Ready Player One (2018) review

There’s no denying the fact that Steven Spielberg is one of the most legendary filmmakers in the history of cinema. Since his career first took off in the early 70’s, he’s given us an endless array of cinematic classics. He’s directed everything from iconic blockbusters like Jaws, E.T., and the Indiana Jones series to critically-acclaimed dramas like Schindler’s List, The Color Purple, and Saving Private Ryan. With that in mind, one could say that it’s only fitting that he’d be the one to direct a film that honors the current era of geekdom that he had a major hand in creating. And thus, here we are now with his latest directorial effort, Ready Player One, a film adaptation of author Ernest Cline’s best-selling novel of the same name from 2011. Upon its release in August of that year, this story of a teenager who embarks on an epic journey within the expansive world of a virtual reality game received solid reviews from critics and ended up becoming a New York Times bestseller. But in the years since, however, the novel has started to attract a steadily growing backlash from those who weren’t too keen on its over-reliance on pop cultural references. Nevertheless, seven years after its release, Cline’s novel now comes to the big screen under the direction of the one man who was undeniably one of Cline’s biggest influences. And because that man is Steven Spielberg, he manages to avoid making this film nothing but an endless barrage of Easter eggs (in this case, pun intended…) and instead gives us an entertaining sci-fi fantasy adventure that fully immerses us within its fantastical world.

In the year 2045, most of humanity finds itself living in slum-like communities due to everything from overpopulation to polluting. This includes teenager Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), who lives in ‘The Stacks’ (named for its collection of trailer homes stacked on top of each other) in Columbus, Ohio. Like everyone else, Wade escapes the gloom of reality by immersing himself within the virtual world of a computer simulation known as ‘the OASIS’. Within the OASIS, one can do anything, go anywhere, and be whoever they want to be from the world of pop culture. However, things get a little more interesting when OASIS users learn of a quest set up by the service’s creator, the late James Halliday (Mark Rylance). Whoever manages to complete this quest, made up of three challenges tied directly to Halliday’s favorite aspects of pop culture, and find the secret ‘Easter egg’ that Halliday has hidden within the OASIS will earn Halliday’s shares of his company along with complete control of the OASIS. Wade, who adopts the username of ‘Parzival’, soon finds himself performing well in Halliday’s challenges thanks to his extensive knowledge of Halliday’s life. However, this also begins to put him in direct competition with Innovative Online Industries (IOI), led by CEO Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), who is also seeking the Egg to take over the OASIS by any means necessary. Thus, with the future of the OASIS on the line, Wade teams up with several other Gunters (‘Egg Hunters’), including Samantha Cook AKA Art3mis (Olivia Cooke) and his best friend Helen AKA Aech (Lena Waithe), to complete the challenges so that they can collect the Egg first.

Well, there’s really no way of beating around the bush on this one; one of the most definitive aspects of Ready Player One is its wide array of cameos and bits of dialogue that reference almost everything from the world of pop culture. There is so much of that in this film that it’ll legitimately require multiple viewings just to spot them all. At the same time, though, doing so would allow you to marvel at this film’s impressive visual effects. Obviously, everything within the OASIS is CGI, but thanks to the excellent work by the legendary Industrial Light and Magic, this film boasts some of the crispest CGI in recent memory. But fear not, as this film is much more than just a bunch of pretty visuals. Now, of course, this film does emphasize all the various cultural references that it has to offer; everything from Wade/Parzival riding a Back to the Future DeLorean in the OASIS to him using the ‘Holy Hand Grenade’ from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in combat. Despite this, though, Spielberg’s great direction makes it so that it ends up being more about the story and its characters than whatever figure from a popular video game or film happen to pop up on screen from time to time. After all, Spielberg, well-aware of how big of an impact he made on pop culture in the 80’s, purposefully decided to not directly use anything from the films that he directed so that this wouldn’t become an extreme case of vanity. And while the film does celebrate pop culture, it also offers some commentary on the instances where that love can go a bit too far. While Halliday’s challenges are primarily influenced by his favorite bits of media, Wade and company soon realize that another key influence behind them all are some of Halliday’s biggest regrets in life that occurred due to his overall lifestyle. This, along with several other aspects of the plot, helps to give the narrative a solid amount of heart which, given some of his previous films, is something that Spielberg is quite good at doing.

This entertaining adventure is further backed by its excellent ensemble cast. In the lead role of Wade/Parzival, Tye Sheridan exhibits solid charisma while also having some excellent chemistry with Olivia Cooke as Samantha/Art3mis. And while Wade is the main character of the story, Samantha is just as well-versed as he is when it comes to the OASIS and Halliday’s tendencies while also being the one who keeps him out of trouble with IOI, making her much more than just a typical ‘love interest’. Speaking of IOI, CEO Nolan Sorrento proves to be a solid villain thanks in large part due to Ben Mendelsohn being given plenty of time to interact with Wade and company; in other words, he isn’t as underused from a narrative perspective as he [sort of] was in Rogue One. Finally, closing out the film’s core group of leads is Lena Waithe in what will surely be a breakout role for her as Helen/Aech, who has a strong camaraderie with Sheridan while also playing a major part in some of the best moments in the film (i.e. a sequence that involves their group going through a recreation of a classic film that she hasn’t seen). And while these four characters do end up getting the most attention plot-wise, meaning that some of the supporting characters end up being a little underutilized as a result, there are still plenty of memorable supporting roles in this film aside from them. Mark Rylance (who, given his roles in both Bridge of Spies and The BFG, is quickly becoming a new Spielberg regular) makes the most out of his brief role as Halliday and his OASIS avatar Anorak as does Simon Pegg as Halliday’s former business partner, Ogden Morrow. And while the two of them end up being the least focused on of the main group, who are known as the ‘High Five’ due to their shared success at beating Halliday’s challenges, brothers Akihide/Sho (Philip Zhao) and Toshiro/Daito (Win Morisaki) do get to partake in some of the film’s most standout moments.

Now for the record, I am very much well-aware of some of the main reasons why Ernest Cline’s original novel has been getting a considerably substantial amount of backlash in the years since its release. The main reason why is simple, as some have taken issue with Ready Player One’s heavy emphasis on nostalgia and the various facets of pop culture that society has been treated to over the years, especially things that came from the 80’s. But because I’ll admit to not having read the novel beforehand, I didn’t really care about that going in. I mean, sure, in basic terms, this film is an amalgamation of numerous bits of pop culture; everything from The Iron Giant and Akira to Overwatch and Minecraft. But if there’s one person who could make all that work without going overboard on all the pop cultural references, it’d be the man who served as a direct influence on the original story itself, Steven Spielberg. Under the confident direction of one of the industry’s quintessential filmmakers, the film adaptation of Ready Player One is a delightful cinematic adventure that boasts some of the most stunning visuals in recent memory along with a fantastic ensemble cast headlined by the terrific lead duo of Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke along with memorable supporting turns from the likes of Lena Waithe and Ben Mendelsohn. In other words, under the eye of a ‘lesser director’, this probably could’ve turned out exactly like its critics thought it would be based on their overall thoughts on the book. But if there’s one thing that I hope we all can agree on, it is that Steven Spielberg is not ‘a lesser director’.

Rating: 5/5!

