Creed III.

Review #1997: Creed III.

Cast: 

Michael B. Jordan (Adonis "Donnie" Creed), Tessa Thompson (Bianca Taylor-Creed), Jonathan Majors (Damian "Diamond Dame" Anderson), Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers), Mila Davis-Kent (Amara Creed), Florian Munteanu (Viktor Drago), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), José Benavidez Jr (Felix Chavez), Selenis Leyva (Laura Chavez), and Anthony Bellew ("Pretty" Ricky Conlan) Directed by Michael B. Jordan.

Review: 

"Creed is the first character I'm coming back to play three times. I've been daydreaming about the opportunity and had a clear vision of where I want this character to go moving forward. I'm looking forward to sharing the story with everybody."

You know, I was quite curious to see another one of these films, because they have managed to cultivate riveting entertainment that maintains interesting drama within its perspective in boxing (for the most part) ever since the original Rocky in 1976 (as inspired originally by the fight between Chuck Wepner and Muhammad Ali) and the spinoff in Creed that was done in 2015 (and its sequel in 2018). I cannot imagine which is the biggest surprise, the fact that Rocky became a franchise that exceeded its underdog foundations or the fact that there are now as half as many Creed movies as there are Rocky movies without a lingering sense of repetition being apparent. Now, once again, the respective star of the boxing series have gone on to direct a film themselves. Jordan, who has acted in television and film since 1999, is in his directorial debut with this film, one that he has stated took influence in certain shots from anime. The screenplay was done by Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin, while the story was done by Ryan & Keenan Coogler, and Baylin.

This is the first of these films to not feature Sylvester Stallone, but one never finds themselves dwelling on that fact for too long. Sure, the level of predictability for a boxing film is about where you would expect, but the film manages to maintain the consistency that has defined these Creed features that have seen riveting sequences of boxing to go with solid performances that are carried most significantly by Jordan. It does this while being the shortest of the series at 116 minutes, which is basically enough time to carry an enjoyable experience within family drama and the drama of old friends who basically are talking their feelings out by fighting (at one point, their match is shown with an empty crowd, which also serves as a way to counter the usual montage to pass the time of a fight). Jordan has managed to accomplish the feat of making this character quite compelling within the meshes of what you could call a (semi)mid-life crisis in trading a boxing suit for an actual suit (he is compared to Don King at one point, although at least one won't find similarities in "manslaughter" or "alleged fraud"). only to find the past coming back to reflect upon him. He pulls off a tremendous performance that showcases a towering level of confidence needed to keep the focus firmly where it belongs in fresh drama that highlights the progression of where this character has gone in these films and what road are still important to touch upon. Him and Thompson are each trying to convey the dilemma that comes with finding new outlets to channel their energy into (as one expects with anybody growing in age), and they make for useful chemistry in making this pursuit matter more than just a diversion. This goes double for the conversations spent between them and their on-screen daughter in Davis-Kent (as told through sign-language that is subtitled). The supporting cast do just fine, with Rashad providing warmth as one would expect, while the others handle the usual expectations to go alongside moments spent in flashback, which is conveyed with suitable execution that doesn't seem tacked on.

Of course, you need a quality boxing adversary. Majors steps up to that challenge with relative ease, one who turns the pursuit of victory with nothing to lose that makes for the chaotic underdog trying to make a second-act comeback. The troubled core that comes through with him and his pursuits make for a suitable presence to counter Jordan, ones who are intertwined in more ways than one when it comes to stubborn determination. People who are into sports films that take the time to show folks at their craft in the art of training montages will naturally be right at home here, which at one point sees training done by towing a plane. Admittedly, you could draw a thin comparison between previous films in the Rocky series, mostly with the third and fifth film, since each film sees the lead actor try to cope with the idea of stepping away from the ring...only to fight again anyway (hey, if it worked for 45-year-old George Foreman...). The final fight proves electrifying as one expects, establishing that one really can't make boxing boring if they actually show perspective to go alongside choreography and a convincing execution (the other fight shown is also quality stuff in its own direction). The fact that seven out of nine of these combined films are pretty good with at least two quality standouts is a testament to the power of fair writing to accompany entertainment value that make for fun sports films, and I can't wait to see what could happen next.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Love and Thunder.

Review #1862: Thor: Love and Thunder.

