Delayed Critique

“A twisted and weird story of two men’s descent to madness.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The critically praised black and white drama, THE LIGHTHOUSE, is anything but a crowd-pleasing film. Set in the 1890s, the story centers on two lighthouse works played by Robert Pattinson and William Defoe as they begin this month-long shift taking care of the island. Isolated from the outside world, the only company the two characters have is each other. Slowly getting on each other’s nerves, the two begin to degrade into madness as they continue further into their shift. 

Just from observing a single frame from the film, the tone and time period are beautifully established. Both with it’s black and white appearance and 4:3 aspect ratio, director Robert Eggers instantly sets the story up as taking place over a century ago. With its unique setting of the lighthouse island, the film perfectly feels like it was made back when filmmaking was invented. 

The main draw for THE LIGHTHOUSE is the performances from Pattinson and Defoe. With the entire runtime consisting of only the two actors, they showcase every ounce of emotion and terror their character slowly degrade into. Both actors are absolutely fantastic in their respective roles and deserve all the critical praise for awards recognition. They both work well with each other and sucks the audience into the isolation their characters are experiencing. 

Past the classic filmmaking and the great performances, THE LIGHTHOUSE is more of a film to appreciate rather than enjoy. While I have no regrets of seeing it, I have no desire to ever revisit or recall anything about it moving forward. Everything about it is intentionally repetitive and strange that never captured my interest long enough to want to see what’s going to happen next. The film began to get too abstract and artsy for my taste, especially during the scenes where Pattinson and Defoe are apart from each other.

Any critic that is praising the film as one of the best of the year is seeing something that I simply am missing. There’s nothing about it that’s bad or poorly executed, but it’s definitely not a movie I would personally recommend other people to see. THE LIGHTHOUSE receives alot of respect and appreciation from me for going back to classic Hollywood filmmaking that not advertiser-friendly. Having a love for cinemas more as entertainment rather than art, THE LIGHTHOUSE is something I tip my hat to, but not much else. 

7/10

“Closer to a tech demo rather than an actual movie.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The premise behind Will Smith’s latest action thriller, GEMINI MAN, has the potential of being wildly creative and fun. Smith’s extensive career has caused him to develop as an actor from his FRESH PRINCE OF BEL-AIR days. Going from a comedic actor and rapper to a more prestigious and mature performer could have been represented perfectly between the two characters of Henry Brogan and Junior. Unfortunately, director Ang Lee was clearly more focused on the technology behind the film rather than the actual story. 

After years as a hired hitman, Henry is ready to hang up his sniper and live the rest of his life out in peaceful retirement. The higher up who Henry once worked for, have a different plan for him. Henry’s skills are too good to be let go, though. Therefore, the sinister Clay Verris (Clive Owen) clones a younger version to hunt Henry down and continue his deadly work. As exciting as this premise may sound, the execution is as generic and one-note as action thrillers get.

The biggest draw of GEMINI MAN is its remarkable de-aging effects on Will Smith’s Junior and its attempt to bring High Frame Rate to the mainstream. While both technologies are impressive at specific points, the overall use of them feels unnecessary for this type of film. GEMINI MAN is neither a serious thriller or a fast-paced action flick that can benefit from either the de-aging effect or the High Frame Rate. During the more dialog heavy slower moments, the de-aging looks excellent, but the High Frame Rate is wasteful. When the action kicks in, the High Frame Rate boosts the details, but the de-aging looks obviously fake. There’s not a single moment when both technologies work at the same time. 

No matter if the technology behind GEMINI MAN is impressive at times, it ends up feeling like a complete waste due to the uninteresting storyline and characters. The three leads, Will Smith, Clive Owen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, are trying so hard to make their one-note character the least bit interesting. No actor could bring anything to this copy and paste action-script. At the end of its run, when GEMINI MAN gets judged as a film and not a tech demo, it is just a generic action thriller plot.

The only redeeming qualities of the film is its action and performances from Smith and Winstead. While it takes a while to get going, the action does keep your interest throughout the film’s two-hour runtime. There’s not quite enough of it to boost the film up from mediocrity, but it does save it from being utterly unwatchable. Along with the action is the expected charm from Smith and a likable performance from Winstead. Both actors clearly are putting effort into where the writing is lacking. I would say Smith and Winstead were great if they were in a better movie. 

GEMINI MAN is not a dreadful or painful viewing experience to sit through. Instead, its sole purpose is to be a tech demo on this technology that will eventually be used in better films. Even when viewing it like that, I still can’t recommend anyone to go out and see it. Nothing about GEMINI MAN is an embarrassment or an insult, but more of an example of the result of relying too heavily on effects to carry an otherwise forgettable movie. 

5/10

“Never has space travel been so boring.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

Imagine watching an accurate depiction of a man traveling by plane from New York to Los Angelas with two layovers in between. Would you want to sit in a theater and watch it for two hours? This sums up the thrills and excitement in AD ASTRA. No other film this year has failed to keep my interest than this Brad Pitt space epic. AD ASTRA manages to be incredibly pretentious with its monotone acting while also treating the audience like morons with its painfully obvious voice overs.

Pitt stars as astronaut Roy McBride, the son of a famous astronaut who broke grown by traveling to various planets in our galaxy. Roy’s father (Tommy Lee Jones) is admitting energy waves on Neptune that is causing power surges on Earth. It is up to Roy to travel to his father and save the world from his accidental destruction.

Right upfront, the two biggest strengths in this movie are the incredible special effects and the beautiful cinematography. This is truly a gorgeous looking movie shot with so much care to make every frame a piece of art. Unfortunately, even its great visuals don’t excuse AD ASTRA for being a total snore.

