'Bright' Review

Bright illuminates a fictional reality where fantasy creatures and humans coexist. In Bright, orcs are looked down upon while humans, centaurs, and elves are widely accepted by society. Bright follows Daryl Ward, a human LAPD officer who recently recovered from an orc attack, who now must work alongside his orc partner Nick Jakoby to prevent a magical wand from getting into the wrong hands. Otherwise, an ancient evil will be unleashed and end the world.

Bright is directed by David Ayer, written by Max Landis, and represents Netflix's first foray into big budget blockbusters. The streaming service-turned-studio pumped a whopping $90 M budget into the fantasy-crime epic and has already announced plans for a sequel, but Bright wasn't well-received by critics, with some calling it one of the worst films of 2017. However, Bright was met with a much warmer reception by the streaming service's dedicated binge-watchers. Average audience members turned out in droves to watch Bright once it was released since they could simply stream from home, as it was reported that 11 M people watched it in the first three days. In addition, the film currently holds a favorable 87% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and many people I've spoken to have had good things to say.

While I didn't allow those factors to influence my opinion, I wasn't overly optimistic on Bright due to the talent involved. Many members of the cast and crew carried over from director David Ayer's last film, Suicide Squad, and my opinion has on that film REALLY soured since I first saw it. I was willing to give Ayer another chance though, because I really liked Fury and it seems like Warner Bros really skewered his vision of Suicide Squad in post-production. With that being said, I'm not overly fond of the film's screenwriter Max Landis either. Landis often takes to Twitter to nitpick nearly every blockbuster, and I find many of his comments to be absolutely absurd (namely his "Rey is a Mary Sue" argument, but you can visit my Is Rey A Mary Sue? article for more on that topic specifically). At the risk of sounding biased, I was prepared for the possibilities that Bright might be good, great, mediocre, or even awful. However, Bright fell into the category of "laughably terrible." Landis often acts like he knows best, so frankly, I find it ironic and a bit funny when he fails so spectacularly... To add insult to injury, Landis boasted that Bright would be his Star Wars. 

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Bright was how Ayer and Landis squandered a promising premise with such lackluster execution. The fictional world these characters are living in could have been incredibly interesting, but everything is scattershot because Landis aimed to accomplish an immense agenda. It's apparent that Landis had a lot of ideas on his plate while writing this movie, but one can only feasibly tell so much of a story in under two hours. Landis clearly wanted to flesh out a fascinating fictional reality where humans lived alongside orcs, elves, fairies, and centaurs. He takes time to contemplate the social structure of this world and how that could differ from our reality, but in execution, not that much is changed. The dichotomy between their world and ours should be drastic, but it really isn't that different aside from all the fictional creatures roaming around. Maybe this was for budgetary reasons, but this alternate reality looks and feels just like real life Los Angeles, albeit during some sort of comic convention. 

Landis also attempts to interweave a subtle and smart allegory for rough race relations, but his efforts are horribly ham-fisted when all is said-and-done. I don't take issue with the idea of incorporating allegorical undertones, but this should never overtake the characters or story. Oddly enough, Zootopia (of all things) has equivalent ambitions, but Zootopia managed to actually accomplish its goal while telling a worthwhile story. Bright can't lay claim to either feat because the dialogue is cringeworthy, characters are wildly inconsistent, and the events are incomprehensible. Bright doesn't take the time to carefully setup certain events or actions, so expositional dialogue is oftentimes provided after the fact. By that point, you honestly won't care why something happened, but Landis feels an obligation to try and explain anyways. Even with an over reliance on exposition, ample unanswered questions and trivial sequences remain.

One consistency of Bright was that it implored me to ask myself time-and-time again "What am I even watching?..." The characters say one thing, but their actions suggest otherwise, and then most of what transpired didn't make a lick of sense. You'd think that the buddy cop dynamic might be a redeeming aspect, but the constant bickering between the characters was not an interesting interplay whatsoever. I also hoped the technical execution might make matters slightly more enjoyable, but even that wasn't enough. Some action sequences were kind of cool I guess, the makeup effects were proficient but ugly, and the cinematography from Roman Vasyanov was competent. 

Leading Bright, Will Smith adds another piece of hot garbage to his resume. Recently, it's seemed as though Smith has been cashing in his success as an actor for some quick paychecks, and Bright is no exception. Smith's natural knack for charm shines through of course, but the man doesn't seem to be trying too much these days. 