Pacific Rim Uprising (2018) review

Before his 2017 directorial effort The Shape of Water won the Oscar for Best Picture (along with winning him the Oscar for Best Director), Guillermo Del Toro did what he did best and released a visually stunning blockbuster in the summer of 2013 known as Pacific Rim. The film, which was about large robots fighting equally large monsters, served as a love letter to the ‘kaiju’ film genre that is well known for classics like Godzilla and 2006’s The Host. Upon its release, the film did solidly with critics, many of whom acknowledged that the film was an enjoyable popcorn flick despite its rather mindless plot and basic character development. At the box-office, the film grossed over $411 million worldwide, though this was mainly thanks to the international box-office as it barely grossed over $100 million domestically. Still, it proved to be just enough to warrant a sequel in the form of Pacific Rim Uprising. This time around, the film is distributed by Universal instead of Warner Bros. due to its main production company, Legendary Pictures, signing a new distribution deal with the former in 2013. Also, due to his commitment to the previously mentioned Shape of Water, we don’t have Guillermo Del Toro behind the camera on this one (he’s only a producer this time). Instead, we have Steven S. DeKnight, a long-time veteran of TV having created the hit Starz series Spartacus while also kick-starting Marvel Studios’ line of Netflix shows by serving as the show-runner for Season 1 of Daredevil, in his official feature-length directorial debut. This directorial debut of his features several returning players from the first Pacific Rim along with several new characters headlined by Star Wars’ Finn, John Boyega. And overall, this sequel manages to deliver the same great kinetic thrills of its predecessor even if it is still very much one of those ‘shut off your brain’ kind of films.

It has been a decade since humanity managed to repel the threat of giant alien monsters known as kaiju. With the aid of massive, dual-piloted mechs known as ‘Jaegers’, the pilots who controlled them managed to seal off the breach that had emerged deep within the Pacific Ocean which allowed the kaiju to travel to their world and wreak destruction wherever they went as part of their plan to take over the world. Since then, the Jaeger program has continued to evolve in preparation for the kaiju’s potential return. However, the program soon finds itself being threatened by the ongoing development of a new program initiated by the Shao Corporation, led by Liwen Shao (Jing Tian), that plans on using drones designed with both Jaeger and Kaiju technology. And to make matters worse, the kaiju cells embedded within the drones soon start taking over, leading to them causing just as much destruction as the kaiju that came before them. In response to this, ‘Battle of the Breach’ hero Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) recruits her brother Jake Pentecost (John Boyega), the son of her former commanding officer/adoptive father Stacker Pentecost (who sacrificed himself at the end of the first film), to return to the Jaeger program and train its newest recruits along with his former co-pilot, Nate Lambert (Scott Eastwood). In the process, Jake and company soon learn that this recent string of kaiju-related attacks may, in fact, be the work of someone within their own organization.

Now because Del Toro isn’t directing this time, it is understandable if this film doesn’t exactly have the same visual finesse as its predecessor. Still, to his credit, McKnight does manage to maintain a lot of the same visual aesthetics that Del Toro established with the first film while also implementing a few new cues as well, namely by having more action sequences set during the day instead of at night (not that this was a problem with the first film, for the record). And while McKnight’s method of directing action is a bit more Michael Bay-ish compared to how Del Toro handled it (something that many felt the first film wisely avoided in the wake of Bay’s Transformers films), that doesn’t stop the film from having more of the same, great robot/monster action that we’ve come to expect from this franchise. Simply put, the key thing that McKnight does here is that he gives the film a much brighter look compared to the first film. Now again, this is not meant to be a jab at the original Pacific Rim. It’s just that this is the way in which this film ultimately adopts its own identity so that it’s not just a ‘carbon copy’ sequel. In fact, this brighter feel to the film even applies to its overall tone, as it adopts a more light-hearted atmosphere with a lot more humorous dialogue thrown in. However, this doesn’t mean that the film is ‘just a comedy’. Like the first film, it treats its serious moments with the proper respect that they deserve while the humor is used to lighten the mood at just the right times. But let’s face it, folks… you’re not going into this film for the story, no matter how effective it is at being a follow-up to its predecessor. You’re here to see giant robots punch giant monsters repeatedly.

With that in mind, one of the most common criticisms directed towards the original Pacific Rim was that its characters weren’t as well-developed as its action sequences. Despite this, though, the film still managed to work around this thanks to Guillermo Del Toro’s strong visual style. The same general scenario applies to Uprising as well. Obviously, you’re not going to get much depth out of these characters. While the film does introduce some new characters and build them up as ‘the next generation’ of Jaeger pilots, at the end of the day only one of them gets any major focus. And as for fans of the original film, you may not necessarily like some of the ways in which this film further develops its returning characters (and before you ask, no, the film does not explain what happened to Charlie Hunnam’s character, Raleigh Becket). But this is all saved by one key member of the cast; John Boyega in the lead role of Jake Pentecost, the son of the man who boldly claimed that humanity would ‘cancel the apocalypse’. The same great charisma that helped Boyega make Finn such a great new character in the Star Wars universe is on full display here, and even if he’s working with a simple characterization of being the son of a war hero trying to live up to his father’s name, it never hinders him in the slightest. He also has solid camaraderie with Scott Eastwood, who also makes the most out of his simple role as the hard-edged soldier who isn’t on the best of terms with Jake. But the real breakout star of the film is newcomer Cailee Spaeny as Amara, an orphaned girl who joins the Jaeger program thanks to her knowledge of Jaeger technology (i.e. building one herself). Spaeny follows strongly in the footsteps of the first film’s breakout star, Rinko Kikuchi, by getting some of the more interesting bits of character development in the film while arguably managing to outshine some of her more famous co-stars… yes, even John Boyega.

I quite enjoyed the original Pacific Rim. For all its narrative shortcomings, it was quite arguably one of the most visually stunning blockbusters in recent memory. You really can’t go wrong with a sci-fi action extravaganza directed by the one and only Guillermo Del Toro. And while he may not have been behind the camera for its sequel, Steven S. DeKnight manages to serve as a solid replacement for Del Toro in the director’s chair. Pacific Rim Uprising ends up being a much brighter film compared to its predecessor in terms of both visual style and tone. And yet, at the end of the day, the film doesn’t lose sight of the franchise’s greatest aspect; epic, grand-scale action sequences that involve giant robots fighting giant monsters in the middle of a city. As for the writing, once again there’s not much to say about it; it’s another simple plot with your basic collection of characters. However, there’s also John Boyega, who gives it his all and proves that he can carry a franchise all by himself. Did I forget to mention that he produced this film as well? Clearly, he’s quite committed to this franchise. And on that note, hopefully, this film does decently enough financially to warrant another sequel. Granted, given how the first film didn’t do so well here in the states back in 2013, I have the feeling that the sequel probably won’t make that much of a commercial impact either in the domestic market. But, hopefully, the international box-office will end up saving it just like it did with the first film. Because after all, there are just some films out there that don’t need an Oscar-worthy screenplay to be a highly entertaining time at the theater, and Pacific Rim Uprising is very much one of those films.

