Mini Mini Reviews #2

“The Omega Man” (1971) – More or less, it’s a lame version of “The Last Man on Earth,” that exchanges all of its subtlety and tension for over the top goofiness and really poor effects. Grade: D+

“Moonstruck” (1987) – A very heartwarming romance with one of the more honest performances out of Nicholas Cage, while also proving how multi-talented Cher can be. Grade: B

“Cleopatra” (1963) – This should be the dictionary definition of extravagant and box office failure. The history behind “Cleopatra” is far more interesting than the movie itself, though that might be due to the four-and-a-half hour runtime. I wouldn’t have nearly as much problems with the film if it wasn’t the longest film I’ve ever watched and nothing about the film justifies that runtime. Grade: C

“The Death of Stalin” (2017) – A nice palette cleanser after “Cleopatra,” “The Death of Stalin” feels like the Russian equivalent of “Dr. Strangelove” focusing on incompetent idiots having to deal with problems they were never prepared for. Great dialogue, wonderful performances, and a hilarious pace that never lets up. Grade: B+

“Cornered” (1945) – A man travels to Argentina to find the Nazi who killed his wife, and the film utlimately becomes more about stopping that same Nazi from controlling some crime syndicate or something. It started out great and Dick Powell’s performance really captures the grief and pain he’s going through, but somewhere along the way the film loses its focus. Grade: C+

“Scoob!” (2020) – One of the best children’s movies in the last year, “Scoob!” is colorful, funny, loyal to the source material, and most importantly, fun. It takes Scooby-Doo to a more personal level than he’s ever been while still having a great sense of humor about it all. The opening is touching and the ensuing sequence where they remake one of the classic Scooby-Doo moments is great to see. Even though it’s aimed for little kids, there’s enough here for older fans of Scooby to enjoy this movie. Grade: B

“A Ghost Story” (2017) – Is it cliche to call this film haunting? One benefit I’ll give “A Ghost Story” is that, in the case of other thought-provoking indie films like “Under the Skin” I’d normally be bored out of my mind with so little happening in the film and even less pontificating. And while there are some annoyingly slow or nonsensical moments in “A Ghost Story,” the film really does drive home how distant, cold and worrisome death can be. It certainly has some bizarre artistic choices, but those choices do lead to a point that makes the whole piece worth it. Grade: C+

“Candyman” (1992) – This is a supernatural horror film way ahead of its time. Much like “The Twilight Zone,” “Candyman” uses myths and legends to talk about issues that plague society, and especially societies that often get unheard, especially in the 1990s. Wonderful writing, spectacular performances, some impressive cinematography, and horrifying effects, this one shows why the myth of Candyman has stuck with us for so long. Grade: A-

“I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang” (1932) – For 1932, this film is as politically charged and controversial as Hollywood could be, taking a long, hard look at the dehumanization of the criminal justice system and how it defines those who have been in it. This film is brutally honest and horrifying for its time, but surprisingly thrilling, especially due to Paul Muni’s gripping performance as a man caught up in the mechanisms of a corrupt and petty form of justice, and how that changes him from the inside out. Grade: A+

“Horse Feathers” (1932) – Not the best Marx brothers comedy, but this one is certainly worth watching if only for the climatic football game where the brothers go all out. At times, it feels like a cartoon in how energetic and absurd they get. Grade: C+

“Gattaca” (1997) – A thought-provoking piece of speculative fiction, “Gattaca” explores every aspect of how humanity would change if we went all in on the genetic manipulation, both the good and the bad, especially how that would make the best of us possible but also create a new form of descrimination against those who didn’t have their genetics changed. It’s an effective triumphant story, sold by Ethan Hawke’s emotional performance, with some eye-opening world building. Grade: B+

“The Yearling” (1946) – This is your standard, run-of-the-mill boy and his dog story, except that it’s a baby deer instead of a dog, complete with a coming-of-age story about the boy fighting for his home and growing up a little faster than expected. The best part is certainly the boy’s father, played by Gregory Peck, who has the same likable charm we’ve come to admire from him in works like “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “Roman Holiday.” Grade: C

“Murder by Contract” (1958) – This is a barebones film noir about a hitman with a strict code that he adheres to, with a strange sense of superiority that gives him a rather cool edge. Aside from a memorable soundtrack and the coolness of the main character, this is your basic film noir. Grade: C+

“Da 5 Bloods” (2020) – Describing “Da 5 Bloods” as a strange mix of “Do the Right Thing,” “Apocalypse Now” and “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” would not do this film justice. Much like all of Spike Lee’s best work, this film captures a great pain that is timeless in its relevance, in this case the mistreatment of black soldiers during the Vietnam War and how situations have not improved much since then. Most of this is sold through the tortured performance of Delroy Lindo, a man teetering on the edge of clarity and insanity, and a brilliant fusion of Fred C. Dobbs and Colonel Kurtz. It is eye-opening, impactful, thrilling, visually stunning, and it is Spike Lee in his element. Grade: A

“Underworld U.S.A.” (1961) – If “Mildred Pierce” is the perfect Mother’s Day film noir, then “Underworld U.S.A.” is the perfect Father’s Day noir, about how far one man will go to avenge his old man. What really hits home is that, while we never get to see the father alive, we see just how much he impacts our protagonist (Cliff Robertson) in his day-to-day life, making this a tribute to how much a father influences his son’s life in invisible ways. Grade: B

“San Francisco” (1936) – Aside from the spectacularly executed earthquake special effects and model use that followed that scene, nothing too extraordinary about “San Francisco.” Other than wanting to slap Clark Cable for being the most insensitive, smug, selfish prick on the planet, and that apparently D.W. Griffith co-directed it, which would probably explain why the film wants us to sympathize with the most unlikable man on the planet. Grade: C

“Tokyo Godfathers” (2003) – “San Francisco” could have learned a thing or two from this movie about taking characters that should be unlikable or despised and giving them dimensions, trauma and redemption. Everything about this movie flows together so perfectly, especially the broken homeless family healing each other through actions even they didn’t know they had in themselves. Grade: A-

“A Matter of Life and Death” (1946) – The best way I can describe “A Matter of Life and Death” is as a reverse “Wizard of Oz,” where real life is filled with bright technicolor and new opportunities to explore and love, and the fantastical is shot in black-and-white and is shown to be a dreary, monotonous bureaucracy. If you enjoy “Wizard of Oz,” you should definitely give this one a try. Grade: A-

