Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) directed by Matthew Vaughn

Kingsman: The Golden Circle was a long-awaited sequel for me, as the first in the franchise, Kingsman: The Secret Service, is one of my favorite action films of all time. The Secret Service was witty, fast-paced, visually gorgeous, and full of some of the best action sequences of all time. The Golden Circle, even though living up to the hype, did not meet all of my expectations that were set by the first film. This film is not by any means bad, it is a wonderfully well-done sequel, but that is just it: it is a sequel. Even though it did not meet the standards set by its predecessor, it has proven to be a worthy addition to this Matthew Vaughn cinematic universe.

This film had so many wonderful aspects that are trademark of Matthew Vaughn's style of filmmaking. While it still contained the long-shot style of action sequences, it was definitely more focused on character development and world-building than the first in the series. This was very good, though, because while The Secret Service was an amazing film, it did not do much for building character except for the main character Eggsy. The Golden Circle did a lot for not just Eggsy, but a lot of the other supporting characters as well, and I very much appreciated that. While we saw the return of Colin Firth's character Harry, we also got even more of Mark Strong's Merlin, who ended up being one of my favorite parts of this film. Some new additions that were very well done were Julianne Moore's villain character Poppy and Pedro Pascal's secretly-villainous character Whiskey. These were some of the strongest performances throughout, and contributed very well to the tone set by the first of these films. Last but not least, the action sequences. The infamous church scene in the first film has been glorified as one of the most extraordinary displays of action and violence in a film, but the sequel did not exactly meet those standards. That is the first of one of the multiple issues surrounding this film.

This film, like many sequels, has its share of problems. The first would be surrounding the plot of the film. First off, let me just get out of my system how UPSET I am about the death of Roxy and JB in the first act of the film. Not only did they get rid of the most important character in any film, the dog, but they also nonchalantly exterminated the only character who actually passed the Kingsman test. This made me so sad because there was so much potential for Roxy's character and her relationship development with Eggsy and Merlin, but I guess we don't always get what we want. As for other characters that I was disappointed with, I really wish that we could have seen more of Channing Tatum's Tequila. He was so hyped up in the previews and marketing, I thought that he would have a much better role. Instead, they drugged him with the villain's evil serum and he wasn't seen until the end of the film. This was kind of disappointing because I was very excited to see him and his role as a Statesman.

As far as action scenes go, this film did not live up to the first or have as many memorable scenes. The very first scene was very contained and repetitive, and did not have much effect on me since I knew Eggsy would be fine. The only two scenes that really stuck out to me as original were the snow lift and final fight scenes. The winter aspect of the film was what made it so visually interesting this time around, but I felt they could have done more instead of watching Pedro Pascal's Whiskey do all of the dirty work. And speaking of Whiskey, the very final fight against him was done very well and was very catchy to a country version of "Word Up!" by Cameo. These were the only action scenes that were memorable in any sort, but they still desperately tried to live up to the church scene from the first film, to no success. My last main problem with this film was the overall plot. While there were a few strange plot lines that could have been handled better (Harry's return, Eggsy's relationship with the Princess, etc.), the main arc with Julianne Moore's Poppy was not original in the slightest. It was almost a carbon copy of the plot from the first film: a maniac with childlike and playful tendencies convinces world leaders that they have a solution to a bigger problem and uses an everyday tool to put their global plan in motion. This applies to both films very well, and while it worked for the first, it provided nothing new for the second. This disappointed me, because I was expecting a lot more, especially from Matthew Vaughn. The lack of original story was almost made up for, however, by Elton John's performance. I thought he was going to be just a mere cameo, but his actually critical presence in the film was hilarious and fabulous.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a worthy successor to the first film, but nothing more than that. It was not an extraordinary film by any standards, but I would say that it lived up to the hype and advertising from the past few months. If you were a fan of the first film, I would definitely recommend seeing this one as it absolutely adds to the amazing world of the Kingsman.

My Review: ★★★★

The Searchers (1956) directed by John Ford

AFI Top 100: #12

Alright, I'm going to make this one short and sweet, because I don't want to have to spend any more time writing about a western than I have to. To be quite frank, I really really really do not like westerns. To put this into perspective: my favorite western is a toss-up between Blazing Saddles (making fun of the genre) and Cowboys and Aliens (what's not to love?). I understand that they are as much a critical part of film history as anything else, but I simply do not see the appeal of them at all. So you can assume how well this review of The Searchers is going to go.