There’s no other word to describe this movie than annoying. There is not an ounce of enjoyment to have with anything in this movie. As impressive as its premise can be to hear, the actual execution is painfully dry and repetitive. Due to Roy being a completely uninteresting character, there is zero emotional attachment to have as he strives his way towards his father. Adding onto the dull lead is the competing tones of a realistic portray of space travel and over-the-top action that couldn’t be more out of place.

The following two scenes perfectly describe the unnatural mix of completely opposite tone. One scene early on has Roy in the middle of an unnecessary chase sequence on the moon full of explosions and gun battles. Another scene, later on, is a ten-minute repetitive procedural with repeating shots of Roy running a ship to represent the isolation and emptiness of space. With the majority of the content in the film depicting the drawn-out realism of space, any drops of action, like the moon chase sequence, was clearly slapped together in an attempt to make the movie more exciting.

There is no doubt in my mind that AD ASTRA originally was meant to be a realistic science fiction movie. Its story and its main character are beyond uninteresting. In an attempt to fix it, a rush voiceover session and a couple of pointless action scenes were thrown in to make the movie more accessible to mainstream audiences. I would have given the film more respect for sticking to its vision and not treating the audience like idiots.

Think of AD ASTRA as a multi-million dollar film student project where cinematography and effects are favored over good writing and character development. When it came time to show the first cut to the class, everyone bashed it for being challenging to get into and pretentious. To show off just how deep the film is, a narration was aggressively thrown in that explains every single plot detail and character motivation. 

Every couple of minutes, Roy is heard saying lines like “He is feeling mad” and “I look forward to my isolation to be over.” The extent of the quality of the narration is the script notes being copied and pasted throughout the film.

If it wasn’t clear already, I really did not like AD ASTRA and found it to be a complete waste of time. Even the impressive visuals and cinematography have been done better in other space movies like “Gravity” and “First Man.” Do not waste your time and go through the monotone boredom of this Oscar-baiting mess.

2/10

“Outlets declaring this as controversial clearly missed the whole message of it all.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

You can’t review the latest DC Comics adaptation, JOKER, without addressing the controversy. This R rated drama about the origins of the most psychotic comic book villains has been dogpiled with so much controversy and criticism for its criminally inspiring behavior. Having actually seen the movie and understanding the whole point of the character, all this controversy is incredible misguided. 

JOKER is a character study of the socially unaccepted Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) as he tries to cope with life’s hardships. All Arthur wants to do with his life is to bring laughter to others. Unfortunately, his mental condition and society’s neglect of the mentally ill is causing him to struggle. At the root of it all, JOKER is a cautionary tragedy on the result of reduced funding and support to the mentally disturbed. Where the controversy comes in is how the film successfully makes you sympathize with the mass murderer. 

More than any other film in the sub-genre, JOKER is the definitive representation of an origin story. From beginning to end, this movie is a character study of Arthur’s descent into madness and chaos. Every second of the runtime is focused on Arthur. His aches to be seen and heard in this society that abandons people like him. Describing an actual plot that the film follows takes away from the overall point and suspense of this dark tragedy. 

Many comparisons will be made between Phoenix’s portray of the character and the late Heath Ledger’s performance eleven years ago. Ironically, with all the finger-pointing at Phoenix’s interpretation as encouraging mass shootings and violence, Ledger’s Joker is way more controversial and dangerous. 

Without giving any spoilers away for JOKER, Phoenix’s Joker is shown to have a bit of logic and focus as to who he is going after. Ledger, on the other hand, is a mysterious evil with zero humanity that can’t be figured out. If any Joker portrays were to inspire mass shooters, it would be the critically praised and adored Ledger version. 

Based on the actor’s performance, though, Phoenix is right up there with Ledger as giving the best interpretation of the character. I adored Phoenix and his performance in the film as he balances an incredible amount of sympathy with an uncomfortable level of disturbing moments. For the vast majority of the film, I really felt terrible for Arthur and aches to see his life turn around for the better. 

Arthur doesn’t start off as a violent psychopath that clearly belongs in an insane asylum. Instead, he begins as a simple struggling comedian who’s harmless enough to attempt to make a kid smile on the bus. All the praises you have heard about Phoenix is absolutely right, as he deserves to be nominated, if not win, the Oscar for Best Actor.

While I walked in expecting to be blown away by Phoenix, I was really surprised by the fantastic direction and filmmaking with Todd Phillips and his creative team. Just a simple sweeping shot of the gritty Gotham streets look like a work of art. This is a perfect showcase of how a great director and cinematographer can make any setting look beautiful. 

With the fantastic cinematography comes my favorite element about the film; just how disturbing it is without the need for an uncomfortable amount of violence. Right from the very first frame, everything about the psychological mindset of Arthur is established. As the film continues, Phillps perfectly captures Phoenix’s chilling performance with long, drawn-out shots that appropriately makes the audience uneasy. Aside from a violent moment on the subway, all of the violent imagery is saved for the film’s climax, where the Joker comes out to play. 

Until then, you get sucked into Arthur’s journey for acceptance that beautifully sets up for the main event of Joker revealed to the public. The element that makes JOKER such an incredible film is how it doesn’t portray anyone as completely good or bad. Everyone is a mixture of sinister intentions and human beings that deserve a chance to live. You will sympathize and root against all the characters as they truly reflect the flawed human nature. 

Even though I absolutely love JOKER, I can completely understand why some people will not enjoy it. Take away audiences that would reject it merely due to the controversy, JOKER really is an unconventional character study that isn’t much of a crowd-pleaser. If you can’t see yourself enjoying a two-hour movie where you need to get sucked into the mindset of a twisted character, then this is not the film for you. 