“The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner” (1962) – Certainly the most angsty, rebellious British film I’ve ever seen. It shows a darker, more honest look at the impoverished side of Britain and the hardships that those people carry. Grade: C+

“I was a Male War Bride” (1949) – One of the better examples of a love-hate relationship I’ve seen in Hollywood movies, where both partners (played by Cary Grant and Ann Sheridan) constantly try to one-up each other in the most showoff-y way possible, which gets on the other’s nerves, while always going out of their way to help the other whenever possible. It is odd that the titular plot of the film, about Cary Grant having to pose as a war bride, only comes in the last 40 minutes, but this light screwball comedy still works throughout. Grade: B

“Chariots of Fire” (1981) – On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from “Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner,” this film is all about proper Englishmen and devotion to that prim and elegant lifestyle above all else. Still, the most interesting thing about “Chariots of Fire” was the soundtrack, mostly because the electronic 80s music feels so strange when used for a film set in the 1920s. Grade: B-

“Earth vs. the Flying Saucers” (1956) – What pushes this film above other 1950s sci-fi movies is a few things. Ray Harryhausen’s effects work on the flying saucers breathes new life into something we often take for granted now, the final battle on Washington D.C. still holds up surprisingly well, especially when combined with other effects that aren’t stop motion, and the romance between the two leads (Hugh Marlowe and Joan Taylor) is charming and never overbearing, making the two leads some of the more likable protagonists in any 1950s sci-fi movie. Grade: B

“The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” (1958) – Going in, I thought the only thing of note was going to be Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion effects, but there are a few other stand out things about this epic fantasy. Namely, Bernard Herrmann’s score is as good as any of his music for Hitchcock’s films, atmospheric and adds a new sense of scope to the many monsters Sinbad must defeat. Still, the Harryhausen’s effects steal the show and take on a life of their own, especially with so many different monsters here, such as a two-headed bird, multiple cyclops, a swash-buckling skeleton, and a fire-breathing dragon. Grade: B

“OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” (2006) – To be a truly great parody, you have to love what you’re parodying. “Cairo, Nest of Spies” might be the best parody since “Airplane!” because it doesn’t just nail the aesthetic, camera techniques, green screen effects and fight choreography of the James Bond movies, but the views and attitudes of the time period too, putting Bond’s gross misogynistic and insensitive views on full display to show just how out of date they are, without having the dimwitted, backwards spy who doesn’t know any better come across as unlikable. This spy parody blows all of the Austin Powers movies out of the water. Grade: A

My Favorite Films of the 2010s

It’s strange to think that we now live in the far off future of the 2020s. But with that new and strange future waiting for us, we also leave behind a decade filled with some of the best movies we have ever known. While there are a lot of negative and overwhelming things about the 2010s that we’ll always remember, whether we want to or not, I believe it is safe to say that this past decade was one of the best for cinema. It allowed the widest range of filmmakers to tell their unique and awe-inspiring stories that forever changed the landscape. From “Get Out” and “Moonlight” to “Lady Bird” and “Roma,” this was the decade of imaginative storytelling.

For me, I got to see far more wonderful movies than I can count. Not only did I get to see nearly every major release in my small town from 2014 onward, but this was a decade that significantly expanded my world view and tastes in cinema, allowing me to see pictures I would have never expected and now I can’t imagine a world without movies like “Spotlight” or “The Social Network.” But there are so many of those stunning films that forever changed cinema that it’s daunting to even narrow them all down to one list. 

So rather than talk about the best movies that changed the decade and movies forever, I’m going to stick with what I know and talk about the movies that changed me. The movies that I will remember forever from the 2010s and ones that I could watch again and again. I also couldn’t do any of these films justice with a short description here, though I do have full length reviews for nearly all of them elsewhere on my blog, so links to those will be included for each of them. These are not necessarily my picks for the best films of the decade (though some of these would be on that list too), but rather these are my absolute favorite and most memorable films of the 2010s (in no particular order…except for the last one).

“The Artist” (2011)

Out of all these picks, “The Artist” is the only one I haven’t talked about at length. But to get to the heart of it, “The Artist” is cinema at its purest. Raw, emotional, visual storytelling at its finest, celebrating how beautiful and tragic cinema can be by crafting a tale that hasn’t been told for nearly 80 years. It’s one thing to make a silent movie in 2011, but it’s another thing entirely to make about the story of how silent cinema faded and the lives that were crushed by that transition. At times, it evokes the whimsy and energy of “Singin’ in the Rain,” while other times the tragedy of being lost in an ever-evolving world like Norma Desmond in “Sunset Boulevard.” It is a timeless tale about why we love movies so much and why they’ll always be relevant, a love letter not just to silent cinema but cinema in general. 

“Her” (2013)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-hopper-8.html

Simple, yet innovative. This is a science fiction piece that understands technology in cinema is not just fiction, but can be relatable and logical yet still fascinating and imaginative. I found myself just as invested in the futuristic Los Angeles as I was in the romance between Theodore and Samantha, finding a love story set in a world not too different from our own. A world where technology might have advanced further than us, and has replaced us in many capacities. Yet “Her” finds a middle ground where humans and technology make each other more desirable. That we wouldn’t be complete without the other. With the same quirky, off-the-wall craziness you can only get out of a Spike Jones film, “Her is one of the most creative and heart-warming films of the decade. 

“La La Land” (2016) and “Whiplash” (2014)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2017/01/movie-review-la-la-land-2016.html
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2015/02/movie-review-whiplash-2014-does-he-want.html

After a lot of consideration, I’ve come to the decision that I cannot decide which of Damien Chazelle’s masterpieces I love more. So rather than pick one, why not just include both in one spot? Though both films do tell me the same thing – that the musical is not dead. Chazelle’s take on the genre uses music more as an emotion or a state of mind that is complimented by a passion for why music, moving music, needs to be shared with the world. In “Whiplash,” this is taken to its most extreme through J.K. Simmons’ character and his anger at a world that doesn’t share his enthusiasm for music and can’t understand why his students don’t care about it as much as he does. While in “La La Land,” that passion is splashed all over the screen through vibrant colors, long shots of stunning choreography that demonstrates why musicals are beautifully unique without ever sacrificing that same harsh reality that “Whiplash” started. While both films are joyous in their own way, they never sugar-coat anything and often show just how cruel and unforgiving the world can be, but also why that passion is something worth fighting for.

