Power Rangers (2017) directed by Dean Israelite

Power Rangers might be one of the best superhero films in years (if you consider it a superhero film), compared to a lot of the less-than-mediocre ones coming out in waves. This film takes everything that die-hard fans of the characters love and mixes it with just the right amount of modern material. Imagine The Breakfast Club meets magical space rocks with a killer soundtrack, and you've got Power Rangers. There are many awesome aspects of this movie, and I don't believe it got as much credit as it deserved.

The greatest parts about this film are the little things that most people take for granted. A lot of the design and composition choices throughout this film were done so well, and after watching a second time, made me appreciate them even more. Some examples include the colors, most of all. Obviously each character has their own color that they are assigned to, and throughout this film, there are so many subtle nods to the characters that are really impressive. Such as the colors of their respective rooms and many of the clothes that they wear in different scenes. This may seem like an easy thing to do for a film of this capacity, but often not much care is given to the design, and this film handled it outstandingly. The other part of this film that made me love it so much was the tone. The Power Rangers are typically seen as children's characters, which is understandable, but this film brought them into a brand new light. It was the perfect amount of campy nostalgia and dark, modern reboot. I loved how the characters were brought together and represented as well. This film was definitely the best coming-of-age movie this year (sorry, Lady Bird), and the cast seemed to work very smoothly with each other. The characters in this film came from backgrounds of all types, and I adored the varied representation of them all. Seeing a gay character, an Asian character, and a black, autistic character become superheroes was amazing and innovative. Of course, the "leader" of the group was the straight, white male, but I appreciated how much screen time was dedicated to each character and not focusing solely on one.

I do not have much negative criticism of this film, because it is such a pleasure to watch, in all honesty. The only thing that bothered me was certain parts of the writing that seemed a bit lazy or rushed. All of the backstories of the Rangers were so interesting and it was awesome to see how they all had their different problems but were able to come together in the end. The only characters that I feel could have gotten more justice was Kimberly (the Pink Ranger), played by Naomi Scott, and Rita Repulsa, played by Elizabeth Banks. Kimberly's reason for detention was sending one of her friend's nudes around the school and starting controversy. It honestly didn't fit for her character and seemed like one of the writers just trying to relate too heavily on modern high school issues. As for Rita, her motivation for finding the gem and destroying the world was absent. It was never explained in the beginning and never explained with the new Rangers' story either. She just seemed to be absentmindedly evil, which made me disconnect to her as a villain. I also think that the writers got a bit lazy or were rushed to finish the project. While the story in the first two acts was written so well and flushed out the characters beautifully, the third act seemed too cheesy for me. It was very predictable and I feel that spending more time on that part of the story would have been a lot better.

Power Rangers is a surprisingly astounding film from this year that shocked me with its great performances and design throughout. Accompanied by an amazing soundtrack (need hype? Put in some Kanye) and well-handled nostalgia, this film is absolutely incredible.

My Rating: ★★★★

Modern Problems (1981) directed by Ken Shapiro

I wonder if Chevy Chase, looking back on his legendary comedy career, would ever consider going back and not doing this movie. I sure hope we would, anyways. Modern Problems is a very misleading and confusing film that has been forgotten as a Chase "classic," and for good reason. There are many problems with this film, including countless audio problems, the treatment of the women in the story, and lazy writing.

The negatives of this film vastly outweigh the positives, and that does not bode well for post-SNL Chevy Chase, as this is one of his first feature films after his iconic skit series run. One of the smaller problems was with Chase's acting, as he might not have had training or necessarily been ready for his own film, because his acting was not the greatest. The pacing and performances throughout seemed very awkward and it was clear that the cast was thrown together and had not worked with each other before. While Chase's character was written poorly and very cheesy, so was most of the writing for the entire film. This film screamed "80's" in the most obnoxious ways, combining both mediocre design with stereotypical and offensive roles. The main problem with the writing was the way that women and people of color were handled. Granted, since this is a typical 80's film, one can not expect the best treatment of either, but the writing definitely did not do any justice. Women in the film, especially Chase's love interest Darcy, played by Patti D'Arbanville, were written so terribly and only used as plot devices to further Chase's story. Darcy was used as a sort of pawn in the weird, twisted love game that was occurring towards the beginning of the film. As for the minorities, the only one that was represented was the African-American woman, who, of course, is a maid moonlighting as a voodoo woman. These character choices did not make any sense for the story, and the setting and pacing was off just as much.