Rating: 4/5

Tomb Raider (2018) review

Since its inception on the Sega Saturn, PlayStation, and MS-DOS in 1996, Tomb Raider has become one of the most enduring franchises in the world of video games. The adventures of archaeologist Lara Croft have sold over 63 million copies worldwide, while Lara herself has become an iconic video game heroine along with becoming rather notorious for her initially curvaceous figure that became the subject of much publicity. This overt sexuality, however, eventually ended up being underplayed in future installments of the franchise, including the source material behind today’s review, its 2013 reboot. Reimaging Lara as a college student who ends up trapped on a mysterious island, this gritty take on the Tomb Raider franchise was a major critical and commercial success. This, of course, brings us to the latest installment of the often-maligned genre of films based on popular video games, Tomb Raider. While directly inspired by the 2013 reboot, this is also the second major incarnation of Lara Croft on the big screen. Previously, Lara was portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the 2001 film Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and its 2003 sequel, The Cradle of Life. And while both films ended up receiving the usual critical derision that usually strikes a video game film adaptation, they are often regarded by audiences as some of the better entries of the genre thanks in large part to Jolie’s excellent performance in the role of Lara. As you might have guessed, this puts quite a bit of pressure on this new take on Tomb Raider to work just as well with audiences, with Alicia Vikander taking on the role of Miss Croft this time around under the direction of Norwegian filmmaker Roar Uthaug. So, does this film manage to buck the long-running curse of films based on video games? Well, not exactly, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t at least try.

In the city of London, Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), daughter of businessman Richard Croft (Dominic West), struggles to cope with his disappearance several years prior. Because of this, Lara lives a generally carefree life where she often struggles to get by financially while also distancing herself from her family’s legacy. However, when Richard’s old business partner Ana Miller (Kristin Scott Thomas) encourages her to claim her inheritance before her father’s estate is sold off, Lara begins to learn more about what her father was doing when he disappeared when she comes across some of his old research. Specifically, Richard was investigating into a mythical queen known as Himiko, who allegedly possessed the ability to kill anyone she touches and was buried on the remote island of Yamatai. Despite her father’s request to burn his research for fear of his enemies getting ahold of it, Lara embarks on an adventure to Yamatai with the aid of Lu Ren (Daniel Wu), a ship captain whose father aided Richard in his own journey there back in the day. However, their ship ends up getting capsized during a violent storm and the two of them end up stranded on the island. Almost immediately, they are taken captive by a mysterious organization known as Trinity led by their zealot leader, Matthias Vogel (Walton Goggins), who claims that he knew her father. And as soon as Lara learns of Vogel and Trinity’s plan to find Himiko’s tomb and acquire her power for their sinister intent, she immediately begins fighting back so that Himiko’s devastating powers won’t be unleashed upon the world.

Unlike the previous Tomb Raider films, which launched audiences straight into the action (i.e. the opening of the 2001 film in which Lara battled a big robot), this film is more about building up Lara’s reputation like its direct video game counterpart did. However, in the case of the film, this means that it starts off on an extremely slow note. And it also doesn’t help that the plot is a very basic origin story about a young woman who learns major secrets about her father’s past; in other words, you can quite often tell where it’s going to go from a narrative perspective. Thankfully, though, the film does manage to somewhat pick up the pace as it goes on. Once Lara ends up on Yamatai, that’s when the film starts to really improve in terms of its action set-pieces which, like the game, see Lara overcoming various death-defying odds. And while some of these action sequences do suffer from a bit of frenetic editing here and there, the film surprisingly manages to have some teeth to it despite being rated PG-13 in contrast to the M-rated video games that it’s directly inspired by. Ultimately, though, I think that many will agree that one of the key things that should define a ‘successful’ video game film adaptation is its ability to properly capture the spirit of their source material. Regarding this new take on Tomb Raider, I am aware that there is some controversy over the film’s decision to have Lara’s overall characterization be directedly tied to her connection to her father to the point where it influences several of her actions, resulting in some ‘questionable’ bits of decision-making. Overall, though, I’d say that the film does succeed at matching the gritty tone of the most recent games.  

Just like her predecessor in the role, Alicia Vikander’s casting as Lara Croft initially drew some skepticism from those who weren’t sure if she was a good choice for the role. And in Vikander’s case, the highly positive feelings that many fans still have of Angelina Jolie’s turn in the role no doubt put some additional pressure on her as well. But overall, Vikander ends up being just as good as Jolie was as Lara. To put it simply, these two actresses succeeded at portraying Lara in the ways that she was being portrayed in the video games at the time of their films’ respective releases. The Lara of the Jolie era was defined heavily by her confidence and seductive nature, whereas the franchise’s current iteration of Lara is defined more by her tenacity, vulnerability, and ability to persevere when going through the challenges that she regularly goes through. And despite the previously mentioned controversy surrounding the script’s overt focus on Lara’s relationship with her father, Vikander does do an excellent job with the material that she’s been given. Meanwhile, Walton Goggins is the other big headliner in this film’s cast as the main villain, Vogel, who, like the film’s pacing, falls victim to not really getting a lot to do at first. This also manages to improve somewhat as the film goes on, but not quite enough to make Vogel that much of an intimidating threat, especially after the film begins to build up the mystery surrounding his superiors. At the very least, though, Goggins proves that he can be a great villain when given the right material due to his strong screen presence.

In conclusion, I can’t really say that this new take on Tomb Raider ended up being the film to break the dreaded curse of films based on video games. While it does boast a higher RT rating than other video game adaptations (which usually end up with an RT score in the mid-20’s), that rating is still technically in the ‘rotten’ category. However, at the very least, and even though it’s clearly not saying much, it is marginally better than its competition. Oh sure, it’s not perfect by any means, namely because of its initially sluggish pacing. But once it does get going, things manage to improve in terms of both the action sequences and the plot even though it’s not exactly enough to keep the film from being your run-of-the-mill action-adventure flick. It is worth noting, though, that Alicia Vikander does give it her all as Lara Croft. Simply put, she excellently personifies the Lara of this current era the same way that Angelina Jolie did as the Lara of the early 2000’s. And while I’d still consider Jolie’s first Tomb Raider film to be better than this one, as a fan of the Tomb Raider franchise (having played almost all the main games), I will say that I was decently satisfied with this new film. I mean, at the end of the day, considering some of the other major film adaptations of popular video games that have been made over the years, it’s safe to say that this could’ve turned out a heck of a lot worse.   

Rating: 3/5

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - Film Series Retrospective

It’s basically well-known at this point in the film fan community that films based on video games are often mediocre adaptations of their source material. Whether it’s due to them being made by a filmmaker who completely misunderstands the franchise (e.g. the infamous Uwe Boll) or because they just end up being way too derivative of other films, it truly is saying something when films ‘about’ video games (e.g. Tron) are usually better by comparison. I mean, to be fair, there have been some video game adaptations that have done decently with audiences like Mortal Kombat but nothing that can be considered as a ‘critically acclaimed’ project. And if recent releases like Duncan Jones’ Warcraft and Assassin’s Creed starring Michael Fassbender are any indication, we’re still not there yet when it comes to ‘great’ films based on video games regardless of who gets involved with them. Despite that, though, the hunt for the first ‘great’ video game adaptation continues this weekend with the release of Tomb Raider. Starring Alicia Vikander in the lead role of the adventurous explorer Lara Croft, the film is directly inspired by the 2013 video game of the same name. However, this is not the first time that Lara Croft has graced the big screen. Prior to this, she was portrayed by Angelina Jolie in a pair of films from the early 2000’s that, from what I can gather, tend to be some of the better-received video game film adaptations amongst most audiences. In fact, the first of these films still stands as the highest-grossing video game adaptation of all-time at the domestic box-office even after all the films that came after it that ultimately ended up out-grossing it worldwide. But before we delve further into these films, let’s briefly go over the history of their source material.

