high, no other movie star not named Jackie Chan would dare attempt to match them. That HALO jump sequence? Yeah, that’s Tom Cruise skydiving from an ACTUAL AIRPLANE. That wince-inducing moment where he comes up short in a leap from building to building? Mr. Cruise actually broke his foot when he hit the building wall, delaying the shoot for months. (And yes, they used the actual shot this happened in, including the aftermath in which Cruise limps away like a total BAMF because he knew this was the only take they’d be able to get) And how about that breathtaking helicopter chase scene? Turns out, Cruise learned how to fly a helicopter to make the sequence as believable as possible, performing stunts that would give even the most seasoned stunt pilot pause. Cruise is so devoted to his craft, all you can do is watch in utter shock and delight and cheer him on. Don’t try to fight it. Just let it happen.

If it isn’t already clear, I adored this movie. In a franchise filled with monumental highs and minimal lows (for shame, Mr. Woo), Mission: Impossible - Fallout might just be the best yet. No other summer blockbuster this year comes close. Few action pictures this century come close. Accept this mission with all your being and make sure to buckle up.

Ready Player One - Film Review

A few years ago, my friend Richie recommended I check out Ernest Cline’s debut novel Ready Player One. He described it as a nerdy 80s-loving fanboy’s dream come true. “It’s like someone wrote a book FOR US.” He wasn’t wrong. Cline managed to tap into the 80s nostalgia craze that’s been sweeping the nation as of late (Oh hai, Stranger Things!) and craft a fun, throwaway novel filled to the brim with pop-culture references tailor-made to delight anyone that’s ever played a video game or seen a movie from the prolific decade that gave us the likes of hair metal and leg warmers. But its never-ending supply of movie, music and video game references is piles of icing on a cake that wafer-thin. Take those out and you’re left with little more than a familiar plot with a main character who solves every problem thrown his way without batting an eye. The book’s fine, but it’s not much more than that.

Steven Spielberg’s much-anticipated adaptation could be described the same way. It’s eye-candy bombardment with little-to-no substance. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it far more than I expected. While it doesn’t shy away from filling the frame with countless visual references and familiar characters designed to make you scream and shout, “OH! THAT’S THAT THING I LIKE!” seeing them on-screen versus having them described to you in obnoxious detail makes the experience feel less pandering. The weaknesses inherent to the source material - the simplicity of its story, the predictable emotional beats and the lack of legitimate stakes - hold the film back from being anything more than a decent time at the movies, but at least it's not a slog to get through.

The story takes place in a not-too-distant future where the world has gotten so crummy, the majority of its citizens have taken to spending most of their time in a gargantuan virtual world known as the OASIS. Created by James Halliday, the OASIS is like a cross between the mind-bending acrobatics of The Matrix and the colorful visuals of Tron if both those worlds were centered around fun and games and an ‘anything goes’ mentality. Halliday’s recent death triggered an epic contest where the winner stands to gain full control over the OASIS in addition to a number of other prizes. In order to find this Easter Egg, however, one must first discover three keys Halliday has hidden in his robust virtual world.

Wade Watts is our hero - a 'pure at heart' Halliday aficionado and lover of all things 80s. While he wants to find the keys as much as anyone else, he loves the OASIS more for the adventure and the friends he’s made rather than a desire to win absolute control over everything. When he stumbles on a sinister corporation’s plot to win Halliday’s contest in order to rework and commercialize the OASIS for financial gain, Wade and his friends will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. 

As Wade, Tye Sheridan is tasked with playing the blandest of bland lead characters. He does an admirable job, instilling Wade with an endearing, nerdy quality that makes him instantly likable. In Cline’s novel, Wade’s constant reference-dropping made him feel like an obnoxious know-it-all. His ability to solve any problem thrown his way killed any potential suspense the story had to offer. Sheridan’s wide-eyed portrayal makes Wade come across as goofy and adorable more than an annoying genius. As depicted on screen, Wade is just a nerdy kid who stumbles on the right answers at the right time with a little help from his friends.