The film is titled Modern Problems, which by seeing its name, one might expect a light, funny film that centers around a dysfunctional couple living their peachy-ass, white lives. This film, on the other hand, turns from a romantic comedy to a wasted excuse for sci-fi comedy. The story begins in the inner city, revolving around clubs and apartments, which makes sense for the tone of the film, but then ends up being an exorcist-like vacation film in a beach house. The pacing and setting choices were not done well at all, and this movie is honestly a pathetic attempt at utilizing revolutionary film technology of the time just for kicks. Chase's characters having telekinetic powers made no sense for the story, and especially towards the end when he is apparently being exorcised by the voodoo maid. The writing was especially sloppy in the beach house act of the film, and it seemed like the writers were stumbling to find a conclusion that made any sense. The only decent aspect of this film was its editing in certain parts. One of the opening scenes in the restaurant with the eyes darting and the flirting couples caught my attention because it was edited very creatively with the music in the background. That may have been the only interesting aspect of this mess of a film.

Modern Problems has nothing to do with the modern problems of the 80's, but rather lackluster writing and ridiculous choices in all film departments. I sure am glad that Chevy Chase found his stride in film after this one, with classics such as the National Lampoon's Vacation series. If he hadn't, we may have had more films like this one, which is an awful idea to think about.

My Rating: ★★

The Bad Batch (2016) directed by Ana Lily Amirpour

Have you ever wondered what a Red Hot Chili Peppers music video would look like if it was constantly over-saturated and turned into a feature film? Well, look no further! The Bad Batch aims to please your post-apocalyptic dreams of stories with no purpose and terrible representations of minorities. In a world full of movies about dystopian romances, this film had a lot of potential to be an original and compelling story, but it lacked a lot of the elements that make any film good. Some of these include writing that made sense, characters that are actually developed, and a clear tone or central theme. All of these were lacking in this film, and while I had high hopes, I definitely ended up disappointed.

There are so many aspects about this film that made it into the confusing and blurry mess that it is. The first part would be the writing of this film. While it is typically a good storytelling method to toss the audience into a new world without explanation and let them uncover things for themselves, that simple strategy did not work for this film. It was never revealed whether this film took place after an apocalypse of some kind, or maybe during a government-initiated war on cannibals. The only part that was clear is that there is a group of people who get routinely tossed out into an empty desert to fend for themselves. These people are considered to be the "bad batch," but for what reason? It is also understood that the cannibalistic communities that were at war have to do anything to survive, but the main problem was that all of the characters were so underdeveloped for me to care what happens to any of them. The tone was also quite confusing, because not a single word was spoken for the first twenty minutes of the film, and I thought that was a really original and interesting choice. It was very eerie and had me on edge, until one of the citizens of the first community was blabbering about the end of the world, so I was able to comfortably sit back in my chair and judge away. The setting and tone for this film did not match the other elements, especially the lackluster romance plot between Arlen and Miami Man.

