Note: This review is not at all comprehensive; what you need to know is that the film gets everything right, and it has the committed performance of an actor who helped bring us the best incarnation of one of the greatest fictional villains of all time.

I love this movie so very much. It feels weird for me to use that word, "love", but it is the first thing to pop into my mind, and it is most accurate. This is my second favorite film of all the ones that I have watched; even as I go further ahead in time and watch more and more movies, The Dark Knight still brings about awe in me. This is the rare film where If I see that it is playing on TV I drop whatever I am doing (even if I am trying to make a deadline), sit down, and watch until either the end or as long as I can before life calls.

And for the more watchful viewer, I want to point out something: The Dark Knight winks at past Batman adaptations by replaying some moments in different scenarios. One such example is that near the end of Tim Burton's Batman the Joker asks the Batwing in the sky to "come to" him, observes as all shots fired at him miss, and then proceeds to send one bullet into the sky as Batman passes overhead. Now, when director Christopher Nolan proceeds to introduce to us his vision of the Joker, he takes that same kind of end payoff setup and gives us not only a reason for why Batman misses, this time swerving the Batcycle out of the way and crashing, but arguably in that moment also begins to establish how the Joker has the guts and intelligence to do what no other villain can and tear Batman apart from the inside out. The Joker walks forward shooting his gun, growling for Batman to hit him (the line itself coming from Batman Returns), and proves that as long as Batman carries a personal cross of responsibility over his shoulders he can be exploited and played like a fiddle. This is the validation the Joker was waiting for, and with this he assures himself that Batman is the lovable play-toy that he thought he might turn out to be.

Nolan takes the knowledge we already have of the Batman mythos and gives it weight, spark, depth, sincerity, dexterity, and grandeur in his Dark Knight trilogy, the second film, The Dark Knight, being the pivotal center of it all. It is a film that understands the allure of darkness, sees how it can efficiently spread, and then presents us with the facts regarding the realities of honor, strength, and influence and the realities that passions can construct inside of us, the most twisted of all being those that see the faults in others' realities and can link the faults to the endurance of their own self-principles, channeling energy and free thought into the measured manipulation of society. How the citizens of Gotham view Batman and explain their emotions through what he stands for is enough to spark a conversation of its own, especially if one applies how Bruce Wayne created this image and how it defines both what he sees in himself and what he sees in others.

When The Dark Knight first came out it seemed to excite conversation; what I have observed in the past nine years is that it continues to do so, and the achievements it pulls off in areas across the board doesn't hurt its chances at being viewed as a milestone in the history of entertainment and art either.  Even more than that, it is one of the greatest films ever made.  Yeah, I went there.
My rating: 5/5

Well, here we are again.  Another film in The Conjuring (Extended) Universe.  It might not be well known by everyone, but I am a big fan of this series.  The first movie in the franchise even made it onto my list of favorite films.  I state this so that you know that whenever I watch a new installment I am already biased in support of it.  However, since I don't like assigning a film a rating unless I have already seen it, and I begrudgingly give good ratings to movies that I end up not liking, I try to be honest in my final assessment of a film.

The Conjuring was a big deal to me when I first saw it.  For the rest of that day I kept talking about it to anyone who would listen.  Annabelle was a disappointment, cheaply knocking off other films, showcasing a range of characters who did not know how to act intelligently, and drawing viewers into a mean-spirited and nasty atmosphere that threatened to suffocate.  The Conjuring 2 was a well-made, intelligent, and suitably spooky concoction that was burdened with an overstretched length and a somewhat confused climax.

Where does Annabelle: Creation stand?  It depends on how you look at it.  All these spin-off films are made because Warner Bros. and partners see that there is an audience out there for them and wish to make a profit.  Annabelle: Creation has certain characteristics that bear quite a resemblance to previous entries (an obsession with terrifying adolescent girls, period setting, hidden alcoves and scary basements, and a game that is used to manipulate people into following a bread-crumb trail, just to name a few), yet knows how to handle things with skill, craft, attention, and respect.  In this way, it's like the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The films in it can get old after a while, but it's hard to deny that they do what they set out to do, and they do it well.  There may be individual parts that change to help put up the appearance of "variety" and may hint at greater depths, but at heart its all still the same.  If you approach Annabelle: Creation in this way, then you're more than likely all ready to criticize it before you even enter the theater.  You're not in a position to be swept up into it, and the movie isn't going to do enough to catch you off guard and win you over.

However, it must be said that for a movie that is okay with repeating things from the past, the fourth film (and earliest chronologically) in this series at times can be quite a doozy.  And I do mean that in a good way.  Some parts of the series might be based on real events as advertised with the main, non-spin-off films, but this is the first movie where I found that it no longer matters to me.  At times these films border on fantasy, what with weird devices like teleportation being possible, but they are done in a way that enhances the experience, intensifying the moment, instead of calling so much negative attention to themselves that people just want to throw popcorn at the screen.  They are done to affect the audience, not as plot gimmicks to advance the story along, or as signs of lazy writing.  Annabelle: Creation is the first in the franchise to recognize any hints of absurdity and use it to its advantage, making for a film that is possibly the most intense entry so far.  The absurdities are used to racket up more scares a minute, but they are almost all effective due to decent set-ups and ideas to redo some of the same scenarios over again in different simple variations of the same freak-outs.

That's the thing: the filmmakers keep it simple.  The Conjuring 2 eventually got tangled in its own logic by trying to add layers onto something that not necessarily should have been more complex.  These movies aren't meant to do good by inserting mysteries revolving around betrayal and motives or with adding so much mystery or mythology around a creature that it appears to be all-powerful.  Instead of variations on a few notes, they could build the scares on top of each other, but the variations here are so well-done that they appear to build on each other even when it is just the same thing played over again in a different environment with new faces.  I say this because I am impressed by how well it managed to work.  Lesser movies would fall flat on their faces or appear conspicuously empty and meaningless if they tried this.