One of these friends (and the obligatory love interest) is Artemis, one of the OASIS’ legendary top players. In Spielberg’s adaptation, Artemis is given a more active role in the story, another wise storytelling decision. Olivia Cooke in the role is one of the film’s highlights. She makes a far more interesting protagonist than Wade. Ben Mendelsohn is appropriately menacing as the film’s primary villain Nolan Sorrento, the head of the evil corporation bent on winning Halliday’s contest and ruling the OASIS. His scenes with T.J. Miller’s i-R0k offer some of the film’s biggest laugh-out-loud moments. Even thought the cast spends most of their time as cartoonish digital avatars, they still do a bang-up job.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Spielberg’s adaptation is its lack of edge, its seeming disinterest in ascending above the rest of the pack to achieve something more memorable. Why attach a filmmaker like Spielberg if you weren’t going to shoot for the stars? His crowd-pleasing, fast-paced sensibilities are on full display, but frankly it feels like this could have been directed by anyone. That special quality Spielberg brings to his best works gets little chance to shine, replaced by one familiar CGI set piece after another.

Ready Player One’s candy-coated sensibilities also prevent the film from developing real-world stakes. When things go wrong in the real world and people die, the consequences are hardly felt by any of the characters. Little excitement is generated beyond the ‘gee-whiz’ thrill of the colorful action and visuals, but there’s hardly any risk It’s not all that dissimilar from the sequences in the OASIS. 

Speaking of which, I have to give credit where credit is due. The OASIS is a visual effects masterwork. The film’s exciting visual moments take place in this digital playing field. I was concerned the switch to the virtual world and reliance on CGI characters would create a disconnect, but it ended up reinforcing the universe all the more and never once took me out of the experience. There are some wonderful visual references and one extended sequence involving a re-creation of iconic scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is a particular standout.

It all leads up to your standard, computer-generated BIG BATTLE SEQUENCE that will boggle your senses and leave you completely unmoved, a standard for many blockbusters in this day and age. It concludes with a sappy, hamfisted ‘put down your phones and go outside’ message that seems fitting for the times, but insincere based on what’s come before. (After all, none of these people would have met without the OASIS in the first place.)

Ready Player One won’t ever be mistaken for one of Spielberg’s finest moments, nor do I expect it to be remembered much in the coming years, but it is undoubtedly an enjoyable ride. I’d say I was disappointed it wasn’t anything more than the sum of its parts except I didn’t expect it to be. While it’s undoubtedly an improvement on its source material, it reinforces how little of substance there is to it. If you’re already a fan of the novel, you’ll have a good time; if you just want a fun, fast-paced blockbuster, you should walk away happy. If you want an engaging, involving experience that will blow your mind, you might be off staying home and playing video games instead.

Shawn Eastridge's Top Ten Favorite Films of 2017 (and all those other ones too)

The Oscars are happening this Sunday! And what better excuse to scrounge together a list of my favorite 2017 films. Sure, it might be a bit late to post this, but it's my blog so DEAL WITH IT! Here, at long last, are my Top Ten Favorite Films of 2017.

Before we get started, here are the films I missed still haven't seen, but hope to get around to seeing some day:

• DARKEST HOUR
• THE FLORIDA PROJECT
• GERALD'S GAME
• GOOD TIME
• THE GREATEST SHOWMAN
• HOSTILES
• I, TONYA
• JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
• THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER
• KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE
• LOGAN LUCKY
• MOLLY'S GAME
• T2: TRAINSPOTTING
• WONDER

THE TOP TEN

10. LADY BIRD
(Directed by Greta Gerwig)

Lady Bird has no shortage of enthusiasm and spunk and it’s got the heart to match. Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut makes a lasting impression thanks to sharp writing and excellent performances from its cast led by Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf. Gerwig does an excellent job balancing zany humor and characters with sincere emotion and modesty.

9. THE SHAPE OF WATER
(Directed by Guillermo del Toro)

Guillermo del Toro is one of the greats and has gone far too long without this kind of acclaim and awards attention. Not only has he crafted some of the most imaginative and beautiful works of cinema this century (The Devil’s Backbone, Pan’s Labyrinth, Crimson Peak), he’s made some of the most crowd-pleasing and heartwarming entertainments (Hellboy 1&2). The Shape of Water is the second of his English-language films to demonstrate his more thoughtful, ‘arthouse’ sensibilities. It works as both a culmination of his own career, which favors a running theme of acceptance and appreciation of ‘the other,’ in addition to being a love letter to the movies and movie monsters in particular.

