Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Review #2192: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Cast: 

Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Dan Stevens (Trapper), Kaylee Hottle (Jia), Alex Ferns (Mikael), Fala Chen (Iwi Queen), Rachel House (Hampton), Ron Smyck (Harris), Chantelle Jamiesson (Jayne), and Greg Hatton (Lewis) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong and #1753 - Blair Witch)

Review: 

It is hard to believe that May will be the tenth anniversary of the first real American Godzilla film with Gareth Edwards' 2014 film. Eventually, through the course of time, one has seen films such as Kong: Skull Island (2017), Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), and now this one, the first of the series with a returning director in Adam Wingard (there was an attempt at doing the "MonsterVerse" for television, but if I didn't like the idea of using Apple TV for watching baseball, why the hell would I go for it here?). The screenplay was done by Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett and Jeremy Slater while Wingard wrote the story with Rossio and Barrett (this is the first of these features without Max Borenstein as a writer). Well, I don't really have anything to build up here, this movie is about on par with the other ones, what did you expect? Each of these films have their own idea of what to do when it comes to handling the time besides their big creature, whether that involves killing off Bryan Cranston early, Kong in the Vietnam War era, a goofy fun one involving eco-terrorists, or a monster clash and hollow earths. It is particularly interesting to see a few returning castmates from the last one in Hall, Henry, and Hottle. It has been a few months since the last time Godzilla was featured in a film after Toho's Godzilla Minus One, but are we really so ridiculous to compare two different Godzillas? What, does every one of these have to be moving period pieces? (what, no complaint that the film title doesn't know how "&" is better than a silent "x"?)

To be honest, I don't really re-watch modern movies all too much (last year saw a mix of 200 movies watched for the first time, old and new, and that doesn't include ones seen as tradition), so going back to these films doesn't include a clear winner (King of the Monsters or Skull Island were pretty neat though). But these two Wingard features are relatively carry the torch well for loony entertainment, even if this one generally is more of a Kong film than one for Godzilla (I believe someone counted the amount of time for the creature around eight minutes in a 115-minute film); basically, you get more scenes of, say, Kong playing nice with a smaller version of himself (evidently named Suko,) than Godzilla doing those little things beyond charging up that involve, well, resting in the Coliseum. It likes to deliver exposition and roll with effects at roughly the same quick pace that results in a clutter of a movie that goes a bit further into the Hollow Earth with a different kind of bent on a familiar titan (hey, the last one had a mechanical one dealing with severed monster heads); it seems amusing to basically have a basement within the basement of the Earth for secret tribes and telepathy, really. The adventures of Kong and Suko (nice to have Son of Godzilla on the mind), which is more than I can say for a film that likes to have a bit of light human interaction without having many stakes apply to them. It likes to cut around what seems interesting just in case one needs a bit of info to follow along with, which can be hit or miss. The Skar King basically being a bully that likes using pain to rule is kind of interesting, but the closing is probably more interesting than the fact that the attempts at building up a threat from down-down below is only moderately interesting. Among the humans, probably Stevens does best in having that sense of just rolling with the material in amusement without buffoonery. Henry is probably more tolerable than he was in the previous film, if only because he doesnt have to act against teen actors or as much of a "conspiracy" bent this time around. Not to say Hall and Hottle can't handle family drama (sign language) of course, but it comes and goes in terms of actually caring beyond a passing glance. Of course, I do enjoy the event buildup to, well, reuniting Mothra into a tussle of creatures. The climax gives the mishmash you would expect in throwing monsters, playing with ice, and eventually dealing with the whole "monkey see, monkey go for the axe" thing. It takes a significant amount of lost patience to lose me on a film like this, but this one went relatively fine in zipping along without trying to brazenly insult one in its execution. On the level, it is around the other films when it comes to general spectacle if not managing to really do anything profoundly interesting on a wholly consistent level. It is neatly average fun, which in the grand scope of general Godzilla or Kong films is totally normal for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Review #2015: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 

Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Woman), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Luna Lauren Vélez (Rio Morales), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Jason Schwartzman (Dr. Jonathan Ohnn / The Spot), Issa Rae (Jessica Drew / Spider-Woman), Karan Soni (Pavitr Prabhakar / Spider-Man India), Daniel Kaluuya (Hobart "Hobie" Brown / Spider-Punk), Oscar Isaac (Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099), Shea Whigham (George Stacy), Greta Lee (Lyla), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis), Andy Samberg (Ben Reilly / Scarlet Spider), and Amandla Stenberg (Margo Kess / Spider-Byte) Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson.

