Gladiator 2

 

Sixteen years after the deaths of both the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius and General Maximus Decimus Meridius, Rome is once again under the tyrannical rule of twin emperors Geta and Caracalla. As the twins set their sights on expanding their empire in a seemingly never-ending war, the Roman army arrives on the shores of the Northern African kingdom Numidia in order to conquer it. As the battle rages on, the refugee Hanno is taken captive into slavery along with his fellow Numidian soldiers. Hanno and his men are then taken to Ostia, where they are tested and trained to become gladiators. Hanno especially catches the attention of Macrinus, who promises Hanno the opportunity for revenge against the general who led the attack on Hanno's home and murder of his wife if he can withstand the rigorous battles of the arena.

I had so many mixed feelings going into the theater to watch Gladiator II. The first one is very high on my list of top 20 favorite movies of all time, and considering how perfect the original was, I was highly skeptical any sequel could live up to the epicness.  The end result wasn't bad. It was really done quite well actually. I absolutely loved Denzel Washington and Paul Mescal in their respective roles, both of them knocked it out of the park (or should I say arena...sorry). This was also a great example of using specific callbacks that didn't feel forced or out of place.

The two guys who played the twin emperors were ok, but I kind of wish they had been more diabolical and less clownish. It almost felt like they saw Joaquin Phoenix's role as Commodus and decided to imitate him but ham it up tenfold. It wasn't bad, just not the direction I would've probably gone with. Same goes with the story itself. If it had been up to me, I would've probably written the story to follow Djimon Hounsou's character Juba from the original Gladiator as he navigates the gladiatorial arena and trying to win his own freedom. Interestingly enough, there were at least three different instances where some dialogue was used that seemed to my mind to allude to Denzel's character Macrinus possibly actually being Juba, but I don't know if that was just me wishing that were the case, or if that was the original intent. I wish at the very least Juba made an appearance, even if it had been a brief one.

Overall, after waiting almost 25 years for the release of a sequel, the end result was well worth it even with a few minor hiccups along the way. Part of me still wants that sequel following Juba, but it might be a little too late now. Oh well, one can dream.

Deadpool and Wolverine

Since losing his fiancé Vanessa, after previously using Cable's time travel technology to save her, Wade Wilson a.k.a. Deadpool has felt a bit lost in his life. Oh sure, he still enjoys being a mercenary, but it just doesn't have the same impact on him that it did before. He keeps feeling like he's meant for something greater, something bigger than himself. After attempting to fulfill that emptiness by traveling from his universe to the Prime Universe (616) in order to join the Avengers, he returns, hangs up the blades and becomes a used car salesman working with his former X-Force teammate Peter. He's then kidnapped by Mr. Paradox of the Time Variance Authority who explains to him that his universe is about to expire due to the loss of its 'anchor being', which as Deadpool comes to find out is Logan a.k.a. Wolverine. In order to save his universe, Deadpool teams up with a Wolverine who killed his own entire world and tries to stop Mr. Paradox and the Time Variance Authority.

 
I had the same problem with Deadpool and Wolverine that I had with Spider-Man: Far from Home. The story was so flimsy and barely there that it felt like it was just Cameo Central, not much else. It’s weird that it didn’t work for me since that’s what made me love something like Expendables 1 & 2 (haven’t seen 3 or 4 yet), but for whatever reason it didn’t work. Still thought it was funny, did love some of the cameos, and it was great seeing Hugh Jackman finally interact as Wolverine with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool, but for me Deadpool 2 is still the funniest/best one out of the series. I was skeptical at first when I first heard of the potential of a Channing Tatum Gambit movie, I just didn't think he'd be good for a role like that; but after seeing him play the role in Deadpool and Wolverine, I think he should get another chance at the role of Gambit in either a solo movie or X-Men reboot. Maybe he could show up in Secret Wars when it arrives. That actually wouldn't surprise me honestly, now that I think about it. I do agree with some people who commented that Deadpool should take over Stan Lee’s cameos in each Marvel flick moving forward, I think that’d be pretty funny to see. Plus, it would keep Deadpool in the MCU now that the Fox universe is over, and the X-Men are now in the main continuity. 