8. BABY DRIVER
(Directed by Edgar Wright)

No one can make a kinetic action film like Edgar Wright and Baby Driver is further proof. It’s a fast-paced, hilarious and gripping crime thriller/musical (yes, you read that right), and maybe, JUST MAYBE, the most fun I had at the movies in 2017. Not to mention that glorious soundtrack, which, thanks to Wright’s direction and Paul Machliss and Jonathan Amos’ editing, becomes just as integral a player as the actors.

7. LOGAN
(Directed by James Mangold)

Logan is the rare beast that transcends its genre trappings to become something more. It’s brutal, bloody and easily the best of the three Wolverine films, though to be honest that’s not saying much. What is saying much is James Manigold has delivered a superb send-off for the much beloved character and Hugh Jackman has never been better.

6. GET OUT
(Directed by Jordan Peele)

Jordan Peele’s first feature chucks him right to the forefront of Exciting New Directors. It’s one of the most assured directorial debuts I’ve ever seen. With its intelligent view on the country’s racial divide paired with iconic imagery, heart-wrenching thrills and a raucous sense of humor, Get Out is an instant horror classic that I am more than happy to welcome into my annual Halloween viewings.

5. CALL ME BY YOUR NAME
(Directed by Luca Guadagnino)

Call Me By Your Name is a beautiful coming-of-age romance that captures in vibrant detail the joy and sadness that goes hand in hand with young, unbridled and passionate love. Everything about its setting and premise screams ‘pretentious,’ and yet it side-steps these descriptors, coming across as genuine and sincere in its emotions. Sometimes achingly so. Couple all that with those gorgeous Italian vistas (expertly captured by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom’s cinematography) the excellent soundtrack and the incredible performances and baby, you got a stew goin’. Timothée Chalamet might not walk away with the Oscar come Sunday, but he sure did walk away with my heart. (And don’t even get me started on the Armie Hammer snub. We’ll be here all day.)

4. BLADE RUNNER 2049
(Directed by Denis Villeneuve)

You say, “Blade Runner sequel,” and I respond, “Terrible idea.” But that was before I found out Denis Villeneuve was attached to direct backed by renowned cinematographer Roger Deakins. Throw in Ryan Gosling for good measure and my interest is piqued. What’s more impressive than the team assembled to create this 35-years-later sequel is that it would manage to hold a candle to Ridley Scott’s ground breaking 1982 classic. Not only does Blade Runner 2049 earn its place as a worthy follow up, it manages to craft a more compelling character drama, deepening its predecessors' themes while paving its own way. An incredible accomplishment that will no doubt be analyzed and scrutinized in the years to come, joining the ranks with Blade Runner as one of the great cinematic works of our time.

3. WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES
(Directed by Matt Reeves)

A powerful conclusion to one of the best film trilogies this side of The Dark Knight. Writer/Director Matt Reeves pulls out all the stops for a thrilling and emotional finale featuring what may be Andy Serkis’ finest performance to date. War may be dark and tragic, but it is also stunning and emotional, daring in its subject matter and vastly more intelligent than most effects-laden blockbusters. So impressive is the effects work here that I never once thought of the apes as anything other than flesh and blood creatures occupying real space in their environments. I’m still giving the edge to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but I applaud Reeves and co. for committing to their somber tone and seeing this trilogy through to its satisfying and masterful conclusion.

2. TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN

(Directed by David Lynch)

No, I’m not trying to add fuel to the fire of the debate that is the whole ‘Is Twin Peaks: The Return a TV Show or a film?’ thing. I know some critics have argued in favor of the latter, spurred on by David Lynch and Mark Frost’s insistence that the new season was written as a single entity and filmed as such, and that’s fine. (If you must know, I error on the side that insists it should be seen as television) 

But, here’s the thing: I don’t do a favorite TV shows list and I needed to profess my love for Twin Peaks: The Return SOMEWHERE. So here we are. 

With this much-anticipated third season, Lynch and Frost took full advantage of the creative freedom offered by Showtime and created something that blew the doors wide open on what television, and visual storytelling in general, could be. Week after week I never knew what to expect. All I knew was I was in for a treat that would engage and challenge me in a way few other films or shows ever have. By the time the series reached its baffling, mind-boggling conclusion, I knew for certain it would go down as one of the most unforgettable viewing experiences I’d ever had.

