King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Review

A new long waited Guy Ritchie film, which wasn't that well marketed came out just in May, and I didn't have time to check it out until now, so here is my thoughts on it. 

I am always excited about new Guy Ritchie projects, like Spielberg's or Nolan's. He, like some other great directors, has this personality, which is bigger than movies he does. And I think, that King Arthur suffered because of that in the first place. The style, brought by Ritchie didn't help to tell the story, it was bigger than the movie, and that only created a mess, in my opinion. Maybe, the biopic didn't work for many people, but we know that Ritchie can make good movies, and tell stories. The style definitely helped him with Sherlock Holmes and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., not even speaking of his first movies, that kicked of his career. But now it is time to admit, that this time it didn't work. Usual people didn't dislike King Arthur as much as critics did. And I am not saying, that this is a bad film, it has some goodness in it, that is why it's not trash, and also a good part of the audience liked it. 

Everybody has got a bad part of their careers, and I hope that for Guy Ritchie this is the lowest level possible he can fall ever. The movie itself is a story, the british legend about the legendary sword and King Arthur. And I am not sure about magic part of that story, but the fictional part of it might have been the reason why the style didn't match the tone, with which this movie could have worked. You can tell that, just looking on other the movies Guy Ritchie made, and there was no magic in them, so it was al least interesting, how it could have matched this particular story, but apparently the first time didn't pan out to be a good one. 

The film starts with the betrayal of the King's brother Vortigern, played by Jude Law, who was one of the bright sides to the movie. The magical part blends very well with his character, this time the magic actually works really well to bring drama to the character and make him complete. The kingdom as it was, fell, and the only person who survived the purge was the King's son. The narrative was so rapid at first, that in 20 minutes the story was already focused on an adult version of Arthur, played by Charlie Hunnam. And he did a good job playing this character. I thought he was the second good thing about this movie. Arthur had character development, but the way the he was written, made him dull at times. And I think Hunnam did the best version possible of King Arthur, mostly ignoring the flaws of the narrative in this movie. That is one of the biggest issues of mine with this movie - it has a floppy narrative. I couldn't understand anything, what was going on, it was paced so abruptly. Ritchie's quick cuts made this movie a big disappointment. Not that it is a bad movie overall, but this style and tone the director goes for all the time in his movies, just didn't work for this story. It was a good idea, but the execution wasn't great.

And then the whole movie is focused on adult Arthur, who was raised by the lower classes. He have become a commoner on the streets. While the sword reveled itself, the movie already becomes some sort of a huge "exiled-and-returned" cliche. Vortigern of cause wants to kill Arthur to gain the power of a true ruler and the Excalibur's might. But the "true ruler' can't even use the sword, he is resisting the sword. So, that Arthur with his forgettable friends, finds himself for the whole movie, trying to maintain the power oh the sword. I found this journey incredibly boring, and even worse, when the movie ended the way, I knew it would end. A mix of magic, legends and terrible demons have not worked for this movie, it is unwatchable and sometimes unpleasant.

But Ritchie, turning Arthur in a street lad, has created so much oddities filled with the image of a new take on the legend of King Arthur, that I think the audience was not ready to see such an excessive departure from the traditional vision of cinematography.  

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017): Movie Review.

It has been six years since the last, fourth, Pirates. Even though, this new film is in great demand, interest in those movies has not faded in six years that much. This time, Captain Jack Sparrow must again find the ancient artifact, the Trident of Poseidon, to save his own skin, again. All it looks like one story over and over again. And it doesn't necessarily have fresh take on it, all that magical abracadabra with Poseidon, and screenwriters trying to explain everything with science, even making one of the main heroins a scientist of a great mind, which actually reminds of a dump way of "celebrating" sexism, condemning it of cause, but reminding of a terrible treatment of women too often for it to bother on the fifth time them saying "witch" in the movie.

So what happened with Pirates new installment? Despite the prayers for a better film, the fifth one didn't become any better, but worse as a motion picture. And I am a little disappointed not only with that, but with the lack of that stylish Pirates tone that was in first two movies. Of cause Captain Jack is yet again funny and entertaining, but even though in first two he was a cherry on the top of a cake, not the cake itself. Now he is the main reason these movies are being made. And it is the first major problem with Dead Men Tell no Tales - it is imitating what was very best about "The Curse of the Black Pearl" and transfers it into the much worse script with no special Captain Jack Sparrow "plan", because he is morally done in the film and gives up on everything. Which leads to the second thing I didn't like. It is the characters treatment. Giving the fans all they want is not the way to make a good story, especially when screenwriters try to make us care about some of the characters we haven't seen for ten years like Will Turner. His curse of being Dutchman's Captain is one of the main reasons driving the story in the film, and there is no much connection, emotional at least with the two last Pirates movies. The story picks up forgetting to set up that emotional connection, pretending that we already must care, because "why all other four flicks were made for?". And the third and last is that this movie completely lacked any respect to at least first three films in the franchise. Many details about characters and events, that took place before in Pirates universe, that I know, were changed to serve the story better, which destroys the lore. The last nail in the coffin of redeeming the franchise.

The new movie completely stopped the franchise from being what it was, there are no way, that it can step on the right trail again and follow greatness of first two movies. Johnny Depp is now older and older to play Captain Jack Sparrow, and those movies will be made only if he is back to play his famous role.