Annabelle: Creation at times feels like it gets close to crossing over the line that the first Annabelle sprinted over and make something that is unoriginal and ugly to experience.  There is even a moment where I became nervous that the movie was going to replicate the awful time I had watching Messengers 2: The Scarecrow.  Instead it becomes one of the few unnecessary gimmicks that doesn't point at itself, pretending to be organic, but still manages to be noticeable and show that the writers are running out of ideas.  Even if these kind of moments don't completely work, they still function quite well into instilling fear into cinemagoers.  The tale and scares are told with such ferocity that the simple fact that it's all done with taste won me over.

The new movie in The Conjuring Universe is no classic and has next to no originality.  It doesn't make you think, it is not all the way thought-out, and it doesn't care to extend itself far from what it needs to.  But what Annabelle: Creation does do is meet expectations and do it with heart.  What it lacks in ideas it makes up for with what it decides to do with the few it has.  It supplies characters with little to no depth and that resemble some of those you have seen in other films, but it treats most of them with enough respect and attention that you like them anyway.  Beside from making money, its other goals are to scare you, thrill you, and please fans of the franchise.  It succeeds in this, and you come away from the film feeling your money was well-spent.  You didn't grow as a person,  but that wasn't what you came to the movie for in the first place.

Of the four films so far, this is the third-best in the way it is constructed.  It is the second-most satisfying, probably because the first Annabelle set the bar low and this new film has no pretensions in what it is trying to be.  It fits into this Universe quite nice and snugly and even manages to make some things in the first Annabelle more easy to understand.  I recommend Annabelle: Creation to any that are interested in seeing it, and I wait to see if the film being released next year, The Nun, is worthy enough to be noticed in a positive way as well.

 My rating: 3 3/4 /5

   This movie has a hard time staying still, and seems content to overwhelm the audience. No, I shouldn't say overwhelm. It is like a blind giant that keeps reaching down to pick you up and ends up smacking you repeatedly atop the head and knocking you down. The first half hour is the worst part of the film, as it speeds through events without giving the audience very much explanation for what is going on. It isn't until 2/3 of the film are completed before it goes back and addresses the confusion, but in such a hurried manner that a person is bound to still be tipsy. The whole movie is a rush, a mad rush. I don't know why the movie was rushing, though. Resident Evil: The Final Chapter was an editing monster as well, but that movie was more about the boom than about substance. Here the movie tries to do both, and it is isn't restricted to the editing. People speak so fast back and forth between each other before cutting to something else that if you aren't paying attention you'll get whiplash, and if you ARE paying attention you will still get a bit of a rope burn. A deficiency in pauses and moments to better understand the characters also deters from getting emotionally invested in the characters instead of the rapid-fire, exuberant action.

   When Vortigern transforms into his buff, skull-faced form and battles with Arthur, I was reminded of a video game battle, but one that was resolved too easily. There are also many moments in the film where people cast their heads back, jaws taut but slackened, and appear to simultaneously growl like a lion (or one of the dogs in the film that tersely bark with jowls flapping) and howl like a wolf. It's almost as if the movie wants people to feel everything some characters are, or it could be that it wants the audience to be entranced by the action, as the sensitivity to detail including sound and vibrations grabs you, and the focus on faces when they are either in agony or rushing hither and yon makes you wonder if this a found footage film where there are multiple cameras traveling with different people that capture all the nauseating hysteria.

   This movie wouldn't have been half as engrossing if it wasn't for the music. There are patches of the movie that could work as music videos advertising for an actual film that is yet to come. In fact, the song "The Wild Wild Berry" from an actual trailer for the film is used in a couple spots with some of the exact same images.

   Beside from the rapid pace that doesn't slow down and leave room for the movie to breathe and let in quieter moments that deepen the impact in a more subtle way, I struggled with how the story went with this version of Arthur. The movie focuses so much on the magic inherent in the tale that it neglects the humanity. I didn't have trouble believing in the power of Excalibur; the film flashes the sword's might all over the place and makes quite a big deal about it. What I had trouble swallowing was the man behind the sword. By the end of the film, I still wasn't convinced that he was king, that he had earned it and had the heart of the person from ancient legends and the best interests of the people at that heart. The guy's got spunk and bravery, but they seem to be inherent in him instead of something risen in him from his travels that make him a better person. This spunk and bravery up until near the very end of the film stinks of arrogance. And in the final battle against Vortigern, Arthur states that Vortigern is the one who made Arthur who he is. This bothered me. This seems to me not as if he is saying, "I was born into darkness and in it found the light to combat it and lead these people", but, "Darkness made me whom I am, and who I am and why I am here is because you brought this on yourself." It feels a bit vindictive and hurt, not strong in the conviction that what Arthur is doing is for what is right.

   If I let my criticisms of the film fall to the back of my mind, as I can for this one, though, what I find when looking back at is an enjoyable action adventure with hint of vision and lots of intensity and ambitious dedication, even if it is off-kilter. For those who end up liking this movie, it more than likely is going to end up as a guilty pleasure.  I don't know if there will be another five films in the series like was originally planned, but if there are, I sure to God hope there is more focus in them on characterization, lucidity, and fleshed-out plot and less on spectacle mixed with assertive play. If so, well, that would sure make my day.

My rating: 3 1/2 /5 (for entertainment value and artistic merit rather than for coherent craft)

I'll also include the Comic-Con trailer, so you can get a sense of what I'm talking about when I say there are parts of the movie that play like a music video, and also so you can hear the song I had mentioned.

Maybe in my life I have watched the original 1991 movie too often and no remake would have been good enough. I don't know. But I do know I had a lot more trouble accepting this remake while watching it than I did with last year's excellent The Jungle Book and the previous year's Cinderella. While the other two felt like relatively fresh retellings, this one felt to me like a high-production rip-off.  The production details are near flawless, with excellent cinematography, set designs, makeup, and the like.  This means that the average viewer will more than likely be caught up in all of it, as this film is indeed a beauty to look at.  Now onto my negative rantings.