1. DUNKIRK
(Directed by Christopher Nolan)

Dunkirk is a cinematic triumph of the tallest order and one of the finest examples of the artform I’ve ever seen. Throughout his career, Christopher Nolan has always displayed a mastery of his craft, but never has he produced such a strong, visually oriented narrative. It’s as if everything in his career was leading to this distilled example of the medium’s power. His insistence on using practical sets, props and effects only adds to the experience. I had the immense pleasure of attending the 70mm IMAX presentation and the experience was overwhelming. This may, in fact, be his best film yet, which, when you consider a filmography that includes the likes of Memento and The Dark Knight, is a major accomplishment. Honestly, this one joins the ranks with Mad Max: Fury Road as one I could watch on repeat, I love it so dearly.

But beyond its undeniable technical achievements, Dunkirk succeeds as a celebration of the human spirit, our capacity for compassion, our struggle to survive against all odds and our willingness to put ourselves in harm's way for the greater good. Another modern classic from one of our greatest living filmmakers. 

**********

That's our show, folks! Thanks for tuning in. And for those interested, here are the other movies that either missed it by *that* much or just weren't very good. See you next year! (Or technically this year?)

**********

THE OTHER TEN

11. THE BIG SICK (Directed by Michael Showalter)

12. COCO (Directed by Lee Unkrich)

13. STAR WARS EPISODE VII: THE LAST JEDI (Directed by Rian Johnson)

14. JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 2 (Directed by Chad Stahelski)

15. THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED) (Directed by Noah Baumbach)

16. THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI (Directed by Martin McDonagh)

17. OKJA (Directed by Bong Joon-Ho)

18. THOR: RAGNAROK (Directed by Taika Waititi)

19. WONDER WOMAN (Directed by Patty Jenkins)

20. A GHOST STORY (Directed by David Lowery)

HONORABLE MENTIONS

• AMERICAN MADE (Directed by Doug Liman)
• DETROIT (Directed by Kathryn Bigelow)

• FATE OF THE FURIOUS (Directed by F. Gary Gray)

• GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (Directed by James Gunn)

• IT (Directed by Andrés Muschietti)

• IT COMES AT NIGHT (Directed by Trey Edward Shults)

• MOTHER! (Directed by Darren Aronofsky)

• THE POST (Directed by Steven Spielberg)

• SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING (Directed by Jon Watts)

• STRONGER (Directed by David Gordon Green)

BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS

• ALIEN: COVENANT (Directed by Ridley Scott)

• BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (Directed by Bill Condon)

• THE DISASTER ARTIST (Directed by James Franco)

• PHANTOM THREAD (Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson)

• POWER RANGERS (Directed by Dean Israelite)

THE WORST OF THE BUNCH

• BAYWATCH (Directed by Seth Gordon)

• JUSTICE LEAGUE (Directed by Zach Snyder)

• THE MUMMY (Directed by Alex Kurtzman)

Black Panther - Film Review

**WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS WITHIN**

There’s no denying the cultural significance of a film like Black Panther in today’s blockbuster landscape. It’s the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to feature a predominantly black cast. Just this fact alone marks Black Panther as a singular entry in this franchise and a major achievement in its own right, and with the excellent writer/director Ryan Coogler at the helm, a strong ensemble led by the likes of Chadwick Boseman, Lupita Nyong’o and Michael B. Jordan, stunning visuals and an expansive, believable world, it stands as one of Marvel Studios’ most unique offerings yet.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is it still succumbs to the standard Marvel movie weaknesses: all-too familiar story beats and an underdeveloped villain. Plot-wise, it feels like bits and pieces of movies we’ve seen before, a little James Bond here, a little Lion King there (no joke). But while the predictable plotting and simplistic character beats hold Black Panther back from true greatness, they can’t quell the overall entertainment value and delight of Coogler’s unique vision, a vision which adds further, much-appreciated variety to the MCU.

I won’t go into the plot too much since there’s still a week to go before the film is officially released, but I’ll offer a brief summary. In the aftermath of his father’s murder (recalled in a brief flashback), T’Challa a.k.a. Black Panther returns home to take his rightful place as Wakanda’s new king. But while T’Challa would prefer to keep his people and resources safe by cutting them off from the rest of the world, a force from outside Wakanda’s borders threatens their very existence and a dark secret from the royal family’s past could bring about their kingdom’s destruction.