 

“The Lego Movie” (2014)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-review-lego-movie-2014.html

There were a large amount of noteworthy animated movies over the last decade – “Inside Out,” “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse,” “Kung Fu Panda 2,” “Zootopia,” “The Wind Rises,” “Kubo and the Two Strings” just to name a few. But none of them made quite as much of an impact on me as “The Lego Movie.” As strange as this is to say about a film meant to sell tiny bricks of plastic that are a pain to step on, “The Lego Movie” might have been the most creative, heartfelt, nostalgic and visually-striking film of the decade. Say what you will about some of the best cinematography of the decade, none of those movies were made up entirely of legos. But beyond the vast cast of characters that seems to cover nearly every franchise in existence and makes it all feel connected, what makes this so important is the twist near the end and the message that comes from it. No other animated movie hit me nearly as hard as that moment when you find out who has really been pulling all the strings and how it fits right at home with the imagination of legos. I didn’t know that I ever wanted a movie about yellow bricks that has Batman, Shaquille O’Neal and Charlie Day playing a crazy astronaut obsessed with spaceships, but now I can’t imagine a world without “The Lego Movie.”  

 

“Mad Max: Fury Road” (2015)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2015/05/movie-review-mad-max-fury-road-2015.html

This film still blows me away. So much is conveyed with little dialogue and visually-rich imagery, creating this hellscape built on madness and cars. It is not only the most high-octane movie of the decade, but also the most authentic action movie of the decade too, with little CGI and epic level action sequences that would make David Lean blush with jealousy. This is what every action movie should aspire to be like – beautiful, detailed in its simplicity, deliciously hand-crafted and satisfying. Any day with “Mad Max: Fury Road” is a lovely day indeed.

“The Martian” (2015)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2015/10/movie-review-martian-2015-best-mars.html

As time has passed, the more I have fallen in love with “The Martian.” I’d describe it now as a comedy that laughs in the face of certain death and takes delight in the small moments of happiness, anything to remind us why it’s wonderful to be alive. Despite films like “Gravity” or “Interstellar” taking giant leaps for exploring the universe in new and creative ways, it’s the heart and honesty of “The Martian” that wins me over every time. Matt Damon gives the best performance of his career, perfectly capturing the highs and lows of having a planet to yourself while refusing to succumb to the dread of dying and working towards another chance to live. “The Martian” is as uplifting as it is hilarious, striking the perfect balance between crisis and serenity. 

“Nightcrawler” (2014)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2014/11/movie-review-nightcrawler-2014.html

If I had to include one gritty and unsettling film from the 2010s, I’d certainly go with the irresistible “Nightcrawler.” Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance might be my second favorite of the decade, as a man so engrossed in his own uncaring and unsympathetic world that he has to go out to prove his worth in any meaningful way. The way he treats others like his pawns or tools yet how it plays so well into the world he creates for himself and the “Man bites dog” mentality of journalism is so highly captivating. Watching this man try to conquer the world in his own way is a treat all on its own, especially once he starts to succeed at it. 

“Parasite” (2019)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2019/12/movie-review-parasite-2019.html

While I tried to stay away from more recent films that haven’t had as much time for reflection as the other films on this list, I keep coming back to Bong-Joon Ho’s immensely captivating genre-bender. Not only is the film able to effortlessly bounce between being a thriller, comedy and social commentary, but it is the most unpredictable experience of the decade. With each scene, it feels like the film could spring off a million different ways, always keeping the audience guessing as to which path it will take, and yet Bong-Joon Ho often picks none of those million possibilities and goes off in a completely different and yet still fascinating path no one could have expected. “Parasite” makes storytelling as creative and original as it was when we first heard stories and reminds me why cinematic storytelling can be so fun in the first place. 

“Shin Godzilla” (2016)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2016/10/movie-review-shin-godzilla-2016.html

I tried desperately to think of a movie that I loved more than “Shin Godzilla” from the 2010s, and I could only come with a few movies, and certainly no other kaiju films. When I think of a modern monster movie, one that portrays a honest depiction of what would happen if there ever was a giant monster running around, “Shin Godzilla” captures that perfectly. The dread and uncertainty of a creature that defies all the laws of nature and the cold reality that scared, tired and confused men are in charge of dealing with that creature is terrifying in its own right. Democracy was not meant to handle a nearly indestructible monster that destroys everything in its path. And even beyond that, this version of Godzilla is the most terrifying since the original monster, leading to monster scenes that are just as intense and gripping as the scenes with the government, and helped by wonderfully dynamic cinematography. Lastly, there’s the national identity of Japan on full display as the film makes Japan the main character with its demeanor, ideals and fears bared for everyone, leading to a climax that is triumphant as it is exhilarating.  

“The Shape of Water” (2017)
http://gotengoxgodzilla.blogspot.com/2018/01/movie-review-shape-of-water-2017.html

Despite everything else being in no particular order, “The Shape of Water” is, without a doubt, my favorite movie of the 2010s. From the opening scenes of finding joy in the small moments of happiness like the smell of chocolate in the air to tap dancing after watching in on TV, to the transparently wicked Michael Shannon soaking up every minute he has a chance to assert his authority, to the hauntingly beautiful dream dance sequence that brings me to tears every time, there is no shortage of wonder and awe in this movie. But what really brings it all together is Sally Hawkins giving my favorite performance of the decade, so raw and emotionally gripping as she acts her heart out in every scene without ever saying a word. She commands the screen, not like Michael Shannon’s intensity, but through her vulnerability. “The Shape of Water” is joy in its purest form, capturing the majesty and imagination that cinema can offer without ever shying away from the darker, more horrific sides of that imagination that leads to powerful emotional moments that I’ll never forget. And it is because of Guillermo del Toro’s passion for filmmaking, passion for the fantastical and passion for life that makes “The Shape of Water” the most rewarding movie of the decade. 

This has been a decade of so many wonderful movies that I’m sure there’s a bunch that I missed or left out or possibly some that I didn’t even see. So if you have any of those, be sure to let me know what your favorite movies of the 2010s were!