Joel Edgerton surprisingly manages to act his way through the orc prosthetic, so I applaud him for that, but his character was immensely egregious at times. As I touched on earlier, the chemistry between Smith and Edgerton wasn't quite there so I genuinely didn't care about either of them. Other members of the ensemble include Noomi Rapace, Edgar Ramírez, Ike Barinholtz, Jay Hernandez, and Lucy Fry, but their respective roles are hardly worth mentioning because of their characters' insignificance and lacking screen-time.

If Bright is indicative of what we should expect from Netflix's upcoming onslaught of original content, then we're looking towards a dark and gloomy future of substandard streaming material. I suppose the end of net-neutrality won't be so bad after all if it means we'll only be missing out on pathetic projects such as Bright. 

Film Assessment: D

'Proud Mary' Review

Proud Mary sets its sights on Mary, a hit woman working for one of Boston's biggest crime families, as she crosses paths with a young boy after an assassination gone wrong. The encounter then changes the course of both their lives as Mary adopts Danny to protect him from Boston's most dangerous mob families.

Proud Mary was one of the new films released last weekend you may not have heard of before visiting this review, and trust me when I say it was for good reason... Screen Gems, a division of Sony Pictures, notoriously made the decision not to heavily market Proud Mary. You'll probably see this point brought up in almost any internet review for the film you choose to read, but I went to YouTube to demonstrate just how minimal the marketing was for Proud Mary. My findings were one trailer that came out five months ago and two vignettes released last week. That's it. When you consider that the studio also didn't hold any advanced screenings for critics and really restricted the number of theaters playing the film last Thursday night, things don't look good. Screen Gems was making absolutely no effort to promote this film.

Therefore, it should come at no surprise that this movie was a major melodramatic mess... Babak Najafi, the director best known for London Has Fallen, haphazardly helmed the flick which also features a lousy script from John Stuart Newman, Christian Swegal, and Steve Antin. Plot points weren't provided with proper set-up so the story was rather jumbled and I cannot stress to you enough how terrible all of the dialogue was, which the stilted line delivery from the phoned-in actors certainly didn't do any favors. From a technical standpoint, the edit's composed of plenty of quick cuts and the camerawork was rather pedestrian. Thankfully, there wasn't much shaky-cam... but the forced inclusion of numerous transition scenes showing Mary entering, exiting, or driving a vehicle were tedious to say the least.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all though was Proud Mary's lack of energy or clear focus. This is supposed to be an action movie for goodness sake! However, there are maybe three action sequences total that all failed to impress me whatsoever and each one was horribly mismatched to an upbeat Motown song. The songs didn't really mesh well with the action occurring onscreen, so when they're incorporated, it's seemingly for the purposes of featuring a fun, peppy song in the background. I don't mind Najafi going for a '70s Motown style if he had committed to it, but that idea lasts all of about four minutes during the film's opening credits. It's almost entirely forgotten afterwards.

As for the cast, their lifeless performances and stale line delivery will probably go down among the worst of the year. Taraji P. Henson is an actress whom I know to be capable of delivering a solid performance (just look to Hidden Figures as evidence), and while she certainly elevates this flick when compared to her costars, she comes across as dull and dreary when all is said-and-done. She's trying to play a tough persona, but the character's actions suggest otherwise and so her character's personality is virtually non-existent and the audience is left looking at her vacant expression. I don't like to chide child actors, but Jahi Di'Allo Winston was noticeably inexperienced and his character was a bit annoying. Meanwhile, Billy Brown, Danny Glover, and Neal McDonough are hardly worth mentioning due to either how laughably abysmal their acting was or how little they had to do in their lacking screen-time. 

The title may tell us Mary is proud, but it's really no wonder that Screen Gems wasn't. Proud Mary is an excruciating watch that I can't in good conscious suggest anyone ever see. It's truly a shameful use of an hour and half.

Film Assessment: F

'The Commuter' Review

The Commuter rides alongside an insurance salesman and former cop, Michael MacCauley, as he's approached by a stranger and forced to uncover the identity of a mysterious train passenger on his daily commute home. To make matters worse, the lives of his family and fellow passengers are on the line should he fail his task. 