There are many changes and things added, but they are not all successful. Some of the things they copied over again did not work for me this time. Like the design of the inanimate object servants. They look too much like the objects they are. It is often hard to interpret facial expressions or body language. I am reminded of the carpet in Aladdin, which is bad if this is a large part of your supporting cast. That could just be my own problem though. But my biggest problem with them lies with the tea kettle and cups. I was not impressed with any sort of warm characterization for them that I felt in the animated film. The voice of Mrs. Potts here bothered me, though it may be me just comparing her voice to the former film's. When all those characters transformed back into humans at the end, I wasn't as excited to learn what they actually looked like. The underwhelming nature of this overwhelmed me later after I got home.

The end fight on top of the castle was not strong enough. Part of the problem might be that Belle gets involved and assures the Beast that what Gaston says about how she feels is wrong, which then motivates the Beast to fight. The problems extend more off from there, though.

"The Mob Song" pales in comparison to the original. The former version felt like a dark ranting that you could almost feel persuaded to join in, while this one is brief and not too rapturous.  Because Gaston is now a living, breathing human it is much harder to be certain that he is evil and deserves to die, instead of just being a mighty self-centered buggard with a lot of influence and pride.  Animation is better with caricatures.

I was confused about the townspeople's mockery of Maurice in this, as nothing is shown with him being eccentric. I had a harder time picturing Belle and her father as this odd pair that everyone talks about. If the movie is going to promote its theme of inclusion by revealing that a few characters are of color, treated equally with white people, and a couple are of the LGBTQ community, why do Belle and her father get such a bad reception from others? Emma Watson is okay as Belle, but she doesn't have as strong of a personality as the Belle in the 1991 film.

The film doesn't have much of a personality either, which may be as a result of it being lost in distant nature of the inanimate servants and the inconsistent pacing, which speeds much too quickly through some places that I would have preferred it slow down, and then lugs sluggishly through other areas. The pacing threw me out of the film too many times than I count, which upset me when I was finally starting to get into the narrative's groove.

The Beast looks like too much CGI or motion-capture and not enough like a living being, which made it harder for me to be convinced of the possibility that Belle could fall in love with it. At least in the animated film both characters were animated, appearing to live in the same domain of reality, even if the Beast was figuratively "disfigured".

Of course, this all could just be me being "picky", as someone already called me after I shared my thoughts on the film.

I will say this, though: I actually liked this version of LeFou. I like both versions, the former for comedic relief and his devoted empty-headed banality, and this one for his charm, warmth, and gusto, the only character I felt that from during the whole movie. I actually WANTED the scenes with him in it. People may worry about this, as he is "gay" and might appeal to children. The "gayness" of him is barely pronounced, basically only being noticeable if you look for it. I didn't care. In this version, he actually seems like a nice guy, and for all the indifference Gaston gives to him as a fellow human being and all the times LeFou must struggle with fighting his own conscience, I do actually feel sad that he may never be able to love anyone. Sure, he is seen dancing with somebody at the end, but society will guarantee that nothing will come of it. That's not me saying that I approve of gay marriage, but it is me saying that I realize that the withholding of it can lead to heartbreak and a lifetime of misery. And I respect this LeFou. But this is a fantasy/fairy tale, so who knows? Maybe someday he'll have a "happily ever after" after all.

My rating: 3 1/8 /5

P.S. I maybe used too many "maybe"s in this review. (Perhaps I'll overuse "perhaps" next time?)

The X-Men franchise is the comic book franchise with the highest pedigree. It keeps pumping out film after film that strive for quality and address sensitive subjects with an aggression that doesn't belittle what they are driving toward, though some of them may be critical misses. I go to these comic book films when they are released, and over the past several years I have been growing more and more adverse to them, just as I am wanting to love them. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been reinforcing this negative feeling within me, as films like Doctor Strange should be resounding hits but are merely adequate in delivery while being emptily high in quality. But I KNOW when I go into an X-Men film hope will be injected back into me, even if it is only for a short time. X-Men: Apocalypse of last year ended up being a major disappointment for me. It had so much potential, but it was wasted.

Logan to me is the best of the franchise, which was previously held by X2: X-Men United. More than that, it is the best Marvel movie I have ever seen, and I have watched a plethora. It is so good that it is now one of my Favorite Films. It strips away nearly all the things that have become the norm in these types of films and injects a feeling of relevance and emotion. This emotion builds and builds, as it gently shakes your hand and walks with you down a road to a still horizon. I am going to be honest. By the end tears were running down my face. I had to hold back sobs, as the weight of how different this film is than any other superhero film dawned on me and exposed how empty nearly all these other ones are, as well as what this movie does intimately and coarsely on a film-making level while working on a personal level to devoted fans of these characters. The film doesn't conclude on an energetic note that says "life continues". If I didn't know better, I would say that this feels like the true end of the emotional core of the series. When I sensed that the movie was going to take a turn into territory that let down all that came before, it instead affirms that it understands you have that worry and goes a different way that stays more true while not being afraid to step you out of your comfort zone.

This is THE superhero film that I didn't even fully realize that I was waiting for. After it was done, no one in the theater talked. People went on their ways, and looking into their faces you could see they had been crying as well. I will miss all the things Logan says goodbye to, and I hope, for the sake of the future of the X-Men series and for other superhero and action franchises, that they more than know what they are doing, but give more than one legitimate reason for doing it as well. For right now, this feels like the end. My rating: 4 3/4/ 5

I wanted to like this film, I really really did. There are some good ideas here, as well as some great visuals. The problem that bugged me is the film doesn't try to really explain anything until the end, where the big reveal could have been partially predicted at the beginning and doesn't address all the strange things that came before. I should have typed this comment yesterday, when I saw the film*; I was going to provide a list of all the different questions I had after watching it (I believe I had seven long series), and now I can only remember three of them. WARNING: Spoilers ahead.