Review: 

You know, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse grew on me. I mean, it was a pretty good movie when I first saw it in the winter of December 2018, but the fact that it became the type of movie I found myself wanting to watch it as some sort of annual tradition makes it especially apparent in how entertaining it was. It was an entertaining animated comic book movie that felt vibrant and different from not only animated adventures but also Spider-Man films in general. It did do references when it came to citing the various incarnations of the character (such as say, a cartoon parody with Spider-Ham or ones based in 1930s noir or anime) without losing what really mattered in the end: anyone can wear the mask. Undeniably, a sequel was going to happen. My surprise (aside from it winning the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, because hey, when do comic book movies win awards?) was that not only would it take five years for a sequel to come out but that there would also in fact be another Spider-Verse film after that (of course, don't take my word for it, since I also thought Halloween (2018) would be a one-off, and then they proceeded to make two ridiculously mediocre back-to-back sequels). The film was written by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham (Lord co-wrote the first film while also serving as co-producer on both Spider-Verse films with Miller), and it is the fact that they wrote such an expanding story that necessitated a third Spider-Verse film which will be called, wait for it, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse.

Irrational or not, a sequel has to overcome the thought that nags in my head all the time: how does the film go in the various aspects that matter beyond originality? One thing is for sure is that the film is about the same level of enjoyment as I hoped to have in a pretty good sequel, one that has to balance the double-edged sword of being a sequel and also basically being half of a two-parter. There are a handful of Spider-Verses visited here, each meant to look like a different artist drew them, which goes to show that one can make scope in a comic book film without clouding it in similar shades of CG. I think being just a notch below the sequel territory of films like The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is a compliment. It presents a new step in the arc of trying to maintain oneself after making the step from having a suit and actually being able to use it: just what does it mean to be a hero, especially when it means to be Spider-Man? Power this, responsibility that, but how does one handle a situation you may not be able to solve regardless of how prepared you are? The film is a visual treat in the manner you would expect from filmmakers and animators that clearly want you to pay attention to what is on screen and what strikes out from the various locations and also the various characters, particularly with Spider-Punk. The film has its share of humor to go along with the growing chemistry between the two leads as played by Moore and Steinfeld and the set-up to bring each of these Spider-folks together and how one exactly sees a cliffhanger coming in a film series that says that anything is seemingly possible. In that sense, it makes a suitable adventure for 140 minutes that shows the benefits of animation (which, you know, is just as much a form of film as live-action) that ironically shows up yet another earlier Spider-Man film made by a certain cinematic universe (which actually tried to do their own "multiverse" film) that liked to do their own "easter eggs". The action (when seen among the various locations) is vibrant and interesting to follow without seeming blurred in staging or in overwrought timing, which is par for the course for what you hope animated films (or films in general) would do. 

Moore (as the fourth theatrical Spider-Man, remember) has proven well in this title role, with his charm always managing to come through even when balancing the lingering doubts that still arise from, well, you know, and the doubts ahead. His scenes with his on-screen family in Velez and Henry feel just as interesting as ever in establishing the differences that matter between parent and child (particularly with Velez in a scene where she tries to understand just what is going on with her son as he tries to grow up and maybe tell her something important). Steinfeld proves just as worthy in her own type of wavering confidence, wrapped up in trying to make her own choice in what is most important in terms of saying vs. doing. Among the new folks is folks played by Rae and Soni (each are fine) with the stick out being the one with firm punk elements (no labels) in Kaluuya, who is actually pretty entertaining. Issac (now with a starring role after being shown briefly in the end-credit scene of the last film) makes for a quality balance among the spider-folk in the art of logistical force, which given the amount of screentime could certainly be thought of as just as adversarial as Schwartzman, who does hold his own in the sudden shifts from would-be villain relief to creepy threat. The confrontation sequence between Moore and a "Spider-Society" in what really matters when handling what seems like fait accompli is especially important to understanding the film at its heart, if you think about it. Of course, Johnson does return from the earlier film as well, having emerged from the cocoon of mentor-in-theory to parenthood, which does lend itself to a few amusing moments. As a whole, I think the first film is probably a bit better, maybe because it managed to endure quite well in my head over the years, but the second film will likely have its own worthy place in viewing without trouble. Of course, sticking the other part of the cliffhanger next year would certainly help, since nobody likes to be left hanging without a net. It is a vibrant and effective sequel that makes all the right moves in what you would expect from an animated film or a sequel in general that has plenty of spectacle and heart to make one curious for what could be next.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla vs. Kong.