JOKER is definitely one of the best movies of the year that takes so many risks and deep turns that will leave you on the edge of your seat. While it has it’s problems that involve its revealing information, it still is worth checking out in theaters for adults only. Please, do not take your kids to see this movie; it is very much a mature and deep movie that they don’t need to see. 

9/10

“Closer to a TAKEN spin-off than a RAMBO sequel.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The RAMBO franchise is a prime representation of Hollywood’s de-evolution towards generic blockbuster fluff. Originally a novel with the depiction of PTSD and the horrors of war has on a man, FIRST BLOOD was a character piece on this disturbed soldier struggling to adjust to everyday life. The sequels, though, go for complete action flock favoring John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) killing more and more bad guys. With yet another sequel with RAMBO: LAST BLOOD, the character is barely recognizable. 

Stallone stars once again as the titular character, John Rambo. After decades of war and violence, Rambo settles down on a large farm to live in peace and look after his niece, Gabrielle (Yvette Monreal). When Gabrielle gets kidnapped and put up in sex trafficking in Mexico, It is up to Rambo to take down the people responsible and get his niece back. 

Everything about Rambo’s PTSD with his past is completely abandoned asides from one or two flashes. This is no longer the same character introduced in FIRST BLOOD. This initial set up could be easily be switched out to be Rocky Balboa’s retirement than John Rambo’s life. With so little to connect to the previous movies, this story is clearly not intended initially as a RAMBO sequel.

Quickly realizing the character degradation, I started to view the film as just an average Stallone action flick. With that mindset, I came to really appreciate Stallone’s performance and the lack of the bratty, irresponsible teen cliche with Gabrielle. Both actors really stand out and give charming yet flawed performances. I felt sympathetic towards Gabrielle and was rooting for Rambo to get her back. 

Seeing how this barely resembles a RAMBO movie, this would actually fit better as a TAKEN spin-off using Rambo’s past as instant backstory. While the story is aggressively standard and follows TAKEN beat by beat, I honestly enjoyed it more than any of the TAKEN sequel. Even when compared to the original, LAST BLOOD goes in a surprising direction that even TAKEN didn’t have the guts to do. 

RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is just merely a mindless action flick that will come and go from your mind in its hour and a half runtime. I enjoyed myself and the gruesome gore during the climax, but I definitely don’t consider it a good movie or worth seeing in theaters. Wait to catch this as a rental to occupy your time in the comfort of your own home. 

6/10

“Enter the world of stripping and illegal theft.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

Sympathize with your local strippers through this erotic and illegal journey down the perks and struggles of stripping. Enjoying getting drunk and watching pretty ladies take off their clothes. Consider the stripper’s human side of trying to make ends meet and succeeding in this cutthroat and womanizing business. HUSTLERS explores the lives of Destiny and Ramona as they try to make it big using their skills as strippers. 

Constance Wu headlines as Destiny, a struggling young performer who is taken under the wing of the experienced Ramona (Jennifer Lopez). Ramona teaches Destiny her tricks and talents to get as many customers and tips as possible. After a sudden financial crash that vacates business at the club, Ramona and Destiny gather a team together to bring more money in; even if they have to do it illegally. 

HUSTLERS can be described as two separate movies; a full-on strip show and a GOODFELLAS inspired gangster movie. The first thirty minutes plays out just like a night at the strip club with Jennifer Lopez as the headliner. Following Destiny’s initial doubts and lack of confidence really emphasizes the loneliness and disgusting sexual urges of strip clubs. I felt very uncomfortable during the beginning of the film, which is exactly what the filmmakers intended on.

As the story progresses into a crime movie, the lead characters and their sisterhood relationship is on center stage throughout their dangerous behavior. Wu and Lopez, especially, shine together as they genuinely build a bond that you wouldn’t want to see broken. While both can be labeled as character types, I was pleasantly surprised by the progression of their relationship and the point where it was left off. With a pretty predictable storyline, it was nice to see how Destiny and Ramona were not exactly one-note criminal stereotypes. 

Aside from Wu and Lopez, the two other strippers brought on are Mercedes (Keke Palmer) and Annabelle (Lili Reinhart). Mercedes and Annabelle are considered the secondary characters of the group, but they manage to stick out thanks to their memorable and humanized performances. I would like to have seen more from them though, especially with all four of them working together. 

HUSTLERS’ is a very engaging yet standard crime movie that simplifies everything for audiences to quickly understand what’s going on. Their criminal intentions and justification of it all are believable when considering their status in life. Destiny, Ramona, Mercedes, and Annabelle are very sympathetic, even when they continuously are ruining people’s lives. 

Going into the film, I had one major criticism that drew me away from wanting to see it. I cannot stand Cardi B, and I was cringing hard when I saw she was in this movie. Having seen the movie now, I left disliking her even more. All the other strippers in the first act of the film are giving humanity to be behind. Cardi B, on the other hand, is an obnoxious and ugly character throughout her small amount of screentime. I found her to be the embarrassment on an otherwise entertaining film, especially finding out afterward that she actually was guilty of committing these disturbing crimes in real life.

Personal judgment aside, HUSTLERS does suffer as copying elements from other popular movies rather than going in a different direction. Once the premise and story structure are set up, anyone can predict the pacing and overall outcome for these characters. While it is a step up from the many other generic GOODFELLAS wanna-be crime movies, it would have significantly benefited from trying to be its own thing.

HUSTLERS is a reasonably enjoyable crime movie with some excellent leading performances and humanized characters. While it’s a story you’ve seen dozens of other times, it has just enough new elements to make it worth seeing. Aside from a couple of obnoxious moments, it's an excellent crime movie that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. 