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

 

Several hundred years after the reign of Caesar - the chimpanzee who, due to a drug meant to cure Alzheimer's became hyper-intelligent, ultimately leading him and other apes to gain the ability to speak - apes are now spread out across the planet and split into different factions. Some factions still remember the time of Caesar and his pacifistic teachings, while others have forgotten. In one such clan that has taken to falconry as a way to hunt and provide for themselves, Noa, the son of the clan's leader, ends up on the run from a rival clan led by an ape named Proximus, who attacks and destroys his own. In an effort to extract revenge on the clan for destroying his family, Noa teams up with a human girl named Mae - who has her own reasons for going against Proximus - setting up a plan to free what's left of his clan and become the leader his people need him to be and who he was born to become.

The previous trilogy of Planet of the Apes films - starting with Rise of the Planet of the Apes and ending with War for the Planet of the Apes - is hands down one of the best trilogies of films to come out in recent years, at the very least the last 25 years. As it stands War is on my shortlist of favorite films ever. The combination of a rich set of characters, beautiful scenery/cinematography, and some great storytelling made for an extremely fun experience in the theater. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (seriously, whose idea was it to make the titles for each entry in this series so dang long?) does thankfully live up to the previous trilogy, though it steers the story more into action/adventure territory instead of diving into the more philosophical elements. I found that kind of disappointing, as I enjoyed the philosophical and scientific side of things, but it didn't completely detract from the overall experience. 

As the series continues, I do have to wonder just where exactly the story can go from here, but Kingdom does have some pretty interesting twists that could result in this trilogy rivaling the previous ones in just about every aspect. I've read some reviews wondering just how this new generation of films can justify their existence since the original's twist ending had such a massive impact when it was first released, as well as the similarities in topics each story touches on. All I can say in that regards is that I personally have not seen any of the older films in the series, so for me the impact of the last four films has been pretty significant and I do think the topics have been handled really well. The way I see it, stories have been around for generations, there truly isn't a completely original storyline or lesson to be learned that hasn't been touched on in some form or another previously. That said, it is still absolutely possible to craft a story in such a way that is fully engaging and fun, as well as maybe touch on things from a viewpoint one might not have given much thought to previously. In this particular case, that is exactly what's happened. I'm personally fully invested in the story moving forward, and can't wait to see what's next.

Isle of Dogs

 

Set in the fictional Japanese city of Megasaki, Mayor Kenji Kobayashi has decreed that all dogs that fall under a mysterious canine flu-like sickness must be exiled to an offshore site called Trash Island. One such canine that contracts the sickness is named Spots, whose master happens to be a young boy named Atari, the adopted nephew of Mayor Kenji Kobayashi. Atari attempts to find Spots by escaping the confines of his uncle's residence, and making his way to Trash Island in order to look for his lost pet. Along the way Atari meets up with five other dogs stranded on the island - Chief, Rex, King, Boss, and Duke. The group of dogs work together with Atari in order to find out the fate of Spots on Trash Island, all while avoiding Atari's uncle, as well as murderous mangy dogs also trapped on the island.

Isle of Dogs is my third attempt at watching something directed by Wes Anderson. The first one was Moonrise Kingdom, and the second was Fantastic Mr. Fox. The quirky, sarcastic, quick-witted and dry style of humor is very hit-or-miss with me. Most of the time, I'd say I do enjoy it. I do kind of wish I knew what it was exactly that makes it a success for me, and what misses the mark. For instance, I saw Moonrise Kingdom, and thought it was kind of funny in places, but I didn't think it was as good as some of my friends and other people who had recommended it to me made it out to be. Fantastic Mr. Fox on the other hand, I thought was a hilarious movie. Good thing too, as I went ahead and bought it first before ever watching it by going off the recommendation of some family and friends who loved it. Isle of Dogs falls somewhat in the middle of the road for me. I loved the story, I thought it was a well crafted story filled with many great characters throughout. I loved seeing the evolution of the friendship between Atari and each of the dogs helping him find Spots. The humor was the part that was hit-or-miss. There were times where I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard, and others where I was just like "I don't get it..." Overall though, I would definitely see it again, and will probably be getting it on DVD/Blu-Ray soon.

Equalizer 3

 

Robert McCall is enjoying a quiet, secluded retirement as a U.S. government assassin-turned-vigilante in a little town in Italy. Unfortunately that retirement is soon disrupted as he gets wind of a plot involving the local Italian mafia and drug money that is putting his newfound friends and community in danger. McCall attempts to control the situation on his own, but must soon call upon his former compatriots at the FBI to assist him in his efforts.