Paul's 2018 Academy Award Predictions

It's that time of year again, where Oscar season is upon us and everyone is guessing who they think will be taking home the big awards this year. As I recall, last year I got most of my predictions right, although I'm still blown away how the awards ended last year with the mix up on Best Picture. I want to say that this year doesn't have as many obvious picks for awards as last year, where many were guaranteed their award before the show even started. This year, it honestly feels like many of these awards deserve to go to many of the nominees.

But let's see if I can get as many right this year as I did last year. As always, I'm skipping the Shorts, Documentaries and Foreign Film awards, since I've never seen any of those nominees, so my predictions would just be a random guess.

Best Visual Effects:

Who Should Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

Who I Want to Win: "Kong: Skull Island"

Who Will Win: "War for the Planet of the Apes"

Lots of monkeys and apes in the visual effects category this year. The most visually stunning film of the year was certainly "Blade Runner," but in terms of effects created for the screen, it's hard to go against the one that made an entire army and civilization of apes. This award usually goes to the film that creates an entire world out of CGI, and even though I didn't care for the film, the one that did this the best this year was "War for the Planet of the Apes."

Best Costume Design:

Who Should Win: "Phantom Thread"

Who I Want to Win: "Phantom Thread"

Who Will Win: "Phantom Thread"

I feel like this one is a given. The whole film is based around costumes and clothes, so of course it has to have the best design award locked up. Even though I don't know the first thing about fashion, I do know that if this award goes to any film other than "Phantom Thread," it'll be a travesty.

Best Makeup and Hair:

Who Should Win: "Darkest Hour"

Who I Want to Win: "Darkest Hour"

Who Will Win: "Darkest Hour"

Another given. Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill wouldn't have been half as good if the make-up on him wasn't convincing. He disappeared in that role, and a lot of that is thanks to the make-up.

Best Original Song:

Who Should Win: "Remember Me" from "Coco"

Who I Want to Win: "Remember Me" from "Coco"

Who Will Win: "Stand Up for Something" from "Marshall"

"Remember Me" is the song I heard in a movie in 2017 that really stood out to me, and it really left an emotional impact every time it was used in "Coco," so I honestly hope that it wins this award. That being said, they really love to give this award to big-name musicians and Common wrote "Stand Up for Something," so I can see it winning this award.

Best Original Score:

Who Should Win: "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Dunkirk"

This one is a bit trickier than I thought. One the one hand, the scores of "Three Billboard" and "Shape of Water" truly compliment the actions and mood of the film perfectly, but "Dunkirk"'s score added the emotional and dramatic punch that the otherwise silent film needed. "Dunkirk" wouldn't have been half as powerful if the score wasn't there to amplify the visuals. So, for me at least, I think that'll give "Dunkirk" the win here.

Best Production Design:

Who Should Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

I honestly want "Shape of Water" to win everything that it's nominated for, but there's no doubt in my mind that "Blade Runner" will walk away with this one, for making an fully convincing depiction of the future in all of lavish and grotesque details.

Best Sound Mixing:

Who Should Win: "Dunkirk"

Who I Want to Win: "Baby Driver"

Who Will Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

For the award given to the best creation of its sound effects, I would love to see "Baby Driver" walk away with some kind of award after how well it used its sound effects. But I can see "Blade Runner" winning many, if not all, of the technical awards this year much like "Mad Max: Fury Road" did a few years ago.

Best Sound Editing:

Who Should Win: "Dunkirk"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

As for the best use of merging those sound effects into a convincing and artistic film, I stick with what I said above and say that "Blade Runner" will win this one as well. Although, I would like to think that "Dunkirk" has a better chance of winning this award than Sound Mixing.

Best Editing:

Who Should Win: "Baby Driver"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Dunkirk"

This might be the one I've hard the hardest time deciding, because I can't think of a whole of outstanding achievements in editing this year. "Baby Driver" does come to mind, but I don't think it was popular enough to get the win here. If I had to pick one though, I do think "Dunkirk" would be the hardest of the nominated films to edit, so I'll pick that to win.

Best Cinematography:

Who Should Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Blade Runner 2049"

Roger Deakens finally wins the award for Best Cinematography on his most visually stunning film to date. The award has alluded him after creating visual masterpieces like "No Country For Old Men" and "Skyfall," but there's no doubt in my mind that "Blade Runner 2049" is the most visually pleasing film of 2017 and that he deserves to win this award.

Best Original Screenplay:

Who Should Win: "Three Billboard Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Lady Bird"

Tons of great original ideas and screenplays in 2017, with just about all of them being true stand outs, which makes it hard to pick just one. My gut is telling me to stick with "Lady Bird" though, since it felt the most authentic and natural of all the nominees, especially when it came to the dialogue.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Who Should Win: "Logan"

Who I Want to Win: "The Disaster Artist"

Who Will Win: "Molly's Game"

I'm not entirely sure about this one. I really want "The Disaster Artist" to walk away with the award, especially since this is its only nomination, but its not mainstream enough to get it. The voters will immediately be against "Logan" for being a super hero movie, so it won't win. That leads me to believe that Aaron Sorkin will get the award again for "Molly's Game."

Best Animated Feature:

Who Should Win: "Coco"

Who I Want to Win: "Coco"

Who Will Win: "Coco"

It's Pixar...and one of the few good animated films of the year...and I'm upset that "The Lego Batman Movie" didn't get nominated for this one. Does the Academy just despise these Lego movies, or do they just not see them as animation?

Best Director:

Who Should Win: Greta Gerwig for "Lady Bird"

Who I Want to Win: Guillermo del Toro for "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: Guillermo del Toro for "The Shape of Water"

And so we come the biggest awards of the night. Best Director really comes down to either Greta Gerwig or Guillermo del Toro, for different reasons. This is Gerwig's directorial debut and she really knocked it out of the park on this one. While del Toro created this stunning fantasy exactly the way that he wanted to make it. I will say that I've read articles about how everyone's convinced that del Toro is going to win this award, mostly for being snubbed back when "Pan's Labyrinth" came out, so it makes me very happy to say that I think Guillermo will win this one.

Best Supporting Actress:

Who Should Win: Laurie Metcalf for "Lady Bird"

Who I Want to Win: Laurie Metcalf for "Lady Bird"

Who Will Win: Laurie Metcalf for "Lady Bird"

Really the only obvious choice out of the acting categories this year. While I think there's a slight chance that Allison Janney for "I, Tonya" could win this award, Laurie Metcalf was the stand out performance in a film full of stand out performances. She wins from sheer honesty alone.