For starters, which one is John Wayne? My parents have always been western film and country music fans as I grew up, but I was always the one to go in another room and watch Toy Story 2 or the Spongebob Squarepants Movie for the thousandth time. Even if I did stomach my way through an entire western, I would be falling in and out of sleep constantly. I guess this might not have been the best for preparing me to watch western films, but that did not change my opinion on them. I ask who John Wayne is because as recognizable as a name as it is, all of the characters and set design look the exact same. You could show me a clip from this movie, tell me that it was The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and hell, I wouldn't know the difference. My main problem with the western genre is that it is all so similar, not just in set design and costuming, but in plot as well. They all wear the same cowboy hats, they all have a farmstead in the middle of absolutely nowhere, and they all are racist towards anyone who isn't a Christ-loving Caucasian. It's all the same, and I feel like it always will be.

One of the most prevalent (and irritating) tropes in the western genre would have to be the rivalries against the Native-Americans. And this film did not want to break that tradition, of course. That would be ridiculous. Why create your own original plot line and have well-developed characters when you could just throw some "Indians" in the mix for the main characters to kill? And the fact that John Wayne's character was a Confederate war veteran returning home did not help. I understand that his two nieces were kidnapped by the tribe that was nearby, but why does it always have to be them? I bet you there were clans of white people who were just as worse, probably even more so. And don't even bring up the horrendous ending line, as John Wayne said "Debbie, let's go home" as they quite literally rode off into the sunset. Overall, these stereotypes should not be the most prominent part of a film, but since it was released in the 1950's, it is understandable as to why this film did so well. Thanks, racist '50's!

The only partially good part about this film would be the editing and shot types in a few different scenes. There was an eye-catching motif from the perspective of looking through caves and around corners which was interesting to see. There was also some very good usage of walls and moving cameras in many scenes of the house, which was good for the world-building of it all. I could go off on not just The Searchers, but all westerns, but I'd rather not waste my time and energy. Unless you are a die-hard fan of John Wayne-era excuses for film, then I would not recommend it.

My Rating: ★

Scarface (1932) directed by Howard Hawks

"Say hello to my little friend." That's the line that the majority of people imagine when they hear of Scarface. However, that line wasn't popularized until the Al Pacino remake of 1983. The original Scarface, released in 1932, is a classic tale of gang violence and criminals pre-Depression era Chicago. While this film has a basic plot and decent acting for its time, there are some strange undertones throughout the film that left me very uncomfortable and confused. This was not the entirety of the film, thank God, but overall was a decent classic.

As for the plot and acting of the film, they were both nothing extraordinary. While Tony, or Scarface, tries to balance his family life with his criminal career, things end up taking wrong turns and flipping his world upside down. Now this may have been innovative for its time, because the first motion picture with audio was released in 1927 (The Jazz Singer). Since sound in film was relatively new, there were a lot more opportunities for plot development  and new ideas for the time. So granted, this story paved the way for a lot of the films that followed, but to the average viewer, it may not seem very interesting. The acting throughout the film was pretty good, as Tony (Paul Muni) and his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak) led the show. Their relationship was definitely the most prominent character aspect of the film, and was displayed very well. However, I did have some small issues with their relationship. I understand that times were a LOT different back in 1932, but I felt some very strange incestuous undertones in their scenes together. Tony seemed to act very violent against her for going to parties without his permission and wearing clothes that he deemed unacceptable. This, of course, would not bode well if this film was released today. That was not the strangest part, however. I felt very uncomfortable watching Tony kiss the back of his sister's neck and hold her in ways that lovers might do. This suggested Tony was a bit of a creep, and I do not think that even in the 1930's that would be the norm.

Even though the film had some strange out-of-character traits and suggestive themes, it was very innovative in its use of motifs and shooting. For example, the very first shot of the film was a continuous long shot, one that is used for emphasis in film. This showed how impressive the film's set was and how the actors could pull off such a shot. This was very impressive, and is a milestone in shooting that has been used in other classic films like Citizen Kane (ugghhh). Another part of Scarface that I did not notice until reading about it in an article was the "X" motif. If you watch closely, there is always an X nearby or in the shot when someone in the film is killed or about to be killed. This was impressive, especially incorporating the X's into the different shots. My personal favorites included the bowling alley scene, where a gangster makes a strike and has an X marked on his scorecard, and when Cesca is walking out of the party wearing her dress that forms an X with the straps on the back. Re-watching some of these scenes was very helpful, and really boosted my appreciation for Hawks' film.

