Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) directed by James Gunn

Aaahhh, the Guardians of the Galaxy. Possibly Marvel's most beloved superhero group, above the Avengers and X-Men. The first film of this series proved to be so strange but such an audience favorite back in 2014. It contained the most lovable and amusing cast ever assembled, including Star-Lord (played by Chris Pratt), Gamora (played by Zoe Saldana), and of course Rocket Raccoon and Groot (Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel, respectively). The outstanding reaction from this film surpassed even Marvel's expectations, and certainly cemented its place in superhero film history. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, however, did not live up to the hype and standards set by its intergalactic predecessor.

Marvel have proven themselves to be royalty in the land of making fun and enjoyable films. And this film is just that: fun and enjoyable. It does not, however, play a big part in the wider universe that Marvel is building with Thanos and the Infinity War, but instead takes its own path with a very simple and, at times, ridiculous plot lines. That was the main issue with this film, was the storyline. As Peter and the gang does small missions for different people throughout the universe, they stumble upon a man named Ego on a distant planet. This man turns out to be Peter's father, who had been searching for him since he was a child. Through their trials and discoveries of Ego's motivations, it is revealed that he does not care too much about Peter as a son, but rather as an instrument for universal domination. Long story short, Ego is actually the entire planet and the Guardians have to destroy him in order to save the galaxy once more. My problem with this plot is that we have seen it dozens of times before, especially in the superhero genre. A maniacal villain poses as a guy with good intentions but is actually only trying to (literally) cover the universe with himself. It gives "taking over the world" its literal and basic meaning, not expanding on any other motivation points about Ego, other than that he is a crazy madman.

Another problem is surrounding the Ravagers, the group that Yondu is the captain of. His group is introduced in the film as being ostracized by the other Ravagers for betraying their code and honor. This leads to Yondu's men having an uprising against him, which was an enjoyable sub-plot of the film to follow. However, there are so many new characters that were introduced that are given zero introduction as to why they are there or what their purpose was. This was one of the problems, that this film tried to have so many cameos, there was no room for development for them. Such cameos include Sylvester Stallone, Michael Rosenbaum, David Hasselhoff, and even Miley Cyrus. There comes a point, I feel, when you need to stop adding so many people just for the sake of it and work on the characters that audiences already adore.

Even though Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 did not have the best plot or consistent focus, it succeeded in character development. Take away the awful plot and bad elements and you are left with two hours and sixteen minutes of unadulterated character development, which I am 100% in favor of. What the Marvel Cinematic Universe desperately needs is decent development time, as they give so many characters their own films, they often forget about what critics and moviegoers alike pay to see. I was very nervous that, given its advertising and excessive marketing, that Baby Groot would be the main focus of the film, but thankfully he was not. Every single character was given their own developmental phase in the film, and that was amazing to watch unfold. Gamora's relationship with her sister, Rocket and Yondu's bonding time together, introduction of Mantis, comedic relief through Drax: all of these were so important for their characters, and that's what this film did best. One character in particular that I felt developed the most was the (almost) new Kraglin, played by Sean Gunn (actually the director's brother). While he had a small role in the first film, his character was much more important in the second, as he practically took over the role of Yondu, his former mentor. Seeing him rise to that spot and his assistance with the Guardians was great to experience.

Even though Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 had a less-than-mediocre plot and very gratuitous cameos, it is a fun film to watch, especially being a fan of the group of ragtags. Just try to focus on the characters themselves and not the bigger picture, or else you will be disappointed.

My Rating: ★★★½

Keanu (2016) directed by Peter Atencio

Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele have already outdone themselves in their first full-length feature film. At first glance, it seems that Keanu is just a typical, silly comedy, but after watching this film, I realized that it is definitely a lot more. I recently started an Ethics in Film and TV course at ASU, and this was the first film that we watched in class. Most of us were honestly just excited that we got to watch Key and Peele in class, but after the viewing, I developed a lot deeper appreciation for their creative mindset.

Key and Peele emerged a few years ago as a YouTube comedy duo known for their hilarious gags about African-American culture, especially since they do not define themselves as completely "black." After getting their own successful TV show for multiple seasons, they released this film and it has not disappointed. While this film explores not only what "black" culture is apparently supposed to be, it also provides us with an insight into the world of gang violence, drug dealing, and the criminal underground.

And an ADORABLE kitten. What else could you need?

Key and Peele wrote this film, and they did an excellent job in dealing with the racial issues surrounding it. While providing a hilarious film, they also handled the stereotypical roles very well. The drug dealers and main characters in the film were all African-American, but had such rich dialogue and development that nothing made it feel stereotypical at all. Handling these types of roles in film is tricky for many people, but should not be because, in reality, it is very easy. Many movies put the black character in the drug dealer role and have him use the n-word excessively, but unjustifiably. This film did great with going around that stereotype and giving the two main characters, Clarence and Rell, justified reason for their actions and language. This is the main reason why I enjoyed this film so much, because they put a sense of humor to these often tense subjects and still made it enjoyable to watch.