Best Supporting Actor:

Who Should Win: Christopher Plummer for "All the Money in the World"

Who I Want to Win: Sam Rockwell for "Three Billboard Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who Will Win: Sam Rockwell for "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Sam Rockwell is one of the most underrated yet passionate actors in Hollywood and I would love for him to keep getting more recognition. His performance in "Three Billboard" was one of the most mesmerizing roles I've ever seen, simultaneously making me love and hate this man. That is an unbelievable accomplishment, and he deserves the award for that alone.

Best Actress:

Who Should Win: Frances McDormand for "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who I Want to Win: Sally Hawkins for "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: Frances McDormand for "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

This is the most difficult award for me to pick for this year's Oscars, because I want Sally Hawkins to win with every fiber of my being. Everything is telling me that she deserves to win for giving honestly the best performance I've seen in the last five years from anybody. I would love it if she won...but I don't think she will, not when Frances McDormand is her competition. I think it'll come down to those two, but in the end, McDormand's role speaks to the current state of our world and that's going to play a big factor for the voters.

Best Actor:

Who Should Win: Daniel Kaluuya for "Get Out"

Who I Want to Win: Gary Oldman for "Darkest Hour"

Who Will Win: Gary Oldman for "Darkest Hour"

Much like what Eddie Redmayne did in "The Theory of Everything," Gary Oldman disappeared in his performance as he portrayed one of the most famous and well-known Englishman of the all time. While I think Daniel Kaluuya and Daniel Day-Lewis have a chance to win, it's going to be very hard to compete against Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill.

Best Picture:

Who Should Win: "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who I Want to Win: "The Shape of Water"

Who Will Win: "Lady Bird"

And so we come to the biggest award of the night...hopefully there isn't another screw up like last years' awards.

Honestly, there are plenty of reasons to say why films like "Call Me by Your Name," "Dunkirk," "Get Out," "Lady Bird," "The Shape of Water" and "Three Billboards" should walk away with Best Picture, so that makes picking a clear winner very difficult.

I'll start by saying films like "Darkest Hour," "The Post" and "Phantom Thread" are just happy to be included. I don't think any of those three have a chance at winning Best Picture.

"Call Me by Your Name" is vastly different from any other film nominated as well as any other coming-of-age tale I've ever seen. It has a chance, but a slim one, since I don't think the Academy would have two films about homosexuality win Best Picture in back-to-back years (since "Moonlight" won last year).

Everyone loves a good war film, and "Dunkirk" might be the best war film since "Apocalypse Now." But the Academy has yet to recognize Christopher Nolan as anything more than a big-budget popcorn filmmaker, so I think that'll hurt "Dunkirk" for this award.

While I think "The Shape of Water" is the best film of the year and one of the best theatrical releases in many years, I don't think the Academy shares my enthusiasm. The Academy rarely goes for fantasies, and it's even rarer when they go for a horror film. So one that combines those two genres is even less likely to win. It would be stellar if it won, and I would be cheering all year if it did, but I just don't see it happening.

"Get Out" has a real chance of winning this award and it would not surprise me if it did. But if there's any mark against "Get Out," it is the February release. If "Get Out" came out in October or November of 2017, I think it would absolutely win Best Picture. But because it was released in February of last year, most of the voters will have forgotten about it by now. I think it has the best chance of any of the films I've covered so far, but it's just barely edged out by the final two films - "Lady Bird" and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri."

"Lady Bird" is here because it is the most authentic, honest and respectful film of 2017, while "Three Billboards" is a fiery passion piece that, at times, reflects the mood and anger many people in this country have right now against their freedom of speech and law enforcement. That makes this a very difficult choice between the two. I can see both of them winning Best Picture over the other, but my gut is telling me that "Three Billboards" might have rubbed some people the wrong way and that might hurt its chances. Therefore, I think this years' winner for Best Picture will be "Lady Bird."

Honestly, this has been one of the better years for cinema in a while and many of the films nominated for these awards absolutely deserve to win, which makes the competition for these awards to great this year. I eagerly wait for this years' Academy Awards and can't wait to see how my picks and predictions compare to what actually happens. Here's hoping that the ceremony itself is as memorable as last years', just not quite in the same way.

Movie Review - "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" (2017)

I'm not entirely sure if I should consider "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" as being nostalgic or not. While it is a sequel to the 1995 film with Robin Williams, outside of a few minor references here and there, it doesn't really feel like a sequel since it takes everything in a vastly different direction. The original film brought the game to the real world and treated its massive epic scale as if it had no consequences. The new film is less about the game and more about trying to turn make a video game story into a movie plot.

Strangely enough, I remember watching "Jumanji" plenty of times when I was a kid, but never really liking it. The film was just something that could be put on in the background and was sometimes enjoyable because of Robin Williams, but that was about it. So even if you could consider this movie nostalgic, it didn't work on me at all. "Welcome to the Jungle" did not make me pin for the old movie, nor did it harken back to my childhood, because both films don't feel connected at all.

"Welcome to the Jungle" picks up right where the first "Jumanji" left off, as someone discovers the haunted board game on the beach. The father gives the game to his son Alex, but is turned off by it being a board game and not a video game. But it turns out Jumanji is a vengeful and all-knowing piece of wood and magically turns itself into a video game cartridge that sucks Alex inside the game.

Cut to present day when four vastly different teenagers are sent to detention and find the Jumanji video game. Not knowing what awaits them, they all select their avatars and get sucked inside as well, turning into their selected characters, including the muscle-head Dr. Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson), the tiny yet intelligent Franklin "Mouse" Finbar (Kevin Hart), the cartographer Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black) and the commando dance fighter Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). Together, these four have to overcome their differences and personal problems to make it out of the video game before they lose their three lives and get a game over.

The best part of this movie is watching actors like Dwayne Johnson and Jack Black act like teenagers in their own bodies, always astounded at the things they can or cannot do. In the real world, Dwayne Johnson's player is a guy afraid of everything, always letting that fear consume him. So it's pretty good seeing someone the size of the Rock always acting like the tiniest animal is a tiger ready to pounce. But the best one of these is Jack Black, whose player is a self-centered teenage girl. Not only is it hilarious to see Jack Black acting like a girl who loves her body, but this leads to some of the best jokes when she has to learn to go to the bathroom as a man. She also goes through the most personal growth, learning that life shouldn't just be about looking beautiful and her phone, so that's a big plus as well.