Even though there was some questionable material throughout the film, Scarface has proven to hold up against other worse black-and-white films of its time. Its generic plot and good acting paved the way for even better projects to appear. This film used multiple terrific techniques that were revolutionary for its time, and is necessary for anyone studying film history to see.

My Rating: ★★★½

It (2017) directed by Andy Muschietti

Not very many Stephen King adaptations end up being very good, to be quite frank. There's the classic The Shining, The Green Mile, and Cujo, but there are also many that are mediocre and easily forgettable: The Dark Tower, Mr. Mercedes and Pet Sematary. While It was made into a mini-series back in 1990, it still does not compare to this film. 2017's It is an absolute masterpiece of a horror film, and provides everything a King fan may ever want or need.

The plot of this film was perfect, especially for today's climate of Hollywood movies, because it reintroduced an aspect of horror that has always been put aside for other scarier things, such as demons or zombies. Clowns! Clowns have almost been forgotten in film as being terrifying, but I think that this film definitely brought that fear back to the forefront of terror. Especially having casted such a devious face for Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgård). This film followed the novel so well, even better than the original 90's series, and truly brought fear into my heart. I do not get scared by movies very easily, as I tend to find all of the flaws in them and end up predicting the ending very quickly into the film. This movie did the opposite, however, and I was quite literally sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. There have only been a few films that have had this same effect on me, including Get Out and The Cabin in the Woods. It, however, joins these ranks among these films and really terrified me. With multiple jump scares and general anxiety-inducing scenes, the movie keeps you on edge all the way throughout.

The performances and tone of the film was done very well. All of the child actors were brilliant in their roles and I can absolutely see big futures for them to come. Since the film was done with child actors, I feel like there can not be too much suspense and terror, but also has to have a sense of childishness and loss of innocence. This film handled that so well, as it had its nostalgic childhood feels as well as the horror that each child carried with them. In my opinion, this was handled the best in the character of Richie Tozier, played by Finn Wolfhard (formerly of Stranger Things). He provided the main humor and adult comedy throughout the film, and brought light to even the darkest scenes of the movie. His reputation as the wise-cracking smart-ass of the group fit him very well, and it made some of the other children's dark performances bearable. This film's sequel already has a green light, as the last title screen said "Part 1." This was not expected, but I feel that the story is not completely over yet. Obviously, if you had read the novel, you know that the children are all grown up and facing Pennywise once more. Since there is a confirmed sequel, it begs the question on who will be cast as the grownup versions of these children, and that will be very interesting to see.

It was very tense and horrifying all the way through, but I only have one problem with it. I felt that they showed a bit too much of Pennywise the Clown in all of the horror scenes. One trope of horror films that seems to always be present is the absence of the monster. This, however, makes the final reveal that much more terrifying. Pennywise was present from the very first scene of the film, but I felt that if he would have been shown a bit less, then it could have made it that much more suspenseful. It is understandable for him to terrify each kid in their own individual way and for there to be a final fight scene, but sometimes the lack of the villain makes the appearance even better.

This film, even though it is a reboot, has proven to be pretty damn close to one of King's best adaptations. While it relies very heavily on source material, it handles it all very well and presents it in very frightening ways. It has proven itself as one of the best horror films in the past few years, and will live on in Stephen King's legacy of terrifying media.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Kick-Ass (2010) directed by Matthew Vaughn

I remember back in the sixth grade when this film was released, it seemed like such a big deal to go and see an R-rated film. This was not the case for many films, where its R-rated content was using the word "fuck" twice, or maybe they displayed a penis in a provocative way. There are many filmmakers who have been fighting this rating system for years because of its sexist double standards and unfair practices. Kick-Ass does not adhere to any of these standards or practices, but instead embraces every aspect that a film can get away with to still receive an R-rating. This may make the movie seem like an off-the-chains mess of adult material, and while that is true in some respect, Kick-Ass delivers a fantastic story and lovable characters throughout the film.