The Commuter stars Liam Neeson and is directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, marking their fourth collaboration together in addition to supposedly being Neeson's last action flick before he retires from the genre. Even though the trailers weren't particularly compelling, I knew I had to see The Commuter at some point when I considered the possibility it may truly be Liam Neeson's final action outing. At the very least, I thought it'd enable me to turn my brain off for a leisurely use of an hour and forty-four minutes, which it actually did to a degree... 

Collet-Serra is well aware of exactly what kind of film he's making, so The Commuter never takes itself too seriously. If you've ever commuted on any type of metro service, you'll quickly realize how inauthentic Collet-Serra's portrayal of the commuting experience is in comparison to the real deal. Passengers constantly wander around while the train is in motion and the conductor paces the cars to punch holes in tickets that happen to reveal exactly which stop that passenger will be getting off at. The Commuter heavily relies on plenty of plot contrivances, as can be evidenced by the undistinguished screenplay from writers Byron Willinger, Phillip de Blasi, and Ryan Engle.

Things obviously happen for the purposes of being looped in later on, but Collet-Serra doesn't simply leave it at that... Almost every-time an event is referenced from earlier, the audience is shown that same thing again, because clearly Collet-Serra thinks the audience's IQ is equivalent to that of a mindless popcorn flick and they need the visual reminder. That's not to mention that many of these elements seem to come completely out of nowhere, so it's especially apparent they're being incorporated for a twist later down the line. On that note, I felt like I was always a stop or two ahead of The Commuter because the twists and turns were so predictable. Maybe it was just me, because I heard others audibly gasp a couple times, but I felt like the pieces fell into place a little too easily. 

 

With that being said, there's some fun to be had with this lazy locomotive. Sure, the editing's occasionally incoherent, there were plenty of unnecessary cuts, and the camera moved around a bit too much for my liking... but the cheesy dialogue and periodic exhilarating action sequences made it bearable. Admittedly, most of the film is Liam Neeson wandering back and forth onboard a train... so that can get a bit boring, but the occasional action scene kept me interested. Is The Commuter a genre game-changer? Heck no! It's at least an above-average January release though.

In spite of his commonplace surroundings, Liam Neeson is quite good in the lead role. Neeson has starred in an overabundance of similar action-thrillers, so it's easy to buy into his character because Neeson's already nailed the necessary character traits. You care about the situation as an audience member because it's apparent Neeson does as well. Otherwise, the cast of The Commuter don't have much to offer. Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, and Sam Neill all show up in stock supporting capacity, but have little more to do than deliver a few lines as two-dimentional individuals.

At the end of the day, The Commuter is a leisurely (if not slightly boring) ride for a good portion of its time on the tracks before it literally and figuratively pulls all the stops and derails in the third act. Perhaps, you may want to wait till The Commuter makes a stop on the home media market to rent the film or catch it on cable. 

Film Assessment: C+

'Paddington 2' Review

Paddington 2 finds Paddington well adjusted to his new home and overjoyed to now be a part of the Brown family after the events of Paddington. With his Aunt Lucy's 100th birthday on the horizon, Paddington decides he ought to search far and wide for the perfect present. While perusing Mr. Gruber's antique shop, Paddington settles on a unique pop-up book, but the book's out of his price range... Paddington then takes on a series of odd jobs to afford the precious present, but it's all for naught when the gift is stolen and Paddington is framed for the crime. It's then up to Paddington and the Browns to prove Paddington's innocence by uncovering the culprit truly responsible.

Paddington 2 bears witness to the return of Paul King as writer and directer, although King does receive some screenwriting assistance from Simon Farnaby this time around. King steps right back into his roles with relative ease as he's able to station audiences right back in the whimsical world they last left at the end of the fantastic first film. Oftentimes, sequels promise to deliver more of what viewers enjoyed about the original in their attempt to franchise a single commercial hit into a string of sequels and spin-offs. While Paddington 2 certainly follows that formula by keeping the charming characters and sentimental story up at the forefront, King successfully freshens things up a bit.

For one, the mild-mannered, marmalade enthusiast winds up in the slammer after a massive mishap. Perhaps, that may seem like an excuse for a series of silly shenanigans, but King utilizes the barren big house to emphasize how an infectiously upbeat attitude can turn an awful situation around. Obviously, this shouldn't be taken TOO literally. If you are imprisoned and attempt to befriend the hardened criminals surrounding you, you likely won't be as lucky as Paddington was. The films can be quite silly and unrealistic after all. However, King's messages are a cheerful source of encouragement to children that a positive outlook on life will always come in handy, even in the worst of times. 