Cast: 

Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Christian Bale (Gorr the God Butcher), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Taika Waititi (Korg), with Russell Crowe (Zeus), and Natalie Portman (Jane Foster / Mighty Thor) Directed by Taika Waititi (#1009 - Thor: Ragnarok)

Review: 

Do you remember Thor: Ragnarok (2017)? Well, it has almost been five years since that movie came out, so one could be forgiven for wondering just how there are now four Thor movies in the span of eleven years that all seem to be a bit weirdly different with interpreting its title character, as originally created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby in 1962. The previous movie was some sort of weird space opera pastiche while this one is a pastiche of adventure that was written by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Let be me honest: each Thor movie has the unique experience of being watchable for once without really making me yearn to really see it twice. I think the original 2011 film was probably the most interesting experience I had with the main Thor films (the 2013 sequel is a blank), even if Ragnarok might have been the better of the films in actual execution (emphasis on execution, since it is likely the most average 8/10 movie seen in a movie theater). Of course, the renditions seen in the Avenger films are there too, but do you really count those? The fourth film has been described the director as apparently doubling down on the crazy that had been seen before in a quest for inner peace for the character, which Hemsworth has now played eight times. There are a handful of connections to other Marvel properties and potential ties for future things (which features the Guardians of the Galaxy), but I generally prefer to care about the actual title character rather than things on the side, because if I want to watch the Guardians, I would simply just watch Guardians of the Galaxy; in other words: I am trying to get pickier and pickier with what I see in a theater to use my time (it is summer, which means a possible pennant race sandwiched between finding ten movies that merit curiosity).

You know, if it was a movie about just finding inner peace with a quality villain for a tale that wants to imitate 1980s adventure in the vein of a Conan movie, one could be fine with that. Of course, in the search for finding some sort of feeling to fill oneself rather than nothingness, all that is found is a mediocre movie that you wish would get a grip and stick with one thing at a time for its 119-minute runtime. Perhaps this is unintentional irony, where the pursuit of inner peace is constantly interrupted by annoying quirks that refuse to simply get out of the way...which can be said about the directing style or the plot. Bale is the best part of the movie, and of course he only is present for about a half-hour, because the muddling mud of the movie means needing to shoehorn all of these other characters there to make it work without overloading itself for two hours (imagine the one playing the most listless character being the director). It may prove for some wild interest for those who are into what Waititi is selling, which is making a movie that presents spectacle without trying to hesitate in "ha-ha" moments of self-awareness and pathos...or it might prove nothing of interest to those who weren't already tuned to what had been done before with the previous Thor rendition. I am firmly in the middle in believing that the movie did prove decent entertainment while also being an inferior sequel that is average. Hemsworth does do well with what is needed in a mid-life crisis Thor in the best manner possible, which is to say that he still has the quality timing required for this role that he has cultivated beyond just being a beefy actor, serving his best Kurt Russell impersonation to suitable results. For someone who has seen plenty of destruction and changes (while only losing and later gaining an eye in all that time), his pursuit for some sort of meaning beyond just whupping people is at least something worthwhile. Portman was in the first two features to moderate effect, in that she was the one notable aspect of the non-superhero castmates before bowing out for a time from these kinds of films. Now taking elements from Jason Aaron's run of Thor comics for the character, one is reminded that she is a pretty good partner to rumble with Hemsworth, crisp in timing that uses her time in the mantle of Thor for a few moments in spectacle sandwiched with romcom that works for enough of it to make the actual endpoint...okay at best. One likes to see them together rather than whatever spectacle-ball could be thrown up next, especially when compared to something as clearly interesting as "screaming goats" or "knowing how rock creatures procreate" or "communicating with one's hammer". Silly is one thing, smirking at it is another.

Bale is the best villain of these movies because he brings a quality lacking in a number of these spectacles: humility and being more than just a name actor playing a special effect. It begs for more of him in the film, since he is present for basically ten minutes of the first hour (starting with a lengthy sequence to start the film) before it gets more interesting, as he brings a striking edge to a killer role with some sort of useful POV, one that looks for an end to his accursed situation. The fact that the climax isn't solely built on "effect-show" makes the conclusion at least makes the experience mostly worth it, as Bale has elevated a decently scripted role requiring effects work into something compelling (my favorite is him spooking some children who are trying to cheer up by listening to a story of Thor in conquest). Oh right, there is meant to be a supporting cast. This is where Thompson and Waititi come in, serving as mannequins that occasionally try to lend a hand to Hemsworth and Portman in relief. To be nice: at least they seem to be enjoying themselves? Interesting how the only useful one proves to be Crowe, putting on a Greek accent that fits the role in tremendous ego that of course isn't meant to be there for quite long. Sure, you could tease more of him later on, but it only underlies the point that some bits work better in actually lending charm or the feeling of anything than others. As a whole, it serves the spectacle crowd just fine while lacking that special spark in the element of depth or restraint to be anything other than an expensive mediocre movie, one that hopefully will not show signs of weariness when the inevitable follow-up lurks into theaters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Selma.