Other than that, "Welcome to the Jungle" is all about mocking and adapting to the many tropes of video games. From in-game cut scenes, to extra lives, to character attributes and weaknesses, to everything being broken up into separate missions and the non-playable characters only having a few dialogue options, this movie goes all in on video games. Though I do find this odd, considering that the Jumanji cartridge was untouched since 1995 when the most complex games were "Super Mario 64" and "Street Fighter II," yet this game has as many intricate parts and choices as games like "Skyrim" and "Grand Theft Auto V."

And if that last paragraph scared you off with all my video game lingo, then just know that "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" certainly isn't for you.

In any case, this film is a fine piece of dumb mindless action with some decent comedy mixed in. It really isn't anything special, but I don't regret seeing it. The film looks nice with its jungle backdrop and makes you feel like you're going along on this video game adventure. The character development for these teens feels natural and the whole body swap angle is used well throughout the film, especially with the teenage girl being in the body of Jack Black. This was a fun ride, but probably not one I'll be checking out again any time soon.

Final Grade: C+

Movie Review - "The Shape Of Water" (2017)

One of the reasons I adore cinema so much is because filmmakers can use it as a platform to say anything they want about the world. Whether they want to talk about how the world needs journalism in "The Post," make a statement about growing up in a Post-9/11 world in "Lady Bird," or something as simple and relatable as growing out of adolescence and discovering yourself in "Call Me by Your Name," film can be a gateway into our society as much as it is into our hearts and souls. But with all of these profound statements and new perspectives on life, we so often forget just how beautiful and joyous film can be at its most basic and simple level.

Sometimes you don't need to remind the audience of the world we live in or our dilemmas. There are times when the most powerful films are the ones that remind us that there is magic and wonders in this world, and we're watching one of those right now.

For this reason, I have no problem saying that Guillermo del Toro's "The Shape of Water" is not only the best film of the year, but one of the greatest fantasies of all time. This is a film built on passion and raw unbridled love for movies in its purest form. Every shot of this film is gorgeous, perfectly thought-out to the point of being visual poetry. The music is phenomenal as it adds an even bigger emotional weight to the story, which is where fantasy and reality blend together flawlessly in a way that only del Toro can. Even performances that range from stellar to some of the most emotionally captivating I've ever seen. "The Shape of Water" is an excellent example of why we adore cinema.

The film follows Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins), a mute who works as a janitor at a secret government lab in Baltimore. Even though she doesn't have the most glamorous life, she still makes the most of it, living above a movie theater while spending time with her elderly neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins) as they watch classic movies and television, and enjoying her conversations with co-worker Zelda (Octavia Spencer) while trying to master the dance moves she sees on television.

But her life becomes very difference when the very controlling Colonel Strickland (Michael Shannon) brings in a top secret specimen into the lab that he's brought all the way from South America. Elisa quickly finds out this specimen is alive and intelligent, and she develops a close friendship with the creature (Doug Jones) despite the watchful menacing eye of Colonel Strickland.

I would describe "The Shape of Water" as "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" meets "Edward Scissorhands," with Guillermo del Toro's unique film style for blending reality and fantasy in a fairy tale-like way. The film harkens back to a time long since passed, admiring some aspects like the simplicity of the time, without shying away from some of the harsher uglier parts of the early 1960s. While at other times, there are moments of true horror that one can only get from a monster movie, blurring the line between whether the true monster is man or creature. All the while never losing its love and passion for movies and its style.

The main reason I think "The Shape of Water" works is due to Sally Hawkins' performance as Elisa and how she gives the most emotionally gripping and raw performance I've ever seen. Every scene Hawkins is in, she is acting her heart out and without ever saying a word. It feels like a silent film performance but with far more emotional weight than any silent role I can remember. There were at least three scenes that almost made me cry in this film, and it was always because of Sally Hawkins breath-taking job as showing us a woman that just wants to have her chance at happiness. Whether she's bursting with joy, upset beyond all reason, or wallowing in despair, Hawkins gives this role everything she has.

Then again, every single performance in "The Shape of Water" is a standout. Richard Jenkins is lovable in his attempt at trying to find some sort of meaning in his old age, Octavia Spencer gives us her usual fiery attitude that I can't help but love, even Michael Stuhlbarg plays a scientist who wants to protect the creature and he has a great duality to his character.

But the two other stand outs are Michael Shannon and Doug Jones. Shannon is ruthless, selfish and completely absorbed in his own ego that it makes his evil actions just as entertaining to watch as Hawkins' performance. Strickland is one of the best villains I've seen in a long time and is the slimy glue that holds this film together. Jones plays the creature and adds a charm to the character that this story truly needed. Even under all of that makeup and latex, Jones creates something that is both imposing and surprisingly kind.

Overall, I love every second of "The Shape of Water." It is bursting with vibrant and colorful storytelling that blends together fantasy, horror and reality in a way that leaves me speechless. The film is ruthless and gross at times, but packs just enough of an emotional punch to make those moments stand out even more. These are all some of the best performances I've seen all year and they make this story of love and passion in the face of a ruthless world so much more powerful than it already was. While this may not be a film for everyone, there's no denying that "The Shape of Water" passion for filmmaking will leave an impression on most audiences as it did with me.

Final Grade: A+

Movie Review - "Call Me by Your Name" (2017)

I have never seen something quite like "Call Me by Your Name" before that made it hard to turn away from. While there have been plenty of coming-of-age tales and movies that depict a summer romance, "Call Me by Your Name" not only goes all-in on the lust and passion these characters feel for each other, but I've honestly never seen something like that done with a homosexual relationship. This might turn some people away, but for those who want to see a film give us every bit of love and desire it can muster then this film will not disappoint.

Set in Northern Italy in 1983, the film follows 17-year old Elio Perlman (Timothee Chalamet) on summer vacation with his parents out in the country. Elio's father is a professor of archaeology and invites American graduate student Oliver (Armie Hammer) to live with them for the summer and help with the professor's work. Elio and Oliver initally butt heads due to their vastly different personalities, but eventually develop a solid friendship that very quickly becomes much more than that.

If there is one word that describes "Call Me by Your Name" it would be desire. While Elio is an introvert and Oliver is extreme extrovert, it is clear that both of them want more out of life and are looking for the opportunity to explore everything that it has to offer. And once they've had a taste of passion and lust, they can hardly contain themselves. They treat life like it's one big firework and give it everything they have, even if it all explodes at once. These characters are curious and horny, which makes their quiet and tender scenes so fascinating to observe.