The Equalizer franchise has been a very good action series despite being somewhat on the predictable side of things involving the plot(s) and characters throughout. I'd say the first Equalizer is still the best, yet Equalizer 3 is ever so slightly better than Equalizer 2. In his second outing as Robert McCall, I mentioned that while Denzel Washington was still excellent as McCall, I couldn't help thinking that he seemed a bit bored throughout the movie. I also mentioned that the story veered into some pretty predictable elements which I thought could have been crafted better to enhance the overall experience. With this latest installment, I don't know what the difference was, whether it was the story itself, or the overall experience of making the film, or something else, but Washington's performance was much better and the overall film is much better than the previous one. I've still to this day have never seen a performance or film of his that I just didn't enjoy overall, and that continues with this latest installment. 

That said, the Equalizer trilogy still seems to struggle with developing its supporting characters. It's a little disheartening when you realize that one of the characters with the development issue is an FBI agent played by Dakota Fanning, Denzel Washington's former co-star in Man on Fire. This is their first on-screen interaction since Man on Fire. It was great seeing them together again, but as I mentioned, I wish Dakota's character was given more to do within the confines of the story. As it stands, her character didn't seem to have much of an impact on the story's conclusion. There was a distinct lack of a good subplot point as well such as the old man in Equalizer 2 who is searching for an old, lost family heirloom. The audience kind of gets it in the form of an Italian shopkeeper who is being accosted by the local crime lord for protection money, but there was still something missing there where it wasn't as impactful for me personally like the subplot of the old man trying to find his heirloom in part 2. 

If you're a fan of the first two Equalizer films, or just in general a fan of Denzel Washington like I am, Equalizer 3 is still a very good thrill ride with some excellent action scenes, and a great performance by Denzel. Not to mention it was still fantastic to see Denzel and Dakota Fanning back together again on screen after so many years. I personally just wish the surrounding story and supporting characters were just a bit more polished. Especially if this is the final outing for the character of Robert McCall.

Triangle of Sadness

Celebrity model couple, Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (Charlbi Dean), are invited on a luxury cruise for the uber-rich, helmed by an unhinged boat captain (Woody Harrelson). What first appeared instagrammable ends catastrophically, leaving the survivors stranded on a desert island and fighting for survival.

Triangle of Sadness was one of the disturbingly worst experiences I’ve had in a theater in a long time. I don’t like using the word ‘pretentious’, (I feel like describing something as pretentious is such a subjective opinion) but Triangle of Sadness comes as close as I’ve ever seen to get me to use it. Interestingly enough, it actually starts out decently well. We meet our two main protagonists as they're on a date and the discussion throughout the dinner touches on subjects of gender roles, influencer status, and others. If the film had stayed like that I actually might have considered Triangle of Sadness a decent-to-possibly-good movie instead of a disaster. However, there’s a scene about halfway through where a storm is brewing, and the social elite are eating dinner with the captain of the yacht they’re on. The crash of the waves mixed with the dinner results in a far too drawn out scene reminiscent of the pie eating scene in Stand by Me that results in everyone…uh…relieving themselves from both the attic and basement, if you catch my drift. It’s paired with a weird drunken discussion between the captain and a Russian man arguing about the merits of socialism vs capitalism, Marxism, and a couple other things. I did some research after the fact as I was confused on just what the heck exactly the scene was going for. From what I could gather in my research, it looks like the point was to paint the pompous, obscenely rich idiots as simply ignorant of their actions, as earlier in the film they had forced the entire crew to go swimming with them, resulting in the food going bad before being prepared for the meal. The scene was gross all by itself, but it was odd being paired with the conversation/argument between the captain and the Russian man. That kind of lesson about the ultra-rich could have easily been done a multitude of more effective ways that were not so disturbing and gross. Once the storm scene is over, the film then veers into Lord of the Flies territory where the survivors of the capsized ship argue about how to get back home, and who is in charge. It felt like Triangle of Sadness couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a dark comedy, a tragedy, or some kind of weird action/adventure romp with a touch of satirical lessons peppered throughout. Due to this, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it's received such good reviews, and I cannot recommend sitting down to watch it unless you can stand to watch an overly long scene of dozens of people throwing up and soiling themselves during a storm being weirdly paired with a politically charged conversation intertwined throughout.