Review #1672: Godzilla vs. Kong.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Dr. Nathan Lind), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Shun Oguri (Ren Serizawa), Eiza González (Maia Simmons), Julian Dennison (Josh Valentine), Lance Reddick (Guillerman), Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Demián Bichir (Walter Simmons), and Kaylee Hottle (Jia) Directed by Adam Wingard.

Review: 

"It’s a massive monster brawl movie. There’s lots of monsters going crazy on each other, but at the end of the day I want there to be an emotional drive to it. I want you to be emotionally invested in them. I think that’s what’s going to make it really cool."

I want to go on record by saying one "fan" statement in that I figured Godzilla was going to win this time around. I mean, we are talking about a radioactive giant lizard that breathes atomic breath at provokers, while Kong (who I guess just isn't a king yet) is an ape that is really tall (this isn't judging the quality of the films, remember). However, I can also go on record for the fact that I did not in my wildest dreams envision a "MonsterVerse" when Godzilla (2014) came out in theaters. Honestly, I am still a bit skeptical at the idea of a shared universe of monsters, mostly because the thought that comes to my head when it comes to these movies is "entertainment", not "narrative cohesion". Seven years has resulted in four features, each with different directors and combinations of writers. This film has five writers with the story done by Terry Rossio, Michael Dougherty, Zach Shields while Eric Pearson and Max Borenstein did the screenplay (all except Rossio and Pearson had written Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), and Borenstein has written for each of the MonsterVerse films). They also have distinct casts, since only five actors have even appeared in more than one of these features. In a strange sort of way, it must make sense when it comes to monster movies, but they certainly have attempted to evolve in their balance of monster and human drama...or whatever you want to call it. The film, as you likely know, is the first film to feature both Godzilla and Kong since King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), although it isn't a remake. Aside from injecting satire in the form of the TV industry of Japan, the one defining trait of that feature is that the feature didn't exactly have a clear-cut winner - sure, King Kong comes out of the duel from the water, but one could think of it as ambiguous (particularly if one is thinking of box office dollars like Toho...). With this one...oh hey, do you really expect a clear winner? Do you really think it is going to go the way you think, pedantic-in-me be damned? While it certainly may pack a surprise or two when it comes to a certain idea and presence, it only seems to keep the door for further looks into the world of titans of nature open ever so slightly. Would it have been better if it was definitive? Probably, but it was evidently the intent all along by the writers to go in that direction. Wingard has stated that the series is at a "crossroads", where it relies on the audience being vocal about wanting more (currently, the movie is an audience hit with theaters and streaming; incidentally, the deal between Legendary Pictures and Toho for Godzilla ended with this film, in which Toho couldn't do a live-action Godzilla movie but instead did an anime trilogy...and apparently Toho wants to get in on the shared universe thing). This is the tenth feature film from Wingard, who directed his first film with Home Sick (2007; paradoxically, the fourth director of a series spanning seven years has is the more experienced director of the bunch), with the Tennessee native specializing in the horror and action genres.