In 1996, video game developers Core Design created Tomb Raider, an action-adventure game that focused on a female gun-toting archeologist named Lara Croft who went on various adventures where she searched for treasure and took on various threats, often supernatural ones. Upon its release, the game was a huge critical/commercial success and is now often touted as one of the most influential video games of its genre. Core Design continued to produce follow-ups to the original game until 2003 following the poorly-received sixth installment, Angel of Darkness. Fellow game developers Crystal Dynamics then proceeded to take over production of the series the following year, which led to a solidly received revival of the franchise that lasted for a few years until the time came for another reboot. Thus, in 2013, a grittier take on the franchise, once again titled Tomb Raider and still produced by Crystal Dynamics, was released and once again succeeded in effectively reviving the series. But through it all, one thing has remained consistent; the characterization of Lara Croft. Since her debut back in the late 90’s, Lara has been an icon of the video game industry, regarded by many as one of the best female protagonists in video games. At the same time, though, Lara has also become rather infamous due to her overt sex appeal that was mainly due to the character’s, um, how do I put this… well-endowed physique. Ok, so there’s no real way of getting around this; back then, much attention was made over Lara having a voluptuous figure, something that has thankfully been underplayed in recent installments including the 2013 reboot that this new film is directly based on. But until then, let’s look at the two films that were produced during Lara’s first video game incarnation.

LARA CROFT – TOMB RAIDER (2001)

We start off, of course, with the franchise’s original big screen outing, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Released in 2001, the film was directed by Simon West (Con Air, The Expendables 2) and came out exactly at the time that the franchise’s initial run was truly in its heyday. But when Angelina Jolie was cast as Lara Croft, some were hesitant about her taking on the role for various reasons, ranging from her controversial personal life to the fact that she was American despite Lara being a British character. However, in hindsight, many would agree that she was fantastic in the role. Jolie perfectly personifies Lara’s swagger and her lust for thrills, not to mention the fact that she did her own stunts. And on that note, the film does feature some solid action set-pieces despite a few instances where the editing gets a bit too frenetic. Ultimately, though, the film mainly succeeds at being exactly what it’s trying to be; a simple but fun action-adventure story. I mean, if you look at it from a narrative perspective, this film goes down some truly ludicrous routes from time to time, especially once it starts to tackle the subject of time travel (yes, time travel). Still, the film never takes itself too seriously and, of course, it’s all buoyed by Jolie’s excellent turn as Lara. She even gets a surprisingly effective foil in the form of the film’s delightfully campy main antagonist, Manfred Powell (Iain Glen), a fellow explorer and member of the Illuminati who, like Lara, seeks the Triangle of Light, a device that, as noted earlier, allows its user to manipulate time. These two are joined by a solid supporting cast that includes Jolie’s real-life father Jon Voight as Lara’s father Richard and Daniel Craig (goofy American accent notwithstanding) as fellow tomb raider Alex West. In short, yes, this film is an undeniably goofy action-adventure flick, but as far as video game adaptations go, at the very least it did its job of capturing the spirit of Tomb Raider from the perspective of where the franchise was at the time.

Rating: 3.5/5

LARA CROFT – TOMB RAIDER: THE CRADLE OF LIFE (2003)

After the first Tomb Raider film turned out to be a smash hit at the box-office, a sequel ended up getting released two years later. Titled Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – The Cradle of Life, the film saw a change in director, with Jan de Bont taking on directorial duties for this installment. Prior to this film, de Bont was well-known for directing blockbusters like 1994’s Speed and 1996’s Twister; however, it’s also worth noting that this film ended up being his last major directorial effort to date. Not only that, but the film ended up receiving the same generally negative reception that its predecessor got while not doing as well financially despite having a smaller budget. But overall, I’d say that this film is on par with the original. Angelina Jolie is excellent once again as Lara, and while the film around her boasts a goofy plot in which she races to find Pandora’s Box, it does feature some more solid action sequences. And if there’s one advantage that this film has over its predecessor, it’s that it has better-filmed action sequences. Given that Jan de Bont is no stranger to the old-school era of the action genre having done the cinematography for films like The Hunt for Red October and the vaunted ‘holiday classic’ that is Die Hard, there isn’t as much frenetic editing in this film’s action sequences compared to the first. And while the villain (a scientist named Reiss played by Ciaran Hinds) isn’t as strong as the one in the first, this one gives Lara a better ‘love interest’. Yes, despite what I said before about Daniel Craig being a solid supporting player in the first film despite the accent, his character shared little screen-time with Lara despite the film’s attempt at trying to establish romantic tension between the two; heck, there wasn’t even any resolution to their relationship. Here, though, Gerard Butler’s Terry Sheridan plays a far greater role in the story and he has solid chemistry with Jolie. Thus, while it’s just as silly as its predecessor, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider- The Cradle of Life is still technically a better video game film than many others in its genre.

Rating: 3/5

And that ends this retrospective on the Tomb Raider films starring Angelina Jolie from the early 2000’s. While by no means masterpieces, it’s easy to see why these films are considered as some of the better installments of the video game film genre. Arguably the best thing that you can say about them is that they at least perfectly captured the spirit of what the franchise was like at the time, as will no doubt be the case with the new Tomb Raider film that took inspiration from the franchise’s current era. You can expect a review of that film sometime this week, but until then, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own thoughts on these two films.  

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) review

In 1962, author Madeleine L’Engle published a novel that would end up becoming her most famous piece of work, A Wrinkle in Time. Despite being initially turned down by at least 26 different publishers, the novel went on to become a watershed entry in the science-fiction fantasy genre and a staple of classrooms across the country. And now, more than five and a half decades after its release, it graces the big-screen for the first time ever in Disney’s new adaptation of this timeless story. However, this is not the first time that A Wrinkle in Time has been adapted to film; in fact, this isn’t even Disney’s first adaptation of it. Back in 2003, Disney produced a made-for-TV film adaptation that aired on ABC in May 2004. However, the film ended up receiving negative reviews from both critics and fans of the book; even L’Engle herself was highly critical of it. And yet, despite her passing in 2007, I bet that she might have been a little more positive towards this new adaptation of her book if she had seen it. This new version is brought to us by Ava DuVernay, who’s become a major critical darling these past few years thanks to her work on films like the 2014 Martin Luther King Jr. drama Selma and the 2016 Netflix documentary 13^th. Along with being the first $100 million+ film directed by a female director of color, it also boasts a screenplay written by Jennifer Lee, writer/co-director of Disney’s 2013 smash hit Frozen, and features an all-star cast highlighted by the trio of Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, and the one and only Oprah Winfrey. And while it ultimately may not be a completely successful adaptation of its source material, DuVernay does manage to deliver a visually spectacular sci-fi fantasy adventure capable of delighting both young and old.