There are good things too to be mentioned about Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. The movie has its flaws but it is more or less enjoyable, for other people, rather then me. I criticize it too much, because I know the difference between the good "Pirates" movie and the bad. It is not necessarily must be a huge-scale action movie with unexplainable magic stuff. Instead, it can be something more practical, with no wasted money on needless CGI effects. I never asked for a new bad movie just for the sake of seeing more from those characters I love. A good film would have changed a lot in this franchise.

Anyway, the story is quite solid, despite the fact, that the screenplay didn't create needed emotional connection. The story threats already known characters poorly, but it sets up all the reasons, why the action is happening, well. I can say the reasons, why this script is bad, but there are good jokes and character development on the surface. There have been only three of all the characters, who were in all five films. They are, of cause Captain Jack Sparrow, Joshua Gibbs, Jack's loyal first-made and Captain Barbossa, played by Jeffrey Rush. His character was always a hidden jewel of this franchise. Of cause he was just for a couple of seconds in the second film, but he did appear in all movies in the franchise. I write it, because he has been given a lot more depth then ever. He was always just a bad person, a pirate, and now, suddenly we learn about his past. And in the perspective of the whole franchise, it seemed a little out of place for this character, he was absolutely great without any depth, except his great love for the "Pearl". And yet again, it is the way, where the story in the fifth movie goes, and how it treats already known characters. It worked exactly 50/50 in this film, sometimes violating the essence of the characters, but giving them some development instead.

The new main leads played by Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario are a recreation of whom Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann were for the first movies. But it looks more like a wrong decision, because they didn't have even near that depth and character build as previous generation. And the story and the screenplay for the first movie was way better then in "Dead Men Tell No Tales". And as for the villain. Javier Bardem was really good. But what else you would have expected from an Oscar-winning actor. Overall, the image of this movie is even more blur than even the previous film had. It overreacted about fanservice and totally took a wrong direction to lead the whole franchise into darkness. There are already ways for another movie, but if it's going to be as this one then there is a problem of not seeing the situation clearly, that the health of the franchise depends on good quality of the movie at first. 

Alien: Covenant (2017): Movie Review

In 2017 there are so many different movies, from horror to comedies, even horror comedies. But, Ridley Scott brings a classical Alien on screen again, and it is special. We haven't seen a traditional Alien movie for a very long time. Since the Resurrection, Alien didn't appear in any standalones, and it was 20 years for now. There were crossovers with the Predator, but this is the very first standalone Alien film with actual alien in it since 1997.  

Prometheus, which came out in 2015, was the first prequel to the Alien (1979). In that movie Ridley Scott explained the origin of life and Xenomorphs' existence. Alien: Covenant is the second prequel, which actually called "Alien" this time. And as trailers and every poster says, it has an Alien in it. Watching little prolog videos which are a part of the marketing campaign for this movie is really helpful, they explain some parts of the movie and help to get into the story as quick as possible without spoiling anything. 

The story of a crew members on a spaceship Covenant, which takes a huge colony on a decent for life and colonisation planet. But the ship crashed and crew members woke up from the cryosleep. During the repairs, one of the pilots intercepted a message sent by a human. The planet from which this message was sent seemed even more pleasant for colonisation and the captain decided to check it out and find the source of the signal. 

The movie very much discovers the origin of Xenomorphs. Ridley Scott really thought up a great explanation and the story is quite interesting. This movie doesn't lack the connection with the events which happened in the Prometheus. Without spoiling, I might say that the Xenomorph is not the only alien in this movie. Traditional Alien is some sort of an ancestor to another monstrous creature. That is why this film is not exactly an Alien movie.  It has one in it, but it wasn't a cliche from 1979, some parts remind of that movie, but in Alien: Covenant Xenomorph is not the one and only threat, so it mostly looks like a fight between the whole spaceship crew and different alien creatures, and the Xenomorph appears only at the end. 

This film is worth watching. Horror element is very strong, but it wasn't that much scary. The plot is exciting, there are no huge negatives with the story. There are no big issues with the decisions of the characters, it all seemed organic and natural. Michael Fassbender has done it again and crushed it with his roles in the movie, as well as Danny McBride and Katherine Waterston. 

One of Ridley Scott's most notable mistakes, again (just like in Prometheus), is the absence of the same atmosphere as in the original film, when prior to the meeting with Xenomorph, none of the members died, and there was more time to speculate and build up the mystery of the alien. And all that brings up the biggest issue with the movie - its pacing. The movie is slow at the beginning, quite moving during action scenes, but very slow and even boring between them. I have to say, that everything would have been better at a pace, if the film had been one hour longer. If you show all the details, don't cut out the big parts of the movie to get to the boiling point, in which people start dying. It seemed more like the script was originally meant to be at least twice as long, especially in the ending. To put it mildly, Alien: Covenant may not be such a good film, not to mention a good film about Alien. 

But it's still worth watching. It's visually stunning, and the origin of the Xenomorph is finally very well explained. The story itself is good, there are some great plot twists, which I personally saw a mile ago, but still, you might not. And the predictability didn't ruin any pleasure from suspense and the reveal. 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2: Movie Review.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. The sequel to the great and already classic first Guardians of the Galaxy which became absolutely one of the best in its genre. James Gunn also written and directed the second movie, as he did with the first one. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Michael Rooker, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel and Karen Gillan reprising their roles along side with Kurt Russell (Ego), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha). 

This film is a continuation of the first Guardians of the Galaxy story line, in which guardians are mercenaries, who work for money or something else of value. The came back to what they all know how to do, but now they have a name and their services are special. 