As I recall, the first film of this series dealt with the slow burn of a great terror in Godzilla within the human element of folks that I honestly can't remember that much about (except for Bryan Cranston, but I'm sure you know that), complete with adversaries that were called "MUTOs"...and its sequel decided to roll with just using the term "Titans" instead, paced with a story that somewhat followed up that movie. In between those movies was the movie about Kong on Skull Island as the last of his species that has those elements of Moby Dick with creepy crawly creatures. Now, we have a movie that is the sequel to two movies with two plotlines that hinges more on Kong alongside its first main trick: a hollow Earth. I suppose if anything is possible, one could use an idea prevalent in folklore for centuries (alongside scientific theory for a time). I guess it really would be hard to hide monsters for very long, wouldn't it? The movie wants to move along with technobabble without choking too much before it gets back into setting the monster fights. In that sense, the movie continues the trend of action sequences that override the rest of the venture that work to the varying degree of folks who want one or both in an effects adventure. The effects do seem to look a bit clearer this time around, likely because there is at least a little bit more day-time shots when it comes to Godzilla, and the effect for Kong has evolved for the better - if you didn't think so, consider the fact that he gets to hold a big ax. At 113 minutes, it is the shortest of the four films, although there can be two lines of thought when it comes to it being a bit longer/trimmed down.

Consider the human element in other movies...if the 1954 film was most memorable for its terror shown on screen as a metaphor for nuclear weapons, Akihiko Hirata managed to shine through with his memorably troubled performance in the struggle for doing the right thing. The aforementioned King Kong vs. Godzilla didn't have great acting, but its idea of a satire of the TV industry within the monster mash is at least different. Invasion of Astro-Monster went to space and saw aliens trick us into loaning Godzilla to them. Ebirah, Horror of the Deep tried to do a pseudo James Bond film with a squid for a villain. While I have only seen the first few films in the original series, I know the storylines go to a variety of interesting places, revolving from smog monsters to the horrors of bureaucratic red tape while Godzilla attacks, so one can only imagine exactly what seems so different in enjoyment when it comes to this film. For a movie that has two storylines, they only really converge on exactly one point through the whole movie (and as far as I know, they don't even meet), which makes for a really strange structure for a film that wants to have two stories but only really works within the pursuit of a giant ape to home (who I suppose has evolved to the level of Koko the gorilla with the use of sign language). Tell me if this seems like a minor gripe: How does one have six total main characters and find time to not lend one iota of a chance for one of them to be sacrificed at the end? It seems like the movie really needs someone to take a chance on the dustbin for this to really need stakes to be raised, particularly since the main presence in each storyline have that instinct of "for the greater good" to begin with. Skarsgård actually does fine with this lead role, mainly because even a generic monster hero is better than one with too much snark or seriousness. It is a shaky confidence, but it isn't a real step down from what one has seen from MonsterVerse leads. Henry has the strangest role, in that it is either meant to be taken seriously as the voice of reason in a sea of doubt (and monsters)...or taken as seriously as Dale Gribble. It is a weak role that leads to a middling performance, because who really needed a conspiracy lead? Who goes into a film talking about monsters and Monarch and whatever and thinks, gee, I need a skeptic. Leave the skeptics to have to run away from the monster. At least Hall does fine with her role in matching up as the other adult in the room, level-headed without becoming overwhelmed by what is going on. If there truly is a market for designating screen time to younger adults, one could do better than having Brown and Dennison, because you could nearly trim one out completely and lose exactly nothing, and the former is only spared heated skepticism because at least we've seen her before. Actually, it might be a compliment to say that Hottle is the most interesting presence of the leads, one who has a link with Kong that actually could've been the real focus of the film entirely, since it is mostly devoid of yammering and babble (instead, it is told through the face and language). Bichir and Oguri are the adversaries for a movie that needs to be weirder without having villains beyond a hint of hubris (the latter character is the son of a character that reminds me that normal movies actually use continuity to make for more interesting villain turns).