8/10

“Be thankful that this second part wasn’t split into two additional movies.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The number one criticism in all the reviews for IT CHAPTER TWO is its nearly three-hour runtime. This second, and final, chapter in this popular Stephen King adaptation runs thirty-five minutes longer than its critically praised predecessor. While I will get into my thoughts on how IT CHAPTER TWO works as a three-hour movie, I consider this as a big win for the book-to-film adaptation genre.

For almost a decade now, Hollywood has a history with squeezing the stories of original source material to make as much money as possible when translating into a movie franchise. This trend started with splitting HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS into two parts, and it continued on with every highly popular book-to-film franchises. As audiences grew tired of this trend, splitting the finale of popular stories into two parts began to lead to smaller box office results. Therefore, IT CHAPTER TWO being a three-hour movie represents Hollywood’s surrender in this greedy trend. 

As for the quality of IT CHAPTER TWO itself, the most significant strengths come from the fantastic cast of the teen to adult Losers and the return of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise. If there was an award for Best Casting, the team behind IT CHAPTER TWO deserves it! The adult cast both looks and behaves perfectly as the grown-up versions of the teen actors. There is not a single weak link, as every one is cast perfectly and performs the part on point. 

There’s no IT without Pennywise, as Skarsgard returns to the role with his over-the-top setpieces and more screentime to scare his prey. As with any sequel to a surprise smash hit, Pennywise is thrown a more substantial amount of scary setpieces and plays more into his goofy theatric side along with his scares. While CHAPTER ONE uses Pennywise sparingly to make his appearance more frightening, Skarsgard felt restricted from going all out into the role. This time around, Skarsgard is let loose to really define the role as his own. 

The perfect word to describe IT CHAPTER TWO is unrestricted. For better or worse, there is no holding back when it comes to its creative horror ideas and cramming the film with as content as possible. As far as an IT adaptation goes, CHAPTER TWO reflects the weirdness and twisted tone of the novel. While the stranger elements are toned down to please the more general audience, CHAPTER TWO definitely has the upper hand against CHAPTER ONE when it comes to its strangeness.

For viewers looking for a fun time at the movies, IT CHAPTER TWO is wildly entertaining. There are plenty of disturbing moments that will keep you up at night along with a surprising amount of humor that’s genuinely funny. Criticisms aside, CHAPTER TWO is a worthy follow up and a great companion piece to CHAPTER ONE. However, there is one significant drawback to IT CHAPTER TWO that will affect its rewatchability: the runtime. 

Judging how long a movie should run relies entirely on how long it takes to tell the story. The pacing in IT CHAPTER TWO is nearly identical to how the story is told in AVENGERS: ENDGAME. A grand epic like AVENGERS: ENDGAME with an expansive plotline and multiple characters to follow worked with a three-hour runtime thanks to its good pacing.  Some may say the story and characters in IT fit the same description; I personally disagree. With all the praises I gave to the cast and creative setpieces, there’s only so long I can last before I start to get drained. 

The entire saga of IT CHAPTER ONE and TWO would have worked best as a two-season Netflix series. Ironically, the original distribution of the 1990’s IT as a multi-part series would have been perfect for this remake with the advances of streaming services today. Even at a three-hour runtime, it feels like there are still some missing parts to really make the overarching story between the two films shine.

From its over-the-top scares to its laugh-out-loud humor, IT CHAPTER TWO is a lot of fun. The characters were great, the scares were consistent, and the humor was surprisingly strong. The extended runtime is a bit of an issue due to the repetitive middle act, which does make it less re-watchable than CHAPTER ONE. While there’s plenty to raise concerns on, I found IT CHAPTER TWO to be a satisfying movie to see on the big screen. 

8.5/10

“A psychotic horror premise mixed with the idiocy of inexperienced killers.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

READY OR NOT is best described as the reverse of a murder mystery. The typical murder mystery set up is present. A wealthy family is locked in a mansion against an uncooperative, dangerous bride. One crucial detail separates READY OR NOT from the typical structure of the murder mystery genre. The family are not the victims in danger, they all are the killers going after the innocent bride. 

Think of READY OR NOT as the most outrageous anti-marriage movie ever created. The film stars Samara Weaving as the newly-wed bride, Grace, as she marries into the wealthy Le Domas family with her partner Daniel (Adam Brody). As in tradition with the Le Domas, a new member must draw a card and play a game to officially be considered as a member of the family. 

Unknowing to Grace, she draws the most deadly card of Hide and Seek. Initially treating the game as a gag, Grace quickly learns of the target on her head with her new family hunting her down. With the help of her new husband going against his family, Grace must survive the night and make it out alive to truly live happily ever after with her hubby. 

The highest compliment to give the film is how much it knows what it is and how far to go without losing the audience. This is a straightforward, engaging plot to follow where you genuinely understand the motives of each character’s actions. While it is a story of good versus evil, the in-laws are surprisingly just as fleshed out and semi-understandable as their primary target with Grace.

Speaking of Grace, she is incredibly likable, realistic, and smart when uncovering the details of her in-laws' intentions with her. She is not the winey, helpless victim, or the tough-as-nails hero incapable of getting hurt. Weaving brings the perfect mixture of humanity and survival instances to Grace that makes audiences genuinely root for her survival. 

On paper, the intentions of the Le Domas are completely ripped straight from a disturbing slasher film. If the entire story only followed Grace’s perspective, they would be portrayed as sinister, bloody hungry killers. Instead, the Le Domas is shown to deep-down be incredibly sloppy and outraged at their every failed turn. 

Aside from the overarching motive explained as the film progresses, each member of the family has their own level of investment in the hunt. Initially, I expected the Le Domas family to be dull, emotionless characters. Surprisingly, they ended up being the elements that define the entire tone of the film. 

My one criticism of the film is the pacing in the middle. While the initial setup and payoff and the beginning and end are brilliant, the center easily has the weakest elements of the film. Not to say the middle is terrible by any means, as there are still some incredible moments pushing it forward. The center of the story just has the least amount of ideas that stand out.