Black Panther takes its time doling out information at the start, building its expansive world and setting the stage for events to come. It’s a bit slow and plodding with little action or excitement, but Coogler combats this by filling the frame with colorful visuals and endearing characters to keep us engaged. It’s one of the few films in the MCU that has a strong visual identity, its striking production design and effects work feel unlike anything we’ve seen in this universe before. Wakanda teems with life, beauty and culture; it’s a living, breathing world you totally buy into.

Things pick up when the story transitions into its fast-paced second act, and from that point on the awesomeness rarely lets up. The action sequences are exciting and engaging, with some amazing fight choreography. One sequence in particular, which features a fluidly moving camera ascending between two levels as it follows multiple fight scenes without a single, visible cut, is an astonishing achievement. This is followed by another of the film’s highlights, a breathtaking car chase through South Korea’s fluorescent cityscapes, featuring Black Panther’s superhuman acrobatics as he leaps and flips between cars and buildings like a total BAMF. As with most of these movies, Black Panther’s third act devolves into the standard CGI action climax we’ve come to expect, but Coogler has done such an excellent job getting us to that point and ensuring we’re invested in these characters it doesn’t hinder its effectiveness.

Rounding out Black Panther’s greatest assets is its phenomenal ensemble. As the titular hero Chadwick Boseman does an excellent job conveying the character’s nobility and conflict. Lupita Nyong’o plays the love of his life, dishing out sage wisdom and ass-kicking in equal measure, and few things are more enjoyable to watch than Danai Gurira of Walking Dead fame twirling a spear and wiping out the baddies. Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman also make a welcome return, reprising their roles from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War respectively and giving us the Bilbo/Gollum reunion we’ve all been waiting for.

The ensemble’s standout, however, is newcomer Letitia Wright as T’Challa’s younger sister Shuri. She serves as the film’s ‘Q,’ developing new weapons and technology for her older brother. Many of the film’s highlights and biggest laughs involve their sibling squabbling and interactions.

This brings me to perhaps my biggest beef with Black Panther: its villain, Erik “Kill Monger” Stevens. As Erik, Michael B. Jordan gets a lot more to work with than the standard Marvel villain. His motivations are strong, personal and much more human than your average ‘take over the world’ schemes….even though that ends up being his ultimate goal. But you understand why he feels this way.

The problem is we don’t spend enough time with Erik to get a real feel for who he is. He’s not introduced as the film’s true antagonist until about halfway through the runtime and by that point we’ve spent so little time with him, it feels like an odd left turn, unmotivated by the events leading up to it. Jordan’s performance is good, but one-note. Erik is angry, brutal and aggressive without much room for nuance or subtlety. It’s easy to understand what he feels and why he feels that way, but it’s harder to empathize with his brutal methods. As portrayed, he comes across more as a scorned, angry teenager than someone with genuine grievances. It undercuts what would otherwise be one of the stronger villains in the land of Marvel and it’s a shame that Coolger and co-writer Joe Robert Cole couldn’t interweave Erik’s storyline more organically into the rest of the film.

Black Panther works in so many ways and feels so creative and full of great ideas that you can’t help but wish it felt a little more original in the storytelling department. It’s a reminder that it’s possible to recognize the cultural significance of a product while also acknowledging that it falls short in other areas. That being said, Black Panther is one of the stronger solo hero entries in the MCU, succeeding as an exciting action/adventure that carves out a new section for this expansive universe to play in. It contains moments that will take your breath away and more than make up for its weaker tendencies.

But perhaps Coogler’s greatest accomplishment here is that he was able to dive into the well-oiled machine that is Disney/Marvel and create something that feels like a sincere expression of his own heart, a product that feels epic, but also has something important to say. In that regard, Black Panther is more than just a movie - it’s a celebration of a culture that has for far too long been marginalized and under-represented in these kinds of movies. I can’t imagine how exciting it must be for a young black boy or girl to finally get to cheer on superheroes that look like them.

It’s about damn time.

And for those interested, here’s where Black Panther fits into my MCU rankings:

1. The Avengers 
2. Captain America: Winter Soldier 
3. Captain America: Civil War 
4. Iron Man 
5. Thor: Ragnarok 
6. Iron Man 3 
7. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 
8. Black Panther 
9. Guardians of the Galaxy 
10. Spider-Man: Homecoming 
11. Captain America: The First Avenger 
12. Avengers: Age of Ultron 
13. Ant-Man 
14. Doctor Strange 
15. Iron Man 2
16. Thor: The Dark World 
17. Thor 
18. The Incredible Hulk