The Sovereign had their home planet attacked by an Abilisk that was wreaking havoc on the world and trying to eat the planet's power source. Believing it to be beneath them to fight it themselves, their leader Ayesha hired the Guardians of the Galaxy to kill the beast in exchange for Nebula, who was captured by the Sovereign attempting to steal Anulax Batteries. 

The action in this movie moves the story very well, as after the job well done Rocket steals those batteries and all the Sovereign fleet is on their tail. Then they go to an asteroid field, so far it is more looks like an Empire Strikes Back narration, but even some posters are very much Star Warsish so to have at least a couple similarities in the movie. Indeed, this movie has similarities with Star Wars in pace and a little in its storytelling. Great that all that fleet of autopilot Sovereign ships are destroyed by one mysterious man who appeared from nowhere just after Quill's ship was about to be destroyed. 

Many great dialogs, a great premise of funniness and smart talk from Drax, or Rocket, interacting with Baby Groot, voiced by Vin Diesel, the humor is entertaining and hooking, it is built up by many good dialogs after which all the jokes make sense. From the start the atmosphere is the same just as in the first movie, but the scenes are showed with more advanced technology in cinematography which made the beginning a little new, more looking like higher budget film already. More attention is focused on Baby Groot, his new personality, what he is right now and how cute he might be. There are a lot of CGI and visual effects in this film, sometimes more than it was required. And one of the biggest differences from the first movie is that everything seems so expensive in the second one. To the end it felt like required for that terrain and circumstances CGI was overused. Vol. 2 lost in atmosphere to be more relying on fun and entertainment. But after all the movie still feels like the original Guardians. 

Exploring Quill's parentage appeared to very fun, his father is a very complicated dude, there is a lot to be explored about him and the whole history of his origin in the movie. Peter and Gamora are still unsure about their relationship with each other, it is also explored in the film. One of the biggest parts of the movie is the ravagers, their code, which Yondu broke by kidnapping children. There are many clans of ravagers, it is a one big family led by Sylvester Stallone's Stakar Ogord. His role is more like a cameo, looking on what little screen time he had, he still made it fun and had a couple cool lines. This how James Gunn explores the Marvel Cosmic Universe, it became more big and wide-ranged, many more things are to be explored next. Some characters had such a wonderful development. Yondu is such an interesting character. He raised little Peter for good. Nebula is a great character as well. How it is to be raised by Thanos, more terrible details about that and her relationship with Gamora. A lot of emotional feelings to all those stories we have seen or heard about in those two movies, as James Gunn makes it all connected and actually also brings his great storytelling with his hidden philosophy just as he did in the first one, where he had drama, action, comedy and space-opera in one movie with many issues that he addresses to massive audience. 

The second film does it all, but the pacing was a little bit more rough, some advantages of the first movie were sacrificed to bring more jokes and crazy good moments. The villain is not disappointing, but pretty much like Ronan The Accuser, very serious, but also to be made fun of sometimes. And really ,Guardians always make fun of their villains, but this one will be too powerful to be actually funny, while destroying the Galaxy. Ronan was funny, with his too over-the-top serious lines, maybe because he was too serious he was beaten, but this villain, in GOTG Vol. 2 is not. Not to spoil anything, but there are more, than was shown in the trailers, much more, so can't talk about villains a lot in this movie. But this one is horrifying in its convictions. 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 of cause has a beautiful soundtrack. Peter Quill is that motor that aggregates common jokes, referencing to some older TV shows or singers from Earth. Overall, this whole thing is about saving the Galaxy again, but also about family and friendship, brotherhood. The second instalment isn't as good as the original, but still has the same greatness in its core. 

Get Out (2017): Movie Review

This movie made a lot of buzz, having 99 percent on rotten tomatoes and making a lot of money for Blumhouse Productions and Universal. It became some kind of phenomena. It is now the movie, which is called original, fresh and absolutely creative. The idea behind this script is innovative and new. The story drives smoothly, but the filmmaking by Jordan Peele seems usual. It is an easy-watching film, even though it is a horror. And the horror is more connected to the story, not jump-scares. There are almost no jump-scares, the whole idea of this movie being terrifying is based completely on you experience watching the film. 

Jordan Peele makes you care for the characters. They are not just some puppets to play with, they are people to care for, to one point in the movie, I can't tell, because of the non-spoiler review, but there is a twist, in which everything changes. It wasn't spoiled in the trailer, so even the marketing did play a good hand for this movie to be successful. 

So, basically the main character is Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), who is dating Rose (Allison Williams). They are in love, so their relationship comes to the point, when they go to meet her parents in their residence. Ever since they go on this little journey, strange things start to happen. The whole plot is not revealed very quick, Jordan Peele keeps us wondering about what actually might be happening, and if you pay attention, you might estimate some plot twists, but Peele goes deeper, beyond my, for instance, imagination and brings some really crazy ideas, which are mind-blowing good, very original. And that anticipation of the reveal comes after the characters are developed and well presented by some good dialogs and very well directed scenes. This whole movie is actually so well directed, it is very enjoyable to watch. 

You might find the ending to be disturbing, but it doesn't contain any nasty surprises. This movie hooks and doesn't let go until the end; very well made movie. 

The Fate of the Furious: Movie Review

The Fate of the Furious. Who can top that? Car chases and action, rare gun shots and mostly hand combat battles, low budget and a lot of unknown actors. This is how this franchise started back in 2001. Now, looking back, Fast and Furious looks so different in style and everything else. Budget is 250 million dollars just for production. I bet the marketing was another hundred million. Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew made this far from a Point Break remake to the one of the biggest movies of all time. It will do extremely good at the box office. After this one, there will be another 8 coming out in the near future with space battles and races on The Moon. I mean they won't do that in the next 5 or 6 movies, but who knows, maybe the crew will change, and already Dom's and other's children will do all that crazy stuff. 