Before wrapping up my thoughts, it’s worth mentioning how READY OR NOT can loosely be considered a sequel-in-spirit to HAPPY DEATH DAY. This connection comes with Weaving portraying Grace similarly to Jessica Rothe’s Tree. It’s an interesting perspective to watch READY OR NOT as if it’s the natural continuation of HAPPY DEATH DAY. Obviously, this is just a fun little fan perspective, as there are zero real connections or references in this to the 2016 horror-comedy. I found it worth mentioning just to demonstrate the type of tone to expect in READY OR NOT only with more bloody violence. 

READY OR NOT is absolutely a must-see that effectively uses its creative premise and tone to its fullest. The characters are great, the story is engaging, and the violence is playfully gruesome. With the extensive catalog of lazy and unoriginal horror movies out there, READY OR NOT is the diamond in the crowd worth supporting.

9/10

“Remember when ANGRY BIRDS used to just be a simple mobile game?”

BY COLLIN DELADE

Video game adaptations have been a struggling genre in cinema. Countless attempts have been made to translate a video game property to the big screen with various levels of success. Surprising everyone, the current highest-rated video game movies, according to Rotten Tomatoes, is THE ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE 2. All the advertising for this animated sequel were full of childish humor and a mediocre plotline that had little to do with the original material. Is THE ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE 2 genuinely the best video game movie yet?

THE ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE 2 continues the story of Red (Jason Sudeikis) as he protects his bird island from the evil pigs led by their child in command, Leonard (Bill Hader). When a mystical third island is discovered made entirely out of ice, the birds and pigs must team up to protect their homelands from destruction. 

Right up front, the story of this animated sequel has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of the original mobile game. As much as a sequel needs to go in a different direction from it's original, that was more faithful to the source material, the storyline is the most generic and lazy plotline that makes absolutely no sense. The creative team behind the structure of the story and character development had very little respect for creative integrity and solely wanted to cash in their checks. 

Surprisingly, the animated team and the writer in charge of the humor really stepped up their game when it comes to this sequel. The animation is relatively impressive as each of these different worlds are set up. While I do recall the original flick having good animation, the humor in this sequel completely justifies the existence of this film. 

I was incredibly surprised by how consistent I laughed throughout this film. There are so many funny moments that genuinely keep my attention throughout the uninteresting plotline. Even the cringeworthy moments in the trailers that I rolled my eyes at had a good payoff that redeemed the more random material. 

Between the two ANGRY BIRDS movies, there is a fun animated video game flick to find. Looking back on my past review of the original film, I was favoring the more faithful storyline of the original game over the subpar humor. Combining the original storyline of birds versus pigs along with the better humor in this sequel, there is an excellent ANGRY BIRDS movie to enjoy. 

THE ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE 2 is a very mediocre film that is saved by some amusing moments throughout its hour and thirty-seven-minute runtime. This is a rare case of a pointless, average cash grab that is saved by the small division of the creative team that actually put in the effort to make the film slightly enjoyable. I still would not recommend anyone to see this film in theaters with its lame story and character development. However, this is perfect as a rainy day rental for the whole family to modestly enjoy. 

6/10

“The innocent minds of raunchy middle school boys.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

Everyone’s first impressions when hearing about GOOD BOYS is how its just SUPERBAD in middle school. While the simple premise is identical to the 2007 comedy, the three leads and their young minds distinguish it from SUPERBAD.

GOOD BOYS stars Jacob Tremblay, Keith L. Williams, and Brady Noon as three best friends transitioning into middle school. When the goofy, nieve trio gets invited to a big middle school party, they panic at their lack of knowledge of how to kiss a girl. Through their studies of kissing, they stumble across adult websites, an erotic CPR doll, and losing an expensive drone when spying of a teen next door.

What makes GOOD BOYS stands out from any typical raunchy comedy is how the world is represented to these middle schoolers. Even past our three leads, all the middle school characters are adorably inexperienced at adult themes like drinking, sex, and drugs. While all the pre-teen characters are written with more profanity than the average middle schooler, the young cast perfectly sets up how lame it is to be that age. 

All three of the lead actors are incredibly funny and likable in their respective roles. Each one of them is completely fleshed out enough to all of them be considered as the main character. One could consider Tremblay as the central star, as it is his story of getting to the party and replacing the drone before his dad gets home. Still, Williams and Noon both have their drama that fits well with the main plotline. I loved all three of these guys and their character arcs representing friendship and growing up. 

My big problem with the film is the many cliches it can’t resist to follow. As with every comedy nowadays, there has to be the big breakup where everyone goes their separate ways to eventually come back together. While it is necessary for the overall message, it felt too over-the-top and unnecessary out of character. 

At the end of the day, GOOD BOYS is the hilarious comedy that 2019 was desperately in need of. The three leads are fantastic, and the laughs keep coming at a high pace. While it’s not the most in-depth, most original movie, I would still strongly recommend people to go out and see the film. There are plenty of laughs and a couple heartfelt moments to bring back your childhood memories as well. 

8.5/10

“Vamonos down another live-action remake of a beloved children’s cartoon.” 

BY COLLIN DELADE

Growing up with DORA THE EXPLORER, I would have never thought there could be a cinematic version of the show, let alone a live-action one. The simple Nick Jr. cartoon was playful and straightforward, intended to teach young kids the basics of Spanish. While it is not impossible to adapt DORA THE EXPLORER into a live-action movie, the material is just not deep enough to translate into a cinematic experience. Aware of this, Nickelodeon decides to make Dora into a LAURA CROFT for young kids full of elaborate puzzles and treasure hunting. 