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor among Thieves

A charming thief, Edgin, and a band of unlikely adventurers (Holga, Xenk, Simon, Doric, and Forge) embark on an epic quest to retrieve a lost relic. Things go dangerously awry when they run afoul of the wrong people. They must then work together to save the world from destruction.

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor among Thieves is such a cheesy as heck movie, but thankfully it’s the best kind of cheesy. I loved every second of it. I don’t really know or have experienced much about D&D outside of currently watching the third campaign of Critical Role on YouTube or Twitch, an episode here and there of Dimension 20, and Amazon Prime’s animated series of the first Critical Role campaign The Legend of Vox Machina - though I recently have been wanting to get into a one shot campaign or something to experience it for myself - so I couldn’t tell you all of the Easter eggs. The good thing is that the movie has enough there to be good fun for even people like myself who don’t know what any of the terms used mean or types of characters, etc. I mean, I knew enough to know what some of the spells used were (Eldritch Blast, Speak to the Dead, among others). I also understood a couple references here and there to some special magical items used within the game, but that's about the extent of my knowledge of D&D. Honor among Thieves has the humor, action and adventure I've come to expect from a typical session of D&D, which made it all the more entertaining. I wish it had been a little longer, despite being just over 2 hrs long. It felt like it went by too quickly. But that’s my only real complaint. Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriquez, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis, Regé-Jean Page, and Hugh Grant were all wonderful in each of their roles, and made me look forward to a sequel. No, seriously, PLEASE let there be a sequel to this one!

Women Talking

Women Talking was a tough movie to both watch and to review. If you haven't heard of it, it's based on the novel of the same name and follows a group of women in a religious colony who are constantly attacked and abused by the men in their community for years until one particular incident where someone is caught and finally sent to jail along with the other perpetrators. While the men are gone the women hold a meeting to decide whether or not to leave the community and strike out on their own, to stay and fight back against the abuse, or do nothing.

This is not a movie for a widespread audience. It's basically a one-location, very little action, "talky" type of movie that most will probably skip. Personally, I found the discussions intriguing, and actually did a slightly better job of presenting the different sides of arguments surrounding what is essentially the Me Too movement than what Tár or some other movies have tried to do. I say slightly, as there were moments where the arguments did kind of bend toward a more "preaching" stance instead of presenting the arguments and letting the audience decide for themselves. The process of actually writing out a set of pros and cons of all arguments was kind of an odd choice as well. I think framing the discussion from a religious perspective was interesting. Having been raised in a biblically-based household myself, I appreciated both the questions raised throughout, particularly those on the subject of forgiveness, as well as the framework in which those questions were asked. One question raised in the film was whether or not forgiveness that was forced out by someone else and not freely given was true forgiveness; as well as the question of whether or not one could ever forgive someone for such an act, or whether or not it would take time and distance in order to do so. None of these questions are easy to answer - if they ever truly could anyways - but the movie attempts to do so. The acts of abuse are shown onscreen, but only in brief flashes throughout and (mostly) not terribly graphic. I think I'd say this is a recommended movie, and I daresay an important movie to watch. I feel a bit weird using the phrase "I liked it" given the topic. However, with the subject matter the way it is, as well as how it's presented in more of a roundtable discussion style than truly a conversation on the subject (which isn't necessarily a bad thing btw), I'm not so sure of many people who would appreciate the movie. I would still encourage people to check it out, but keep that in mind.

Cold Pursuit

Nels Coxman's quiet life as a snowplow driver comes crashing down when his beloved son dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to coldblooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss.

When I first heard of Cold Pursuit, the trailers were a little bit misleading. They made me think this was going to be a Taken-esque action thriller, much like most of Liam Neeson's recent movies in the last few years. What I didn't realize, was 2 things: First, Cold Pursuit actually ended up being more along the lines of Ocean's 11-13 with it being an action comedy. Or more accurately, a dark comedy, given the nature of the story. Secondly, I never realized this was an American remake of a Norwegian film titled In Order of Disappearance. It also had the same director for both movies. I'd never seen nor even heard of the Norwegian film before, so I'm definitely going to have to watch that now.

Since I wasn't expecting that tone, the first 15-20 minutes threw me for a loop before I was able to relax into it and enjoy the rest of the movie. After that, I really did enjoy it. Sure, it's not anywhere near Liam Neeson's best role(s), or movie in general. It's certainly not the type of movie to be in any conversations during Oscar season. But for what it's worth, I thought it was really good. Also, now that I know what to expect, I'm planning on going back through and watching it again with a clearer and more open mind to get a sense of the entire movie, not just after the first 20 minutes. 