The biggest issue I had throughout the story was concerning the characters and their relationships. Arlen, played by Suki Waterhouse, and Miami Man, played by Jason Momoa, were two of the most contrasted characters whose interactions made no sense. Arlen initially arrived in Miami Man's community, only to kill a few people in order to escape, which cost her an arm and a leg. It literally cost her an arm and a leg, which was the most obvious metaphorical pun they could have possibly used. Arlen ended up taking Miami Man's daughter back to a new community and the story from then on included Momoa's character's attempt to retrieve his daughter. In the ending, Arlen gave him his daughter back, but Miami Man did not appear to be upset at all, and instead the two formed a strange type of romance. I'm not sure who develops a romance with the kidnapper of their only child, but this was a strange one indeed. Waterhouse's character was very generic for a protagonist, but Momoa's character was a bit stereotypical. Miami Man was a Cuban drug dealer from Florida, and instead of writing the part as a native Hawaiian (like he actually is), Momoa attempted a Cuban accent which was offensive and overdone. Why they couldn't have just casted a Cuban actor, who knows? Momoa put more effort into his thirty-second Aquaman cameo in Dawn of Justice (from this same year) than he did trying to make this role work. The other two performances which were peculiar choices indeed were Keanu Reeves as The Dream and Jim Carrey as The Hermit. Reeves' character was very Hugh Hefner-like, and this might be his worst role to date. It was extremely emotionless and there was nothing in the story that supported his character. The best performance in the film, however, would be that of Jim Carrey. Carrey played a strange wanderer who only appeared in a few scenes of the film, sporting a scruffy beard and a skinny, tanned, torso. While Carrey did not utter a single word during the entire thing, he managed to be the best performance throughout, which says a lot.

The Bad Batch is a very strange and perplexing film that I am still trying to figure out if I like or not. On one hand, it's a weird, independent film that takes lots of risks, which I give it credit for. But on the other hand, it is full of bad performances and weird design choices that made no sense for the setting of the film. Yeah, I'm gonna have to give it a "would-not-recommend."

My Rating: ★★½

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) directed by Rian Johnson

I guess this was bound to happen eventually. I have never seen a Star Wars film in my life, mostly because my parents never raised me with it. And by the time my friends and I had matured and developed our interests, I felt like it was too late to get in to the franchise. That is still my mindset, as I have absolutely no interest in any of these movies. I'm sure if I took the time to sit down and watch them, I would find decent enjoyment, but I simply do not care enough to do that. Through memes and internet spoilers, I know everything about the franchise, including the characters, stories, and lovable creatures, without actually having seen any of the films. So watching The Last Jedi was a strange experience indeed. While I do not necessarily care about these films, this one was decent. Adding on to the story of Rey, Finn, Poe, and the rest of the gang, this film does very many things well, including the writing, special effects, and character performances.

If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me, "you're a film major who hasn't seen Star Wars?", I would have enough money to buy out Walt Disney and stop the franchise. I understand how culturally important these films are and how innovative they were, especially in the 70's and 80's, but I do not find any appeal in them. That being said, I did try to enjoy this film as much as possible, and I did, for the most part. One of the greatest parts of this movie were the performances by Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker and Carrie Fisher as General Leia. The chemistry between those two is undeniable, and I do find it very tragic that this was Fisher's final film. Hamill absolutely stole the show in this movie, however, as his (spoilers) final performance was captivating. While he does not appear much in the previous film, from what I've learned, he took this movie and made it his own. Mark Hamill may be known for his cameos and original Star Wars roles, but this has been his best performance in anything I have seen him in for a long time.

There is nothing bad about this film, in fact, there are many spectacular aspects that push it to be an instant classic, I just simply have no interest. Parts of this film that stood out to me the most were the writing and special effects. Since Lucasfilm was purchased by Disney, they have practically unlimited money for the greatest effects and writers in the galaxy (see what I did there?). The writing in the film was engaging and fun, but seemed simple to me. It might be because since this is the eighth addition to this story, and they might be running out of ideas, but it was still exciting. The last part of this movie that I enjoyed were the aliens and the special effects. Once again, with that Disney money, this film has endless potential. My favorite, in fact, were the porgs, which were the little bird creature things that inhabited Luke's island. They were adorable, lovable, and most all, marketable. Imagine how much MORE money is going to be made solely off of their merchandise. I digress, but like any Star Wars film, the alien creatures were memorable and fun, which is more than I can say for a lot of films coming out today.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a great film and addition to its universe. The entire film was stolen by Mark Hamill, and I am not upset about that a bit. The special effects and story were done very well, and I would recommend this film to just about anyone, as long as they are a fan of the movies. Unlike me, if you couldn't already tell.