There is a bit to discuss surrounding Kick-Ass, but let's start with the plot. The plot, even though it draws a lot from other inspirations, is very original in its own way. While a typical nerd-type teenager wonders why nobody has ever tried to be a superhero before, he ends up getting way in over his head. He does manage to get a sort of superpower himself, which definitely helped in his initially one-man crusade. After being stabbed and hit by a car, Dave (played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson) gets a certain kind of metal installed in his bones and throughout his body that dramatically improves his tolerance for pain. This proves to be very useful for him throughout the movie, and the writers handled his new superpower very well. Instead of instantly jumping out into action and thinking he's indestructible, he took his time to get readjusted into this new lifestyle. I appreciated this very much because if the average person were to go through a similar accident like that, they would not be jumping out of bed to go kick some more ass (pun intended). Other aspects of the plot that I enjoyed were the handling of Dave's romantic relationship. He did not focus so much on her as to lose sight of the main plot of the film, which was good. Other parts that I enjoyed were the costumes throughout the film and the ever-present references and Easter eggs to other comic book goodness. While there was a plethora of "Batman doesn't have any powers" jokes, it just added to the amount of humor throughout the film. As for the costumes, while they were very bright and flashy for as dark as this film is, it really brought out the contrast for how in-over-their heads the main characters were.

The acting in this film is very sub-par, as there is nothing special to it. There were no incredible performances by any of the lead actors and actresses, except for Hit-Girl, played by Chloe Grace Moretz. She was very young at the time she was filming this movie, and for her to play such a violent and foul little girl shocked audiences everywhere. Even though it was a stunt double, seeing Hit-Girl call people "cunts" and then proceed to slit their throats and slice their limbs off, was very unnerving. It truly showed how ruthless she had been taught to be by her father, played by Nicolas Cage. This was one of the main reasons why this film received such criticism and disgust when it was released, because it seemed like a superhero film starring kids and teenagers would be fit to watch by kids and teenagers. This was not the case, obviously. Matthew Vaughn, the director of this film, also has a large part to play in the way this film was portrayed. Vaughn is known for his outlandish and uber-creative visual mind, especially seen in his other films, X-Men: First Class and Kingsman: The Secret Service. Especially in the latter, it is obvious to see that his style lays in the crazy world of insane stunts and eye candy cinematography. This style works very well for this film, because of the crazy setting that it takes place in. The action, chase, and torture scenes were all very reflective of this style and kept continuous, which I very much respect. As boundary-pushing as this film is, I believe that it is a worthy addition to the modern superhero genre, and it deserves every bit of praise (and condemnation) that it received.

In conclusion, Kick-Ass is a very fun and exciting film with a great plot and lovable characters that all earned their dues throughout its entirety. While it may not be for the faint-of-heart, it is absolutely a worthy watch. Just make sure that your kids aren't expecting a wholesome ending of skipping off into the distance while holding hands. For that matter, maybe don't let your kids watch it at all.

My Rating: ★★★½

Citizen Kane (1941) directed by Orson Welles

AFI Top 100: #1

Warning: The "greatest American motion picture in history" is definitely not what you think it will shape up to be. In my opinion, Citizen Kane should be renamed "2 Hours of an Entitled, Rich, White Asshole." This may seem harsh to critique this classic this way, but I really did not enjoy this film. I can understand why it may seem to be the greatest film ever made in its time period, but there are many reasons why it is not good, especially nowadays. Citizen Kane is really just a good time to take a power-nap on the couch.

I am going to begin with talking about the few things that I did enjoy about this film. The set design and acting were wildly mediocre, which was understandable given that the director also plays the main character. This has always been a pet peeve of mine when stars decide to direct and star in their own feature film. While there are some notable exceptions, such as Ben Affleck's Argo and Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby, I have always been annoyed by artists who do both. Do not ask me why, but while some people can pull it off, most can not. This film is an example of can not. Anyways, back to the topic at hand: the good aspects of this film. Citizen Kane did do a very good job with their set designs, especially given the conditions back in the day that they had to work under. The sets looked very appealing and caught my attention while providing a good sense of where Charles Kane lived and worked. Another good part of this film was the shooting and editing. The cinematographer did a phenomenal job on their work, as the shots throughout the film definitely helped to emphasize different aspects. Certain shots, including the one where Charles and his second wife Susan were preparing for the "picnic" in his mansion, were so important. They displayed how much extravagant wealth that Kane had, but also showed how lonely he was on the inside, even having gone through two different wives. While the cinematography and editing was quite excellent, there were many aspects that I definitely did not enjoy.