I feel confident in saying that fans of the Ocean's series, as well as Fargo will enjoy Cold Pursuit. I know I did. There are some people who might be a little uneasy about the over exaggerated stereotypes throughout the movie, but if you can get past that and the dark humor, then I would highly suggest checking this out.

The Predator

From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe's most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.

I love the Predator franchise, almost as much as I love the Alien franchise. That being said, this latest addition to the franchise is hands down one of the worst movies of 2018. It's sad too, I actually was intrigued with the story, particularly a couple of the twists it throws in. And yet, the humor (and dialogue in general) and some of the acting from several of the characters brought it down so much that I almost walked out from the theater. Pretty much all of the characters were bland and uninteresting, making me not care about any of them, especially when some of them died. Thankfully, I only paid two bucks for a ticket instead of full price. Otherwise, I would've been even more ticked off. 

There really isn't much, if anything, positive I can say about The Predator. Despite all of the crap, though, I actually hope there's another one that involves one of the bigger twists from the movie. I won't specify what, but the twist was interesting enough for me that I would like to see more.

Alita: Battle Angel

Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido, a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.

I'm unfamiliar with the Japanese manga called Gunnm, of which Alita: Battle Angel is based on. I feel like I should have done a little bit of research into the manga in order to maybe have a better understanding of the story, characters, etc. Alita: Battle Angel is light on plot, but heavy in the stylized action. This made for a visually stunning, but somewhat confusing movie. It didn't help that the movie ended on a cliffhanger. I wasn't expecting to have every single detail about the story spelled out over the course of the movie, but I do think there should have been a bit more for the audience to understand, especially those - such as myself - who've never read nor heard of the original source material. For instance, there's a discussion about a war that happened 300 years prior to the movies events unfolding. I would have liked to get just a small amount of info on what that war was about. 

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. I enjoyed it a lot. However, I do wish more time was spent developing the story and focusing on the world-building instead of on the action and setting the movie up for the next movie. I did enjoy the performances, particularly that of Rosa Salazar as Alita, and Keean Johnson as Hugo. I liked the character of Dr. Ido, played by the masterful Christoph Waltz, but again, I felt there was something missing.

Overall, I would actually still recommend Alita: Battle Angel. It's still a very fun movie. As far as manga/anime live action adaptations go, this was far better than Ghost in the Shell or even the live action Death Note. Also, I unintentionally saw this in 3D (wasn't paying attention to the ticket I bought). I didn't think 3D really added anything to the movie. So far, the only 3D movies I've ever seen where the technology was effectively used was Avatar and Life of Pi. 

The Green Mile

Paul Edgecomb walked the mile with a variety of cons. He had never encountered someone like John Coffey, a massive black man convicted of brutally killing a pair of young sisters. Coffey had the size and strength to kill anyone, but not the demeanor. Beyond his simple, naive nature and a deathly fear of the dark, Coffey seemed to possess a prodigious, supernatural gift. Paul began to question whether Coffey was truly guilty of murdering the two girls.

I can't count how many times I've caught The Green Mile on tv in the middle or at the end of the movie. Up until now I've never had the chance to see the entire thing. I finally got the chance recently when I was up late one night (thank you insomnia!). I've always heard how great it is, and after watching it, it's even better than what I've heard. There's only a handful of movies I'd consider legitimately perfect - The Godfather and Gladiator are two of them - and I'd add The Green Mile to that short list. The entire cast did a phenomenal job, especially Tom Hanks as Paul Edgecomb, but the one performance that really drew me in was Michael Clarke Duncan as John Coffey ("...like the drink, but spelled different..."). His performance as the quiet - though kind of stereotypical - "gentle giant" of sorts is hands down one of the best onscreen performances I've ever seen on film. I've mentioned before how I rarely get truly and fully emotional watching movies, but man, watching Michael as John Coffey during his final long monologue when he's talking to Tom Hank's character named Paul Edgecomb really got to me. Easily one of the best, most emotional scenes I've ever witnessed. When John tells Paul "...I'm tired boss...Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time...", it's one of those rare instances where I actually felt that emotion hit me like a stab in the heart. I only wish I could have that kind of experience more often.