1. It appears at the end as if Volmer having sex with his daughter is the culmination of a religious practice. What is the reason for him raping her (as at one point he makes it sound like there is a reason), and how does it tie into the idea of cleansing people from the hideousness of the world? After he is done raping her, what is he expecting to happen? Another child? Why? And what about Hannah?

2. If Volmer is a couple hundred years old, how old is Hannah? If she is really the daughter who was thrown in an aqueduct to die, she should be plenty old as well. Has she really been in a deluded trance all this time, her menstrual cycle finally starting up because she left the clinic with a friend that is a boy, had one sip of a beer, went bathroom in a public toilet, found a stick of lipstick which she applied, danced awkwardly to a song with someone close behind her hinting at trying to seduce, and experienced a barroom brawl that put her nerves on end? If her father really was waiting a couple hundred years for her to become a woman so he could have sex with her, why didn't he ever think of bringing her into town, introducing her to beauty products, or doing something to arouse her? Yes, he couldn't do this himself without stepping out of the doctor role into a father role and then into something else, but honestly, after a couple hundred years of waiting for her to grow up, don't you think you would have to try something different to get something to happen? Also: If Hannah and her father have both been taking "vitamins" to keep themselves alive, doesn't that mean that Hannah is really a sickly-looking being under a costumed skin as well?

3. How do the eels determine when to show up and when to eat or cause damage? When Lockhart is in the isolation chamber he is surrounded by multiple eels, which don't harm him. Are they a figment of his imagination as stimulated by the "water" he has been drinking? If so, how did he know about the eels? If they were real, how are they able to so quickly appear and disappear, how do they go up the plumbing, and why has noone else ever noticed them in the top compartment of their toilet? When Hannah loses blood in the pool, why do the eels just circle around her? Does it have something to do with when she was a baby she was thrown into an aqueduct? If so, what happened there? In fact, how far along was she when she was cut out of her mother's womb? I would like to say far along, but I have the strangest feeling I heard someone mention that she was a fetus sometime in the film, though I could be wrong. Also: How do people not die from live eels being forced into their bodies? It seems as if the eels really only cause damage down in the catacombs, when bodies are put in the water. Is there more than one type of eel, or are there only certain environmental factors that set them off? What is the special nature of the eels? It is barely addressed, people mostly just talking about the water the eels inhabit. But the significance of the eels is stressed so much toward the end that I question myself and wonder: Is it the water that makes the eel, or the eel that makes the water?

I wasn't deterred by the length, and some scenes are gripping. It was mostly all the different questions, a lack of a satisfying/impactful/frightening/original ending, the stupidity of Lockhart (I see a small little thing wriggling around in a drop of the water I just drunk, the village doctor says a symptom in some patient papers looks like dehydration and Lockhart points out that people are always drinking water at the wellness center, he sees eels swimming around in water in different places, and he doesn't suspect for a long time that there is something wrong with the water?!), and the multiple cop-outs of scenes showing Lockhart in mortal danger, the danger coming to pass, and Lockhart still being all fine and dandy that upset my rating for the film and gave it less than the concept should have warranted.

Oh, and one last question: What is the point of the tanks with human bodies in the locked-off wing of the center, and how do people survive being in them without oxygen? Because I'm stumped! (Sadly)
My rating: 3 3/8 /5
* Note: This review was written about a month before appearing on this site.

I recently had two unpleasant movie experiences that bothered me more than usual, hence why these reviews are here.

                                                        A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song
The first film in this series had heart.  The second film had ease and charm.  Pretty much all this third movie has going for it is glitz and glamour.  It is hard to describe how much of a turnoff the film became.  After I keep track of content for a later chart in my Tables of Content section, I do watch all the special features a DVD has, excluding the commentaries.  Since this series is marketed for a tween crowd, the special features focus more on the actors and actresses.  What I discovered this go-round while watching them is that I didn't care for one single character or performer.  While watching the movie, I wasn't rooting for this version's Cinderella.  I couldn't buy the writing and story or the people in the parts of Katie and her stepmother.  A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song does have a few new ideas, but a majority of the time it feels content to steal from its predecessor, Another Cinderella Story.  Except maybe it wasn't stealing, as the same director and writers have returned for the third installment, but instead duplicating one's work over again.  This time it doesn't work.  Though I can't exactly pinpoint it, this film felt like it had an ugly spirit, one that it tried to cover up in well-crafted but brief new pop tunes, catering, and well-adjusted characterizations that people will take for granted.  I have always wondered about how Cinderella so quickly fell in love with Prince Charming, but this time there is a bigger problem in regards to Prince Charming himself.  He is not in love with a person, he is in love with a voice.  He only is attracted to the stepsister because he thinks she is the person who sang to him.  There is no other chemistry I can ascertain.  *Spoiler Alert: When he discovers the truth, he quickly falls for the real Cinderella.*  The story of Cinderella originally has her falling in love with the Prince, not knowing who he really is.  In this installment of the series, Cinderella knows who the Prince is.  She loves him because he is attracted to her gifts of singing and lyric-writing.  To become famous is her ticket to escape from life with her stepmother, and she feels it.  This spreads around a message that is unhealthy; I don't care that the reason for this was because of the film's target audience.  It disgusts me.  On the positive side, there were two moments that caught me off guard in a good way in the film, though they are sadly not developed much further.  One such moment is when Katie is looking through her younger brother's video cameras to her stepsister with the hotshot boy, she helping her sister along by writing the words to a new song impromptu.  She is saying them through a miniature microphone while gazing on her Prince Charming, knowing that she is expressing her love for him, him not able to hear, her words only pushing him further away by making him fall in love instead with the person who pretends to have her heart.  Though the film has given no real reason for anybody to be in love, you can most definitely feel the pain in that moment, and it is the most emotional moment I have yet to experience while watching a Cinderella film.  This interesting concept is not explored any deeper.  The other moment is when the stepsister compliments Katie and confesses that she is not happy with herself, that all she has going for herself is her looks.  Her mother, though showing more love to her than to Katie, still states on more than one occasion that Katie is more talented than her, and hints that she is disappointed in her.  This is the lone moment where I started to care about a character, but then she snaps at Katie, and the writers condemn her, leaving her with an ending where she is laughed off the stage.  It feels like the part is more than one dimension, unlike this version of Cinderella.  I wish they would have added some kind of reconciliation into the tale between her and Katie, or at least some hope for the former.  But I don't think the writers actually cared enough about their characters, easily taking advantage of the stereotypes of the tale, though they have not been expressed in a way that feels sincere, leaving us to want to care for more characters beside the titular Cinderella, but the film acting as if we shouldn't want to.  Rating: 2 1/4 /5