Many parts of Citizen Kane were very questionable. I understand that times were quite different back in 1940, but that does not make the actions of Charles Kane inexcusable. If this truly is the greatest American film of all time, then why does the main character emotionally abuse his two different wives? Why does he waste all of his wealth on statues and art rather than donating and helping his starving community? Why does he have luxury parties and invite crooked politicians and businessmen? These are many questions that I had during this film; not because they were character traits of his, but because the film did nothing to explain why he was the way he was. He was a privileged man who took everything for granted and did not care about the opinions of others, even if they did happen to show any concern for him. Charles's actions and behaviors were terrible, even for the 1940's, and the writers could have shown the repercussions of his actions instead of excusing him with some quirky prep-boy lifestyle. The final element that bothered me the most about this film was the main storyline that had been followed since the initial shot: what is Rosebud? In the very last scene, when the movers are throwing Kane's belongings in the fire, it is revealed that Rosebud is the wooden sled that he had played with in his childhood. This was one of the most underwhelming endings that I have ever seen, and I was expecting Rosebud to be so much more. While it represents the lost naivety of his childhood that he never experienced, that could have been explored much better throughout the film instead of saving this infamous term for an unsatisfactory conclusion. After all of the positivity and hype surrounding this film, I was expecting to appreciate it a lot more, but that is not the case.

As grating as my opinions may be, I firmly stand by them and hope that others may see the same as I do, instead of putting this film on its ridiculous pedestal. Citizen Kane is an outdated waste of two hours and definitely not the greatest American film of all time. It is more fit, however, to be renamed "The Pathetic Story of a Spoiled, Misogynistic Prick."

My Rating: ½

Baywatch (2017) directed by Seth Gordon

I was very cautious while renting this film on Redbox, because I had not heard very many reviews or opinions about it. Obviously it is a remake of a beloved American TV show, and I am sure that many people did not take lightly to that. Especially because it started A-list actors such as Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron. However, once getting past my initial objections, I found that Baywatch was actually a fairly decent comedy with an original take on the classic story of the LA lifeguard squad.

In my personal opinion, I believe that the plot was the best part of this film. It had an hilarious take on the original series, throwing in some new characters and good cameos for effect. While Dwayne Johnson's character Mitch Buchannon struggled to keep his lifeguard program afloat, he was met with even more trouble as they were hiring new recruits. One of these just so happened to be Matt Brody, played by Zac Efron. The Rock and Efron, despite coming from very different fields of acting, had amazing on-screen presence and stole the scene whenever they were on together. Buchannon's constant teasing of Brody was one of the funniest aspects of the film, especially when he called him "High School Musical." There were many comedic moments spread throughout, and it was balanced quite well with the amount of action, plot, and character development. I was honestly expecting it to be a horrible retelling of an episode of the campy TV show, but the writers actually did a good job of making this fresh for the new generation who may not know the likenesses of David Hasselhoff or Pamela Anderson. Speaking of those two, their cameos in the film were placed very well and I am glad that the story did not have to rely on them running down the beach in slow motion to keep up the nostalgia factor.

I do not have many complaints about this film, given that it was neither terrific nor terrible. There was a modest amount of decent acting, but nothing too spectacular. The one thing that I did have a problem with was some parts of the action sequences. While they seemed very Michael Bay-esque, the action scenes were very gratuitous and it did not seem like certain aspects of them served any purpose. For example: when the lifeguard crew was rescuing the government representative and two women from the burning boat. The scene where Johnson was swimming underneath the fire in order to reach the boat was purposely done in slow-motion, maybe to remind you that you are watching Baywatch in case you forgot. However, it was overdone to the point where it seemed to last forever. While a bass-heavy and meaningful-lyric-deprived song bumped in the background, it started to annoy me that they let these transitions and scenes run so long. Whether or not it was to keep the nostalgia factor or not, it became irritating rather quickly.