I should also mention that I was kind of surprised to learn that The Green Mile was first a story written by Stephen King. I knew it was a book, but never knew it was from King. I'm mostly only familiar with King's horror stories (Carrie, IT, The Shining, etc.). Overall I'm not the biggest fan of Stephen King, but watching The Green Mile actually made me want to seek out Stephen King's stories and see what else he's done that's not necessarily in the horror genre. The only other stories I'm currently aware of is The Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me. 

All of that to say, if you haven't had the pleasure to experience the epitome of storytelling magic that is The Green Mile, then do yourself a favor and seek it out. Without a doubt I'd consider it one of the greatest movies ever made.

Donnie Darko

During the presidential election of 1988, a teenager named Donnie Darko sleepwalks out of his house one night and sees a giant, demonic-looking rabbit named Frank, who tells him the world will end in 28 days. When Donnie returns home, he finds that a jet engine has crashed into his bedroom. Is Donnie living in a parallel universe, is he suffering from mental illness - or will the world really end?

Donnie Darko is one of those movie's I've heard so much about, yet never got around to seeing it until just recently. After watching it...well, for once I'm not sure exactly sure how I feel about it. It touches on so many subjects, from schizophrenia/mental illness to time travel and alternate dimensions. There's so much to unpack that it'll probably take me watching it multiple times to really understand. What I can say, from the time travel/alternate dimension angle, is whenever I see a movie or tv show have a story involving it I get pretty worried. It's far too easy to tackle such a subject and get so lost in its own ideas that it's almost like a chicken running around with its head cut off. With Donnie Darko, I'm going to have to watch it multiple times before I can determine whether or not that happens here.

As far as everything else, I love practically every role Jake Gyllenhaal takes on, but I believe he's at his best when he takes on these dark, mysterious roles. His best role to date is his turn as an unhinged freelance reporter in Nightcrawler, but for me Donnie Darko is up there among his best. I might have been confused with the rest of the movie, but that is one thing I'm sure of.

I can't really give a true "I recommend it" or "I don't recommend it" just yet, but if you enjoy darker tales, or ones that tackle subjects such as schizophrenia/mental illness or time travel/alternate dimensions, chances are you might like this one.

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

As the cruel captain of the HMS Bounty, a ship bound for Tahiti, William Bligh wins few friends. When the crew members finally tire of his abuse, Fletcher Christian leads a mutiny, resulting in Bligh's unceremonious removal from the ship. While Christian and the remaining crew sail on to Tahiti, Bligh becomes intent on exacting revenge, and he targets Roger Byam, a sailor who had actually tried to stop the mutiny.

An adaptation of the book of the same name, the 1935 version of Mutiny on the Bounty is great for the most part, with the personality of screen legend Clark Gable's calm and collected character of Fletcher Christian perfectly balanced in contrast to the ruthless, brash personality of Charles Laughton's Captain William Bligh.

The only thing that keeps me from saying "I loved it" is how much the story drags in the middle once the actual mutiny occurs and the mutinous crew head to Tahiti to live among the natives. Some of the scenes - though they were important in order to convey some growing animosity between Fletcher Christian and one or two crew members who didn't take part in the mutiny yet stayed on the ship as pseudo "captives" - in my eyes didn't quite get that feeling across very well, and as such they felt forced. Thankfully, it was only a couple of scenes, so by the time the story came close to the end where (MILD SPOILERS) a handful of the mutinous crew were caught and put on trial for their crime, everything feels more natural and effective overall in creating a good story.

It's been a long time since I've read the book version of the Mutiny on the Bounty, but from what I can remember this film adaptation is a quite good adaptation. I would definitely recommend people seek it out if you get the chance.

Rampage

Primatologist Davis (Dwayne Johnson) shares an unshakable bond with George, an extraordinarily intelligent silverback gorilla who has been in his care since he was young. When a greed-fueled corporation's genetic experiment goes awry, George and other animals across the country are mutated into aggressive supercreatures who destroy everything in their path. In this adrenaline-filled ride, Davis tries to find an antidote, not only to halt a global catastrophe but also to save the fearsome creature who was once his friend.