I have never seen romance done quite like this before in a movie, where so much heat and appetite is on display, but they're so gentle with each other. We all have an idea of what love looks like in the movies, and "Call Me by Your Name" turns that on its head in more ways than one. From the way Elio and Oliver talk about classical music and what they want to do with the summer to the kind way they touch and hold one another, this is not what you would expect out of an Italian romance.

For this reason, I would certainly recommend "Call Me by Your Name." It respects the different ways these characters show their affection for each other. It also gives us some great acting from Armie Hammer and a breakthrough role for Timothee Chalamet as a confused quiet boy who goes through one of the most difficult and painful paths a teenager can take and comes out of it a much stronger man. I respect "Call Me by Your Name" for the many chances it takes and its approach to the Hollywood romance, and this is certainly a film worth your time.

Final Grade: B

Movie Review - "Phantom Thread" (2017)

This is one of the few times I went into a movie knowing absolutely nothing about it. All I knew was that Paul Thomas Anderson, the mind behind "There Will Be Blood," "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia," directed it and that this is supposedly Daniel Day-Lewis' last film role. What I got out of this was a film that didn't immediately seem attractive to me by setting it in the world of women's dressmaking (if there's one thing in this world I don't care to learn about, it is fashion), yet "Phantom Thread" takes a strange psychological thriller turn that almost feels like a dark modern fairy tale.

In a odd way, you have to respect "Phantom Thread" for taking a subject that would turn most people away and making it into a film that's hard to take your eyes off of. P.T. Anderson does this by creating an unsettling atmosphere and giving the film a meticulously slow pace, almost like we can see the rusty gears in these characters heads turning methodically. It also helps that Daniel Day-Lewis' performance adds a layer of quiet class, while still coming off as questionably creepy when left to his own devices. In fact, that's the word I would use to describe "Phantom Thread" - creepy.

Set in 1950s England, Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) is one of the most prestigious dress makers in the world, crafting all sorts of gorgeous ball gowns and wedding dresses for the most elegant women around the globe. Reynolds is a skilled designer who likes to keep to himself and his work, but is also very controlling and set in his ways. He keeps having dreams about his mother watching over him from heaven, causing him to lose focus on his work. His equally controlling sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) orders him to take a break and stay out in their old home on the country side, which he does and has a chance encounter with a waitress at the local restaurant, Alma (Vicky Krieps). The two hit it off, even after he introduces her to the world of fashion, but things very quickly become tense and awkward as their lives become more and more integrated.

A lot of the power in "Phantom Thread" comes from what isn't said or addressed, or rather what is said through the fashion and the quiet distance between these characters. Reynolds and Alma's relationship is one built on passion and admiration, but at the same time they hardly address the hidden contempt they feel for each other outside of the dresses and garments.

But the strangest relationship of all is between Reynolds and his sister Cyril and how it comes across like they share the same mind at times. How there's this undeniable love and trust between the two of them, built on years of growth and business, yet at the same time an undertone that there might be something more than that, which goes unaddressed, only adding to the creepy factor as Cyril looks at Alma like she's contemplating how to kill her.

Oddly enough, the main reason "Phantom Thread" works as a strange eerie thriller is because of P.T. Anderson's direction. Even though he's never made a film quite like this, only he could handle this subject with such personal passion and yet a flawed hubris.

He always paints his characters in such a selfish light that makes it hard to root for them, like Daniel Planview in "There Will Be Blood" or Frank Mackey in "Magnolia," but at the same time there's an undeniable strive for greatness in all his characters that make them so human. Reynolds Woodcock and Alma are the essence of that, set in a cutthroat world while the two make that world more difficult for the other.

Overall, "Phantom Thread" was not at all what I expected it to be, but was enthralling nonetheless. The atmosphere is toxic and unnerving, and the slow pacing only makes the mood more unsettling. The three lead performances are subtle when they need to be, and over-the-top to make the more dramatic moments stand out. Anderson's direction is the icing on the cake to make this the best thriller in recent memory. Even if you know nothing about this movie like I did, or turned away because of the subject matter, I would suggest giving "Phantom Thread" another chance to impress you.

Final Grade: B+

Movie Review - "Darkest Hour" (2017)

I get a similar feeling about "Darkest Hour" as I did with "The Theory of Everything" - a historical biopic about one of the most fascinating men in the history of modern society that is held together almost entirely by one stellar performance and is otherwise an above-average movie-going experience. Like with the tale of Stephen Hawking's youth and journey through science and faith being bound by Eddie Redmayne's performance, "Darkest Hour" gives us a bleak tale about Winston Churchill's struggle to keep the British empire together when it needs hope the most and its biggest claim to fame is Gary Oldman's role as Churchill and how he practically disappears in Churchill's enormously impressive shoes.

But outside of Oldman's performance, there really isn't much to "Darkest Hour." While the atmosphere is heavy and filled with a sense of looming dread and the dialogue can be fun and inventive, the cinematography is drab, the pacing is tedious, and the acting outside of Oldman ranges from okay to passable. The main reason to watch "Darkest Hour" is to see just how Gary Oldman was able to pull this performance off and to hear all the witty and intelligent dialogue he has.

Set in May 1940 as the Nazis take hold over France and begin to take over Western Europe, the British Parliament grows more worried every day that their current prime minister is unfit to lead when war is on its way and demand that he resign so they can choose a new prime minister. After much deliberation, Parliament reluctantly chooses Winston Churchill (Oldman) to be the new prime minister, because he's the only one the opposition would approve of. Churchill, being a difficult, stubborn man who does everything mostly for himself and his pride, does not want to be prime minister, especially during a time of war. But, with no other choice and England running out of time, Winston agrees despite not having the support he truly needs to succeed.

Oldman is brilliant as Winston Churchill, practically disappearing into his role and showing us a man who was far more than just inspirational quotes. I will give the movie credit for taking a difficult man who refuses to change and turning him into such a likable, relatable character, and I feel like we can thank Oldman's subtle gestures and fiery moments for that. Even if I wasn't able to understand every mumbly word he said, the passion in the way he talked and the emotions on his face conveyed everything he was trying to say, from anger and heartbreak to compassion and trust.