Firstly this movie started with something very familiar for Fast and Furious fans. Cuba, an atmosphere of a holiday, great cars, beautiful women. Classical race of two on some crazy cars with absolutely insane action for each one's car. Dom raced some local tough guy. 

Him and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) got married and everything goes good, the family is happy and save. His honeymoon is going well. Exactly at that point Dom meets a lady, Cipher (Charlize Theron), who shows him something, that makes him go against his family. His motivation is unclear, but we all know Dom. He would never turn his back on family, if there wasn't a good reason. Because of Dom's betrayal, Hobbs got into prison, where he meets Deckard (Jason Statham) - his enemy form Fast 7. They face each other, swearing and scolding. After their escape they must work together to find Dom and Cipher.  

Humor is everywhere in this movie. Whether it's Hobbs and Deckard or Roman with his stupid comic relief with horrible jokes in JarJar style. This film is full simple one-liners and gesture jokes. Epic and over-the-top phrases don't ruin anything. The movie has that happy atmosphere. But drama doesn't lack in it either. Some moments are tragic. On a scale of superaction this film beats every other F&F combined, it is laughable, how zombie cars drive in New York or a nuclear submarine drugraces a Lamborghini. I laughed a lot. Some moments didn't match with my perception of life. And there are very unnatural moments, that really mess up with the physics. 

However, F8's party-holiday atmosphere and comic relief jokes from Roman create a feeling of this movie being a big pop-film with every directorial move based on following mass audience desire to turn their brains off. It is not bad, but knowing how to do that, F. Gary Grey makes this movie work. Power of onscreen chemistry between "The Rock" and Jason Statham is one of the best parts of this installment of F&F. 

Thus, this movie looks good, but still only follows the ridiculousness of the previous ones. It is irrelevant to talk about artistic value of the film. It delivers fun and ludicrous action, and if you enjoy one-uping each other Hobbs and Deckard - this movie is for you. Entertainment value this movie has. 

The Proposal (2009) Movie Review

Synopsis: A pushy boss forces her young assistant to marry her in order to keep her visa status in the U.S. and avoid deportation to Canada.

The Proposal starring Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock and directed by Anne Fletcher (Step Up). This movie is quite old, eight years, but sometimes I am in the mood of watching older films to see not only the difference in my favorite actors back in time, but to see a movie, that intrigued me by its idea and cast. Ryan Reynolds already was a star, and of cause Sandra Bullock, not yet winning her first Oscar, but already being a legendary actress. The chemistry between two of them made this movie good and fair to call above average in this genre. 

This movie didn't necessarily stick to the formula of most romantic comedies, it had its own route, on which it had flaws, but the acting talent of both two leads created a wall that kept all the negatives from my sight. In terms of being funny this film also gets to the point when it doesn't do well sometimes, but jokes were decent and told very funny at times. 

The most positive point in this movie is the chemistry between Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock's characters, they are both top actors and did their job very well. This is what I call good acting ,when nobody even tries to act, but it is good anyway. 

Ghost in the Shell (2017) Movie Review

Synopsis: In the near future, Major is the first of her kind: A human saved from a terrible crash, who is cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals.

I was waiting for this movie for quite a while, not that I knew and liked the source material, but the trailers got me by their weirdness and difference, from what I have seen before. I love Matrix(1999), and this movie looked a lot like it - familiar, but different at the same time so I just was sold on this film. Scarlett Johansson is a great action star, her talents were perfectly used in such films as: The Avengers (2012) or Lucy (2014), so she perfectly fits the character of Major, who can fight and needs a great actress to play her right. Major is very complex, her body is synthetic, but the consciousness is taken form another person, who almost died. She was created in a lab, so she could be a terminator for the government stopping the most dangerous terrorists. 

This movie has a unique style. The world looks beautiful, the film is visually stunning. The atmosphere, generated by the visual look and deep, magnificent soundtrack already makes this film worth watching. I really enjoyed the entourage of that gorgeous city, in which this movie takes place. Everything looked fresh and great. I think, that the CGI was well put in the wide shots, the city looked very impressive, especially at night with all those huge moving commercials, it felt absolutely great. 

This film is more about character development and style, with which this movie is made. Scarlett Johansson is great as a mostly robot-hero, having also her memories from the past. The mystery behind her past life is explored more and more until the end. There are some longer scenes of maybe boring dialogs about important things, and those dialogs are not necessarily the best, so overall it looked slow paced, and some plot devices, that were purposed to connect the parts into one, were not well used, leaving the taste of a bad storytelling at times.

I think, that there is nothing horribly wrong with this movie, it is different and good in its own way, but understandably so, this is not the best directorial work by Rupert Sanders, and it didn't appeal to a lot of people. However, the cinematography was great and some characters were very interesting, so I thought, that the story was better than the way it was moved by some obscure plot devises. Obviously, this movie will be forgotten very fast, but I really saw something in it, even though I understand, that this movie is not successful.

"Beauty and the Beast" 2017 movie review.

A remake of a 1991 classic animated musical Beauty and the Beast opened in March. The story of the remake is completely same. 

Synopsis: A young prince, imprisoned in the form of a beast, can be freed only by true love. What may be his only opportunity arrives when he meets Belle, the only human girl to ever visit the castle since it was enchanted.