The other aspect of Keanu that I thoroughly appreciated was their use of a seemingly silly plot to prove the audience wrong with their storytelling skills. While Rell lost his kitten that had recently saved him after being broken up with by his girlfriend, he was put on a mission to get him back, no matter the cost. His friend Clarence joined him, and it makes for a great time throughout the film. While I do not regularly watch comedies to critique them, I could not help but to think about the other elements that made this film so great. Female characters in this film, while there were only about 2 important ones, gave good motivation to both Rell and Clarence throughout. Rell's newly-discovered female gang friend Hi-C, played by Tiffany Haddish, was a critical part in developing Rell as a character, as she provided him with a reason to move on and keep fighting for his kitten. The other major character was Clarence's wife Hannah (played by Nia Long), who had gone on a weekend trip with their daughter and a family friend. This obviously did not turn out well, as the man had made advances on her and made her uncomfortable. Clarence, after finding out about all of those events, became very angry, and in the end, strengthened his marriage to his wife and his connection to his family.

My only problem with the film was also regarding the female characters. While they were important in developing the plot as well as Key and Peele's characters, they were not well-developed themselves. Hi-C ran Cheddar's gang for the most part, but was used mostly as an incentive for Rell to get back on his feet. This is good to focus on the main characters, but I felt that more could have been done on her part. This also goes with Hannah, as she is shown as innocent and vulnerable with the family friend on their vacation. She definitely could have stood up to herself and done something about it, but the film did not address that, but rather had Clarence deal with it later in the film. It is a sort of double-edged sword because while the audience focuses and roots for the main characters, they also want to see well-represented black women, but it is appearing harder and harder for filmmakers to portray that.

Keanu is a fantastic film all throughout, and even though it is a comedy, there are always aspects to analyze and think what could have been done better. This is a great portrayal about racism, sex, and violence in America, and Key and Peele have proven to be the perfect fit for this film.

My Rating: ★★★★

Fatal Attraction (1987) directed by Adrian Lyne

In what is probably one of the most talked-about films of the 20th century, Fatal Attraction reinvented and shaped what moviegoers thought about casual affairs and relationships and their possibly fatal (haha) consequences. While Michael Douglas shines in his role of cheater-turned-family-man, the real star of the film was Glenn Close. Although there were many points in this film where I was left asking myself "wait, what? Why?", it still had a profound impact on me, knowing how close to home this film could hit to some viewers.

First off, let me say how sorry I feel for that lovable but naive yellow lab. He has seen some serious shit. After Michael Douglas's character Dan Gallagher has an affair with a single woman named Alex that he meets from work, I can't decide who I want to side with throughout the film. On one hand, I want to be with the crafted "protagonist" of the film because he made a simple mistake and is only trying to protect his family. But on the other hand, I can not help but to think of him as the bad guy because of the awful things that he may have accidentally made the woman do after their steamy night. Even though she is portrayed as the antagonist throughout, I couldn't help but to feel bad for her. She tried to slit her wrists out of pity in the night after she spent with Dan, which made me feel like she might not have been too stable. The one character that I did feel closest to and could relate was Dan's wife Beth. Her motivation throughout the film was simply to provide for her husband and daughter, which is understandable, and I could not help but to root for her as she shot Alex, killing her, in the final scene of the film. However, despite all of this character development chaos, it is easy to understand why some people may have viewed certain characters differently than I did, which makes this film so beautiful. Different experiences create different reactions, and this film was the perfect test for doing so.

As strange and thought-provoking as I thought this film was, there are a few certain things that have bothered me about it. I know that many critics and speculators over the past 30 years have probably broken down this film and analyzed why everything may have happened, but I personally did not understand and do not think there are valid reasons. For example, since the start of the film, Dan seemed like a normal extrovert, and even when he met Alex for the first time at the bar, he did not seem like the kind of man who would cheat on his wife. His truest intentions seemed to lie with his family, which gave me a sense that he was the good guy. However, when he had the one-night stand with Alex, I was left very confused. It did not seem like he had any good motive as to why he would do such a heinous thing. As for Alex, while she joked early in the film about her father dying from a heart attack, it turned out that she was actually telling the truth. This resonated strangely for me, because it did not make sense why that would have to do anything with her home-wrecking. She did not appear to have any motivation for breaking up Dan and Beth's marriage, other than her own personal pleasure. And her actions following that night made me view her as the archetypal "crazy ex-girlfriend," which did not suit her, given her nonexistent background information.