There is certainly a quiet power to "Darkest Hour" and how it perfectly reflected the mood and atmosphere of England at that time, while also showing what Winston Churchill brought to that mood. Some of the better moments in this movie are shots and scenes of average people walking in the street and seeing how they're taking this news, to see how the war is affecting the homeland and its people, wondering if they'll even have a homeland soon enough. Churchill's secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) adds a breath of fresh air to the film by keeping it grounded in reality, reminding us that there is more at stake here than just faceless soldiers and one man's pride.

However, the pacing does really bring "Darkest Hour" down, as it slows some scenes down to a crawl. Some scenes go on far longer than need to, like many of the encounters with the former prime minister, while others repeat many of the same beats that make the film feel repetitive at times. While the pacing starts out nicely, building up Churchill's reveal and his rise to power, it does get steadily worse as the film goes on.

Overall, "Darkest Hour" is an above-average war film that analyzes the political and domestic effect WWII had on Britain, bolstered by a top-class performance from Gary Oldman. Even at its worst, the film is still serviceable as a bio-pic of Winston Churchill. While it can be bleak and unforgiving at times, it offers a harsh look at Britain that is often overlooked, which makes this one worth seeing.

Final Grade: C+

Movie Review - "Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters" (2017)

So yeah, there's a new Godzilla movie out on Netflix. Not only that, it is the first animated Godzilla film and it is the first part in a trilogy of movies that takes a drastically different turn with the series.

So why do I feel like the first installment, "Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters," was a bit of a disappointment? Well, more accurately, the word I would use to describe this film is "underwhelming."

As the first part of a trilogy, it does its job of setting up this whole new world of monsters and the conflict our characters face. But it does everything so by the numbers that it doesn't feel like it has any life to it, especially from these dull and rather emotionless characters. And then there's Godzilla, who doesn't really do anything Godzilla-related other than be big and imposing. They could have literally removed the word "Godzilla" from this movie and nothing would have been lost, which is extremely disappointing after "Shin Godzilla" breathed new life into the franchise.

In the late 20th century, the planet is overrun with giant monsters (all of which are Toho monsters from other films including "Godzilla 2000" and "Dogora"), causing the governments of the world to throw everything they have to defeat these monsters. Eventually though, they're all defeated by the most powerful monster of all - Godzilla. In a desperate attempt to stop the final monster, the world leaders unleash everything they have at Godzilla, launching nearly 200 nuclear missiles at him - they don't even leave a scratch on him.

Since their last hope failed, Godzilla now roams the planet unopposed, destroying everything in his path without remorse or concern. With the after effects of 200 nuclear missiles looming in the atmosphere and no chance of defeating Godzilla, the human race flees the Earth in a desperate attempt to locate a suitable planet elsewhere, leaving Godzilla the lone ruler of Earth.

All of this is told to us through flashbacks in the first few minutes of the movie, along with humans getting aid from alien races that also want to call Earth their home and want to fight Godzilla. Honestly, this is the most interesting part of the movie - simply hearing about how the human race collapsed in the face of giant monsters and their impossible fight against Godzilla. I want to see that as the movie, at least then we'd get to see Godzilla fight monsters like Dogora and Dagarha from "Rebirth of Mothra II."

Instead, what we get is a hard cut to 20 years in the future, when the surviving human race makes it to a planet they always thought was going to be their new home, only to find out the surface of this planet is uninhabitable. With the ship running low on supplies and fuel, the leaders calculate that it would be impossible to find another suitable planet before they all died from starvation or running out of oxygen. They come to one conclusion - return to Earth via a subspace warp jump and hope that conditions have returned to normal and that Godzilla is long gone.

So now Godzilla is taking technology directly from Star Trek? I'm surprisingly okay with this development.

As it turns out, the scientists miscalculated how much time would have passed while they were in subspace. They thought only 1,000 years would pass, but it ends up being around 20,000 years and the Earth has changed significantly. The surface is still inhabitable, but it is covered in a thick fog (that turns out to be plant spores that release radiation into the atmosphere) and Godzilla-like dragons fly throughout the skies.

The whole idea of this trilogy seems to be that, while leaving Godzilla unattended on Earth for 20,000 years, he has become the top of the food chain and now the planet bends to his presence. An interesting concept that the film tries to explore, especially when we learn more about how Godzilla has changed the course of the planet and what that has done to him. But they don't put a big focus on this, instead going for the humans' struggle to retake the planet and their battle plan against Godzilla.

Everything about these characters feels utterly generic that it feels forced. Our protagonist is an angsty young man that wants revenge against Godzilla for killing his parents and constantly makes dumb speeches about how humanity needs to fight Godzilla to get our home back.

Great, another young adult main character that exists only to even the score against a giant fire-breathing monster! It's not like that's exactly the same motivation for most protagonists in the Heisei and Millennium series. Oh wait...

I'm also not a fan of the animation style at all. Everything about it feels block and unnatural, like everyone is a computer with very robotic unrealistic movements. It's like I'm watching old PlayStation 1 video game cut scenes, not an animated film that came out in 2017. I realize this CG-style is faster and cheaper than hand-drawn animation, but this style has no polish or life to it. None of this film looks good, it is an ugly CG-filled mess.

Now that I've officially looked at every Godzilla film and ranked them from best to worst, you're probably wondering where I would rank "Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters." Well, after watching this film only once, I would say this film is probably somewhere in the mid-20s, right around "Godzilla X MechaGodzilla" and "Godzilla 2000." It is not the worst thing that involves Godzilla, certainly not insultingly bad like the 1998 American film or "Godzilla: Final Wars," but it is so bland and uninspired that I can't say this is a good Godzilla film either.

Granted, this is just the first installment in a trilogy that tells one continuous story, so we've only seen a third of the full picture. For the time being, I'll cut "Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters" some slack, especially with a reveal at the end that was genuinely shocking, and wait patiently for the final two installments. However, I still feel like the opening flashback was the best part of the film and that should have been the focus of this first entry.

My biggest complaint is that it doesn't seem to care about what made the Godzilla franchise so endearing and memorable, for-going most monster interactions and instead tell a forgettable story told in the most unimaginative ways using piss-poor animation. If you're a long time Godzilla fan like me, or even a casual fan of monsters or Godzilla, you probably won't care for "Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters." Here's hoping the rest of the trilogy gets better.

Final Grade: C-