In an average American suburb, teenager Meg Murry (Storm Reid) struggles to fit in at school due to her abrasive personality. However, this recent behavior was mainly brought upon by the disappearance of her father, noted astrophysicist Dr. Alex Murry (Chris Pine), who sought to uncover a way to travel across dimensions with ease. Now that it’s been at least four years since his disappearance, Meg begins to lose hope that her father is still alive; that is until she is visited by three omnipotent beings capable of traveling to the places that her father had always dreamed of reaching. This trio of women consists of the wise and all-powerful Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), who often quotes several historical figures, and the cheerfully eccentric Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon). Meg learns from the three Mrs. W’s that her father is, in fact, still alive, having successfully managed to transport himself to another dimension through the process known as ‘tessering’. However, in doing so, he’s also become trapped by a dark force known as ‘the It’, which is the cause of all negativity across the universe. Thus, Meg must embark on an adventure with her precocious little brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and her classmate Calvin O’Keefe (Levi Miller) across dimensions with the help of the three Mrs. W’s to find her father and rescue him from ‘the It’, an adventure that, per Mrs. Which, will test them ‘every step of the way’.

A common criticism of this film has been towards its plot, with some calling it ‘convoluted’. Personally, though, I didn’t find the plot to be that convoluted. Granted, there are times where the film throws a lot of important story beats at you, but never enough to the point where it’d leave audiences totally confused as to what’s going on. However, in terms of the narrative, there is one thing that hurts the film from time to time, and that is its surprisingly brisk pacing. Simply put, this film attempts to get a lot done in the span of its 109-minute runtime, and because of this, not everything in the story gets as much attention as it should. This includes everything from a lack of development for the main threat that is ‘the It’ to even glossing over some story beats in the first half hour or so that are meant to set up this universe and its characters. Still, DuVernay and Lee do manage to convey the emotional poignancy of this story of a young girl trying to find her father (along with showcasing the strength of family) quite well; maybe not to its fullest potential but still just enough to register the right sense of emotional catharsis. And as far as the film’s visuals are concerned, this is one of the best-looking films to come out in recent memory. Once Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace begin traveling across dimensions, the CGI work that is on display here is second to none, syncing up perfectly with the film’s vibrant cinematography. And just like how Peter Jackson used the beautiful landscapes of his home country of New Zealand to their fullest effect in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, DuVernay does the same for this film, which was partially shot there as well.

Ultimately, though, arguably the best aspect of this film is the stellar ensemble cast that DuVernay has assembled to play these iconic roles. It’s all headlined by the phenomenal lead trio of Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling as the three Mrs. W’s. Oprah, as always, dignifiedly graces the role of Mrs. Which with the same kind of class that has helped to make her the icon that she is today, Reese Witherspoon gets a lot of the best lines due to Mrs. Whatsit’s dry wit, and Mindy Kaling is an equally delightful combination of the two. The interesting thing to note, though, is that while the three of them do receive top billing, they’re only in about a third of the film. As such, it relies more on its young leads, who are all quite excellent. Newcomer Storm Reid very much shines in the role of Meg, even managing to hold her own against the likes of Oprah and Reese Witherspoon, as does Deric McCabe as her gifted brother Charles Wallace. And while Calvin doesn’t get as much to work with material-wise compared to Meg, Levi Miller does work well off both Reid and McCabe. There are also plenty of great supporting roles in this film as well. Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw bring much warmth to the film as Meg and Charles Wallace’s parents, especially in terms of the strong ‘parent-child’ bond that Reid shares with them both. Zach Galifianakis gets some great humorous scenes as the eccentric Happy Medium, who aids Meg and co. in their adventure, while Michael Pena is also a major highlight as Red, a sinister agent of ‘the It’ who seduces Charles Wallace to their side.

A Wrinkle in Time has long been referred to by many as one of the prime examples of an ‘unfilmable’ novel, with some feeling that it’d be impossible to fully bring Madeline L’Engle’s fantastical narrative to life on the big screen. But while it may not fully succeed at doing so, Ava DuVernay’s take on this timeless tale is quite the admirable attempt at it. Sure, it suffers quite a bit in terms of pacing, namely through its attempts to try and cram so much of the story into a rather light under two-hour runtime. But when it comes to its visual department, that is where this film truly shines. This is very much one of those films that’s worth checking out on the big-screen, where one can experience the true scale of its vivid imagery. And despite a few instances where the film somewhat glosses over important parts of the plot, it does manage to be an effectively emotional sci-fi fantasy adventure that’s buoyed by an excellent ensemble cast. In short, I can’t really say much about how this film compares to its source material as I’ll admit that I’ve never read A Wrinkle in Time. Seriously, the only experience that I had with this story prior to seeing this film was when I saw an ad for the previously mentioned made-for-TV film from 2003 on an old Disney DVD. Despite this, though, I bet that this adaptation of it could very well satisfy fans of the book; at the very least, more so than the previous film version.

Rating: 4.5/5

Red Sparrow (2018) review

For Jennifer Lawrence, 2011 was very much a breakout year for her. First, she earned an Oscar nomination for her role in the rural drama Winter’s Bone. After that, she appeared as Mystique in the surprisingly successful reboot of the X-Men franchise, X-Men: First Class. And then, that same year, she was cast in the lead role of Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games. The first adaptation of author Suzanne Collins’ best-selling book series hit theaters the following year and was a major critical and commercial success. This success for both Lawrence and the Hunger Games franchise continued the following year with the even more critically/commercially successful Catching Fire, which was the first of the series to be directed by Francis Lawrence (who, for the record, is unrelated to his lead actress). At the time, Lawrence was mainly known for his work in music videos. Some of his most famous videos included Aerosmith’s theme from Armageddon ‘I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing’, Shakira’s first big hit in the United States ‘Whenever, Wherever’, and the iconic video for Lady Gaga’s ‘Bad Romance’. Alongside that, he also directed the 2007 blockbuster hit I Am Legend and the 2005 film adaptation of DC Comics’ demon-hunting anti-hero, Constantine. And as for The Hunger Games, his work on Catching Fire led to him being brought back to direct the franchise’s two-part finale, Mockingjay. But now the two Lawrence’s are back for a new film, Red Sparrow. Based on the 2013 novel of the same name by former CIA operative Jason Matthews, the film sees Lawrence star as a seductive Russian agent. And while both Lawrence’s do their best with the material, it ultimately isn’t enough to make up for the film’s lackluster narrative and sluggish pacing.

As the film begins, Russian ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) suffers a devastating career-ending leg injury during her latest performance. With no way of supporting herself and her sick mother Nina (Joely Richardson), Dominika agrees to a job offered to her by her uncle Ivan (Matthias Schoenaerts), who’s a top-ranking member of Russian Intelligence. Dominika is tasked with seducing a corrupt Russian politician to extort information from him; however, the job ends up going south when the politician is murdered by an assassin. After learning that this was part of Ivan’s plan all along, Dominika is then coerced into a new proposition; be executed so that there are no witnesses to the murder or become a member of Russian intelligence. Dominika agrees to the offer and is sent to a remote school where she is trained to become a ‘Sparrow’, agents capable of extracting information from their targets through seduction. When Dominika proves to generally excel in her training, she is sent to Budapest to investigate into a suspected Russian mole codenamed ‘Marble’. To figure out the mole’s identity, Dominika must meet and earn the trust of a CIA operative named Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton) who is also stationed there who was reportedly the last known person to work with ‘Marble’. But as Dominika begins to find ‘Marble’, she also finds herself locked into a game of cat and mouse where the threat of execution from her superiors is always imminent.