One of the other major things that has created such a dichotomy in my mind is the alternate ending. I viewed this ending after seeing this movie for the first time, and I can not help but to think how much better the closing act of this film would have been. Indeed, it would have not brought in as much money as it originally did, but the conclusion makes more sense and is much more satisfying. In the original ending, Alex is drowned in the bathtub by Dan, and is apparently dead, but rises once more, only to be shot and killed by Beth. The typical "the monster is alive again!" trope is so overused in my opinion, and it did not fit the theme at all. The alternate take, however, shows Dan being arrested for Alex's "murder." The audience finds out, however, that Alex killed herself with the knife that Dan had his fingerprints on because of his struggle with her earlier in the film. The closing shot of this ending was so powerful, because as Alex slowly swiped the knife across her throat, "Madam Butterfly" was blasting in the background of her apartment. This conclusion truly brings together all of the motifs of the film in a quieter but somehow more powerful way.

Even though I am upset that the theatrical cut of the film had a sillier ending, Fatal Attraction is a must-see for all moviegoers, especially fans of the love-thriller genre. Setting the tone for all love triangles in films for years to come, this movie has proven itself to be a classic tale.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Dark Tower (2017) directed by Nikolaj Arcel

Having read the first few books in Stephen King's sci-fi adventure series, I was not expecting it to follow the books very well, and I was not sure how much source material they would use in the film adaptation. I was right, however, when it turned out to be a story of its own. The Dark Tower film takes a handful of aspects from the first book in King's series and adapts those elements to make a plot of its own, capable of presenting through film. While this movie did not follow the first book very well, it did take those aspects and make an enjoyable adventure epic with a great cast and terrific visual effects.

Since I have read the first few books of the series, I was expecting a lot from this film. There are so many characters and so many elements that are present in the Dark Tower universe, including cameos and allusions from other works of Stephen King. This film, however, took much of its plot and general premise from the first book in the series: The Gunslinger. It crafted a story of its own without relying too heavily on the books for source material. This was positive and negative for the film. Bad news first: I wish that the plot would have included more elements and background from the novels. One part about the film that I personally understood but might have been confusing for many viewers was background information not being presented. For example, in the film, it is told that the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) works for a higher order. Having read the novels, I know who that "higher order" is and what his true motivations and desires are. I am trying to take the stance of someone who has never read the books, and this "higher order" and many other small details might have flown over their heads and confused them. On the positive side, however, since this film took a path of its own story-wise, it was refreshing to see a clean take on the adventure of Roland and Jake. This is what I appreciated the most, was that it did not need to rely on pleasing the dedicated fans of the series to make an enjoyable film. Even though it only clocked in at 95 minutes, the crew did a fantastic job of maintaining the balance between hardcore fans and average moviegoers.

There were only a few select elements of the film that I did not enjoy. The first being the post-apocalyptic and typical tone of the film. The Dark Tower novels have a certain distinct tone that I can't quite put into words until you read them yourself. They remain very dark and brooding, but keep changing enough to draw you in and keep you interested in the series. This film, however, felt like your typical Hunger Games-style flick. We understand by now that once the world "ends" a new government with strict rules and absurd futuristic laws will rise. This film did not do anything to go in the other direction of that tone. While the genre is still enjoyable, the setting did not stand out as much as I would have hoped. Another aspect was the occasional cheesy dialogue. Roland Deschain, played by Idris Elba, is a very solitary and determined character, and remained so for most of the film. "You can come with me since you have nothing left... gunslinger..." really pushed me over the edge since such a strongly developed character would not in his right mind say something as fatherly as that. Which leads me to my next point: the ending of the film, while leaving the general audience satisfied, left me feeling like there could have been more. Since it was such a quick film, I did not get as much of the full experience of Keystone Earth as I would have liked. And since this movie only took elements from the first novel, I expected a possible franchise or sequel, but is does not seem like they are planning anything based off of the abrupt closing shot.

There were many amazing parts of this film that absolutely stood out. The first being the performances by the main cast. Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey were outstanding in their roles, especially the latter. Idris Elba played a fantastic version of Roland Deschain and lived up to the Gunslinger hype for sure. McConaughey, however, stole the show for the majority of the movie. His portrayal of the Man in Black literally sent shivers down my spine. Not casting McConaughey in a villainous role before is a mistake for Hollywood studios because he played the perfect creepy sorcerer. He embodied his character so well, and is the definition of a villain that you are secretly rooting for, just to be able to see more of him. The other major attraction for me in this movie were the action sequences. Roland Deschain, the last of the gunslingers, makes Will Smith's Deadshot look like a Stormtrooper. His accuracy and finesse with his pistols is visually amazing to watch. The fight scenes between the Man in Black and Deschain, while there were only a few, were very tense and special effects-heavy, which did work well.

In conclusion, The Dark Tower is an enjoyable film to watch, and brings its own style and astounding performances to the dystopian genre. While it does not follow the novels exactly or sets up any hopes for a possible sequel as some may have hoped, it is a fun addition to the sci-fi action/adventure family.

My Rating: ★★★