Wonder

LANDON **1/2
Based off the book by the same name, "Wonder" tells the story of a 10-year old boy born with Treacher Collins syndrome going to a public school for the first time and struggling to make friends and fit in.  At least that's what it's mostly about.  This is where the film loses a lot of steam for me.  It insists that it must also tell the story of the boy's older sister and her perspective of neglect from her parents.  And even a little of perspective from her best friend as well.  This all would've been fine if it had been wrapped together in a unified conclusion, but it never does.  It's pointless filler.  It's only purpose is to fill in time.  It also doesn't help that when it does focus on our young protagonist, it's usually very syrupy and aggressively-sweet.  I hate to make it sound like I'm ragging on this movie, because this is by no means a mediocre film.  It has a cast of very good actors and actresses (especially Jacob Tremblay, quickly becoming a star after his brilliant performance in "Room").  And even with the syrup, it does manage to bring out some pretty raw emotion.  It doesn't resonate as well as it should have, but you understand why most characters act the way they do.  I guess that is the goal of the filmmakers is to help audience understand these people, so they accomplished their goal.  This a very decent film honestly.  If you liked the book or if you want a wholesome movie to bring your family or a date to, this is probably a good choice.

BRYCE ***
Yeesh.  I'm surprised you gave it two and a half stars after that review!  To me, the fact that the story focused on other key people in the boy's life was actually a strength and not filler.  I think a typical movie in this vein would've focused entirely on the plight of the boy, with everyone else relegated to the periphery.  I think the film is effective in showing how having this kind of physical abnormality is really challenging not just for him, but for everyone close to him.  Some people handle it really well, some handle it terribly and most are somewhere in between.  That being said, I agree that it was a bit syrupy and trite at times, especially towards the end as is common in these kinds of family-friendly dramas.  It's nothing groundbreaking, but I thought it was engaging and sincere and definitely worth checking out.

BANGERANG SCORE: **1/2

Coco

LANDON ***
I don't know what it is about Pixar, but they seem totally incapable creating anything that's less than decent (save for "Cars 2").  "Coco" is no exception, and while it may not be one of the best the studio has to offer, it's a very good addition to their library.  Perhaps my favorite thing about it is its cast of lovable characters, especially Miguel, our young hero with a love for music and his family.  The animation is gorgeous.  There are shots in this film that will take your breath away.  It's fun to watch and it has a very good, touching story.  The things that keep it from being a great film, however, are mainly in the ways it presents itself.  It's very predictable.  Not to be confused with clichéd, but you can pretty easily guess what's going to happen next.  And there are some plot points that are placed very conveniently in important moments.  It unfortunately doesn't mesh with the overall picture very well.  With that being said, I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it people of all ages.  It's a good movie.

BRYCE ***1/2
I think you're selling this one short.  This is absolutely among Pixar's best and the best film I've seen all year.  This is, as you point out, a gorgeous movie with a richness and depth of field you don't see very often in any movie, animated or otherwise.  But beyond that, this is a profound story about the bonds of family through the generations told with an uncommon amount of humor and heart.  It all culminates in an incredibly poignant conclusion that dares you to hold back the tears.  I agree that a couple of the plot points leading up to that conclusion were a little too convenient, but the final impact completely overshadowed that for me.  It's a fantastic movie.

CHASE ***
LOGAN ***

BANGERANG SCORE: ***

Justice League

LANDON **
Here we are.  The much-awaited (depending on who you talk to) "Justice League" film is here to counter Marvel's "The Avengers."  And what a counter.  Every film in this franchise save for the very good "Wonder Woman" has been mediocre.  And I am going to put most of the blame on Zack Snyder.  The man is apparently incapable of directing an engaging narrative.  Even his visual spectacle, which most audiences give him praise for, is totally cluttered and feels completely fake.  This movie is all kinds of boring.  It's flat story, monotonous villain, lack of character depth; all completely boring.  It does keep itself from being bad with, admittedly, some action scenes that can be pretty entertaining.  Nonetheless, this film is not worth it.  It's a whole lot of nothing.  I don't recommend it.  In fact, I recommend giving up on the franchise altogether because it's not going places anytime soon.