To the film’s credit, it starts off on a solid note. After a tension-filled intro that effectively sets up its two main leads, the build-up in this film is quite excellent in terms of the situation that Dominika ends up getting into. In other words, this film does have a legitimately engaging story at first. However, this ultimately ends up getting ruined by two things. The first is the film’s hefty runtime of nearly two and a half hours. Now, to be clear, this is very much one of those ‘slow burn’ kind of stories AKA the ones that are more dialogue-driven than action-driven. Despite this, though, it does feel like a half hour or so of the film could’ve been trimmed out without even losing anything important from the story. The other thing that hurts this film is that the story itself, unfortunately, falls apart by the end. Despite a few reports that stated that the ending of the film was changed from what occurred in the novel to give it a stronger feminist tone, the ending ends up being incredibly banal. Without even spoiling anything about what happens at the end, let me just say that you’ve seen how this one is going to play out before in other films. You know, the kind of ending where the main protagonist makes a critical power move that ensures her the best option for survival? That is exactly what happens at the end of this film. I mean, at the very least, the film itself isn’t poorly made on a technical level. Francis Lawrence reteamed with a lot of his Hunger Games collaborators for this film and they once again produce a film that’s well-shot and features some solid fight sequences.

And as far as the film’s cast is concerned, they’re all solid in their respective roles. It all begins, of course, with Jennifer Lawrence who, as always, is giving it her all here. She does do an excellent job in terms of conveying her character’s ability to seduce her targets while also showing her vulnerable side when put through the story’s most emotionally taxing moments (which, to be perfectly frank, are quite frequent in this film). In other words, she possesses an effective magnetic screen presence in this film despite all its narrative issues. Her role in the film is also very well-balanced with Joel Edgerton’s character; obviously, Dominika is still the focus of the story, but the film does just enough to set up the character of Nate Nash without having Edgerton overshadow Lawrence at any point. Plus, it also helps that the two have solid enough chemistry when it comes to their romantic scenes. But as for everyone else in the film, while they all do fine in their roles, these roles are quite limited when compared to Dominika and Nate. Jeremy Irons is great as always as enigmatic Russian general Vladimir Korchnoi as is Charlotte Rampling as ‘Matron’, the imposing headmistress of the school that Dominika goes to as part of her ‘Sparrow’ training’. Matthias Schoenaerts walks a fine line between charismatic and sinister as Dominika’s uncle Ivan while Mary Louise Parker manages to slip in a few humorous jokes into this generally solemn narrative as an American chief of state that Dominika interrogates as part of her investigation. Ultimately, though, a lot of these side characters end up being incredibly one-note, often getting sidelined in favor of our main protagonists.

It’s a shame, really. I really wanted to like this film as much as I did Francis Lawrence’s three Hunger Games films (I even warmed up to Mockingjay Part 2 a bit more upon my most recent re-watch of it). Ultimately, though, Red Sparrow is unfortunately waylaid by its incredibly bland narrative. While it does start off solid enough, it then loses steam at the end with a ‘been there, done that’ ending that serves as a mediocre conclusion to a story that has been going on for way too long. Thus, as much as I don’t like to compare films that boast similar plots in my reviews, this film does feel like a weaker clone of what we got last summer in David Leitch’s action-thriller Atomic Blonde. But while Atomic Blonde also had an admittedly simple plot, it just had a lot more ‘oomph’ to it compared to Red Sparrow. Sure, the film is decently shot, and Jennifer Lawrence is great as always in the lead role, but that doesn’t really make up for this film ultimately leaving not that much of an impression. It legitimately makes me curious as to how the ending played out in the novel. Heck, I bet that even if that ending was just as conventional as the one that they went with for this film, it still would’ve been a lot more substantial than what we ultimately ended up getting. Thus, while far from being the worst film that Jennifer Lawrence has been in (and no, I’m not going to mention that ‘other’ film here; let’s be honest, folks, you know exactly which one I’m talking about…), Red Sparrow is an unfortunately disappointing outing for this talented director-actress duo.

Rating: 2/5

90th Academy Awards Results + Recap Post

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: BLADE RUNNER 2049

BEST EDITING: DUNKIRK

BEST COSTUME DESIGN: PHANTOM THREAD

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING: DARKEST HOUR

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: BLADE RUNNER 2049

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN: THE SHAPE OF WATER

BEST SOUND MIXING AND BEST SOUND EDITING: DUNKIRK

BEST ORIGINAL SONG: REMEMBER ME (COCO)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: THE SHAPE OF WATER

BEST ANIMATED SHORT: DEAR BASKETBALL

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT: THE SILENT CHILD

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT: HEAVEN IS A TRAFFIC JAM ON THE 405

BEST DOCUMENTARY: ICARUS

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: A FANTASTIC WOMAN (from Chile)

BEST ANIMATED FILM: COCO

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: CALL ME BY YOUR NAME

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: GET OUT

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: ALLISON JANNEY

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: SAM ROCKWELL

BEST ACTRESS: FRANCES MCDORMAND

BEST ACTOR: GARY OLDMAN

BEST DIRECTOR: GUILLERMO DEL TORO (THE SHAPE OF WATER)

BEST PICTURE: THE SHAPE OF WATER

THOUGHTS ON THE SHOW

For the first time since Billy Crystal did it in 1997 and 1998, Jimmy Kimmel hosted the Oscars for the second year in a row. As I noted last year, Kimmel is my personal favorite of the current crop of late night talk show hosts; heck, I even went to one of the tapings for his show this past summer when I was on vacation in Los Angeles. Like last year, Kimmel did an excellent job as host, addressing some of the year’s biggest controversies (specifically the Weinstein epidemic, as many expected he would) while also delivering some enjoyably humorous sketches. I’m aware that some people weren’t too big on his opening monologue addressing all the recent movements in Hollywood (e.g. #TimesUp) as they felt that it would’ve been better for a female host to address these subjects. Ultimately, though, I do think that Kimmel handled them well as he’s done the same thing with several other key issues over the past few months (e.g. when he talked about the necessity for his son to have multiple heart surgeries at a time when the benefit of health care for children was in peril). And before any of you say anything; yes, I’m well-aware that one of his first major roles in the industry was being the co-creator of the male-centric series The Man Show. All I will say to that is that a lot has changed since then, folks, and I’m not just talking about him. This year’s show was more than reflective of the current Hollywood climate where women and minority filmmakers and stars are making monumental efforts to make sure that their voices are being heard in an industry long dominated by Caucasian males.