Based on the video game of the same name, Rampage fully lives up to its name by bringing non-stop high-octane action and excitement. I remember playing the game a few times as a kid, and the movie brings back those fond memories in full force. There are, of course, some changes from the game to the movie, but none of the changes take away from the overall experience. For instance, one of the biggest changes is that in the game, the monsters that wreak havoc on cities are actually people who were transformed by an energy drink (and if I'm not mistaken, in later games it changed to some sort of diet pill) gone wrong. In the movie, the monsters are animals whose DNA has been infused with other species through genetic editing in order to breed more dangerous cross-species (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom anyone?). Other than that, it's still the same stylized action & mayhem as seen in the game. Dwayne Johnson's been busy lately, with audiences already seeing him this year with the excellent action thriller Skyscraper, and last year had three movies (Moana, Fate of the Furious, and Baywatch) all come out. Not to mention starring in his own TV show Ballers. As long as he comes out with more projects like Skyscraper and Moana, then I say more the merrier.

Rampage is simply your stereotypical summer blockbuster popcorn flick, and for those who can turn their brain off for a couple of hours and enjoy some good action, it's not a bad way to do so. Same goes for fans of the video game(s). I'm not sure I personally would ever watch it again, unless it was on tv and I was bored, but I enjoyed it for what it was.

Grand Hotel (1932)

At a luxurious Berlin hotel between both World Wars, the once-wealthy Baron Felix von Gaigern supports himself as a thief and gambler. The baron romances one of his marks, the aging ballerina Grusinskaya, and teams with dying accountant Otto Kringelein against his former boss, crooked industrialist Preysing, and his ambitious stenographer, Flaemmchen.

It is quite a feat to take a popular Broadway play and turn it into a successful feature film, especially one which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Grand Hotel does a great job at balancing humorous moments with more serious, somber moments. When a film has more than two or three main characters, it can be difficult to balance the intersecting stories, and keep the flow of the overall story consistent. Fortunately, Grand Hotel succeeds in this regard. There's a line stated by a doctor staying at the hotel, Dr. Otternschlag, which helps to set up the pacing of the film: "Grand Hotel...always the same. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens."

At first glance, Grand Hotel comes off as cheesy, with several of the characters acting in a much more grandiose scale than what is normally seen, especially from a film made early on in the 1930's. Part of the reason is most likely due to the time period still being so close to when silent films were popular, when actors relied on actions and facial expressions to tell a story instead of dialogue. If one takes a deeper look however, then Grand Hotel can - and should - be considered a classic, plain and simple. In some ways it is a little dated, yet it still retains a certain charm seen even to this day.

Skyscraper

Will Sawyer is a former FBI agent and U.S. war veteran who now assesses security for skyscrapers. While he's on assignment in China, the world's tallest and safest building catches on fire -- and he gets framed for it. Now a wanted man and on the run, he must find those responsible, clear his name and somehow rescue his family members when they become trapped inside the inferno.

Gotta say, I've been hoping for a long time that there would be a new generation of actors & actresses who would be full-blown action stars similar to how it was in the '80's and '90's with the likes of Wesley Snipes, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sigourney Weaver, etc. As it turns out, I'm beginning to think that time has come in the form of Dwayne Johnson. I've said this before, but he's come a heck of a long way since making his official film debut back in 2001 as the Scorpion King. I'd still need to see him in a more dramatic role before I can say for myself that he's a great actor, but it's difficult to deny that the man is certainly charismatic and gives his all in just about every role he's in (I also haven't seen Gridiron Gang yet, so my opinion might change once I do). So far my favorite role of his has been as Hobbes in the Fast and Furious franchise, but after seeing Skyscraper, his portrayal as Will Sawyer is a close second. There's not an intricate plot, or deep characters to speak of, but in this particular case, it's ok. Skyscraper plays out more like an homage to classic action flicks, rather than trying to take itself seriously. Specifically, Skyscraper is more of a homage to Die Hard, with a little bit of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol thrown in.

There's not much else to say, other than if you're a fan of the classic action flicks such as the ones mentioned above, well, then this movie's for you. I certainly (and surprisingly) enjoyed the heck out of it.

Equalizer 2

If you have a problem and there is nowhere else to turn, the mysterious and elusive Robert McCall will deliver the vigilante justice you seek. This time, however, McCall's past cuts especially close to home when hired thugs attack and kill Susan Plummer -- his best friend and former colleague. Now out for revenge, McCall must take on a crew of highly trained assassins who'll stop at nothing to destroy him.