Isabela Moner stars as the titular character, who spends her childhood raised in the jungle with her parents (Eva Longoria and Michael Pena) and her cousin, Diego. As she grows up into a 16-year-old teen, her parents worry about her lack of socialization with any friends. While her parents are off on a treasure hunting adventure, Dora is sent to her relatives to be enrolled in high school. Along the way, the overly optimistic Dora struggles to fit in with her peers and become the laughing-stock of the class. When she and a couple of her classmates are kidnapped and transported into the jungle, it is up to Dora to lead everyone to safety as they make their way home. 

The live-action DORA THE EXPLORER flick is as generic of a child’s adventure movie as you can get. With one-dimensional performances and a titular storyline, this would fit better as a TV movie. However, there is one massive element that caring this film away from mediocrity, Isabela Moner as Dora. With her perfect balance of excitement and bravery, Moner is the sole element that consistently shines from beginning to end. 

Ironically, my initial thoughts on this premise after seeing the trailer is completely swapped when coming out of the movie. At first, I was cringing at Dora thrown into a high school setting; while I thought the adventure in the jungle has some promise to be fun. Surprisingly, the best moments of the film are with Dora being overly optimistic in high school thanks to the adorable performance from Moner. Due to Dora never feeling ashamed of who she is along with proudly singing, dancing, and expressing her intelligence, the cliche high school story avoids being obnoxious. 

When the film goes gets annoying is when Dora and her peers are lost in the jungle. This adventure only needed Dora and Diego as they slowly get back to their cousinly-friendship after being apart for so many years. The two other side characters stuck along this adventure are poorly written and unnecessary. If any plans for a sequel is in development, I hope that the two side-kick characters are left out of it. 

Judging the flick as an adaptation of the cartoon, Dora is the only character that receives quality treatment. Boots and Swiper are after-thoughts that feel out of place with their cartoony abilities in this semi-realistic world. Clearly, this film was made to be its own thing without relying on nostalgia for the original fans. With that in mind, I can totally see young kids really enjoying this movie. 

DORA AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD is unapologetically made for kids in mind without insulting their intelligence in any way. There is plenty of goofy fun to have when considering that most audiences would not be analyzing the flick like me. I still don’t think this is a must-see, even if you are young. However, a rainy-day matinee or a planned movie night at home would satisfy kids and families interested in seeing the young adventure movie starring their favorite Nickelodeon character.

7/10

“The concept of A DOG’S PURPOSE mixed with a depressing family drama.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

This year has offered a fair amount of movies based on the premise of hearing a dog’s thoughts through voice-over. A DOG’S WAY HOME starred Bryce Dallas Howard voicing Bella, a lost dog traveling hundreds of miles to return to her owner. A DOG’S JOURNEY was the sequel to A DOG’S PURPOSE with Josh Gad returning as the reincarnating Bailey. THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN has Kevin Costner voice a racing enthusiast dog named Enzo. Enzo spends his life protecting his owner (Milo Ventimiglia) and his wife (Amanda Seyfried) through the hardships of life.

As a massive dog lover, any innocent flick with a cute dog instantly becomes a must-watch. For audiences like me that get enjoyment out of seeing a good dog on the big screen, the film is worth checking out. The premise for THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN is identical to other recent dog movies with the same type of characters and morals. Enzo, the dog, is adorable from puppyhood to adulthood as he builds his interest in car racing. While I am not the biggest fan of Kevin Costner, he was decent in the vocal role.

Where this movie drifts off away from other comparisons are with its real and depressing family drama. Make sure to bring a box of tissues with you into the theater, as the film goes deep into some somber topics. I would advise parents with very young kids to be cautious of taking them to see this movie. There’s nothing harmful or damaging that will traumatize young kids, but it will require an in-depth and somber discussion afterward.

As a whole, THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN is a standard and cliche flick with incredibly one-sided characters. For instance, the mustache-twirling grandfather played by Martin Donovan does a bit too good of a job making his character unlikable. Aside from one character at the climax, everyone is considered either warmhearted or soulless. As much as I was invested in the conflict and engaged at seeing the outcome, I can admit that the story is relatively generic.

THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN is dedicated to dog lovers wanting to see a harmless romp about a cute dog. As the flick delivers on those regards, it also is not afraid to go depressing and cover real-life issues. If you are looking for the right balance of heartwarming and heartbreaking moments involving both a cute dog and likable leading characters than this film is worth a watch.

7.5/10

“The spin-off to cause the feud between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The FAST AND FURIOUS franchise is Vin Diesel’s baby since the 2001 “POINT BREAK with street racing” original. Aside from the second and third installments, Diesel has been the star as each entry gets more and more ridiculous. For the first time in thirteen years, a new FAST AND FURIOUS movie releases without any input from Diesel. 

The last time this happened, audiences got THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT. This first attempt at introducing a spin-off movie undoubtedly failed to capture the excitement and thrills without the original cast. HOBBS & SHAW is taking less of a risk by spinning off using established characters. Can Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham deliver on a good FAST AND FURIOUS movie without Diesel’s involvement?

HOBBS & SHAW goes in a more comedic direction than the more straight-forward main series. Johnson and Statham’s entire dynamic is shooting out masculine draining insults to each other. In any other film, this would be an annoying flaw that makes the two leads incredibly irritating. However, this is a FAST AND FURIOUS movie with over-the-top action and unrealistic plotlines. Johnson and Statham’s bickering is welcomed and entertaining to see how they one-up each other every couple minutes. 

The feud between Hobbs and Shaw is even more digestible with Vanessa Kirby's character. She keeps up and brings both of them down a peg or two when needed. Kirby was a welcomed addition to the cast who’s well-written enough to be just more than the tough female character. Anytime she is caught in a corner against the villains, she is the one to get herself out of it without the need of a man’s help. While I could have done without the strange googly-eyed love subplot with her, Kirby still remains as a compelling character that earns her place on the team. 