Anyway, the show itself lived up to its mantle of being the 90^th edition of the Academy Awards. The entire night was dedicated to iconic films of yesteryear, which were represented via several great montages. Legendary Hollywood stars’ most famous roles were highlighted before they came out to present an award, including Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront and Rita Moreno in West Side Story. Heck, Moreno even wore the same dress that she wore to the 34^th Academy Awards, where she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for West Side Story. When each of the acting categories was introduced, a montage of all the awards’ previous winners was played, effectively showcasing the full range of acting talent that has been honored at these ceremonies. All in all, it was a perfect follow-up to all those montages from last year’s show where actors reflected on classic films and the legendary performances that came out of them. As for the awards themselves, I know that many felt that this year was far more predictable compared to last year. All the major front-runners in the acting categories won while this year’s Best Picture winner, The Shape of Water, was an undisputed front-runner. Here’s the thing, though… we cannot forget that while last year’s envelope gaffe was easily one of the most famous Oscars moments of all-time, it was also a TERRIBLE moment that negatively affected all who were involved in it. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were wrongfully scapegoated for a slip-up that wasn’t primarily their fault, the cast and crew of La La Land were forced to endure the embarrassment of being ‘the mistaken winner’ (though, to their credit, they took it like champs), and as much I hate to say it, Moonlight’s win was forever tainted by this infamous slip-up. In other words, I don’t watch the Oscars for shocking upsets; I watch them to see how they honor the best of the best that cinema has to offer us, which is something that they succeed at every year. Because of this, I quite enjoyed this year’s Oscars ceremony. And while I know that many will disagree with me on this, I dare you to find an Oscars ceremony that didn’t attract a polarizing reception after it was over.

And now, as always, I present to you my personal picks for the Best and Worst moments from this year’s ceremony… well, to be more specific, the ‘Best’ moments. Yes, folks, I don’t have any ‘Worst’ moments to speak of this time around…

BEST: WAL-MART’S THREE ‘BOX’ ADS

Now I’ll admit that this is somewhat of a weird topic to address, namely because I didn’t address it last year, but I wanted to highlight a trio of ads that were made for this year’s event. Last year, Wal-Mart teamed up with filmmakers Marc Forster, Antoine Fuqua, and the duo of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg to direct three 60-minute ads based around the concept of your average Wal-Mart receipt. This year, the focus was on their blue shipping boxes, with Mudbound director Dee Rees, long-time director Nancy Meyers, and comedian Melissa McCarthy being brought in to direct the ads. And overall, all three of these ads were excellent in their own unique way. Rees’ ad was sci-fi oriented, showcasing an epic battle that’s revealed to be the fantasy of two young girls using the box as a fort; it featured eye-catching visuals and an enjoyable turn from Rees’ Mudbound star Mary J. Blige as the ‘evil commander’. Next up, Meyers’ ad saw her reteam with frequent collaborator Hans Zimmer, who starred in the ad in which he dealt with a case of severe writer’s block until one of his collaborators uses the box as a drum. And that’s all that I need to say about this one, really; it’s a fun little ad involving Hans Zimmer, one of the industry’s most legendary composers. Finally, there was Melissa McCarthy’s ad, which was a surprisingly welcome ‘against type’ turn for her. Instead of being a comedic ad, it was an emotionally poignant spot in which Greatest Showman breakout star Keala Settle uses the box like a time machine to go back in time and encourage her younger self when she gets teased at a talent show. While I’ll openly admit that I found last year’s slate of Wal-Mart ads to be rather hit-and-miss, this year’s ads were all incredibly well-made, getting so much out of a simple concept.

BEST: JIMMY KIMMEL’S OLD-SCHOOL INTRO

For this year’s ceremony, Kimmel started it off with a parody of retro newsreels complete with old-timey narration. I’m aware that some people weren’t too big on this intro, but I personally liked it. Highlights include Armie Hammer being born ‘when a witch placed a curse on a Ken doll’ and Salma Hayek bringing the Asset from The Shape of Water as her date. However, I will admit that one specific montage that occurred later in the show (which, of course, will be addressed in just a bit) probably would’ve served as a better intro given that this was the 90^th rendition of the Academy Awards. Still, this bit was a fun way of kicking off this year’s show.

BEST: SHORTEST SPEECH WINS A FREE JET SKI

During Jimmy Kimmel’s opening monologue, he openly acknowledged the most common criticism of the Oscars, its length. Thus, he offered a challenge to the winners; while encouraging them to say whatever they wanted during their speech, he also offered an incentive for those who manage to keep their speeches short. Said incentive was a free jet-ski introduced a la The Price is Right complete with Helen Mirren as the floor model. And before any of you ask… ‘Helen Mirren not included’. Kimmel sweetened the deal by offering a second prize of a trip to Lake Havasu, Arizona. So, who won it? That honor went to costume designer Mark Bridges, who won Best Costume Design for his work on Phantom Thread and gave a quick 36-second speech. Thus, one of the final images of the night was Bridges and Mirren riding the jet-ski onstage.

BEST: THE OSCARS’ NEW METHOD OF PLAYING WINNERS OFF

After Sam Rockwell’s win for Best Supporting Actor, Jimmy Kimmel came out to note that this year, the infamous music that the orchestra plays to tell winners to wrap their speeches up wasn’t going to be used this year (though it kind of did at one point, which I’ll get into later…). Their alternative? Having Get Out star Lakeith Stanfield reenact his iconic scene from the film in which he snaps at main protagonist Chris, telling him to, of course, ‘Get Out’. Simply put, this was an enjoyably humorous moment that served as an excellent satire of the film complete with Stanfield doing a phenomenal job of staying in character the whole time.  

BEST: THE BIG FILM MONTAGE/TRIBUTE

While there were many great montages utilized in this year’s ceremony, the best came via the montage that honored the vast history of film. An endless array of cinematic classics was featured in this montage along with an awesome use of a speech made by the one and only Roger Ebert explaining the beauty of film. As you might have guessed, that was my favorite part of the montage; but, of course, the whole montage was amazing. If you’re a film fanatic like me, I’m 100% confident that this montage probably gave you goosebumps at one point. With that said, though, as I alluded to earlier, I think that this would’ve been a better way to start off the show this year instead of what they went with. Again, nothing against Kimmel’s old-timey ad, but it’s safe to say that this was a more suitable method of honoring cinema during the Oscars’ ‘anniversary year’. Ah well, maybe we’ll get something like this for the 100^th ceremony in 2028.

BEST: THE #TIMESUP/INCLUSION MONTAGE

Obviously, the #TimesUp movement and the call for a greater sense of diversity in the film industry was a key factor in this year’s proceedings. Thus, leave it to Ashley Judd, Salma Hayek, and Annabella Sciorra, three of the most prominent activists in the Weinstein epidemic, to introduce a montage honoring the slow but steady growth of a diverse collection of faces and voices in the film industry. For the record, it didn’t directly address any of the numerous sexual harassment/assault incidents of the past few months, but it didn’t really need to. Also, a bonus shout-out to Lupita Nyong’o and Kumail Nanjiani for honoring all the ‘Dreamers’ in this country when they presented the award for Best Production Design. Plus, we even got to learn Nanjiani’s real name… Chris Pine! (Tee-Hee!)

BEST: THE WAR FILM MONTAGE

The last big film montage of the night (apart from the Best Actor and Actress montages) was a tribute to all the classic war films. This tribute to the U.S. military was presented by the legendary Wes Studi. During this speech, Studi reflected on his own military experience as a member of Alpha Company of the 39^th Infantry during the Vietnam War. As for the montage itself, it was just as well-handled as the previous ones, featuring classics like Full Metal Jacket and Platoon along with recent hits like Saving Private Ryan and American Sniper.  