                                               The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption
This second review will be much shorter and less comprehensive.  The first half of the movie is crap.  There.  I said it.  This is the first time where I have actually considered stopping a film and giving it an automatic grade.  In this case, a first-ever 0/5.  But my conscience told me that that I would kind of be lying, making people believe I watched the whole film, and also knowing that I didn't give the whole movie a fair chance.  So I went on, and at about the 50-minute mark it got a little better.  Not much, but a little.  It went from "crap" to plain "bad".  I am not going to go into why this movie was bad, as it is so apparent from scene to scene.  Almost everything about the movie is garbage.  I was shocked to discover later on that it had a moderate budget.  That budget was very poorly used, and it feels like the writers had a mental breakdown.  The conception must have had a brief moment of insight, as eventually there is a narrow point somewhere in the distance you can see where there might have been at least a good bad movie made, but the full conception is bad, as is the execution.  The movie is flat-out a comedy, but it is not a funny comedy at all.  To me, it was excruciatingly awful.  The only time I have ever felt this way was toward Leprechaun 2, but this time it was even more intense, as it didn't even feel like the writers even tried.  The first half is so painful that time slows down, and at the top of every minute, when it finally arrives, you feel a boom like from a cannon.  Even by the series' standards, this is a doozy.  The slightly better, though most certainly not "good" or even "average", second half boosted the 0/5 beginning to a final grade of 1 1/2 /5.  If you are not prepared to enjoy its awfulness and someone approaches wanting to watch it with you, run away.  I do not say this to be humorous or as a way of expressing myself in grand fashion.  I absolutely feel that the best advice I can give you is that: run...away.  Fast.

How do I begin a review for a film project this monstrous?  I don't really know, so I'm going to just see where typing what's in my head takes me.  I'll probably remember something else later on after finishing this review that I might have wanted while I was working on this, but gosh darn... There's just too much to talk about!

In case you didn't already know, there are two cuts of the movie: the original two-and-a-half hour long film that was in theaters, and the three hour extended version released with the original cut on home video and home media.  I saw the theatrical cut opening day here in the United States after having traveled the same day for the coming Easter holiday.  The theater I watched the movie in was very cold, me and the family I dragged along being able to see the exhalation of our breath in front of us.  We stupidly had not thought about the weather conditions ahead of time, so we were wearing no jackets or coats over ourselves.  It was a large room we were in to watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, possibly because we paid the extra charge for 3-D, which we rarely do.  The atmosphere and cinematography of the movie is also of a cold nature, and seeps from the film into your bones, or maybe I was just imagining that bones part because the cold air around me fit so much with the film.  Months later, on retrospection, we kind of, because of the cold air, got a bump up from 3-D to 4-D with no extra charge!

Now, onto the movie itself.  After having watched two versions of the film and reading the thoughts of numerous people, I think it suffice to say that the movie will more than likely end up either on your Hate List or your Love List.  It kind of depends on whether you are able to adjust or not to the film you were expecting turning out to be another kind of beast.  I for sure was surprised by a number of different things.  One thing I am worried about while making this review is spoilers.  I end up doing it all the time in other reviews without noticing until I've already done it, but there is so much event nature to this movie, where if you don't know what is going to happen it can have an even bigger impact on your film-watching experience, more "shocks" to pound over your head, as these are numerous.  With spoiler areas, I'll try to provide little detail.  This is a different world than you most likely think you are entering into.  In the world of Batman, the character already has a lifetime of crime-fighting behind him, while the legacy of Superman is relatively small in length, though not in the number of things Kal-El has been able to get done in that period of time.  Because of the length of Batman's tenure in Gotham City, he has gone through a lot, and his past is littered with tragedies, which has changed his thought process and attitude.  Alfred the butler in this incarnation is much more actively involved in Bruce's exploits via advice, technology, and communication.  Just like Bruce, he's a bit rough around the edges as well, though he acknowledges irony and drama when he sees it.  Hmm.  Irony.  Alfred is played by Jeremy Irons.  As a butler, he probably irons his master's clothes as well.  There are a few instances in the movie where the word "iron" can be seen written or etched into something in the background, either in small letters or medium.  But I'm getting too much into the whole name thing again.  Superman's world is also different in that it also is pretty dark.  Lex Luthor here is not the one that we are used to.  He talks a lot, is a fidgety mess, goes on and on talking in his own circuit, and after having listening to his speech at a banquet/party of his own creation, I would be quite surprised if he hasn't been admitted to a psychiatric hospital sometime in his life before.  People who aren't paying too close attention to the movie may mistake him for the Joker or the Riddler.  I know my aunt did.  This is also in a time before Lex is bald, like Gene Hackman in Superman: The Movie.  Another BIG difference is that in the DC Extended Universe of which this movie is now the second installment of, there are troubles from the Middle East and in Africa, like in our own world, and there are conspiracies and terrorism threats all around.