As expected with every FAST AND FURIOUS flick, the action is just as ridiculous as the previous movies. Idris Elba acts as the big baddie, Brixton, who’s motivations are just as generic and one-note as you can get. The film clearly knows this and skips over showing any of Brixton’s backstory in favor of quick dialog exchanges explaining his connection to Hobbs and Shaw. This is where my main complaint comes in with Elba being the weakest A-List villain compared to the recent foes in past films. 

Showcasing just how wild the series has progressed, Johnson and Statham were the antagonists at various points in the series. Hobbs started off as the lawman dedicated to taking down Torretto and his crew. Statham was out to kill Torretto after nearly killing his brother. Even though their first moments onscreen involve exposition dumps on their motivations, it was still strong enough to understand why they were going after the protagonists. Elba’s motivation is not nearly as strong, as it falls flat as just an excuse to have a villain in the role. 

Clearly, this is not a movie to go in dept with criticisms with when its whole point of existence is to mindlessly entertain. The FAST AND FURIOUS series is incredibly entertaining, and a weak villain luckily doesn’t bring HOBBS AND SHAW down. The absolute best character that makes the flick a must-see is a surprise supporting role that I hope becomes a major player in future installments.

No matter how entertaining the overall flick can be, the finale has a couple of colossal continuity errors that completely take you out of the fighting. In a matter of minutes, the end starts deep in the darkness of night to moments later being in the bright daylight. As we follow everyone on an extended chase sequence, the characters literally ram into the harshest rainstorm on the island. As much fun as I had for the majority of the flick, the last twenty minutes are completely tampered by terrible continuity. 

As the ninth entry in the FAST AND FURIOUS series, HOBBS & SHAW turns out exactly how you expect a spin-off to be starring these actors. I had alot of fun with the movie, but I can even admit that it is full of flaws. For fans of the series, this is worth checking out in theaters. While I still hope to see Hobbs and Shaw interact with Toretto again, another spin-off continuing their adventures would be welcomed. 

8/10

“Shaping alligators to be the next horror icons.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The shark attack genre is getting very stale in cinema. After the legendary JAWS revolutionizing summer blockbusters, Hollywood has milked the aquatic creatures in dozens of subpar bloody thrillers. This summer puts the sharks aside in favor of the amphibious alligators. During a Category 5 hurricane in southern Florida, the young swimmer Haley (Kaya Scoderlario) travels deep into the storm to save her missing father (Barry Pepper). After discovering her father gravely injured in the basement and in need of medical attention, Haley quickly comes face to face with a giant alligator prepared to rip the pair apart. With no sign of help and the basement rapidly flooding, Haley and her dad must outsmart the alligator and escape the storm. 

CRAWL has a straightforward storyline and a minimal cast consisting of Haley, her dad, and a couple minimum side characters. The majority of the weight of making CRAWL work is Scoderlario’s humanization and heroic leading performance. Whether it’s her chemistry with Pepper’s flawed father persona or her rivalry with the killer alligators, Scorderlario is excellent from beginning to end.  

The simplicity of CRAWL is a robust high point that manages to deliver on the suspense with its basic plot. After a full fifteen minute set up with Haley making her way towards the house, the remaining seventy-five minutes is pure alligator horror with brutal bites and a lot of blood. CRAWL might not be the most gruesome horror flick, but it definitely showcases the fears of an alligator attack and how terrifying it is to be close to one. 

My problems with CRAWL has less to do with something wrong that happens in the film and more about the lack of a satisfying ending. This complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of our characters. Instead, the film abruptly stops rather than giving the audience a worthy conclusion. Audiences will absolutely leave disappointed by the note the movie ends on as if an epilogue was removed to get the film under an hour and a half.

Up until its unsatisfying ending, CRAWL is one of the better gruesome creature movies with its likable lead and effective gore. The lack of a conclusion doesn’t destroy the film as a whole, but it does take it down from being worth a ticket admission. The moment CRAWL releases to rent and stream, make it your next film in your query

7/10

“What JAWS did with the water, MIDSOMMAR frightens viewers of traveling abroad.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

MIDSOMMAR is not your typical horror film. Going in expecting a creepy isolated slasher flick full of jump scares and non-stop kills will leave you incredibly disappointed. MIDSOMMAR is much closer to a movie like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT where the life of this Swedish society starts off as very realistic. For a majority of the first two-thirds of the runtime, it is very believable for these characters to be suckered into this twisted society. With a runtime of two and a half hours, the first disconcerting image occurs at the hour mark. 

Before the film hits its first dark turn, it centers on a grieving college girl Dani (Florence Pugh) maneuvering her way into a group trip with her boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor) and his group of friends. Rather than jumping right into the scares, MIDSOMMAR builds on its modern college characters for audiences to connect with rather than the generic stereotypes in other horror casts.  Dani and Christian's relationship is beyond flawed and realistic to a college couple falling out of love. While the characters purposely don’t have a lot of chemistry, Pugh and Reynor are excellent in their respective roles. 

While the main leads are fleshed out characters, the supporting cast does land closer to stereotypes rather than deep characters. Each of the three friends; Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren), Josh (William Jackson Harper), and Mark (Will Poulter); are reduced to singular personalities as the main cast gets all the attention. Compared to other horror movies, though, these characters are exceptional and worth following. When judged off the main leads though, they can easily be left in the dust. 

For a two and a half hour horror flick, I was surprised by how well the film kept my attention throughout. Even before the disturbing elements came out, I was enjoying myself during this festival through the eyes of these characters. When the gore and worrisome imagery does finally come into play, it offers some of the most unsettling scenes in any movie this year. This is an alarming movie that manages to execute this tone in broad daylight. 