Review #1646: Selma.

Cast: 
David Oyelowo (Martin Luther King, Jr), Tom Wilkinson (Lyndon B. Johnson), Carmen Ejogo (Coretta Scott King), André Holland (Andrew Young), Tessa Thompson (Diane Nash), Giovanni Ribisi (Lee C. White), Lorraine Toussaint (Amelia Boynton Robinson), Stephan James (John Lewis), Wendell Pierce (Hosea Williams), Common (James Bevel), Alessandro Nivola (John Doar), Lakeith Stanfield (Jimmie Lee Jackson), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Fred Gray), Dylan Baker (J. Edgar Hoover), Tim Roth (George Wallace), Oprah Winfrey (Annie Lee Cooper), Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Bayard Rustin), Niecy Nash (Richie Jean Jackson), Colman Domingo (Ralph Abernathy), Omar Dorsey (James Orange), Ledisi Young (Mahalia Jackson), and Trai Byers (James Forman) Directed by Ava DuVernay.

Review: 
"You know, the thing that I was really interested in doing with the film is making King more than a catch phrase, more than a holiday, more than a street name in a black neighborhood, more than a stamp, more than one speech. I mean, I wanted him to be a man, a living, breathing man."

It's interesting to find a new voice for film, particularly when it comes to ones that took their time to march forward with their own stories to tell. Ava DuVernay grew up in California, but during her summer vacations, she would travel down to her father's childhood home in Alabama, near the city of Selma. The experiences spent with her father, who had seen the marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, would prove a lasting influence. She studied at the University of California, Los Angeles in English literature and African-American studies, but her first career interest was in journalism. It was not long before she shifted into public relations, for which she would work in for a few years. She made her first venture into film with a 2005 short (Saturday Night Life) before making her first documentary with This Is the Life (2008) and her first theatrical effort with I Will Follow (2010). The film was written originally by Paul Webb, although DuVernay would do uncredited re-writes during production. The original director in mind was Lee Daniels, with Oyelowo (who starred in DuVernay's second film, Middle of Nowhere) having to lobby for years to be considered as star, with intentions of casting Liam Neeson and Robert De Niro as Johnson and Wallace before DuVernay came in.

At any rate, what we have here is a fairly stirring film. It runs on the energy to stir emotion about a story it wants to tell involving a march for freedom that came not from one man but from many that came from various backgrounds with their own parts to play. It is pressure that matters most here, one that shows the drive for the vote as a collective. It is the fury of being counted after years of being stepped on that viewers will likely see through the lens of the present alongside the past, where literacy tests fading away don't mean an easy aftermath. If the accuracy is to be debated, at least one can't say the film doesn't have the vision to look like a crisp period piece, right down to shooting on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Oyelowo manages to step forward and does well with strength for a tough task at hand with making King out to be more than just an icon heard on old tapes. He carries the film along with calm measured patience, one who we can see as the main face of a movement with no long doubt or thinking of him as just the entire landscape. In other words, what we have is someone with aspirations to go with flaws just like someone you would know without being relegated to biopic sticking points. Wilkinson does just as well on the other side of the film's line of focus, having his own presence of immeasurability, one that mixes with Oyelowo in the struggle for the right to have others be heard going through the game of policy. Ejogo goes well for her part in soothing measurability in time usually spent paired with Oyelowo, a pillar of strength in her own ways that fits well for the first portrayal of C. King on film (Ejogo had played the role 13 years prior in a production for HBO in Boycott, which dealt with the Montgomery bus boycott). Others stick out in their own ways, such as a persevering Holland or with James. Appearances by Stanfield and Roth stay with the viewer after they leave the screen, for varying reasons.

The strange thing that arises from the dialogue might be the fact that I did not realize that King's speeches were actually under copyright, for which that meant the script had to dance around that with re-spinning of dialogue (Dreamworks and Warner Bros at the time had been given a license for those speeches for a biopic...in 2009, and a decade has passed with no biopic). As one might expect from a historical film, there was a bit of wringing with some of its aspects in depicting certain moments, with the debate being discussed probably just as much as the lack of award nominations for the film as a whole. With a moment like Selma that still had some of the players (both in the march and less connected) still alive, this is particularly interesting, such as the statement from Andrew Young, who stated that most of the film was true while having quibbles with the portrayal of the relationship between Johnson and King. Consider the statement made by DuVernay, who felt that she is a storyteller, not a historian when it comes to a film that isn't a documentary. Honestly, sometimes a film can still be great even if it isn't 100% to the point, such as the case with Malcolm X (1992), which had its own omissions and composites within artistic license (Lee's vision of Malcolm X might as well correspond to a statement DuVernay made involving history being interpreted though the lens of one who reads or experiences it). Quibbles over the portrayal of civil rights moments is nothing new, as noted with films such as Mississippi Burning (1988), for example. But hey, does it count for the film if it speaks to things about King's life that I didn't know beforehand (such as Mahalia Jackson being called by him to sing to him)? Maybe it is an indictment of what we know and don't know from studies in school when it comes to folks like James Reeb or with Jimmie Lee Jackson. There may be many Bloody Sundays, but that doesn't mean it is easily forgotten, particularly when it is one that can be seen on your screen with your own eyes. In that sense, the film does fairly well for itself in generating tension and deep curiosity for the events of 1965 in what happened then and what has happened since then, one that organizes itself with flourish in 128 minutes of events and pace that mostly hits the mark. It isn't a perfect film, but it still manages to do well enough for itself in gripping entertainment to pull a punch where it is still needed now.

