Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales Review

     The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has been a box office monster since the first one was released in 2003. Although the films as a whole have certainly had their ups and downs, their box office success as been a primary strength. I was very curious to see how this one would do considering it's been six years since the last one. This is a very intriguing franchise considering every film after the original has not been too strong. Although I enjoy the second movie, Dead Man's Chest, I understand its complaints. The third, At World's End, is even worse and the fourth, On Stranger Tides, is almost unbearable. However, the trailers for the newest one, Dead Men Tell No Tales, had me curious especially with the villain, Captain Salazar being portrayed by Javier Bardem. Although Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales has some incredibly massive missteps, it has some pleasant moments and certainly takes strides in the right direction.
     When Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) takes down Captain Salazar (Bardem) and his crew. It leads to a treacherous curse for Salazar's crew so they will do whatever it takes to hunt down Sparrow and get their revenge. Sparrow has other plans in mind in which he will track down the trident of King Poseidon with the help of newcomers, Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites) and Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario).

     The biggest strength of the film actually comes from the newcomers. Henry Turner is the son of beloved character Will Turner (before everyone freaks out it was in the marketing material) but is almost more intriguing. He's more cunning but certainty exhibits the determination of his father. I found his and Carina's storyline the most interesting more then Jack's. While Jack has enjoyable moments, especially involving guillotines and zombie sharks, it almost feels like he's makes his way through scene with sheer dumb luck. In the first movie, Sparrow certainly had lucky moments but he was also very clever and persuasive. It seems as though Disney kind of just forgot about that and wants to make him incredibly over the top all the time. Even Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has a better character arc then Sparrow in this film.
     The villain for this movie, Captain Salazar is definitely one of the more better developed villains within this franchise. Although the trailers marketed the character as a little goofy, he's certainly creepy and is humor is more twisted then goofy. Bardem has a great habit of stealing every scene he is in nearly every movie and he definitely has his moments in this.

     Visually this movie relies heavily on CGI. While I think some more practical effects would of greatly enhanced the movie, the visuals effects in this are actually pretty good. There's a scene that involves a young, Jack Sparrow that is really solid. This paired with an awesome score from Geoff Zanelli creates for some really pretty scenes.
     Besides Sparrow, the place where this movie struggles the most is within all the side quests that go on. There's a side quest for Barbossa and another involving the British Navy that are just kind of there. Much like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, it feels as though the movie bit off way more then they can chew. The runtime for this movie is a little over 2 hours and we could have cut about 15 minutes out if it weren't for these side quests.
     Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is probably the best of the franchise we've gotten since the second movie. It has some incredible weak areas, especially with Captain Jack and trying to take on too much but it could help set up a trend for future movies. That's why I am going to barely rate this as a pass.

Rating: 6.0 out of 10

Baywatch Review

     I'll kick off this review by saying that I am a HUGE fan of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. I also really enjoy Zac Efron when he's in the right roles. Both of these guys are incredibly charismatic and have really solid comedic timing. So when Paramount announced they were doing a big screen adaptation of the hit TV show, Baywatch, I was actually very intrigued when they started casting. The trailers didn't do much for me but I thought The Rock and Efron would have great chemistry and make the film work. Although The Rock, Efron, and the rest of the group have good chemistry, this movie completely falls flat on all fronts due to the juvenile writing.
     The plot for this movie is pretty straight forward. The Baywatch lifeguard crew is led by Mitch Buchanan (Dwayne Johnson) who has to train hot-head, Matt Brody (Zac Efron) and a bunch of new recruits. They soon learn that there is a local drug quickly spreading throughout the beach and they will do what they can to uncover the mystery.

     I'll open by saying I wasn't expecting an award winning movie. I went in hoping to get a few good laughs. The trailers really gave me a 21 Jump Street vibe and unfortunately, that's one of the problems with this movie. It tries so hard to replicate that type of comedy with running gags that don't land and very juvenile humor. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy juvenile humor when it's done right. 21 Jump Street has plenty of juvenile or low brow humor but it's cleverly done and the setup is executed very well. Baywatch not so much. It's just constant dick and boob (pardon the language) jokes that a 7th grader could think of. Also, this movie loves to acknowledge how meta it is (much like 21 Jump Street) yet the writing is done in such a messy manner.
     There's one scene in particular that caused me to laugh and that was because of how poorly done the visual effects were. The Rock is saving passengers aboard a ship that has caught on fire and eventually explodes. The only problem with this is the fire is all done via CGI and looks like something a kid would make with an iPhone app. It's incredibly painful to watch. Part of the problem with this particular scene and the movie as a whole is the editing.
     The editing for this movie is flat out bad. There's really no continuity whatsoever and character motivations change more then LeBron James picking teams in free agency. It relies heavily on club music that all sounds the same and you feel like you're watching the same exact scene over and over again.

     The one positive aspect of this movie is the group as a whole seems to have good chemistry. However, all the chemistry that they is completely ruined by the terrible jokes. The silver lining is at least they got paid after this disaster of a movie. Audiences can certainly skip this one in the theater.