I do not have very many comments about this film because it didn't ignite anything in me like many films have before, in both positive and negative lights. If you want to see a generic summer blockbuster with generic actors and a generic plot, then Baywatch is the film for you. It is very evident that this film was made to make money, and while that is not a bad thing, I felt that certain parts were not always necessary. However, I do recommend Baywatch to anyone who is looking for a fun date night movie or something to pass the time with many good laughs.

My Rating: ★★★

Psycho (1960) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

AFI Top 100: #14

Psycho! The great American murder movie. I recently watched this film for the first time for my Creative Process class and I must admit that it was a mistake never taking the time to see it before. This is quite possibly the greatest murder thriller to have ever been released, and nothing I have ever seen possibly lives up to it. I watched Peeping Tom, Psycho's British counterpart, a week or so back, and that does not even live up to this Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece. Beautifully shot and timed, amazing performances, and a legacy for decades to come, Psycho absolutely lives up to its unbeatable reputation.

The performances in this film are indisputably magnificent, from the quiet but deadly Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins, to the blonde bombshell Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh. They truly lived up to everything I was expecting from this film, and more. As I had never seen it before, I was expecting a decent horror flick that may have been considered a classic just because of its infamous shower scene. It was so much more than that, however. Watching this film and thinking about the impact it must have had on American culture, especially in the 1960's, is astounding. It pushed the boundaries of filmmaking for that time with its use of implied sexual actions without making it an X-rating. Along with the always talked-about shower scene, there were many points throughout the film where it was very risky to show certain material in that time period. In the very first scene, for example, it shows nearly naked Marion in bed after spending a night with her boyfriend Sam, portrayed by John Gavin. Showing her topless and in her lingerie must have been shocking in the 1960's, and it really made me appreciate the film even more, for its bold confidence. Another aspect that I loved was the performance of Norman Bates. Not having seen the film before, I was not sure which character was him, and after learning that the attractive, young, and innocent-faced man was him, I was very confused. I had always pictured Norman Bates as a very creepy man with bad intentions, but this wasn't the case at all. The character development shown in Norman was amazing, as he went from shy and introverted to an outward psychopath, all the while led by his sick and deranged mother. This was one film where I actually started to root for the antagonist. Norman had such a great presence on screen, even after killing the main protagonist barely halfway through the film. After learning about the background with his mother, it made Norman's character that much more round, and I was all for that.

Something new and refreshing about this film was the plot. I shouldn't say refreshing, however, because this film has been the inspiration for horror writers and directors for decades. It was refreshing for me, because I truly saw where so many ideas and horror tropes originated from. This film has made such an impact on me, as I'm sure it did on so many people when it was originally in theaters. One element about the plot that stuck out to me as innovative was the plot twist towards the end. I began to have my doubts that Norman's mother was alive and well after never seeing her, but as he carried her down the stairs to the fruit cellar, my doubts were lifted. This might have been one of the original greatest plot twists in film history, because when I found out that it was Norman pretending to be his mother the entire time, my mind was blown. I was right the entire time, but Hitchcock and the writers of Psycho did such a fantastic job of leading my mind elsewhere. That is the mark of a great thriller film, in my opinion, is one that surprises you with a number of twists and turns. Psycho definitely did not disappoint.

The innovation in this film is stupendous, and after hearing it from multiple people throughout my life, was great to see for myself for the first time. If you are a horror movie fan or just a fan of thrilling dramas in general, Psycho is and should have been your introduction to the genre. I am upset that I missed out on such an amazing film for a long time in my life, but now that I have filled that void with this great movie, I can guarantee that this film will stand the test of time as one, if not THE, greatest horror film of all time.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Peeping Tom (1960) directed by Michael Powell

Peeping Tom, while not known to many (especially American moviegoers), is often hailed as the British version of Alfred Hitchcock's classic Psycho. While it has not received the same amount of cinematic attention as the latter, I believe that it deserves just as much praise. While certain plot points and elements from the two films can be obviously compared, this film stands on its own as an amazing drama/thriller for its time.