Belle played by Emma Watson sings and dances, colors are still bright and the atmosphere is magical. This movie has a good storytelling, the very first scene of the enchanting is original as some other things in this film that aren't same as in the 1991 version. 

Very good job by Dan Stevens as the Beast. Interactions between him and Belle were my favorite part of the movie which I actually not surprisingly liked a lot even though a lot of critics dislike it for being rather cliched and destroying the original classic one that we all love. Surely will watch 1991 version as soon as possible, thanks for this remake that was so beautiful that Emma Watson looked normal for the environment and didn't stun, but she did anyway. And her voice was highly above expectations. Usually I like musicals, recent La La Land is one of my favorites of 2016 and this live action musical was very good even though I can't use to dances and songs in the first hour of those films but I really enjoyed them all.  

This whole movie is magical, it keeps up with the classic one and almost copies it. As for me I didn't remember the 1991 version very well so this movie was refreshing and new to me. But for many other people who are the biggest Disney's Beauty and the Beast fans this movie might seem boring and too similar. Anyway this movie takes the greatness of the 1991 animated film and translates it into live action with the same great storytelling and songs. 

Power Rangers Movie Review.

Synopsis: A group of high-school students, who are infused with unique superpowers,harness their abilities in order to save the world.

Everybody says it is really fun movie. Power Rangers TV show was always fun and very goofy but it was enjoyable. This movie is more realistic and settled for a more gritty tone. It has good actors in it, more realistic action and a good feel of a descent superhero movie. Nice interactions between the characters and funny humor are the basis of this film's success. It is successful in achieving it's goal - being funny, entertaining, not super serious and visually great.  

Power Rangers is a big teenage flick, it does have a high school feel, the way people talk reminds of some sitcoms but it is still a good acting from that cast. The mythology was pretty good and well explained, the story is very simple - a cliched superhero plot and all in that manner. But this movie had a strategy of being fun and entertaining so the bad side of this film isn't noticeable that much. 

Well done movie, but it had problems in pacing and the story. The biggest problem I had with this movie is that Power Rangers couldn't suit up for the whole movie and did it just at the end. After all, it felt like a Power Rangers TV show so with that the director did a good job. And visually this movie looks great - a good time in the movie theater. 

Kong: Skull Island Movie Review

Skull Island poster

A team of scientists explore an uncharted island in the Pacific, venturing into the domain of the mighty Kong, and must fight to escape a primal Eden.


New huge blockbuster with a familiar face - Kong: Skull Island appeared to be a big and a very violent film. Right from the beginning it makes total sense that this movie is made just to introduce Kong in a new monster universe for Warner Brothers in which latest Godzilla ( 2013) took place. 

The main purpose of this movie is to entertain, so it does with clumsy action and many many deaths. This movie has a 70-s and a Vietnam war feel to it, and it always has cool music to remind about it. 

The story and the characters are very simple. It almost copies Peter Jackson's version. A squad of navies goes to an uncharted island with a bunch of scientists to explore it. Thus they drop special bombs to study it, which leads everyone into trouble. 

Kong:Skull Island

If we look at this movie from an artistic point of view then we will see a big mess with no character development, good plot devices or hooking story whatsoever. But the most awful thing that happened in this movie is the treatment of all characters in it. They whether die with no emotional meaning or they just don't do anything at all. 

Kong is in front and center of all action. There are a lot of fighting scenes with him and overall he was done pretty well. The big bad monster at the end wasn't difficult to defeat at all, and that took enjoyment out. The main villain though is a human. 

Acting was somewhere in the film but this movie wasn't made to enjoy drama or good interactions between the characters. So, Kong: Skull Island is a big messy flick. I can't say that the action was done well, it felt inconsistent and the CGI looked quite unconvincing. But it was pretty fun sometimes: John C. Reilly was a good comedic relief, Tom Hiddlestone played a bad-ass and sometimes it was enjoyable to watch him on screen and some other scenes were good. This is how I liked this movie. It has some good moments but I expected something more, that looks like a good motion picture.

Logan Movie Review.

Synopsis:  In the near future, a weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X somewhere on the Mexican border. However, Logan's attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant arrives, pursued by dark forces.

This movie has a special place in my hart. It is more then just a movie - this is legacy. It has been 17 years since the first X-men movie came out. And ever since Logan was played by Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart played Professor X. After all those years this film seems more then a perfect ending and a grand finale for a thing that lasted for such a long time. James Mangold - the director of the movie also directed The Wolverine (2013) clearly knew how to make this one work. There was no major studio interference on Fox's part, so he did what he and Hugh Jackman wanted this last Wolverine movie to be. Logan is inspired by many great films. You can find a feel of a good old-time western in it, The Last of Us and Unforgiven (1992) vibe. 

The story is moving very quickly, starting from a good R-rated blood mess, then turning into a story of an old sick man, suffering from loss, despair and hopelessness in this world. This man is Logan, who lives near the Mexican boarder and takes care of Charles Xavier Professor X, who has gone mad. The mutants are gone, they are not born for some years and it seems like an end for their kind. One of the last mutants - Caliban (Stephen Merchant) also takes care of Professor while Logan is gone for a job to collect some money to buy a boat to escape to the sea with Charles who has become a threat for the people near him. He needs drugs to stop his seizures. 

That is so painful to watch these iconic characters rot in that place they live, that looks like a garbage storage. Disgusting how they ended up being after all those years of struggle, school for gifted children and X-men existence. The story moves when the little girl Laura (Dafne Keen) suddenly comes up, along with an army of villains. She is a mutant of a new generation raised and grown artificially in the lab by villainous Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant) and his right hand man Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook). Charles always did everything for the mutant race, and now in a time of despair he convinces Logan to help young mutant to survive, so she would live a new live without violence and pain. 