My Rating: ★★★

Bad Ass (2012) directed by Craig Moss

Bad Ass is the perfect example of an action film that satisfies. Well, it satisfies Baby Boomers who enjoy shitty acting from a washed-up, only-good-for-cameos action star and awful plots that reinforce old stereotypes while simultaneously making you lose faith in the future of cinema. Satisfaction at its lowest. Bad Ass is an awful film that I feel was only made because someone mutually knew Danny Trejo and he owed them a favor for whatever reason, so he did this film. There is no entertainment value, and this movie only makes the audience wonder "why is he still making movies?"

There is not anything necessarily wrong or offensive about this film, but it is simply boring and predictable. The performances in this film were so bland, and I don't think any of the actors and actresses involved gave any effort to this project. As much as I love the campy and classic Machete movies, Danny Trejo should stick to doing cameos and small appearances, as his actual acting skill is not great. Along with the terrible performances, every character in the film was unnecessarily stereotyped to their skin color. The African-Americans were the gangsters that ruled the "hood," the Mexicans were the drug dealers who ran a criminal empire, and the African-American woman was the single mother with a knack for cooking. These roles were so generic, and I didn't appreciate the representation of them. The only role that I was surprised wasn't so stereotyped was the titular character Frank, played by Trejo. Then again, this was probably because he owed someone a favor and had to act in this.

My main problem with this film was that every aspect was very predictable and unoriginal. If they were aiming to make an action film targeted towards the senior citizen age group that was simple-to-follow and generic, than the producers succeeded. But other than that, there is no value at all. This film follows the basic steps of all action films: protagonist introductions, antagonist introductions, antagonists kill friend of protagonist, protagonist wants to get revenge, protagonist gets revenge and the girl, and throw in a cameo or two (Ron Perlman). All with the aid of a cringe-worthy theme song written for the film. I would expect these elements from films of any other time period, like the 70's or 80's, but this is the 21st century, and one might expect a little more effort put into developing their story. Not this one, though! The writing was filled with one-liners that didn't belong, and all of the characters were so one-sided and underdeveloped. All signs of a great film, right?

Bad Ass, unlike the title suggests, is not a bad ass movie, but rather just bad. Riddled with boring and general themes, this film aims to achieve absolutely nothing. The story is not interesting in the slightest, and I would definitely not recommend this film. Unless you are completely out of other ideas on how to waste time.

My Rating: ★

The Disaster Artist (2017) directed by James Franco

The Room may be one of the worst films ever made, but the Franco brothers, Seth Rogen, and company have made one of their greatest and memorable films in a long time. This true story about Tommy Wiseau and his disastrous film dream is portrayed so well by James Franco and his brother Dave, and is supported by a hilarious cast along with a great story. This has been one of the most enjoyable films I have seen this year, and it is as unique as it is fantastic.

The biggest draw-in for this film is definitely James Franco's performance as Tommy Wiseau. During the production of this film, Franco and Wiseau actually became quite close. That is very impressive to me, and shows how dedicated Franco is to his art, wanting to meet and befriend the man who he is playing. His portrayal throughout the film is amazing to watch, and he has the voice, look, and acting down to a tee. The other performances in this film held it together very well too, including those from Dave Franco as Greg Sestero and Seth Rogen as Sandy. This film in itself is a bit meta, as it is a true story documenting the making of a film, but all of the actors and actresses managed to hold their roles together extremely well and not get lost in translation. The other aspect of this film that I happened to actually enjoy was the story and how the performances held it up. The story behind how Wiseau came to Hollywood and made an awful film was surprisingly emotional, and this film did it justice. Like said before, the actors involved were very dedicated to this film and that shone through the wall of Rogen and Franco's typical stoner humor (not a single pot joke was made either). As ridiculous as The Room is, The Disaster Artist brought a surprising amount of emotion and heartwarming moments surrounding the production of the worst film ever to the big screen.