It's well-intentioned moral lessons like this that are scarcely found among family-friendly fare these days. Sure, there are occasional animated ventures that stand above the rest. Last year, it was Coco and The LEGO Batman Movie, but for each of those exceptional examples, there were countless cash grabs to be found including the likes of Despicable Me 3, The Emoji Movie, and Ferdinand. I don't bring this topic up in order to drag those movies through the mud again, but rather to point out a greater problem in Hollywood. In an effort to make a quick buck, studios hardly pay attention to the importance of story, character, and worthwhile messages in their family-friendly content, which is precisely why it's reassuring to see such a sweet sequel as Paddington 2. I don't say this with the mindset that you won't find another quality family film released this year, because I'm sure there will be at least a couple, but merely to implore how genuinely goodnatured Paddington 2 is in comparison to other entertainment today.

Now I'm sure many of you reading this review have "100%" running through your mind because that's the current Rotten Tomatoes critic rating for Paddington 2... You may have come for further validation that this film is deserving of such a distinguished honor or because you think it's impossible that Paddington 2 of all things has a 100%. I personally believe the general public have begun to place way too much emphasis on this number, but that's a discussion I'd like to have another day with a post detailing why Rotten Tomatoes really doesn't matter. So to go ahead and quickly address this, I'll quickly explain the mechanics of Rotten Tomatoes (if you know how it works, go ahead and skip over this). A 100% rating does not mean every critic rated Paddington 2 with a perfect score. It actually means every Rotten Tomatoes certified critic gave the film a "fresh" review (meaning they liked the film). The Rotten Tomatoes score is set up as an aggregate compilation of the results of a binary choice, "fresh" or "rotten." A certified critic determines one or the other when linking their trade review to the site. The mass conspiracy that the site is rigged in favor of particular films is absurd and incorrect. It's as simple as the critic liked it or they didn't. That's all there is to it.

So with that insight, I wouldn't say the 100% necessarily reflects the film's quality, but it'd be especially difficult to find anyone who wouldn't be won over by Paddington 2's winsome charm. Paddington 2 is just as quirky, cute, and colorful as the original in every way imaginable. The cinematography ranges from simple and subtle-to-sweeping and grandiose while the editing enabled plenty of smooth transitions for almost two hours of well-paced pleasantries. The effort that went into the costume/production design, set decoration, and art direction is also quite apparent as the picturesque handicraft shines stupendously and Paddington once again looks extraordinary as a credible CG-creature in the live action setting, so hats off the vfx team as well! In regards to music, Dario Marianelli steps in as the sequel's new composer and manages to string together a swell accompaniment full of heart and character all on its own.

As for the film's illustrious ensemble, those brilliant Brits have done it again! Voicing the polite Peruvian bear, Ben Whishaw exceptionally articulates Paddington's goodnatured, naive intentions once more. Newcomer Brendan Gleeson steals a great many scenes as Knuckles McGinty, the prisons's hardened chef who's quickly won over by the courteous, cuddly teddy. The other inmates offer ample comedic relief, but none were necessarily stand-outs.

Sally Hawkins, Hugh Bonneville, Madeleine Harris, Samuel Joslin, and Julie Walters all return as the respective members of the Brown family including the compassionate mother Mary, fervent father Henry, headstrong Judy, insecure Jonathan, and fiery Ms. Bird. Each has their moment in the limelight, but Hawkins and Bonneville are allotted the most screen-time as the peculiar parents. Other familiar faces (and voices) found among the distinguished ensemble are Peter Capaldi, Imelda Staunton, and Jim Broadbent who excel with the material provided to them.

Taking the place of Nicole Kidman's campy antagonist, Hugh Grant plays an array of kooky caricatures as formerly well-renowned character actor Phoenix Buchanan. He doesn't quite relish in his malevolence like most villains... Instead, Grant delightfully soaks in the glory of Buchanan's ego, acting abilities, and a bit of Sondheim (stick around through the first half end credits to see an utterly delightful song and dance number). 

Paddington 2 is a family-friendly film that best bears resemblance to its titular marmalade-obsessed Ursidae. It's a sequel that's cute, kind, full of wholesome values, and well worth spending an afternoon alongside.