The theatrical cut has moments of plot holes, but they aren't exactly plot holes, as it actually feels like there are small pieces of the movie missing here and there.  ...Which, in fact, there are.  The Ultimate Edition fills most of these in, raising my score a bit further up.  However, there are some things that need mentioning.  Even the Ultimate Edition is not perfect.  First, it is three hours long, but feels like four or five.  Do not attempt to watch the movie if you are not willing to invest the time and energy.  Because this movie is a chore.  The critics say the film isn't well-made, but I beg to differ.  Every step of the way this movie is well-made.  But it is still, nevertheless, a well-made chore.  There is a thick part of the film that is exposition, quips, and unnatural speech made to make specific points.  These points are probably the movie's biggest strength, the way they are delivered its biggest weakness.  Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is so unique and inspired, but boy would his performance and the rapid amount of dialogue his character is given be a turnoff for most folks.  The film has a rich quality, but this Lex is a richness of a different sort, and we are given so much of it, with no warning.  Then we switch back to how the rest of the cast is moving along, and the switch is another thing to blindside us, some of what they are talking about to explain what is going on in certain areas of conversation being difficult to discern, in both versions of the film, the Ultimate Cut giving a little more time for things to register.

I don't know if, by the religion I hold myself to (Christianity), God would be offended by this exclamation, the compulsion to say this is so ripe, but Holy Mother of Jesus, Zack Snyder put his body and soul into this production!  God Almighty, what was finally the cue for him to stop?!  I understand this is the film setting up the Extended Universe and laying the groundwork for future installments, but who beside comic fanboys is going to understand all these allusions he thrusts into the audience's face in a manner of importance?  I myself have never read a single DC Comic, I only having experience with a moderate handful of Marvel's Spider-Man and the sub-DC Comics series Dragonlance (not having a comic book store in the small city where I live), nor watched any of the animated television shows, and would have been completely at a loss to explain some things in the plot if I hadn't exposed myself over the years to looking up random DC Comics characters on Wikipedia to notify myself of their existence; or to have familarized myself to one popular storyline through the engaging book The Death and Life of Superman, which it turns out actually has a little bearing in the movie regarding a few characters and concepts, but not in entirety, and it's the only story from the comics that I am really familiar with, so don't jump to saying I spoiled anything.  (Yep, that was a run-on sentence.)  A famous miniseries of comic books titled The Dark Knight Returns is said to have been an inspiration for parts of Batman v Superman..., which I'll leave for the reader to finding meaning for on his/her own.  In order not to echo the Marvel Cinematic Universe by putting hints of the future after the end credits, the DC Extended Universe plans to incorporate that sort of material into the regular layout of its films and supply even more Easter eggs and goodies through extended editions.  I give the Marvel Cinematic Universe this: It introduces people to the characters and subtly sneaks stuff into the background.  Post-Man of Steel, so far with Batman v Superman... and Suicide Squad in the DCEU it appears as if the writers and studio, Warner Bros., are very eager to explode with this other world they have imagined, possibly because they want to rival Marvel Studios, but also possibly because there is an elite team of comic book fans at the helm who have trouble containing their imagination and energy, Warner Bros. taking advantage of this.  After having watched Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and reading some interviews with Zack Snyder, I do believe the second possibility is highly likely, doing damage to the DCEU's health.

Having brought the subject of Warner Bros. into this, I would like to bring up something else I have noticed with the production of four superhero films in these past couple years: two of the DC Extended Universe, one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and another from the studio 20th Century Fox.  I hope this problem will not soon happen again.  This problem would involve the studios; they are getting in the way of the people they employ crafting their visions completely.  MCU's Avengers: Age of Ultron was originally of epic length, like Batman v Superman, but was cut down to 141 minutes for the purpose of not overstaying its welcome.  Joss Whedon, the director, decided not to release a director's cut showing the film in its entirety, saying he was content with the released product.  I, however, was not.  I noticed several areas of the film where it felt like things were cut out; these areas were of significance to me, as a majority of them affected the pace of the film and sped through the arc of the titular villain, Ultron, not allowing the audience to feel a complete resonance with the character.  Complex themes were largely left unexplored, barely hinted at.  A few months later in that year of 2015 was Fox's reboot of Fantastic Four.  The film bombed at the box office and with critics and the audience.  This can most likely be tracked to a point in the film's production where the studio rejected the director, Josh Trank's, cut of the movie and ordered major alterations, the final product upsetting Mr. Trank enough to publicly condemn it right before it was released.  Next came 2016, where the DCEU's jumpstart was pulled off in a way that hurt its two films of the year in different ways.  Warner Bros. was kind enough to postpone Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice so that the filmmakers could "realize fully their vision".  This gets a thumbs up from me, but then a full half hour from the completed film was taken out of the theatrical cut for the heavily marketed Ultimate Edition, hurting the performance of the shortened version that appeared in theaters by making certain plot points even more unclear, turning off critics, which influenced the box office receipts in the second week and beyond.  Suicide Squad had already wrapped principal photography August of 2015, but due to one constant criticism of Batman v Superman... being directed toward its dark nature and consistency of tone, Warner Bros. told people to go back in and work on the film some more, to lighten the tone of the production.  Despite the large box office total Suicide Squad would amass, this ended up being an example of a creative mistake.  A great many critics, I agreeing with them, say that the first half of the film is excellent, but the second half becomes immensely muddled and inert.  Changing the tone of the movie made it near impossible for the original cut of the movie to breathe, to flesh things out and be satisfying.  The Extended Cut, though I have not watched it yet, is said to be even worse.  This is more than likely because it deals out more of the tonal jarring and doesn't add what people expect of it to mend the project, considering the success of the Ultimate Cut of Batman v Superman....;  Suicide Squad couldn't be mended because its very nature was distorted.  Jared Leto complained following the theatrical cut's release in theaters that a lot of scenes his character the Joker was involved in were cut out, and this led to a lot of people, such as myself, being unable to tell how good a job he actually did in the role.  His character is very poorly developed, as are a few others.  Of the four superhero films brought up in this paragraph, Batman v Superman... is the only one where the original version of the film was eventually released for people to see.