There is nothing that I think could have been added or done differently for this film. While it is difficult to make a true story bad, per se, this film is as enjoyable and touching as The Room is awful and confusing. Rogen and Franco really deviated from their norm of ludicrous weed jokes, and they could not have done a better job. I have been a massive fan of their work for a long time, and will support them no matter what, but films like this really show the actual talent that the two have. This can be seen in the two Golden Globes that this film was nominated for, obviously. Rogen's most recent films have been stupidly clever, and even this is quite a step-up from Pineapple Express or Knocked Up.

The Disaster Artist is an incredible film with amazing performances and a great soundtrack (who doesn't love late 90's/early 00's pop?). Seth Rogen and James Franco did an astounding job of writing and directing, and their films together continue to grow better and better. This film is a truly beautiful ode to independent art, and I would strongly recommend it. I would also recommend staying until after the credits, because there is a hilarious cameo by the man, the myth, and the legend himself.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Kong: Skull Island (2017) directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts

As shared film universes are becoming more and more popular, audiences are expecting great movies to fulfill their crossover dreams. Marvel does it exceptionally well, DC does it quite mediocre, and this new Monster-verse is off to an amazing start with Kong: Skull Island. This film is a great second addition to this monster franchise, and while it connects to 2014's Godzilla, it stands on its own as having everything a great film needs: strong performances, an engaging plot, and enough special effects and fighting to satisfy the bloodthirsty American audiences.

This movie is exactly what a King Kong movie needed to get a more reliable fan base. The characters were lovable, King Kong was lovable, the music was lovable, everything was so lovable. The greatest parts of this film involved the humanity of everything. The characters, especially Brie Larson's and Tom Hiddleston's, were very humane and caring characters. They were characterized so well in contrast to the true antagonist of the film: Samuel L. Jackson. Besides the fact that all of the actors and actresses worked well together due to being a part of the large Marvel franchise, their energy and chemistry all flowed very well. Sam Jackson's character Packard was the antagonist of the film, of course, and Jackson did not even use the word "fuck" even once, surprisingly. The plot of the film was also a big draw-in for me, because I could barely sit through the 3-hour King Kong from 2005. This film had a great and simple plot, which worked very well for introducing this character into the universe. The best scene in this film, I believe, was when Hiddleston's character Conrad and Larson's character Weaver shared the scene with Kong on the cliff. Seeing the pure pain and despair in his eyes from only wanting to have his home be left alone was such an emotional touch to the film that was definitely needed. The other amazing element was the use of the other monsters (the Skull-Crawlers) and the fight sequences. This film was balanced very well with human plot and monster plot, and it was not a 2-hour CGI fight-fest like many believe. The choreography was fantastic and, for once, it got me rooting for the giant, hairy, but gentle ape.

There was not much about this film that I did not enjoy, as it has all of the elements of a successful blockbuster. The only thing that bothered me was that certain parts of the plot were extremely obvious and basic. For example, the moment that Toby Kebbell's character Chapman was introduced and was writing a letter to his son back home, it was painfully obvious that he would not escape Skull Island alive. And sure enough, his character was killed off in such a simple way, having a baby Skull-Crawler leap from nowhere and devour him. The writing for this film was done very simply, and while it stays true to many tropes about war films, it's not entirely new. Effective, but not 100% original.

Kong: Skull Island is a great film that left me very satisfied, especially with the state of many lackluster blockbusters. I was not expecting to enjoy it as much as I did, and that was a pleasant surprise. While the story is basic and unoriginal, the performances and editing really bring this film together in a Marvel-ous (heh) way.