Film Assessment: A

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Paddington'

This week I'm reviewing Paddington to coincide with American release of its sequel this weekend. I hadn't seen the film prior to last Saturday, but it's on Netflix for those interested. Reviews you can expect for the remainder of the month include Throwback Thursday Reviews of The World's End and The Shining, reviews of new releases Paddington 2, The Commuter, Proud Mary, 12 Strong, and Maze Runner: The Death Cure. I'll be reviewing any films from 2017 that I missed out on as I watch them so look forward to seeing some of those reviews up sometime soon as well. 

'Paddington' Review

Paddington journeys alongside a young bear after the devastating destruction of his quaint home in the Peruvian rain forest forces him to seek shelter and solace in London. Through circumstance, the altruistic bear meets the considerate Brown family while waiting at London Paddington station. The Browns then temporarily extend their home and hospitality in addition to bestowing the bear with an English name, "Paddington."

Paddington is a feature length film written and directed by Paul King that adapts Michael Bond's classic Paddington Bear children's book series. Beloved children's stories are regularly adapted to film nowadays, so the fact Paddington joined the pack wasn't too surprising. However, these modern adaptations typically lose sight of the source material's wholesome family-friendly angle. Instead, audiences are treated to crass, tasteless humor catered way too heavily towards children... Thankfully though, Paddington never found itself ensnared by such absurdity. 

King's script can sure be silly at times, but the humor is genuinely funny and well thought out. King could easily have appeased to younger audiences with stupid, purposeless jokes encompassing flatulence, but Paddington rises above every opportunity to tell a charming, virtuous tale about a marmalade-loving bear from Peru. 

In regards to the film's technical prowess, Paddington looks and sounds very much like a Wes Anderson production due to a quirky, colorful aesthetic and a breakneck score from Nick Urata, but I can assure you it's not one. King was clearly inspired by Anderson's work, but that's not the only influence on Paddington, as the Peruvian bear even tips his red hat to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Mission: Impossible in two distinct instances. Now, I probably couldn't finish writing this review without applauding the film's vfx team for the wonderful work on creating a convincing CG-Paddington. Oftentimes, CG-creatures found in live action family films aren't quite authentic in their appearance, instead seeming distinctly digital. However, the vfx department's fine craftsmanship here did not go unnoticed.  

Paddington's cast features the likes of abundant accomplished actors from Great Britain, and everyone turns in a fine performance. Front and center, Ben Whishaw bestows Paddington with a kindred spirit and naive nature through his sufficient voice work. Sally Hawkins makes for a calm, endearing presence as Mary Brown while Hugh Bonneville's Henry Brown is ill-tempered and uptight, and their troubled parental dynamic wound up being a plus for me! The Brown children, Judy and Jonathan, are portrayed by Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin respectively, who each offer up quality performances for their age. While I wouldn't say they quite fit into that upper echelon of young actors who have emerged lately, I'd still consider them the cream of the crop as far as child talent goes. 

In the antagonistic camp, Nicole Kidman plays Millicent as an over-the-top taxidermist, and it totally works due to Kidman's commitment and the sometimes cartoonish setting surrounding her. Peter Capaldi, who's probably best known as the last Doctor Who, steps into the shoes of the Brown family's nefarious neighbor Mr. Curry and manages to constantly complain about the beloved bear in astonishingly amusing ways. Also, there's a number of familiar faces from the Wizarding World to be found among the film's exceptional British ensemble including the likes of Julie Walters, Michael Gambon, Imelda Stanton, and Jim Broadbent in roles of varying size and substance. 

At its best, Paddington is a bear-y good example of something that doesn't come around too often these days... A loving, wholesome adaptation of a classic children's book that the entire family can enjoy.

Film Assessment: B

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Looper'

Sorry for the delay, but welcome to my first Throwback Thursday Review of 2018! These next few months are going to be a little slow in regards to major releases, so I had some difficulty stringing together a slate of films to review each Thursday. However, there were quite a few Throwback Thursday Reviews from 2017 that never materialized (Looper included). Therefore, I'm incorporating them into my lineup. For those curious, I was originally going to review Looper the same week that Star Wars: The Last Jedi was released because both films were written and directed by Rian Johnson. I never really had a chance to sit down and rewatch the film though, so I decided to put off the review for later. As for upcoming January reviews, look forward to seeing Throwback Thursday Reviews of Paddington, The World's End, and The Shining, reviews of new releases Paddington 2, The Commuter, Proud Mary, 12 Strong, and Maze Runner: The Death Cure, and I'll be reviewing any films from 2017 that I missed out on as I watch them. 