Back to the film of this review, there is an immense attention to detail, but that detail will more than likely go unnoticed to the average viewer.  Some articles pertaining to the differences in the Ultimate Cut help explain different images and framing choices, many that I hadn't even considered before.  Of course, one can't expect people to notice all these subtle things when they are being faced with multiple other things that are very unsubtle.  Like the Christian imagery and symbolism that especially in the second half of the film shows up all over the place.  The movie aims to rise above itself, is so ambitious that when shooting for the stars it doesn't notice that its path up has been wobbly and messy.  There is so much attention to detail and such an aim for quality in the movie, though, that I didn't much mind the faults that were evidently on display.  The filmmakers took their time making the movie, perhaps too much time, but they delivered what they meant to deliver, and that was something grand.  The ending is a major muchness, but it is a muchness that I think it earned after building up so much to it through all the exposition and plot enhancing.  It is probably also the most exciting and riveting ending I have seen in a superhero movie, maybe even on the wide range of film, in a long, long time.  When you think the scope can't get any bigger, the film stretches wide enough and still is able to keep breaking down walls, blinding you with its passion.

I must give a shoutout to the legendary Hans Zimmer, the composer.  He rocks the movie so hard with such brutal and elaborate music that it becomes the soul of the movie.  I have listened to the 2-disc deluxe version of the soundtrack numerous times, and having doing this notice that there are key themes he replays over and over again in different ways that you may not at first notice.  I had become accustomed to giving track titles names saying they belonged to specific characters, but in reality every one of them (excepting the "Is She We You?" track, which is clearly Wonder Woman's) also shares parts with each other, interlocking the characters together in a pattern that emphasizes the ties Lex Luthor creates between people that may have been overlooked by somebody watching the movie.  Just like the movie, the soundtrack has so much depth.  But, just as the movie would have been made lesser with the absence of Zimmer's music, so is his music lesser without the images of the movie to link to them, the two are so much a part of one another.

Concluding this review was going to be hard, whichever way I approached this.  There is so much that makes up this film, that affects it for the better or for the worse, that not one review can hope to address everything.  For instance, in the entirety of this the only actor I even addressed as far as acting ability was Jesse Eisenberg's turn as Lex, his role having affected the movie's tone and flow, as well as being the catalyst and cause of many interactions.  He becomes so important that a number of the surprising ideas that are brought up come from him.  News on display, symbolism, and Batman's role and story are also major contributors to what becomes like the movie's own myth and fantasy.  Different decisions as far as where action picks up in these character's lives, changes in what these characters mean, and similarities to their origins or the popular views on what they stand for combine with the help of strong performances to connect with an innumerable number of other factors to rescue this movie from being the flop that many who just look at the score on Rotten Tomatoes and right off the bat say the movie must be complete c--p believe it to be.  It's not perfect; there are some things that could have been better explained, the inventiveness this movie has all over it isn't always shown in a way that others can see, and the dark nature of the movie that has some ties to real world issues could be too much for some, especially considering the colossal weight it has that also ties into its length.  What we have here is something unique, a vision too much for even 180 minutes to handle.  It has so moved me on even a level that I don't myself understand that I feel I must give credit where it is due, and place Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice on the list of my favorite films.

The theatrical cut is given 4 1/8 /5, less than than the Ultimate Cut, for its incomplete nature while still hinting effectively at what the Ultimate Cut could promise, still being able to evoke profundity despite the absence of 30 minutes.  The Ultimate Cut is awarded 4 1/2 /5 for the given in this review, and for items I probably forgot to add.

I mix in a small dash of personal stuff into these reviews every once in a while.  Very small personal stuff, but still personal, all the same.  Film does this with me, where there are stages in both my life and my feelings about individual films in general, sometimes with film as a whole.  At the moment in time that this review was typed, 2016 was winding to a close.  Though I may be young and have very few years behind me when compared to others, I hope it wouldn't be too...too...  Well, look at that.  I can't come up with the word.  It's not "presumptive", but another one at the tip of my tongue, like "overdramatic"/"melodramatic".  Anyway, I hope it wouldn't be too *insert the proper word here* to say that this has been the worst year in my recollection that I have ever gone through.  I am not going to list all the reasons why.  For some others in the world, including notably, though strangely, the United States, they have felt some similar shifts.  I pray to God that there is never another year like this.  This will have marked one of the most negatively and positively impressing years of my life.

I came home from a Christmas break away to see family that did not turn out the very best.  I had prepared for myself the movie of this discussion, Good Luck Charlie: It's Christmas!, for when I got back.  I did not know if I would necessarily be in the mood for it, possibly be all Christmased out.  Instead, the opposite happened.  I came home desiring to watch this movie very much, so that I could actually experience some of that Christmas cheer that has become so synonymous in my head with the holiday.  I am familiar with the television show that this movie is a special of, and though I have never been a frequent watcher of it, on an occasion it has happened to show up on the television screen and I have been a little bit charmed.  Good Luck Charlie is not as good as some of the classic shows that have sadly faded into memory, but there are other family channel programs that are far worse than what this one has had to offer, so I at least thank the show for that.

Maybe if I could turn off the critical part of my brain I would have been able to enjoy this movie more.  It did not instill in me feelings of merriment and joy, the kind that I was hoping for, or even gentle feelings of nostalgia from the program that has now been a couple years deceased.  I don't mean to be a Scrooge, or even a Grinch, but the movie didn't work for me.  I could pop in a couple of the Christmas movies that in the past have affected me a great deal, but I seem to have lost the joy of watching film that I once used to have, in the pure sense of the word.  I am no longer as enraptured as I used to be.  I could say it was this year that caused it, but it has been a gradual slope down since maybe 2011 or 2012.  I am sorry to be a downer this holiday season, but I haven't been given much cheer to actually be feeling any of it.

I feel like I have started this drum roll question before, and due to no new creative ingenuity, here I go again: What did the movie do wrong?  Nothing, really.  Compared to other holiday movies I have seen, though, it is largely unambitious.  I felt the sagging cable production values all the way through, noticed similar scenes and ideas from other stories (with these reproduced ones having no real energy put into them to ensure at least a certain freshness), some overdone or over-serviced acting, stretched and dramatically ill-attuned plot, a few awkwardly unrealistic images and happenings, and probably just plain handling in general.