Next Time: Closing time comes for Black History Month on the movie side, for which we end with Fences.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Creed II.

Review #1165: Creed II.

Cast: 
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca Taylor), Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago), Florian Munteanu (Viktor Drago), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Andre Ward (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler), Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers), Brigitte Nielsen (Ludmila Drago), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert Balboa), and Russell Hornsby (Buddy Marcelle) Directed by Steven Caple Jr.

Review: 
Creed (2015) certainly was a big surprise for numerous reasons. I certainly didn't expect another installment of the Rocky series, particularly a spin-off with Jordan in the lead role and Ryan Coogler writing and directing. The result was a film that ranks up there as one of the better Rocky films, being just as good (if not better than) as Rocky II (1979). With the resulting success that came from the film, obviously a follow-up would be expected, with a good chunk of the cast from the previous film returning alongside a few new and a few familiar faces, although Coogler now only serves as an executive producer. The writing credits certainly are different this time around, with Stallone co-writing the screenplay alongside Juel Taylor while the story was done by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker. It certainly feels that Stallone wanted in some way to make a better sequel than the ones that had followed up the original, particularly III through V, and there are quite a few beats that seem a bit familiar. However, the best that can be said for this movie is that it is quite entertaining, with Jordan and Stallone headlining a fairly game cast that make the experience worth it. Jordan does a fine job in keeping things fresh and interesting that one would expect from a lead, handling himself in the boxing sequences fairly well. Stallone, in his eighth reprisal of the character, manages to retain the same kind of charm and quality as expected from him for the scenes he is in. Thompson also delivers a fine performance, with her and Jordan having good chemistry once again. Lundgren is fun to watch, being more of a character to watch this time around with a bit of grizzled depth - he's actually more interesting to be around with than his on-screen son (Munteanu, who does fine with the boxing sequences at least). The rest of the cast all do their parts just fine. The film is privy to a handful of cliches for the sports film (much like any of the previous Rocky films, although not as silly), being a bit predictable at times, although the boxing scenes are up to code once again, leaving a good punch. The run-time of 130 minutes is manageable, and on the whole I'm sure that this film will serve its purpose of entertainment just alright, working as a mostly solid follow-up to the first film while leaving room for the desire to want to see another one of these down the road.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Creed.

Review #760: Creed.

Cast
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Johnson Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Tony Bellew (Ricky Conlan), Graham McTavish (Tommy Holiday), and Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers) Directed by Ryan Coogler.

Review
Almost 40 years after the original Rocky, here we are with a spin off (or sorts), with Rocky still playing a role even outside the ring. To be honest, I had no clue on how it would be mainly because I had no clue the movie was going to be made in the first place. The four Rockys I had seen all had varying degrees of entertainment (the first being the best), and I was at least interested in seeing how Jordan and Stallone would do. As it turned out, they both did great. It rises from potentially being mired in cliches to deliver a movie that is flat out entertaining. Jordan and Stallone are excellent together, having a good rapport with Stallone (the only person from any of the past six films) passing the torch onto Jordan. Rashad, though she doesn't have a lot of screen time, is also good to watch on screen. Bellew doesn't get much personality to work with the role he plays, but he does manage to make for an interesting character for Creed to fight in the end, and he certainly looks the part. Jordan and Thompson also share some good scenes with each other that certainly make the movie a little more than just boxing, though admittedly the boxing is excellent nonetheless. It looks really well-done, even including some blood (you can't have a Rocky movie without a little blood). It's a movie all about identity, and by the end it certainly seems to have found a lasting identity and the seeds to build a legacy. I'd love to see more movies about Creed, or even just movies with Jordan in general. This is an engaging movie that manages to evoke fun and the Rocky spirit to make for a excellent movie.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.