Rating: 2.0 out of 10

Alien: Covenant Review

     Ever since the first film was released in 1979, the Alien franchise has been a staple within the horror and sci-fi genres. The first two movies of the franchise are considered to be classics but ever since the franchise has been quite divisive. Alien 3 didn't hit with all fans and Alien: Resurrection solidified that the franchise might be at the end of its run. Soon after we got the abominations known as the Alien vs. Predator movies. The franchise was all but lost until original director and creator Ridley Scott announced that he is coming back to give audiences a prequel of Alien. In 2012, Prometheus was released and it caused quite the divide among fans. The movie was visually gorgeous but was heavily criticized because too much thrown at audiences and its separation from the original films. I was incredibly eager to experience Scott's follow up Alien: Covenant. The marketing for the movie looked like the franchise was heading in the right direction. Although there are some plot devices that don't quite stick, Alien: Covenant is adequate return to the horror and action roots that audiences got with the first two movies.
     Alien: Covenant tells of a colony ship with 2000 passengers that is headed for a new planet to inhabit. However, when the crew experiences some unexpected problems, they will land on a nearby planet. Upon arrival, they soon learn of the many threats that this planet holds and will do whatever it takes to escape.

     The biggest strength of this movie is the horror elements that audiences are presented. The first act of this movie feels very much like the original Alien film. It is a very generic monster movie but still enjoyable for fans. The Xenomorphs are officially back (it's in the trailer so don't whine about spoilers) and man are they creepy! There are a lot of nice callbacks to the original one that will make audiences happy. Scott does a fantastic job of building tension. The third act of this movie is much like the sequel Aliens. It is very action oriented and feels like a summer blockbuster.
     Where this film struggles the most is the second act. It is the sequel to Prometheus and if you have not seen that movie then you will be very confused by the progressions on screen. I even revisited Prometheus the night before seeing Alien: Covenant and it still confused me. There's a plot direction that is not completely fleshed out and doesn't necessarily add up with what we were exposed to in Prometheus.
     The performances in Alien: Covenant are all pretty solid. The movie focuses Daniels played by Katherine Waterston. Although she is no Ripley, she does a serviceable job and audiences will understand the motivations behind the character. The stand out surprise of this movie is Tennessee played by Danny McBride. I was worried he would just be used as the comedic relief character but he actually has the most range out of any members within the crew. I seriously hope we get more serious performances from McBride because of this movie.

     The biggest negative of this film though is the ending. The ending is something audiences will see coming from a mile away and will ultimately be underwhelmed because of it. It almost felt like the screen writers were rushed to finish the screenplay and just inserted the first generic finish that came to their minds.
     Although there are some glaring flaws and continuity, Alien: Covenant has some fun elements that will please fans of the old films. It does not necessarily bring anything new to the table but with a movie like Prometheus that I felt tried to take on way too much, Alien: Covenant was a lot more simple and formulaic.

Rating: 6.6 out of 10

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Review

     Guy Ritchie is known for greatly directed action spectacles. With a filmography such as Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and the recent Sherlock Holmes movies, Ritchie has created his unique style incorporating witty dialogue and incredibly exciting fight scenes. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the newest film from Ritchie with Charlie Hunnam helming the title character. While there are some exciting aspects within this film, there are some really big drawbacks that become more and more evident with the passing of time from when I watched it.

     The plot for this movie isn't the most original. It's ultimately a revenge story in which Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) must seek the throne of Camelot after he finds out that his uncle, Vortigern (Jude Law), had killed his parents and taken the throne for himself. Arthur is the true heir and must learn to wield the mighty sword of Excalibur if he hopes to become king. It's very much like every other King Arthur movie's story.

     My biggest question going in was how would Ritchie's style translate with the King Arthur story. When I think of epic, Arthurian movie, Guy Ritchie is the first name on my list. That being said, some of directorial choices translate very well with this story. The most evident one is the action choreography and visual effects. The release for this film was pushed back almost a year and the visual effects greatly paid off from it. There are segments where the effects are not necessarily perfect but for the most part it was greatly done, especially with how much this movie required.

     The pacing of this movie is incredibly quick which translates to a lot of action set pieces. The majority of them were highly entertaining and you could definitely tell as to why Warner Brothers hired Ritchie to direct this movie. They practically made the Excalibur it's own character and there is some very good swordplay. The biggest hinderance within the action though is the shaky cam. There is a particular scene (which was in the trailers so it's not a spoiler) where Arthur and his gang are running through the streets of a bustling city. There was lots of shaky cam and POV shots here that will most likely just be daunting for audiences. 

     Seeing as this film only made 15 million domestically on a estimated 175 million budget, I think it's a valid point to state Charlie Hunnam is not really the guy that should be leading a movie. While he was great in the very little I've scene of Sons of Anarchy, studios must be very cautious with the box office draw from this film and Pacific Rim. He's not a guy that puts butts in seats. You could have placed a ton of actors in this role that would be good for marketing and utilized much better then Hunnam on screen. The standout performance however goes to Jude Law as the evil king, Vortigern. There's a particular scene in which his character explains the intoxication of power that will really give audiences a great understanding of the mindset that he has.