Well, I guess the plot really isn't all that stretched.  Stranded-and-trying-to-get-somewhere-before-a-certain-deadline has been done to death, many times in short form throughout countless movies.  It's the stuff that happens along the way, along with the eventual payoff, that determines the final quality you give to a film that inserts itself into that patch.  As I stated before, unremarkable goings-on when thinking about other movies like this.  You have the loaned or cheap car that is not meant to operate, the people you hitchhike with who turn out to be even weirder than you are.  I think what I really felt made the movie's plot stretched out is the acting and writing.  The pacing's all right for a smooth cruise.  These characters can work for a half-hour long show, but they do not feel dramatically upholding over a longer-spread plot that is 81 minutes in length.  It strips away the amusing feelings you associate with each individual family member's quirkiness, and there is not really all that much left over.  In this movie, there's not enough stunts, not enough wit for the actors to play around with.  It's too nice for that.  It longs to be all nice, warm, and fuzzy, and so falls short by distancing us from feeling what is really going on.  It wants to retain the slight weirdness of the original show, but ends up making the characters too ordinary, and doesn't give us enough reason to like them as they are, but instead crave through hints of their truly bizarre nature to really break out.  (Though when this plea is tried in the beginning it is a bit too much.)

Though there are a few other parts of the movie that I can recall that stood out poorly (the unrealistically-long vehicle-falling-apart sequence, the image of zany alien abduction victims with their huge and briefly petrifying tools for removing tracking devices which feels like it was meant for a different film, natural set lighting choices throughout, and a supposedly comic caroling fight between Teddy and her mother for money among them), the biggest problem was the ending.  People who don't really care about the quality of the production when watching the movie won't care about the irksome ending either.  There's no dramatic heft, it felt lazy, and while aiming for feel-good it ends up as schmaltz, with "of course!" and "why not?" moments happening here and there.  Because, you know, that's what all feel-good movies should end with, right?  On a more positive note, "wicked child" with Charlie during the monsters-on-tv sequence was of a better note, as was the continuous gag of the different business owners who bought each other out.

If you don't see the reason why any of these things might have made me give this movie a low rating, or that I didn't explain some of my points enough, to the latter, I already feel like I may have given too much away, and to the former, then go ahead, watch the film when you feel like it, and prove me wrong.  If you don't know very much about the final season and a half or so of the show, there is one mild surprise regarding Momma Duncan that may feel like a little bit of a payoff as well.  My rating: 2 1/8 /5

Formerly titled: Technology Does Not Like Me

Beside from Puppet Master: The Legacy, I had one other review typed up here and ready to go, for Another Cinderella Story, with another for Resident Evil: Extinction on the way, but then the Internet went down, and now they are lost.

* Puppet Master: The Legacy - I obviously did not look enough into what this eighth installment of the Puppet Master franchise was really about beforehand.  The DVD case the movie came in led me to believe that an actual story was going to be the main focus.  If you look up my ratings for the first seven movies, you will know that I am not a big fan of this series.  If you are a fan of the series, you will likely look at my rating for this eighth installment, scoff, and not actually read anything I have to say about Puppet Master: The Legacy.  Here is why you should: I am not a fan of this series, but the eighth film hits a record low, not just for the series, but for movies I have seen in general.  This movie can be interpreted as either the very definition of a cash-grab or a poorly cut-together and thought-out ode to the series and its "legacy".  Despite what other sources may tell you, even the DVD case, the movie clocks in at about 72 minutes.  Over an hour of that short runtime is devoted to showing extended patches of scenes from every movie in the franchise up to this point, and having 10 minutes or less of new footage spaced out between the scenes, billed as the real "plot", to try to tie them all together.  The "plot" is mostly empty, and oftentimes we don't understand what the flashbacks have to do with what the two present-day characters are talking to each other about.  I give the movie credit for bringing up a few questions I myself have had, but it brings them to the forefront and then doesn't attempt to answer them, as the characters already think they know what they are talking about, but maybe they don't, and we ourselves can't tell.  Is Toulon good or evil?  Are there even more repercussions possible for bringing inanimate objects to life than have been alluded to earlier?  In the end, why are there so many Puppet Masters?  What do the puppets really feel toward their creator and the masters that came after his reign?  I thought the movie was going to answer these, but then there is a plot twist in the last minute and a half, and everything becomes even more convoluted, as there is apparently an even bigger variable to consider, but darn me if I was able to understand what that variable really is.  I thought the film was saying that the puppets had had enough again and were turning on the newest master, them being the Immortals, but after checking on Wikipedia, I'm not that sure about much of anything in this movie anymore.  What is it that all the Puppet Masters have created?!  Wikipedia is also nice enough to tell me where all the films land chronologically; this movie is the furthest into the future, followed only by the crossover with the Demonic Toys series.  The audio quality of the flashbacks, at least on my disc, was better than in the actual movies they come from, even though they all came in the same pack.  It feels most of the time, if you have already watched the previous movies, that you are wasting your time while watching this, and the ending doesn't make you feel any better.  I am surprised the studio even mentioned to the public that there are people who made this movie, as almost all of the footage is taken from past films, and darn if Robert Talbot, or Charles Band, or however directed this (as there are some discrepancies on even this matter when doing research, or maybe Robert Talbot is Charles Band?!) classifies this as a full film that he can add to his filmography.  I would have been much better pleased if they would have cut the flashbacks down in size to essential images and then took the rest of the runtime up with an actual plot.  The given film is inadequate to stand as a true one, and so I give it a highly discouraging grade of 1/5, the only merits being a lumpy road down memory lane and at least admitting there are some topics that could be discussed further that the previous movies didn't answer.  I was willing to pretend that movies #1-3 + 7, 4-5, and 6 took place in their own versions of reality, but since this movie insists they all happened and are a part of the same continuum, I am afraid that I must say that my dislike for this series has turned to hate.  This film has changed its "legacy" for the worse.