The plot of this film, while at times very cheesy, was easily the reason why a lot of people thought it was a cheap Psycho ripoff. Comparable elements include a handsome, solitary, young man who ran a family business (apartment building in this case), a complicated relationship with one of their parents, and a history of not treating women too kindly. While Hitchcock's film was about a recluse living with his mother and killing the woman that he had rented a room to, the titular character in Peeping Tom was a lot more social and outgoing. Mark Lewis, played by Karlheinz Böhm, had a side job of taking nude pictures of women for magazines and other publications. This gave him most of his exposure to women and also his devious desires. He had a lot of experience with working with women in his day job at the film studio, and so it was easy for him to pick out his next target. I feel like this evil urge might have also came from the lack of care from his father. His father was a scientist who did awful experiments and torturous things to Mark as a child, and his young mind was scarred forever. The lack of his mother also affected him as a child, because it made him feel like he needed to be in charge, especially when it came to working with the nude women. The writers of this film did a fantastic job of making us feel for Mark, however. Once he was in the relationship with Helen, played by Anna Massey, he vowed he would never hurt her or "put her on camera," which was his expression for murder. Even though we had spent the majority of the movie watching Mark film women just to kill them for his own pleasure, those scenes made me feel bad for Mark because he had finally found someone that understood him (kinda). This was the biggest emotional draw-in for me, which I very much appreciated.

The acting in this film was definitely not notable, to say the most. There were not very strong performances by any of the lead cast members, unlike this film's American counterpart. In summary, this film had mediocre performances at best and contained very little to no character development. The only development that I saw was in Mark after he had gone on his first date with Helen. He had started to feel true love, and while that didn't last very long, neither did Helen. Mark went right back to his killer ways before deciding to end his own life by puncturing himself with the knife end of his tripod. Besides the very little emotional growth that Mark experienced, none of the other characters experienced anything at all, not even a decent performance by the actors and actresses. There were so many parts that were very cheesy to watch and was easy to tell that the scene may have been rushed to film. Other than that, the portrayals of the people in the film were very dry, and all of the characters (who stayed alive anyways) did not change a bit, no matter their situation or circumstances.

Overall, Peeping Tom is a good film to watch for its historical significance and (almost) original storyline. While it pushed the boundaries of filmmaking around the same time as Psycho did, it just did not reach the same audience and reactions as Hitchcock did. This film has its moments, with some decent emotional building and great set design, but overall does not live up to its American counterpart.

My Rating: ★★★½

Jurassic Park (1993) directed by Steven Spielberg

Jurassic Park, as famous and important as it is, has definitely lived up to its classic praise. I, in all honesty, had not seen it until my sophomore year of high school, and I can confirm that it is as good as most make it out to be. I recently watched this film again as a homework assignment in my Introduction to Film course, and it only further refreshed my appreciation for it. With its original plot and futuristic use of CGI (for its time), Jurassic Park and director Steven Spielberg deserves every ounce of positivity that it received.

This is such a critical and important film for its time period, I honestly do not have much to say about it other than its necessity as a moviegoer to see. The plot of the film is something that has never been seen before, especially back in 1993. While there are a few sequels and a semi-remake (Jurassic World starring Chris Pratt), this film has stood its test of time. There had not been rarely any original science-fiction films for decades before its release, and the introduction of dinosaurs into our everyday life scared and excited many people. This film did such a great job of bringing this idea to life. Even though the general public was never an element of the film, the scientists and park "testers" were subjected to the use of dinosaurs and (obviously) there was not a positive reaction. The aspect of plot that I enjoyed the most was Dr. Grant's (Sam Neill) reluctance to want to have children since the beginning of the film. The subplot of the film pitted him with Hammond's (played by Richard Attenborough) grandchildren trying to survive among the dinosaurs, and he learned that children were not as awful as he had previously thought. The only minor issue I had with plot details regards Hammond's hiring of Nedry, played by Wayne Knight. Nedry was responsible for the selling of the dinosaur embryos to a third-party who were going to use them against Hammond's team. Nedry, while working for Hammond, was very rude and obviously suspicious in the way he spoke to his boss. From a business management stance, it does not seem like Hammond would have wanted Nedry to be working for him with that kind of attitude. But that's just my opinion.

Looking back at the acting and performances by all of the cast, everyone did a fantastic job. Sam Neill, along with Laura Dern, were great as their roles of work partners turned potential lovers. Their chemistry with the rest of the cast worked very well, even with the schmoozy but intelligent Malcolm, played by everyone's favorite Jeff Goldblum. His performance was personally my favorite among the rest, as he embodied his snarky character so well. Topped off with a cameo by Samuel L. Jackson, the cast of Jurassic Park really brought this film to life.