My Rating: ★★★★

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) directed by Quentin Tarantino

The two films in the Kill Bill franchise are the direct result of Quentin Tarantino having his anime phase a little too late in life. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, because this film is still marvelous in its own right. Kill Bill Vol. 1 is a fantastic action film that shines a light on its leading lady Uma Thurman, known only as The Bride, who is set upon getting revenge on the people who sent her into a four-year coma and took her baby. This film is filled with plenty of amazing action sequences and a great story, but still suffers from some minor tone and pacing problems.

The best parts about this film lie in the setting and style of the film in which Tarantino chose. This film is heavily inspired by Japanese animation and anime of the 1990's. This is easily seen in not only the main menu of the film, but in the entire flashback sequence of the origin of Lucy Liu's character O-Ren. This animated scene definitely set the tone for most of the film, and while it still encountered some problems, it did well for the most part. The anime inspirations were definitely seen in the choreography as well, as the main character even wields a massive katana and the majority of the fight scenes were edited very closely to that of an anime. The close, quick cuts and exaggerated moves and effects during the fighting very much added to this feeling throughout the film. The other part of this film that I enjoyed a lot was the story. The character of The Bride was developed very well, and Tarantino's trademark style of non-chronological storytelling seemed to work in this sense as well. As the film begins with Uma Thurman's character getting shot in the head, it really shows how dramatic (and more importantly bloody) this film will be. It's always the opening statements from Tarantino that hook the audience, and this is no exception. I personally very much enjoyed the narrative choice to split this film into two parts, knowing how long of a story there was to tell. It can be seen that Tarantino wanted it that way originally, as Volume 2 came out the very next year. Either way, this film got me hooked and I absolutely need to finish up this story.

Some aspects of this film that I did not enjoy as much, however, were the pacing of much of the film and tone problems. The story revolves around The Bride getting revenge on the people who made her life hell, and we see two of them get killed in this film. The first being Copperhead, played by Vivica A. Fox, who was the first to die by the hands of Uma Thurman. This occurred within the first fifteen minutes of the film, and then it moved on to the exposition where it showed The Bride's training and the maker of the sword. The last hour and ten minutes of the film, however, was The Bride's encounter with O-Ren and the fight with all of her henchman. This pacing set me off a bit, because I felt like the scenes with Copperhead should have lasted longer. Even though it was not in chronological order, I still feel that too much time was spent on the O-Ren scenes, however awesome the fighting sequences were. Another problem that I had is regarding the tone of the film. However heavily influenced by Japanese animation this film was, I was never sure if Tarantino was aiming for a live-action anime or an American spoof of one. There were times when it felt quite authentic to the culture, but other times when the cinematography seemed to mock the idea of Japanese filmmaking. But hey, at least the "n" word wasn't even uttered once, which is a first for Quentin.

Overall, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is an outstanding example of a great action film with a solid plot and many elements that make it worth a watch, even a purchase. There are amazing fight scenes, a great soundtrack, and the classic Tarantino style that everyone either loves or hates. I would absolutely recommend this film to anyone, but make sure they have access to the sequel, because like me, they will be desperately needing that two hours of closure to the story of The Bride.

My Rating: ★★★½

Lady Bird (2017) directed by Greta Gerwig

Coming-of-age films have never been my favorite to watch, but Lady Bird is an exception. This film, while generic in its plot devices, is marked by its exceptional performances and humor throughout. The characters are what made this film so beautiful, and the design throughout was done very well.

Saoirse Ronan stars as Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson, who is living in Sacramento with her extremely Catholic family. This movie is defined by the incredible performances of not only Christine, but the other members of her family and friends as well. Ronan's character was so well-rounded and developed very well. Given that this is a coming-of-age movie, that aspect is probably important. Other important roles include Christine's mother Marion, played by Laurie Metcalf. She was so critical in developing Christine as a character, because without her intense Catholic and pure influence, Christine would not have become the character that we saw in the conclusion of the film. Speaking of that, the final scene made me very emotional and just made me want to call my mom and tell her how much I love and appreciate her. This film's focus on the mother-daughter relationship is what made the performances so strong, and for that, its originality was boosted a bit for me personally.