The biggest strength of the movie are the dialogs and the story itself. The way how characters interact with each other, also with the sense of the history of what happened before, these relationships look even more brilliant. Charles and Logan go all the way back, so they are treated like iconic ones in terms of the depth of the story around them.

The thing that I loved the most was the feel of what I was promised in the trailers. It was really amazing to see those characters again in a new way I never seen before but with the same feel that was in previous movies. I find this movie extraordinary and very memorable. It is going to be a classic superhero ending for ages. 

Passengers 2016 Movie Review

Passengers Movie Poster

Passengers 2016, starring Chis Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen and Laurence Fishburne. Directed by Morten Tyldum and written by Jon Spaihts, who actually wrote the script for Doctor Strange. The film takes place in a short distant future on a spaceship "Avalon", which travels to a distant colony planet known as the "Homestead Colony" and transporting 5,258 people has a malfunction in one of its sleep chambers. As a result, one hibernation pod opens prematurely and the one person that awakes, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is stranded on the spaceship, still 90 years from his destination. 

After the awakening, Jim finds out the truth about his voyage that he is 90 years yearly so he will probably die as an old man on this ship before it reaches its destination. He has a barmen android as his pal and a very long time to study every data log on the ship in order to repair the broken chamber. He is desperate and lost. Chris Pratt does a great job playing his character as we can understand his desperation and loneliness. Pratt plays a usual guy - mechanic, who is not the most confident or charming but full of surprises. He is a little different from the Star-Lord or Owen from Jurassic World. He is a more regular person.

Passengers 2016. The Ship.

This movie has such a huge work behind it. The production design is stunning. The ship looks beautiful, every detail reminds of a high quality of the future technological progress. This movie shines with the atmosphere of excellence. And this is a very expensive film to make, paying large fees to the stars of cause too. And I think that it was poorly marketed, but at least it was what I expected the movie to be, in order of tone, even though the plot is not as it was shown in the trailers.

As you noticed, Chris Pratt's character wakes up alone. He searches the ship, looks everywhere for the solution for his repair problem, tries to destroy the armored deck door to wake the Captain ( Laurence Fishburne) (Jim obviously just a mechanic and can't use many things on the starship). The road gets him to the point where he just can't stand Arthur (played by Michael Sheen) (the barmen android) company anymore. 

I am not very familiar with previous Michael Sheen's works but he was pretty good in Passengers, he masterfully captured the behavior of the machine with no actual feelings, but with some automatic artificial reactions on a behavior of others. I don't really understand much of Jim's complaints - he had a free bar just for himself for the rest of his life, but that life lasts too long, he is just all along and can't find a reason to stay alive.

Passengers. Michael Sheen and Chris Pratt movie.

And in the moment of the biggest desperation, he throws some item away in anger to come and pick it back up and see beautiful Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence) sleeping in her chamber. And then if you saw a damn poster you guess the biggest plot twist spoiled in the very first poster for the movie in the marketing campaign. 

But before that Jim was such a gentlemen to not to wake her up just in a moment he got in love with sleeping beauty. He struggled because he is a nobleman who won't take and bury someone's fortune for his own advantage. Instead, he studies her by her dairy. It turns out she is a writer and seeks adventures just as her father did to write an entertaining book. That is why she volunteered to be on this voyage. 

Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence.

The flaws of the movie are on the surface, but this is a movie you can enjoy very much for the star power, atmosphere of an expensive movie and for the romance. I didn't see necessarily a strong chemistry between Lawrence and Pratt, they fit each other and these are world class actors but there was less depth for Aurora character. She wasn't explored wisely. She definitely plays a supporting role. All of that made this romance watchable but only for the aesthetic pleasure. 

As for the plot - it was boring, everything was spoiled and the rest was not interesting as it turns out to be an action movie in the third act with most of the problems in it. The drama at the end wasn't powerful due to numbers of flaws. Overall this movie shines in the technological aspects but lacks a good script and solid filmmaking; it looked expensive but too popcorny to be serious enough as it wanted.   

Passengers. Open Space

Arnold Schwarzenegger Probably Won't Appear in a New "Predator" Movie.

Recently Boyd Holbrook spoke to We Got This Covered and told that the new Shane Black "Predator" will be something brand new, not a sequel, so it is not likely, that some familiar faces would appear. That is what he told:

“I’m currently working on Predator. It’s not a sequel; Shane Black has made something totally new, somehow keeping within the realm of Predator [while also being] absolutely new in terms of the story that we’re talking about today, and rooted in something real. It’s real fresh. I don’t think you’re going to see [Arnold] Schwarzenegger. It would kind of make it a gimmick. It’s horror, science-fiction and a western.”

He also mentioned about western vibe to a new "Predator", which has never been done before. Predator movies took place everywhere but in the wild west, and this realism Boyd is talking about makes me even more excited and calm about it. Also because Shane Black is doing it. He will succeed, he knows this universe and he is a very talented writer and director, so after this interview, everything became even more obvious that this movie is in good hands.  

I am more interested in seeing new Predator being more real, horrifying and dark. I think this movie wouldn't need a cameo, maybe a mention, if it will still be in the same universe of course. It is possible, that this movie will reboot the franchise, which I think will be a mistake. It won't be right to throw away everything, what have been done in this universe.