The most talked-about and innovative part of the film, however, is its use of CGI. This was one of the first films to use CGI that actually looked great. Done before in films like Westworld and Tron, CGI was a relatively new concept in films because it did not look exactly like reality. It was not believable in films really until the release of Jurassic Park, which has proven itself to be a milestone in this technology. The dinosaurs and accompanying special effects were beautiful, and when they needed to be, terrifying. This truly brought the film to life because without the existence of realistic-looking dinosaurs, it would have been a very cheesy movie. And it might not have done as well as it did.

In conclusion, this film is a must-see for anyone who is a fan of film, whether you are studying it or not. You can not fully appreciate the existence of today's CGI and Jeff Goldblum memes until you have seen Jurassic Park.

My Rating: ★★★★½

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: ★★★

Atomic Blonde (2017) directed by David Leitch

While I did not know much about Atomic Blonde before going into the theater, I did have very high hopes for it, given its high praise and spectacular reviews. This film, however, left me a bit disappointed in the overall plot element of it all. The action scenes were amazing nonetheless, but I ended up feeling confusion rather than the satisfied conclusion I prefer.

First off, the good parts of the film: the action sequences and supporting characters. This film has been given praise as the greatest action film of 2017, and I might have to agree with that, solely for the choreography. The action scenes filmed were all done by Charlize Theron herself, which is quite impressive, given the dangerous extent of them all. The fight choreography was very smooth but brutal, and definitely caught my eye and held me in while they happened. I'm always a sucker for one-shot scenes, and towards the end of the film where Theron's character Lorraine took out the group of men on the multiple floors was absolutely astounding. Another aspect that I very much enjoyed were the performances by the supporting actors James McAvoy and Sofia Boutella. McAvoy had a fantastic portrayal as the adversary-turned-enemy, as he turned out to be the rogue spy that was releasing information. His character was so well-rounded that I did not even begin to suspect that he might have been the antagonist. As for Boutella, she gave an amazing performance as Delphine, the French agent who was sent to look for the same information as Theron's character. I feel like Boutella's character had the most development, which I really appreciate in any film. Her character went from naive and innocent to becoming a crucial part and saving the almost nonexistent plot. Her love scene with Theron was also the turning point for her character because only then did she realize what she was really in for. This was good in order to see her role change from eye-candy to motivation for Lorraine.

I feel that it was also a really clever move to choose 1980's Berlin as the setting, given the tensions between East and West Germany and that the Berlin Wall was about to be torn down. It provided a really interesting way to present the story, as they had to be different people on the different sides of the wall. It showed the spies' dexterity and professionalism acting between sides. The main piece of the setting that I loved, however, was the music choice. This period of music gave us some of the greatest alternative and electronic hits of that era, and these songs fueled the aura of the film. Songs like "99 Luftballons" and "Personal Jesus" among many others truly gave it a late-80's edgy feel.

There are some aspects that I would definitely change about this film, however. Firstly, while Theron's character was a stoic, badass, Bond-type protagonist, there was definitely room for development. Even a little bit might have convinced me. No information about her background was given, and her stale and flat ego remained constant throughout the movie. Which makes for an excellent expendable spy I suppose, but I would prefer to hear more of her story and connection to the plot. Which there also happened to be almost none of: a coherent plot. Towards the beginning of the film, it seemed like the purpose was for Lorraine to retrieve the list from the rogue agent. As the story progressed, however, it seemed less and less like there was a reason for her actions or the introduction of the other elements. Towards the end, I started to feel the reason for the plot but it was definitely too late to introduce anything worthy of saving it. And the twist at the end revealing that Lorraine was the American FBI agent the entire time threw me for an even more confusing loop. So overall, the plot seemed messy and unorganized, which turned me off quite a bit.

I would strongly recommend Atomic Blonde for the die-hard Bond fans who are looking for a possible female to fill the role. While Charlize Theron excellently portrayed her character with what she was given, the movie just seemed to be lacking a concise plot, which is what a good film needs. I would definitely suggest viewing this film, but watch it for the fun, sexy action rather than the story.

My Rating: ★★½