I do enjoy the fights, particularly since there is a nice mix of having at least one fight take place within the day, since the last of these films could be thought of as a bit murky. The fight near the end within a neon-lighted city is pretty interesting, and I will admit that the build to the climatic ending is at least somewhat clever (at least more so when it comes to shoehorning something from the past, which was done a bit haphazardly in that last one). For basic enjoyment, I will give it credit. The ending is a bit more difficult to go with, however. You could call it "cheap", you could call it "resourceful", but I will just settle with ridiculous. You can't say a titan will fall and then say "unless..."; regardless of how much the film slants itself for one titan. I still can't believe that Wingard actually thinks one could cry at the end of this film (it may or may not be literal, but having it on record does matter). I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that this next statement could apply to a bunch of you folks: I am not 12 years old, and even then it is doubtful that one would even cry for a monster mash at that age (on the other hand, if I had a premonition about one of my sports teams winning a championship before I die, I might actually shed a tear). A monster mash can be fun, but don't stiff out on a real ending, man. I'm not saying I want them to basically just fall into the deep earth and end abruptly, but your mileage will vary depending on tastes (namely in how much one takes this aspect of the film seriously from the others). The real demand that fans should be doing is not for more of these films in the MonsterVerse but instead to have a plot that actually works out to the monster fights with consistency (which start with cast continuity). It is perhaps fitting that the series managed to get to this point, one where its monster fights have shone over all other aspects that have made decent experiences that will either want folks curious for more or desire the original source material (as I would hope for), although one could understand the burnout. While the movie has visible faults that hinder what could have been a quite entertaining culmination to a modern monster mash series, I certainly found enough here to enjoy, so I suppose that makes it enough in the end.

411 days later, the Theater Saga returns for #103. This was the longest time between trips to the theater in my adult years, and we all know the reason for that. However, I felt it was finally time to make a trip and do so while staying safe (namely by wearing a mask the whole time) and support a local place - HBO Max may be the right thing for certain folks who like streaming, but as you might already know, I personally would rather eat lead than do that. At any rate, I am looking to plan a few more trips to the theater over the next few months while adhering to caution and such (getting the vaccine will be done when the right time comes). I hope you folks enjoyed this review, and I hope you stay safe.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

Review #1172: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 
Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Gwen), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis / Prowler), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Lily Tomlin (May Parker), Luna Lauren Velez (Rio Morales), Zoë Kravitz (Mary Jane Watson), John Mulaney (Peter Porker / Spider-Ham), Kimiko Glenn (Peni Parker), Nicolas Cage (Spider-Man Noir), Kathryn Hahn (Olivia Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Liev Schreiber (Wilson Fisk / Kingpin), and Chris Pine (Peter Parker / Spider-Man) Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey (#378 - Rise of the Guardians), and Rodney Rothman.

Review: 
February 25, 2019 update: Congratulations goes out to this film, which won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature last night, which is certainly well deserved. 

With the amount of superhero movies that have been released in this century (or more specifically, in the past decade), one would wonder how far these films can go before the feeling of burnout and over-saturation sits in, particularly with the structure and look of said films, particularly with this being the seventh theatrical film with Spider-Man in the main role. With that said, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a vibrant and entertaining movie that has plenty of style and exuberance to go around, being an amusing film with a story (done by Phil Lord while having a screenplay by him and Rothman) that holds itself together without tiring the eyes or senses throughout its 117 minute run-time. Moore proves charming and up to task for the role, sticking out well among the group of heroes, being relatable and easy to follow along with. Johnson takes his role and plays it with a good sense of humor and charm while being an interesting take on the hero while not having a too familiar feel for the mentor type that he plays. The rest of the heroes (Steinfeld, Mulaney, Glenn, and Cage) are also enjoyable, having just enough moments of charm and humor to go around that make the film feel fairly whole without feeling too closed in or distracted. The other members of the cast are also fine in giving the film some emotional depth, such as Ali or Henry, who help make sure the film doesn't get lost between juggling an origin story that resonates without an ounce of staleness. The villains in the film are fairly entertaining for their time on screen, with Hahn being amusing while Schreiber conveys some menace alongside recklessness. It cannot be understated how mesmerizing the animation is, as it has a look that tries to emulate a comic book that took at least a year to even get just a few seconds of good footage, with the amount of animators of over 140 being the most for a film by Sony Pictures Animation. It takes a bit of time for the eyes to get used to how active the film is, with plenty of color to go around, but it always seem to feel and look right. The music is also fairly interesting to listen to. The film is an entertaining adventure, balancing humor and action with enough sense to not indulge in one category too much while having some neat moments with its characters. The climax is executed fairly well, rewarding its audience while inviting the possibility for more films with its main hero that I would be just fine with, particularly with the possibilities that can happen with a superhero film such as this. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie for its interesting animation, a finely built story alongside useful characters and plenty of entertainment value to go around that I recommend wholeheartedly. It definitely ranks as one of of my favorites film experiences for the year, and it sure is worth at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.