The Raid (2011) is going to be Remade by Joe Carnahan and Frank Grillo

Indonesian action series "The Raid" will be remade by Joe Carnahan and Frank Grillo. The Raid (2011) was very successful as it became one of the most underrated action movies of all time, I think it deserves so much more recognition than it had. Then there was a sequel, which came out in 2014 and was different, but great as well, so these two movies are exceptional, look them up, they deserve to be watched.  

Joe Carnahan did assure that he has something really special to start with and no one will be disappointed. They will try to reimagine the same plot and make the movie he is a huge fan of. 

I don't know what exactly they came up with to remake it, but it is obvious that this property is very hot, and this movie would have been made even if the plot is bad. I am a Frank Grillo fan. I think he always did a great job, so I suppose he will be a great star in this new film. 

So who knows, maybe this remake will be huge, but now we have only promises with no evidence that this new "Raid" film will be at least respectful to the original. I love when fans who are also filmmakers are making a movie they are big fans of, and in this case, it gives hope, that we won't be disappointed indeed. 

Mel Gibson Might Direct the Next Suicide Squad Film.

Since Mel Gibson is no longer rogue in Hollywood, he gets an offer after an offer to play or direct something. Of cause it is understandable, he just made Hacksaw Ridge, for which he is nominated for Best Director. He always made almost perfect movies, he is a very talented artist, no matter what person he is. So we might get used to Mel Gibson again because he is a very popular director right now. That is why Warner Brothers consider him for a new Suicide Squad movie. He is popular, and they contacted him, saying that if he wants it, then he would get it. 

This is very funny, though, because Gibson is a great artist, but in this case, he won't be a proper choice to do it. Bringing him on board might also mean that he can be fired like many other great directors, who disagreed with WB's interference into director's business. In that case, if they will step aside this time and let one director do his thing, letting him decide the final cut, then maybe Gibson will fit. But right now, I just can't figure it out, how a person, who said that the last two DC movies were (a quote) "piece of shit" can get a job in this company. 

Variety reports that the studio is also eyeing Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland) and Jonathan Levine (Warm Bodies). Well, sometimes big studios might add some very popular names into their projects for "in talks to be involved in" them just to promote the movie. I think that the attachment of Mel Gibson is just for this purpose - promoting Suicide Squad sequel.

Moonlight (2016) movie review. The main competitor of La La Land at the Oscars.

Moonlight is a movie about a timeless story of human self-discovery and connection, Moonlight chronicles the life of a young black man from childhood to adulthood as he struggles to find his place in the world while growing up in a rough neighborhood of Miami. 

Barry Jenkins, who directed and wore the script did so well, that this movie is not just nominated for an Oscar in Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay categories, but in Best Picture, which is a giant success for a filmmaker. This movie is relevant, important for minorities, but also masterfully made. I know a lot of people, who blindly love it, saying how great the cinematography is or directing. And this movie is an art in every way. It entertains the audience a little bit differently. Not by the action or plot twists, but with beautifully directed sequences. Some parts of this movie were really great.

But for me, as a fan, who loves this types of movies this one somehow didn't work. I love the first act with Mahershala Ali, but the rest of it was too boring, despite great filmmaking. The actor, who played an adult version of Chiron - the main character was great. It was a hard task to connect these three different actors, so the audience wouldn't notice the difference as Chiron was growing up. 

I know that this movie worked for a lot of people. And I completely understand why. But I think that this movie is too artistic. I think that the thought behind it is too complicated to tell in that environment. The scenes were a little longer sometimes than I thought they needed to be and the overall feel after watching wasn't satisfying. It didn't leave me liking it, as an Oscar contender should. One thing I really disliked was that sudden disappearance of Mahershala Ali's character. By the plot, he had to be gone, but I didn't even imagine, that he would not appear at all later. Naomi Harris was great, she did a very good job, she is a top actress, who has a chance of winning, but there is almost no chance.

The message is quite relevant. This movie hit the weak spot so hard, that it includes three or even more nowadays hot issues. This movie is not for everyone, not for me definitely, but it is some exceptional filmmaking, I will not be surprised if it wins the Best Picture. Hopefully, Barry Jenkins will win something out of his nominations. 

New "Team Thor" Short Video.

The second promotional video called "Team Thor" is released, showing more Darell and Thor, and overall life of an Asgardian on Earth. This piece is so funny and original that I think one would have thought of doing something like that. Chris Hemsworth is very funny playing Thor in those videos. 

These videos are a part of marketing campaign for Thor: Ragnarok, which hits theaters in November. Also, they show what Thor was up to during events of Civil War. This second video is a part of a blue ray edition for Doctor Strange. 

Laurence Fishburne Won't Appear as Perry White in Justice League.

Laurence Fishburne, who portrayed Perry White has previously appeared in Snyder’s Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Planet, but now he gave an interview to LA Times, in which he explained why he won't appear in Justice League: 

They asked me to come for a day, but I couldn’t work it out, schedule-wise. And really, what do you need the newspaperman in “Justice League” for? You want to see the Flash. You want to see Aquaman. You want to see Wonder Woman. You want to see the Lantern.

His statement also contains some geeky talk about Marvel and DC:

We’ve been waiting 35 years for these [characters] to show up on the screen. What were they doing over there? Marvel has been kicking their ass. This is the comic-book geek in me, who has a collection of comic books. I’ve been waiting to see these people on-screen forever.

 Despite the controversy, Fishburne doesn't blame Zack Snyder and OK with "Martha" scene:

Look, I love what Zack Snyder does. Jesse Eisenberg, this little nebbishy guy, as Lex Luthor? For me, that’s a genius move. And the whole thing with Martha Kent and Martha Wayne? I don’t know, man, I must be sentimental but that’s some heartwarming [stuff] to me. So I don’t get it.