LOGAN *1/2
I have to say: even though I had my expectations low for this one, it was actually worse than I thought it would be.  I agree with everything Landon says except for the action, which I didn't find that entertaining.  The reason being that since the movie is so boring, and we don't know anything about most of these characters, there isn't any weight to the action that would have me invested in it.  I didn't care about hardly ANYTHING that was happening in "Justice League" for that reason.  Some technical aspects are pretty neat, but in terms of characters, action and story, I didn't care.  I have a feeling that DC is not going to impress again anytime soon.

CHASE **

BANGERANG SCORE: **

Murder on the Orient Express

LANDON ***

I must admit I've never seen the original "Murder on the Orient Express" film, nor have I read Agatha Christie's famous novel the movies are based off of.  So my knowledge of tale is fairly minimal, but I can tell you that I enjoyed my time watching this film.  Kenneth Branagh has crafted a surprisingly investing story about a mysterious murder and about a dozen possible suspects.  It's entertaining enough and Branagh is fantastic in the lead role.  Everything narrows down to a surprisingly emotional conclusion.  Not particularly surprising, but effective all the same.  Even with all of this though, Branagh has this strange method for telling the story.  He stylizes it, and not in a good way.  There's a fair amount of CGI that serves only as a means supplement lazy production.  It ends up making the film feel smaller than it really is.  It also doesn't help that the camerawork is overly ambitious, making the cinematography incredibly nauseating.  With all that said, this is a movie that's worth watching especially if you like murder-mysteries.

A United Kingdom

LANDON **1/2
One of the most fascinating stories in the sad history of racism (at least in my opinion) is presented in "A United Kingdom" starring David Oyelowo and Rosamund Pike.  The film is about Seretse Khama, heir to the throne of Bechuanaland, who marries a simple, white, British woman, Ruth, and racism ensues.  This story is fascinating in the fact that both of the homelands of our two protagonists are furious at them for marrying not only outside of their nation, but outside of their skin color.  Oyelowo and Pike are fantastic in the lead roles.  They perform delicately and with a lot of emotion, expertly portraying the struggle in this real-life event.  Despite this, the movie does play out pretty generically.  It strikes all the beats you would come to expect from this type of film.  It also drags out its narrative a little too much.  The filmmakers could've easily cut this film down to half an hour shorter and could've been equally as effective.  Still, this is not a bad movie by any means, and if you enjoy a sweet love story and some interesting history, this movie might be worth checking out.

Thor: Ragnarok

LANDON **
I am without a doubt the dissenting opinion here.  Not just on this blog, I am probably the only dissenting opinion anywhere you look.  But I really don't get it.  Especially after the success of two really good Marvel movies in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and "Spider-Man: Homecoming."  Where did this film go wrong for me?  In spite of roping in young indie-director Taika Waititi (who directed the hilarious "Hunt for the Wilderpeople"), his directing style just doesn't work for Thor.  It's Marvel's attempt at bringing a much more light-hearted approach to an otherwise (allegedly) boring character.  The switch doesn't work.  I wasn't laughing for a lot of it.  I found myself just staring at a screen with a pathetic narrative, terrible villain, trying hard to play for laughs.  That's not to say this film is bad though.  There is still plenty of that super spectacle Marvel is known for.  To its credit, I never found myself bored.  This new direction Marvel took is just not my cup of tea.

CHASE ***
I, for one, really enjoyed this film.  I really like the new direction that they took with the character of Thor.  They've taken a lot out of inspiration from "Guardians of the Galaxy" and I believe it ultimately paid off.  I found my myself laughing a lot throughout the movie and it was super entertaining.  It has a lot of energy and it's hard for me not to get swept up in it.  Even with all of that energy, I do feel like that it's a tad bit too long and it could've benefited from cutting a little bit.  Plus, as one would expect with a lot of attempted comedy, there are a few duds.  But despite all of this, "Thor: Ragnarok" is a really entertaining film and it's another mark on Marvel's admittedly impressive string of recent movies.

BRYCE ***
LOGAN ***

BANGERANG SCORE ***