Equalizer 2 is Denzel Washington's first sequel ever, and honestly, I feel like it could have been better. Just like he was in the first Equalizer Denzel is again excellent as Robert McCall, and it is still a lot of fun to see him act onscreen. The movie overall also had some pretty thrilling action sequence - especially the final fight between McCall and the main villain as a tropical storm rages around them. Unfortunately, what brought the movie down for me was the story. It was serviceable, but predictable. I guessed who the villain was a bit before the reveal. It also felt like just about every other revenge-flick out there. Was it fun? Sure. Was the action good? Definitely. But there wasn't much there that stood out to me to highlight the movie as great. In the first movie, I could feel the intensity of Denzel as McCall, but this time around there were several scenes where he just seemed...I don't know, bored.

There was one scene towards the end, that involves a subplot regarding an elderly gentleman who throughout the movie frequently hires McCall (as a Lyft driver in his spare time) to drive him around town so he can do research on an old, lost family heirloom. McCall (mild spoilers) helps the man in a way that is both heartbreaking and emotional.

I've never seen a performance from Denzel Washington - or movie as a whole - that I didn't like, and Equalizer 2 thankfully keeps that track record going. However, I unfortunately can't rank this very high among the list of my favorites.

Mission Impossible: Fallout

After a risky mission to recover three nuclear bombs goes awry, Ethan Hunt and his IMF team work together with CIA assassin August Walker in order to prevent the bombs getting into the hands of a group of terrorists known as the Apostles, led by arms dealer John Lark, who plan on using the bombs in a coordinated attack on the Vatican, Jerusalem, and Mecca.

Usually when a series reaches its fifth, or in this case sixth, installment, it's easy to tell when the creative juices are beginning to run out, and should probably call it quits. Thankfully that's not the case with the Mission Impossible series. In fact, it seems to do the opposite and get better with age. I think I'd go so far to even say that MI: Fallout is the best in the franchise, beating my previous personal favorite, Ghost Protocol, in terms of both thrilling action sequences and engaging (though somewhat predictable) story. As much as I love the Fast and the Furious franchise, it should take notes from Mission Impossible on how to ramp up the action without getting too outrageous every installment, while still having an engaging story and characters. It was great seeing Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, and even Michelle Monaghan back in their respective roles. It's also still impressive to me that Tom Cruise still does his own stunts, and how much dedication he puts into his roles. He may not be the overall greatest actor ever, but it's hard to deny that he's one of the most fun to watch onscreen.

Really, the only downside I could see was that the story, while engaging and extremely fun, was kind of predictable in its plot twists. Granted, this series isn't known for Hitchcock-level twists, but it would have been nice to not see the big reveal coming halfway through the movie before it happened onscreen.

Still, I had a lot of fun with Fallout, and hope that the Mission Impossible franchise continues for at least one or two more movies if they can keep up the same level of greatness.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

In the aftermath of Captain America: Civil War Scott Lang grapples with the consequences of his choices as both a Super Hero and a father. Put under house arrest, Scott is just a few days away from freedom when Hope Van Dyne and Dr. Hank Pym contact him again in order to get his help in contacting and rescuing Hank's wife Janet, who is caught in what is known as the Quantum Realm. Trying to rescue Janet and stay out of reach from the authorities gets even more complicated when a mysterious new player arrives on the scene named Ghost, who wants Pym's technology for an unknown purpose.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed the first Ant-Man when it first came out back in 2015. As much as I love comics - both Marvel and DC - Ant-Man is one of those characters that never really seemed interesting to me. I can respect how, in the comics, he was a founder of the Avengers, but his powers never really made sense to me. Fast forward to the movie, while I still think overall Ant-Man is slightly overrated, I enjoyed it. I found the sequel even better than the first. It's funnier, more action-packed, and does well in developing most of the characters. I say most, because unfortunately it still fails to give a truly compelling villain. Thankfully it wasn't a repeat of the trope of copying the hero's powers, but Ghost ended up being just another villain-turned-misunderstood-character. The movie also wasted an opportunity to develop Walter Goggins' character Sonny Burch as a shady black market dealer who helps Hope and Dr. Pym acquire the technology needed for their rescue mission. His character ended up being there mainly for comic relief. The chemistry between Scott Lang and Hope Van Dyne was great, as well as the interactions between Scott and Dr. Pym. There's one particular scene towards the end involving Scott, Hope and Dr. Pym that is equal parts hilarious, sentimental, and slightly creepy.

Overall, while certainly not the best of the Marvel franchise, Ant-Man and the Wasp is well worth seeing while in theaters.