After all, what can the person who has a contract with DC say about his last movie? He probably was politically incorrect and rough talking about Marvel and DC's competition, but overall he is right, that Marvel is more successful nowadays. DC has no plan, only relying on a strong fanbase and super popular characters, while Marvel built their universe introducing every new character one by one in their standalones. So the difference is clear, and don't be mad at Laurence Fishburne, he also said that Batman vs Superman is a genius movie. 

Actually, my theatrical impression of this movie is much worse than the impression I had, watching it at home in extended edition. After third viewing, now I think of this movie as of good and solid instead of garbage. 

Robert Downey Jr. Teams Up With Richard Linklater to for Podcast Adaptation.

One of the biggest movie stars right now Robert Downey Jr. will star in an untitled feature with "Boyhood" Richard Linklater directing. This new movie will be based on the episode “Man of the People” from Gimlet Media’s Reply All podcast, which aired on January 19, 2017. This podcast episode, which tells the true story of charlatan Dr. John Brinkley who scams his way to fame and fortune using fake medicine, populism, and the newest technology of the time: radio. As Brinkley’s fame grows, he gets the attention of Dr. Morris Fishbein, editor of the AMA who begins a decade-long quest to take him down.

Robert Downey Jr. has been doing side projects like "The Judge" and "Due Date", so this news doesn't surprise, that he is up to a new non-Marvel movie. Some might say that his side projects were disappointing since he joined MCU, except the first Sherlock Holmes, but I think he did great in most of them. He also appeared in Jon Favreau's "Chef" in a smaller role. 

The point is, that Robert Downey Jr. despite the quality of the film is always great in his movies no matter what piece of crap they are. And hearing that he is teaming up with such a great director as Richard Linklater is very promising, that this new movie will be at least good. 

Weekend Box Office Report ( 02/10 - 02/12 2017)

This weekend three new big hits opened in theaters. One big of another they crushed box office each for itself grossing acceptable and even pleasant numbers on their opening weekend. "The LEGO Batman Movie" becomes the biggest hit this weekend grossing $ 55,6M and winning wit ha gap of $ 8,8M over "Fifty Shades Darker" - another hit which is also the biggest bummer of those three. New "Fifty Shades" movie turned out to be worse than anticipated and even made people laugh after pretty serious scenes. There are huge problems with this movie, but it did great at the box office grossing $ 46,8M. It made double in the rest of the world making $ 147M worldwide, which is three times more of its budget. The third spot is taken by "John Wick: Chapter Two" - an R-rated action thriller with $ 30M. These numbers are incredible for all three movies. This weekend in February is the brightest - such a competition. The fourth spot is for "Split" with solid $ 9,3M. And the fifth is taken by "Hidden Figures" with $ 8M.

1."The LEGO Batman Movie" - $ 55,6M ($ 55,6M domestic total; $ 92,6M total)

2."Fifty Shades Darker" - $ 46,8M ($ 46,8M domestic total; $ 147M total)

3."John Wick: Chapter Two" - $ 30M ($ 30M domestic total; $ 40,6 total)

4."Split" - $ 9,3M ($ 112,3 domestic total; $ 169,3 total)

5."Hidden Figures" - $8M ($ 131,5 domestic total; $ 144M total)

The Founder. Movie Review. Ray Kroc's Way to the Top With Persistence.

The movie is about a fifty-year-old businessman-loser who managed to make McDonald's the most popular and profitable restaurant in history. Ray Kroc, played by Michael Keaton, was an ordinary businessman who sold mixers. His life was a failure. He worked hard, but couldn't win. Persistence was always his slogan in life and he was always trying to find his luck. And one day he met McDonald brothers: Dick and Mac, who showed him an incredible system how to make a burger just in thirty seconds. It stroke Ray and he decided to help the McDonald brothers to franchise this idea in many other cities.  

This biopic is a well-made movie having some little pacing issues, but at the same time having this genius Michael Keaton, who does his best, as I suppose he did, playing Ray Kroc. This story is about one man's struggle. He has been a loser all his life, but now he has this opportunity, which he took, and finally won. 

Everyone knows that he is a founder. But only a few knows whom McDonald brothers really were. They were just as hard working as Ray, but they were no businessmen, good managers, maybe, but they had no killer instinct as Ray had, and he played on that. This is history, that Ray Kroc finally bought the company from brothers and made his own empire. So this movie might make Michael Keaton's character a little unsympathising, but he is just a man who did, what everyone would have done in his place - history for himself. That is how a loser became a king. 

The movie itself shows Ray Kroc's way to the top. Bad or good this movie is, it is not really important. The story delivered well, the script is nice after all. I wouldn't call this movie ordinary, but, as a whole, it is above average in quality. It inspires and delivers the story of McDonald's and Ray Kroc well. 

‘The Batman’ Hires ‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ Director Matt Reeves

New Batman movie, which has some controversy around it now has the long awaited director, who appeared to be Matt Reeves. The second "Apes" movie was great and a new movie, "War for the Planet of the Apes", is coming out this summer. So "The Batman" is in good hands. That is the best piece of news, which DC had in months, but it doesn't fix the negative side of things, for example, Ben Affleck stepping down from directing. 

It is important to understand if Reeves knows how to direct the Batman movie right. His influence on the script is also will affect the further changes. God forbid if Reeves and Affleck will have some creative differences. In that case, one of them goes away and it would be another scandal.