MIDSOMMAR can be divided up as two separate films that two different audiences will enjoy. The first half is a casual travelog into this unique Swedish culture with a dying relationship. The second half turns into violent and frightening imagery that will disturb even the biggest horror fans. While it’s a well-executed film full of deep, relatable characters, MIDSOMMAR is far from a mainstream movie that mass audiences will enjoy. Horror fans will become antsy at the lack of scares in the beginning and the second half is too extreme that will turn away a lot of moviegoers. 

MIDSOMMAR is a well executed slow-burn horror flick that’s destined to be underappreciated. A lot of the complaints mainstream horror movie suffers from is absent from MIDSOMMAR as all the events are plausible to take place. Even with a range of fleshed out characters, all the performances are solid. The gore and unsettling moments are very useful that will stay with you days later. MIDSOMMAR would make for a visually exciting experience as long as the long runtime is personally not an issue for yourself. 

8/10

“A glorified tribute to both Beatles music and oblivious Hollywood love stories.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

Imagine riding your bike home one night when a mysterious blackout occurs across the world for a few seconds. Without even getting a chance to realize what’s going on, you get hit by a bus and walk up in a hospital day the next day. While a couple of broken teeth cause you to be the laughing stock to your friends and family for a short while, you quickly realize that no one you encounter has any recollection of the legendary band, The Beetles. This scenario occurs to a down-on-his-luck musician, Jack Malik (Himish Patel) who uses this strange scenario to quickly become the most significant musician in the world. 

YESTERDAY is as close to a Beetles biopic as we will ever get. While it’s a complete love letter to the legendary group, it requires previous knowledge to understand the many references and tributes to the iconic band. As someone with minimal experience of The Beetles, I was expecting YESTERDAY to educate me on the impact of their music across the world. 

Unfortunately, YESTERDAY is dedicated entirely towards the people who grew up with their music and experienced the impact the group had on the world. Even as a newcomer left in the dust with my lack of Beetles knowledge, the creative premise and its likable characters boost the otherwise one-note tribute to a casually enjoyable viewing experience. 

There are three main stars in YESTERDAY; Himish Patel, Lily James as his potential love interest, and the legacy of The Beetles music. Patel is very likable and relatable as this down-on-his-luck musician that’s blown away by the strange world he wakes up in. He brings a lot of heart, talent, and comedy that makes his character interesting to follow. Lily James is adorably charming as Jack’s manager, even if her storyline is stuck as a one-note love story. Patel and James share a lot of chemistry together to the point of unrealism when they are separated by distance from each other. 

As for how The Beetles music is showcased, it suffers as a greatest hit sampler rather than making each memorable song moments. Take, for example, how ROCKETMAN made each Elton John song a full-on remarkable musical number. While YESTERDAY is not a biopic or a fantasy musical, it only uses portions of each song that doesn’t do justice to the material. As someone unfamiliar with The Beetles music, there was not a single moment involving the music that remains memorable. 

Judging as an unfamiliar Beetles fan, YESTERDAY is simple an enjoyable what-if scenario with two charming and likable leads. While there was nothing that inspired me involving the use of the music, I can definitely see the emotional impact for Beetles fans. Whether your level of Beetles knowledge, though, YESTERDAY is delightful to go out and see. 

7/10

“Annabelle brings on the emotions in her latest solo outing.”

BY COLLIN DELADE

The ANNABELLE trilogy has been an ever improving spin-off series to the leading CONJURING franchise. While her first outing was as generic and lazy of a horror film as you can get, her second outing shown her potential on delivering on some scares. ANNABELLE COMES HOME perfects the character’s horror formula by finally crossing paths with the central Warrens couple. 

ANNABELLE COMES HOME is the third entry in the spin-off ANNABELLE series that continues to expand on the history of the haunted doll. The evil conduit of the Annabelle doll has been contained in the basement of the spirit-experts of Ed and Lorraine Warren. While away at work for an extended weekend, the Warrens leave their young daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace) with a trustworthy babysitter named Mary (Madison Iseman). What starts off as a responsible and safe weekend turns into a horrific nightmare when Mary’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) sneaks her way into the Warren family’s basement of horrors and causes the release of Annabelle. It’s up to the three young girls to survive the weekend and get Annabelle back into her case. 

The most prominent element that separates ANNABELLE COMES HOME from its predecessors is the amount of heart and relatable characters starring in the horror flick. It is very refreshing to see a likable cast behave modestly like real people. Judy is faced with some bullying due to her parent’s careers while Mary is a sympathetic babysitter that believable trustworthy. Even when a character like Daniela starts out as an obnoxious and selfish pushover, an emotional backstory about her past makes her harmful actions more understandable. 

Annabelle, herself, is even improved upon as a horror icon. While the actual doll is not physically doing anything, the implications of her powers lead to some frightening imagery. This trait with the character has always been a part of the series, but the simple set up of Annabelle having a room full of spirits to bring to life makes for a more enjoyable movie than previous ones. 

ANNABELLE COMES HOME will disappoint audiences looking for a consistent level of scares throughout. A vast majority of the runtime is dedicated to character development rather than throwing scares out every five minutes. Even the ending concludes on a sweet moment rather than a disturbing one. While I personally appreciate a modest amount of scares in horror movies, I can understand why horror fans would leave feeling disappointed. 

This latest entry in the ANNABELLE and CONJURING series is surprisingly the most sympathetic and relatable one yet. All the characters are well written, and the simple premise is enough for an easy-to-enjoy viewing experience. While it doesn’t leave to alot of memorable scares, it has enough concepts to stick with you afterward.

7.5/10