Other aspects of this film that I enjoyed were the representation of its characters and narrativity. There were some characters in the film, such as Miguel, Christine's brother (played by Jordan Rodrigues), that were clearly out-of-the-norm for a family such as the McPhersons. Film usually has a stereotype of young Mexican men being either drug dealers or criminals of some kind, and I very much appreciate this film's ignorance of those stereotypes. The story did not have to give Miguel any kind of stereotypical border-crossing backstory in order to make him an interesting character. Characters like Miguel in the film were all intriguing in their own sense, and were portrayed excellently.

There is one main problem that I have that affects not only Lady Bird, but every film in this mostly-independent genre. Coming-of-age films tend to run the same style over and over again. There is a central character with something quirky about them that makes them stand out in the crowd. They live a relatively normal life, but try to be one-of-a-kind, even if it means fighting your friends and family. I guess this is the reason why this genre is so popular is because audiences can relate to them more than any other film in theaters. This is also why the genre seems to be mostly independent, because they never gross as much as the newest superhero blockbuster. My problem with all of this is that coming-of-age films all tend to be the same in the sense that they are written with an intention to squeeze out some "relatable" quotes that can be found in a teenager's Tumblr feed. The stories themselves never really have any particularly interesting parts, other than that they document this character's life over maybe a year or so. The endings of the films are always left untold and the characters may have progressed only a little within the film. All films within this genre, like The Perks of Being a Wallflower or The Edge of Seventeen, have excellent performances and interesting characters in them, but they usually only succeed at one thing: making the audience cry. Which Lady Bird did very well, I must add.

In conclusion, Lady Bird is your typical coming-of-age film with not much to add in the area of interesting plot or story. While Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf were great in their roles, there is not much that brings me to want to see it again. Unless, of course, I forget to call my mom every once in a while and I want to guilt trip myself into doing so.

My Rating: ★★★

The People Under the Stairs (1991) directed by Wes Craven

The People Under the Stairs is probably one of Wes Craven's most under-appreciated works of film, and honestly, for good reason. This film is a very confusing comedy/horror film that mixes elements of race, class, and monsters in one convoluted story. I appreciated the effort to bring in controversial elements of the time, but I do not feel like this film did it justice.

While this film did not do much for me, horror-wise, it definitely mixed a lot of aspects of the late 80's and 90's that could contain a lot of appeal to fans of his genre. There were strange mutant men in the basement of the house and a semi-comedic storyline, which definitely took elements from films like The Goonies. These elements just did not seem to work with the film, however. Other films such as Scream or A Nightmare on Elm Street are definitely where Craven thrives, but quite honestly, not in his lesser-known films like this one. The good aspects of this film, however, were the performances. Fool, played by Brandon Quintin Adams, was the leading role and he definitely embodied his character. He was such a naive young boy in the "ghetto," and he had such a pure heart. I loved his character the most because he was the only character in the film who made any sense, honestly. All of the other characters in the film gave strong performances, but the way their characters were written seemed like the writers went on Google and searched "random character generator" and picked the first four of five that came up. The characters did not seem to match the tone of the story at all.

Some of the things about this film made me very uncomfortable, to be honest, and did not make much logical sense. Such things as the motives behind the parents and the strange design choices throughout the film. The questions surrounding why the deranged parents kept all of their outcast boys in the basement and why they hated their neighborhood so much were never answered. There seemed to be no motive or reason behind why they did what they did, and that just further confused me. There was also never a clear explanation of whether they were husband and wife or brother and sister and that blurred the weird line even more. As for the BDSM bodysuit that the man wore while hunting the mutant in the wall, your guess is as good as mine as to why the hell that had to be included in the story.