BEST: THE GREAT PERFORMANCES OF THE BEST ORIGINAL SONG NOMINEES

As always, this year’s ceremony gave us some great performances from this year’s nominees for ‘Best Original Song’. First up, Mary J. Blige performed the song ‘Mighty River’ from Mudbound, for which she herself was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Simply put, it was a soulful performance of an emotional number. Next up, we had Gael Garcia Bernal perform ‘Remember Me’ from Coco followed by the pop version used in the film’s credits performed by Miguel (not to be confused with the film’s main protagonist) and Natalia Lafourcade. Like the song’s use in the film, this performance served as a nice representation of its various renditions. After that, we had Sufjan Stevens’ ‘Mystery of Love’ from Call Me by Your Name. Like ‘Mighty River’ and the next song that I’ll be talking about, I’ll openly admit that this year’s show was the first instance where I heard this song. Despite that, though, I must say that I quite liked the mellow nature of it. Next, we had Common and Andra Day perform the song ‘Stand Up for Something’ from Marshall. Just like Common and John Legend’s powerful performance of ‘Glory’ at the 87^th Academy Awards, the performance was quite the emotional powerhouse. Common called out the divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump while he and Day featured cameos from several key activists, including #MeToo founder Tarana Burke and Nicole Hockley, who lost her son Dylan in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Finally, this sense of empowerment was further continued with Keala Settle once again bringing the house down with her performance of The Greatest Showman’s trademark anthem, ‘This is Me’. It may not have won Best Original Song, ultimately, but it was yet another showcase of Settle’s amazing talent.

BEST: IN MEMORIAM

Another classic emotional moment of the show is, of course, the ‘In Memoriam’ segment. After an intro from Jennifer Garner, Pearl Jam singer-songwriter Eddie Vedder performed ‘Room at the Top’ by the late Tom Petty during this year’s tribute. Now on that note, I’m well-aware that, as is the case every year, some notable stars were left out of this year’s segment, including Adam West, Tobe Hooper, and David Ogden Stiers, the latter of whom died just a few days prior to the ceremony. However, I never view this as the Oscars being ‘ignorant’; sometimes, it’s just hard to keep track of all the stars who passed away the previous year.

BEST: REGULAR MOVIEGOERS MEET CELEBS 2.0

Now, believe it or not, this one is going to be a controversial opinion. Following last year’s sketch in which Jimmy Kimmel had a bunch of tourists enter the Dolby Theater during the ceremony, this year’s ceremony saw him enlist the aid of several actors and actresses to sneak into a special screening of this weekend’s new release, A Wrinkle in Time. The cavalcade of stars included the likes of Mark Hamill, Gal Gadot, Ansel Elgort, Armie Hammer, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and both Guillermo Del Toro and Kimmel’s trusted sidekick Guillermo; and bear in mind… the descriptive phrase of ‘that’s just to name a few…’ STILL applies to this scenario. Anyway, I noticed that this sketch got quite a lot of flak for being a rehash of the similar moment from last year’s show. But if you ask me… what’s so wrong about that? Yes, I will fully admit that this was a blatant rehash of the ‘tour bus’ sketch from last year complete with a similar set-up of Kimmel and company dropping in on unexpected guests. But how can you not crack a smile at a sketch that saw Gal Gadot and Mark Hamill meeting each other for the first time prior to them going into the theater, Ansel Elgort and Armie Hammer firing hot dogs from a hot dog launcher (“Do not aim the hot dogs at the vegetarians!”), and Lin-Manuel Miranda and Guillermo Del Toro carrying a big sub sandwich around? It’s just another perfect way of honoring those who go out to see films day in and day out which, to reiterate, is sort of what this whole ceremony is about. Heck, I’d even argue that this year’s sketch had one major advantage over last year’s sketch, and that is that it didn’t feel dragged out at the end this time. And for the record, yes, I’m saying this about an Oscars sketch unironically.

Don't mess with Armie Hammer and his hot dog launcher!

BEST: THE ‘PLAY WINNERS OFF’ MUSIC SHUTS UP FOR ROBERT LOPEZ

Here’s a subtle little moment that I bet quite a few people missed the other night. When Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez won for Best Original Song for ‘Remember Me’ from Coco, the former concluded their speech by paying tribute to his late mother. And while the traditional playoff music did begin to play at this point, it wisely stopped almost immediately after he began to talk about his mom. In other words, you could say that this was an instance where the most infamous aspect of the ceremony was arguably self-aware of all the negative publicity that surrounds it on an annual basis.

BEST: JODIE FOSTER GOT ‘I, TONYA’D’ BY MERYL STREEP

In lieu of last year’s Best Actor and Best Actress winners coming out to announce their successors, as is tradition, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren presented the award for Best Actor while Jodie Foster and Jennifer Lawrence presented the award for Best Actress. Emma Stone, last year’s winner for Best Actress, instead presented Best Director while last year’s Best Actor winner Casey Affleck decided not to attend this year’s ceremony due to the sexual harassment allegations directed towards him. As Foster and Lawrence came out to present the award, we noticed that Foster was on crutches. Immediately, the two of them addressed it with Foster claiming that Meryl Streep was responsible for the injury a la I, Tonya. For the record, it was due to a skiing accident but regardless, it was easily one of the funniest moments from this year’s event. Streep, of course, took it like a champ like the legend that she is.

BEST: FRANCES MCDORMAND’S SPEECH

If you needed any more proof that Frances McDormand is a total boss, just look at her speech when she won her second Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. First up, she paid tribute to all the women nominated for Oscars this year across all categories by encouraging them to stand up in unison. And if that wasn’t awesome enough, there’s also the big phrase that she brought up at the end of it, ‘inclusion rider’. For those who don’t know what that is, ‘inclusion rider’ is a stipulation that actors and actresses can request in their contracts for a film to maintain a culturally diverse cast. In other words, thanks to Ms. McDormand, I’m sure that I’m not the only one out there who’d love to learn about the instances where this request has been made. And yes, given Hollywood’s track record with diversity, I know that there probably isn’t a lot of instances of this. Still, I think it’s safe to say that we’ll be seeing this phrase pop up a lot more in the years to come.  

BEST: GUILLERMO DEL TORO ASSURES US THAT WE AREN’T GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ENVELOPE MIX-UP

Finally, we end on the big one, Best Picture. After all the crap that went down last year, all eyes were on this year’s reveal in the hopes that it’d go a lot smoother. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway returned to the stage to get it right this time, and they did. But for us, the audience, it was ultimately Guillermo Del Toro who assured us that his marvelous film was this year’s winner. As soon as he got up on stage, he grabbed the envelope, read it, and delightfully turned to the crowd to confirm the results. If you needed further proof as to why GDT is one of the most entertaining filmmakers in the industry, that little moment is a prime piece of evidence.

And that concludes my recap of the 90^th annual Academy Awards. Thanks for following along as always and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own favorite moments from this year’s event. And yes, I specifically mean ‘favorite moments’; we’re here to have fun, after all…