'Looper' Review

Looper transports audiences to the bleak, distant future of 2044. Thirty years later, time travel will be invented, but is only available for those willing to pay on the black market. When the mob needs to eliminate someone, they send the target back in time thirty years to be assassinated by hitmen known as "loopers." In order to fulfill the terms of their contract, loopers must kill all their targets (including a future version of themselves). Once their future self is dead, their loop (contract) is closed and they've earned thirty years of luxurious retirement. A young looper named Joe is one of the most skilled in his profession. He does his job well, gets paid, and doesn't ask questions. That is, until he recognizes his future self on the job and hesitates... giving his older self just enough time to fight back and escape. Now that his loop's unclosed and his employers are quick in pursuit, Joe must find and eliminate his older self by any means necessary if he's going to safeguard the future and live out the rest of his life. 

Looper was written and directed by Rian Johnson as his third feature length film preceding Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and Johnson's endless imagination and knack for creativity triumphantly shines through his stylistic storytelling. Johnson's ingenuity for taking an established idea, such as time travel, and uniquely incorporating it into his story is probably what landed him the Star Wars gig to begin with (on-top of being a talented director with a unique voice). Time travel is something that can go horribly wrong when handled incorrectly because of all the caveats and logistics of time paradoxes, but Johnson manages to minimize those issues and tell a story full of intellect and emotion.

Johnson put a great deal of care into imbuing understandable motivations for Joe and his older self, so audiences could grasp what each incarnation of Joe is fighting for, and even asks questions about identity and purpose one would expect in a story pitting a man against himself. It's all rather high concept, but deeply rooted in relatable terms. Joe and Old Joe each want to survive in order to accomplish a mission that's meaningful to them. What's so fascinating about all that is how each version of Joe is essentially fighting for the same thing (survival), but their desires drastically differ from one another. The older Joe thinks his life experience adds more credence to his quest while the younger Joe's inclination evolves from being simplistic to more complex the further involved he finds himself in the struggle. 

Johnson's narrative never loses sight of character, so the emotional beats resonate and it's easy to quickly latch onto the characters and the concept. Otherwise, the film might have gotten lost in the shuffle of weighty sci-fi elements. In regards to its technical prowess, Looper features accomplished cinematography, exceptional editing, great grungy production design, and an enriching original score from Nathan Johnson. The action's appropriately intense and the prosthetics used to help Joseph Gordon-Levitt better resemble Bruce Willis aren't half bad. 

Leading Looper, Joseph Gordon-Levitt exemplifies suave charisma to spare as Joe. Gordon-Levitt is simply an extraordinary actor capable of imbuing enough nuance to astound audiences as well as he charms them, and his role here is no exception to his slick streak. Thanks to a proficient prosthesis, muted mannerisms, and a strengthened resolve, you totally buy into the fact that Gordon-Levitt is playing a younger version of Bruce Willis.

On the other end of the spectrum, Bruce Willis seeps similar qualities into his portrayal of Old Joe. Willis' take on Joe is shaped by emotional trauma though, which allows Willis to demonstrate his skill in the realm of dramatic acting (something rarely seen from Willis these days). Willis finds a bold determination for the character amidst Joe's anger, pain, and strife that's subtly communicated to tremendous effect. 

Sprinkled among the ensemble are superb showings from supporting players Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, and Pierce Gagnon in the roles of Sara, Abe, and Cid. Blunt, in particular, shines as she exhibits a believable balance between being a strong, protective mother and an emotionally compromised one. Daniels steals nearly every scene he's in, while Gagnon adds his name to the mile long list of adept young actors I've watched recently. 

Looper is essentially a spiritual sibling to Inception because both films are intellectual, emotional, and pioneered by innovative minds. If there's one thing to be said about Rian Johnson, it's that he sure knows how to throw me for a loop!

Film Assessment: A

Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2018

We've officially rung in the New Year, so it only seems right to look ahead and decide which ten films I'm most looking forward to in 2018. Most of these will be blockbusters because I don't know too much about anything else as of now.

Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2018

10. Ready Player One

It's kind of difficult for me not to be excited for a new Spielberg film. The man's my favorite director and he's not directing too many projects these days, so each new entry to his resume always gets me a bit excited. The trailers for Ready Player One have been very promising and I'm ready to see it all materialize on March 30th!

9. Aquaman

This entry to my list is here primarily on account of my confidence in James Wan as director and Jason Mamoa in the role of Aquaman. We haven't seen any trailers for Aquaman yet, but Jason Mamoa was great in Justice League and I'm very curious to see how Wan will handle the underwater seqeunces in Atlantis (because I'm sure there will be A LOT). Here's hoping that Wan can pull off something similar to what Patty Jenkins did last year with Wonder Woman.

8. Mission: Impossible - Fallout

Mission: Impossible 6 made my list simply because I've loved the last few entries in the franchise. Most of the cast is returning, except for Jeremy Renner since he had his plate full with the two upcoming Avengers movies. We haven't seen much of the film aside from some still photos, but I'm also curious to see if that all that drama over Henry Cavill's mustache was worth it. That mustache better knock my socks off, because otherwise, I don't really see why it mattered.

7. Solo: A Star Wars Story

How could I possibly make a list of the films I'm most excited for and leave off an upcoming Star Wars film? I can't, hence why Solo made my list. Solo wasn't exactly a Star Wars Story I wanted to see, but I'll take what I can get from Lucasfilm and Disney. I know the developments behind the scenes seem troubling, but I'm hoping Ron Howard can pull it off! Maybe a trailer will excite me some more, but till then, here's to remaining cautiously optimistic till May 25th!

6. Ant-Man and the Wasp

Ant-Man was one of the funniest entries to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so naturally its sequel made its way onto my list. Adding to that, Ant-Man made a huge impression during the airport battle in Captain America: Civil War, Evangeline Lily finally gets to fly into the fray as Wasp, and Michelle Pfeiffer is joining the incredible ensemble as Janet Van Dyne. I'm also guessing that it will be another small-scaled story with enormous personal stakes, so I can't wait to see what Peyton Reed has in store for the size-changing superheroes on July 6th.

5. Isle of Dogs

This is probably the entry on my list that you're most confused by, but Wes Anderson is one of my favorite directors working today due to his quirky style and sensibilities as a filmmaker, and Isle of Dogs is his next project. Isle of Dogs looks to be another peculiar project for Anderson in the same stop-motion style as Fantastic Mr. Fox, one of my favorites from the auteur artist, so I can't help it that the trailer had me wagging my tail.

4. Deadpool 2

Deadpool was a film that could have gone wrong in so many ways, but wound up being a match made in heaven for the Merc with a Mouth. It was meta, hilarious, entertaining, and most importantly, R-Rated. There's no better possible casting choice for the role than Ryan Reynolds, and I can't wait to see what he does with the role here. It was a little concerning when the first film's director, Tim Miller, left due to creative differences, but I genuinely hope his replacement, David Leitch, can recapture the spark that lit theaters ablaze at the beginning of 2016. Although, the marketing campaign already seems to have that ball rolling with the "Wet on Wet" teaser they've released.

3. Black Panther

Black Panther looks awesome on so many levels. The idea of pairing Ryan Cooler, the director of Creed and Fruitvale Station, with an exceptional ensemble consisting of Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong'o, Daniel Kaluuya, Angela Bassett, Forest Whitaker, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, Sterling K. Brown, Andy Serkis, and Martin Freeman is cool enough on paper. The fact it's a Marvel movie and the first solo outing for the King of Wakanda only makes it a million times cooler. Black Panther is one of my favorite Marvel heroes and was one of my favorite parts of Captain America: Civil War, so I'm enormously excited that we're only a month away from his first feature film.

2. Incredibles 2

I've waited to see a sequel to The Incredibles for FOURTEEN years! It's still one of my favorite films from Pixar, Brad Bird's returning to the write and direct in the realm of animation, and it's picking up right where the first left off with the fantastic family of supers, so I couldn't possibly be more excited for June 15th.

1. Avengers: Infinity War

My number one choice on this list is a no-brainer. This is the culmination of ten years and nineteen films of build-up inside an unprecedented cinematic universe, and we're finally going to see the Avengers square off against Thanos. It looks to be epic in every way imaginable, and perhaps we'll finally get to see Captain America yell "Avengers, Assemble!" My spidey-senses are tingling just thinking about the release date of May 4, 2018.