     While there are entertaining aspects, this film ultimately falls flat with formulaic story beats and not a lot of positive take aways. This lost Warner Brothers A LOT of money so we won't be seeing any sequel probably ever again to this film. I can't recommend going to see this in theaters but it wouldn't be a bad cable watch on a Saturday afternoon.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10

Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 Review

     When Marvel released the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie back in 2014 it was quite the surprise. At the time nobody except the hardcore, comic fans really knew who these characters were. Fortunately for the studio, it was a huge hit and one of the most exciting Marvel movies to come out to this day. Audiences fell in love with the loudmouth, ragtag group. The marketing material for Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 seemed to carry the tone and flavor of the first film. I had the opportunity of seeing a double feature of the first and new film at my local theater here in College Station. My excitement for this movie was quite high. Although the sequel is not quite as fun and charming as the original, Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 offers a lot of emotional depth and effectively adds on to these characters audiences fell in love with in 2014.

     Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 continues the story and exploration of Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) parentage...And that's really it. One of my biggest complaint with this movie is the story. When try to describe it to someone who has no idea what it's about, it is very difficult to do so. The story is very simplistic and formulaic, however the movie is nonetheless entertaining because of the characters. This film is very character oriented and really explores the gang well, old and new members. The standouts are Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), and Yondu (Michael Rooker). Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) will make audiences cry because of how adorable he is.

     Audiences are given a lot more backstory and depth with these guys. The story is very focused on Quill though and his relationship with his father Ego (Kurt Russell). The two have a great dynamic and director James Gunn does a wonderful job adding emotional depth to these characters. The stand out of this film is Dave Bautista as Drax. Drax was the surprise of the original due to the uncertainty with the casting of Bautista, however his comedic timing is really solid. Audiences will definitely be able to tell that they wanted to up the jokes with Drax and all the characters in general. Unfortunately, that hurts the film.
     The jokes are really witty and audiences will enjoy them but timing is a key aspect of comedy. There are a lot of jokes that are delivered and there did not seem to be any pacing. What I enjoy with the original and a lot of the other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is they blend comedy really well. Guardians 2 doesn't seem to really give us any breathing room and goes a bit overboard at times.

     I don't necessarily know if the soundtrack for this one is better then the first but it is still an awesome mixtape. This one seems to have a more songwriting oriented tracklist where as the original was a little more guitar oriented. Both serve the and work in the story very well.
     This film is definitely more character oriented then story and while that's not necessarily a bad approach, the film's story could of greatly used some improvement. Thanks to some heartfelt performances and decent character development. Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 is a fun time in the theater.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10

The Circle Review

     Technology being evil is a tale as old as time. Your Grandpa shouts it at you at every holiday dinner and audiences are fascinated with this idea of machines rising. Shows like Black Mirror and countless A.I. films have placed this phenomenon on-screen. The Circle is the newest film to explore this movement. With director James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now and Smashed) behind the camera and a talented cast such as Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, and John Boyega, this film has all the right pieces to be a magnificent social commentary on technology. Unfortunately this film is far from magnificent. Even with intriguing concepts, The Circle falls incredibly flat due to botched execution and horrendous pacing.
     Based on the novel by Dave Eggers, The Circle focuses on Mae Holland (Emma Watson) who receives a job at the prestigious tech company known as The Circle. Headed by Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks) and Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), Mae will quickly rise up the company ranks but will also find out the company is not as clean as it makes itself out to be.

     I was greatly excited for this film initially. The talent behind it is great and the concept is very intriguing, however this was a very difficult film to watch. Anybody who knows me well knows that I absolutely adore Emma Watson. She is one of my favorite actresses working in the business and I have enjoyed her in every film she's been apart of. With The Circle, you could have inserted any actress into the role as Mae and they would have sufficed. The character is incredibly one dimensional and Watson's performance often feels wooden. She is the main focus of the story and audiences will not have an ounce of care for her upon seeing this movie. Although Tom Hanks is the most enjoyable character to watch, he is incredibly underutilized. There is only really one moment in the entire film where the character seems relatable and it does not come until the third act.

     The writing and pacing for this movie will be the biggest gripe among audiences. This story seems to be all build up and yet no climax. Audiences will see where the story is going from a mile away and while this isn't necessarily a bad aspect if the setup and execution is well done, however this film completely botches it in regards of execution and the characters are nowhere near likable. Eggers also wrote the screenplay for this and I've heard the book is phenomenal but the screenplay for this movie felt like it was written by a student taking a college course on Screenwriting 101. The runtime for The Circle is 110 minutes but it feels like a marathon.
     Besides the acting of Tom Hanks, this movie is not only disappointing but might be one of the worst films of 2017 so far. All the pieces were in place for this to be an incredibly thought provoking concept but because of the botched execution and under-developed characters, audience will most definitely forget about this movie.

Rating: 3.1 out of 10