Other elements that just did not work with the story include the undertones of race and class. While the protagonists were introduced as the stereotypical, poor, black family from the "ghetto," the antagonists were the white, (supposedly) incestual parents. There was some type of racial and class-related statement hidden in there, but I couldn't quite reach it because there was never a clear indication as to why Craven decided to go that direction. And the tone throughout the film shifted awkwardly, because while the film is marketed as a horror film, it is more of a comedy/adventure. And then shifting to an inspirational tone in the last scene with "Do The Right Thing" by Redhead Kingpin & The FBI playing in the background confused me so much. This film just seems to be a mess of varying ideas.

The People Under the Stairs is a strange attempted horror comedy that is not one of Craven's best films. It is interesting to watch as there were controversial discussions about race and related class in the 90's, but this film did not portray any of those well. If you want a better Craven horror experience, I recommend watching literally anything else by him.

My Rating: ★★

Logan (2017) directed by James Mangold

As you might be able to tell, I am more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan, and even lower than that, an X-Men fan. I have rarely seen any of the films in that franchise except for Days of Future Past and Apocalypse, which were quite underwhelming. Up to par with The Dark Knight and Iron Man, this is one of the best superhero films ever made. Logan is an expertly-crafted solo film which tells the story of Wolverine in his late years after almost all of the X-Men have vanished. This is absolutely a must-see film.

The plot of this film follows Logan, played by Hugh Jackman, as he navigates the world of 2029 after all of his fellow X-Men have either disappeared or died. His reliance on the adamantium in his body is growing weaker and weaker as he grows sicker every day. It does not help when he discovers that he has a genetically-cloned daughter known as X-23, or Laura. The performances by the actors and actresses in this film were absolutely breathtaking, as they embodied their characters so well. The greatest performance was definitely Hugh Jackman. Throughout the film, I found myself absolutely dumbfounded by how amazing Jackman was in his role. I often forgot that it was actually Hugh Jackman who was portraying Logan as I only saw the actions and emotions from the character that were so intriguing. This focus on Jackman was broken only when his portrayal of the evil clone X-24 initially appeared. It is truly the mark of an incredible actor when he can be two radically different characters at the same time and still manifest them to the highest degree, which, I believe, proves that Jackman's performance is definitely Oscar-worthy. Other performances I loved in the film were Patrick Stewart as Professor X and Dafne Keen as Laura. Patrick Stewart played the perfect stereotypical "crazy old man" and even though this was his final appearance as Professor X, his legacy will live on forever. And as for Dafne Keen, she did not even utter a word until the third act of the film, but she did not need to because she was so great as Wolverine's daughter. Her silence spoke volumes and it worked very well for her character.

Other aspects that I loved about this film were the tone and setting that were used throughout. Since this film is based off of the graphic novel Old Man Logan, it was quite appropriate to give this film a hard R-rating. The violence throughout the film, while not gratuitous, was used very well and helped advance the story. The action scenes were absolutely beautiful, and seeing how painful it was for Logan to fight just made Jackman's performance that much more riveting. This definitely added to the tone of the film, because it was very dark and bloody. This tone, while very appropriate, gave way to a much more positive and uplifting tone towards the end of the film, even though Logan (spoiler alert) is killed in the conclusion. I also loved the settings throughout the film, especially the Mexico/Texas border areas that were used. This setting gave way to Mexican culture mixing with the story and it added to Logan's character as well. It showed that however much of an old, hardass Logan was, he did not come off as racist or conservative in any aspect. Not that he came off as liberal, but this representation of his character was written very well.

Logan is an astounding film that, honestly, deserves an Oscar. The performances and tone of the film made it the amazing movie that it is, and James Mangold deserves an immense amount of credit for directing one of, if not THE, greatest superhero film of all time. I loved how the conclusion of the film gave way to the new generation of mutants with all of the children that Laura was raised with. Not very many movies have made me cry, but the final scene where Laura turns the cross on Logan's grave to an X definitely did it for me. Hugh Jackman has the longest and most impressive legacy as a superhero, and this film is such a gorgeous and touching end to Wolverine's story.

My Rating: ★★★★★