Vartiainen

Following in the footsteps of the 2015 reboot of the Rocky Balboa franchise, Creed II continues the story of Adonis Creed, played by the still excellent Michael B. Jordan. This time he has to face against the son of Ivan Drago from Rocky IV, which... is both a great idea and a terrible idea.

I did like the film. Mostly due to the fact that it has a lot of talent behind it. Jordan is one of the best actors of his generation and Sylvester Stallone once again proves why Rocky Balboa is his best character. Add in Dolph Lundgren reprising his role as Ivan, Tessa Thompson adding in her two cents, and so on. The actors make the film soar.

The plot on the other hand. Look, I get it, it's a film in the Rocky franchise. There's a formula and a set of rules that has to be followed. But I still kind of wish they had found another way to tell this story. Some kind of twist. Now it feels just a little bit too much like pandering and hitting those old story beats for nostalgia points.

Still, I did like it overall. Not the best movie ever made and the previous one was definitely better, but it's worth checking out if you're looking for more.

Jason and the Argonauts is a 1963 film detailing the classic Greek myth of Jason (Todd Armstrong) and his quest for the Golden Fleece.

The story itself is fairly simple and monolithic. Jason's whole family gets killed by King Pelias (Douglas Wilmer), but a prophecy states that Jason would one day kill Pelias. Fate being what it is, Jason ends up questing for the Golden Fleece in order to take revenge on Pelias. And from that spring many separate adventures.

The film is most known for its stop motion sequences. And for a reason. These are still amazingly detailed, comprehensive and mind-blowingly awesome scenes. Especially the end battle scene where Jason and his remaining Argonauts battle against undead skeletons. Nowadays such a scene would be trivial to accomplish with modern CGI, but back then people had to be extra inventive to accomplish such detail and grace in a shot.

Overall it might be a film that's more remembered for its technical achievements than anything else, but even aside from that it's a fetching story and an entertaining film to watch.

A Michael Lehmann film about a typical American high school in the 80s where cliques reign supreme and to be popular is all you should ever hope to be. Veronica (Winona Ryder) is part of the queen bee clique of her school, but she yearns for simpler times when she could simply hang out with her less popular friends. Enter J. D. (Christian Slater), a new student and a born rebel that introduces her to a whole new world of attitude and irreverence. And murder.

Heathers is not to be taken all that seriously. It is a comedy beneath all its grotesque violence and body count. A black comedy, to be sure, but a comedy still.

And yet its message is surprisingly solemn. We care too much about social status and what our peers think about us. Way too much. And in J. D. Lehmann tries to rebel against that attitude. The boy goes way too far, but his initial impulse is not wrong. Nor is Veronica's wish to be able to be herself.

Some people will cry with laughter with this film. Some will find it off-putting. Such is the nature of black comedy. Any comedy, for that matter. Personally I found it hilarious and also poignant.

A reboot of the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider franchise, this time starring Alicia Vikander as the titular character. Also serving as an origin story, it details Lara's first adventure in search of her missing father in the Far East Asia.

For those that have played the 2013 video game of the same name, which is also a reboot of the Lara Croft franchise, the film should hold some nice little scenes and easter eggs. Many action scenes borrow heavily from the game and the plot itself owns a lot to it as well.

And as a visual adventure spectacle, the film holds its own. The locations are exotic, the puzzles and traps are interesting, the bad guys, albeit clichéd, seem like a suitable threat. It's a discount Indiana Jones film, sure, but not in a bad way.

I also liked Vikander's performance. Angelina Jolie will always be the Lara Croft of my heart, but I can buy Vikander as a younger Lara very easily.

Unfortunately the plot of the film is very clichéd and not very well told. You can predict it beat by beat almost from the beginning and there are very few twists or surprises in store. Execution can make up for a clichéd story, but director Roar Uthaug does not rise up to the challenge.

That being said, I do not regret seeing the film. I'd watch its sequel, if they ever end up making one. I had fun. I just won't remember it, say, a decade from now.

An early David Cronenberg film where the residents of a lonely apartment complex get infected by a strange parasite that causes their sexual instincts to go haywire.

It sounds like schlock. And it is. But it is directed by David Cronenberg, who since then went on to direct some of the best horror films of his generation. And his talent shows here as well. It is a cheesy exploitation film premise, but the location is surprisingly interesting, the cinematography works well given the budget and the creature special effects are very well-made.

Some will complain due to the nudity on display and some of the implications caused by the parasite's sexual nature, but if you're not easily offended, this is a very nice little piece of entertainment. It's just the right amount of over the top, titillating and grotesque to keep your interest while still being professional enough to keep you from rolling your eyes.

I liked it. It's not for everyone, but I've always loved movies such as this one.

An Andrei Tarkovsky film detailing the life of famous 15th century Russian icon painter, Andrei Rublev. A story told in eight loosely connected segments, each detailing a moment in life. Not all of them even contain Andrei as a character in them, but they all deal with creativity, art and faith in equal measures.

Tarkovsky's films have never been my favourites. I can see why people like them. He is very focused on imagery, on mood and characters. His films are all extremely chewable, where you can go watch them over and over again, always finding new details and moments.

Regrettably, I find him longwinded and kind of boring. I can appreciate the themes of this film and even some of the individual scenes, but as a whole it was a chore to sit through this film. Art critics and other highbrow people will surely pan this opinion, but it's the only one I can offer as a somewhat casual movie viewer.

That being said, if you're trying to educate yourself on cinema, this is definitely a movie to check out. And who knows, perhaps you'll find something in it that I didn't.

Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic scifi novel has been a long-awaited experience. It details the rise and fall of House Atreides when they're ordered by the Padishah Emperor to take control of the planet Arrakis, the source of the drug melange, also called Spice, which is the source of immortality and the only known catalyst of interstellar travel.

The book itself is a hefty meditation on power and when it should be wielded. It touches on topics of religion, holy war, imperialism, might over right and responsibility while still being a captivating scifi epic in its own right.

And I do believe that Villeneuve manages to capture about 95 percent of that. This is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original novel. So much so that I was genuinely impressed how much the managed to compress, combine and cram into this film. Sure, it's over two and a half hours long, only detailing the first half of the novel, but then again... it's a thick book, with lots of nuance. Easily in the same weight class as The Lord of the Rings.

The visuals are also... breathtaking... superb... out of this world... never before seen. It's hard to describe the feeling of seeing these images on the biggest screen possible, especially when combines with Hans Zimmer's score. It starts to approach something that could be called a religious experience. And this audiovisual experience is the main reason why I'm calling this the first proper epic of the 21st century. (Sure... Some of the LotR film were technically released in the first years of the 2000s, but I'm slotting those into the 20th century.)

It's grandiose, it's breathtaking, it's everything it absolutely could be. I'm dying to see the sequel. Please, go see this film.

Gabi (Monique Rockman) is a South African forest ranger who gets injured and lost in the woods while retrieving a crashed drone. Two recluses (Carel Nel and Alex Van Dyk) take her into their cabin to recover and the rest of the film is simply her unraveling the horrific circumstances surrounding this forest and its inhabitants.

It's a smaller story for sure, fitting for its modest budget and smaller studio. But I do like what they have managed to pull off here. Especially the practical visual effects dealing with all the infectious mushrooms, spores and fungi. Very creepy-looking, very unnerving. Pitch perfect body horror in a lot of ways. Kudos for that, if nothing else.

The cinematography is also effective a lot of times. The sound design and the score were perhaps a tad overblown creepy at times. Lots of frantic strings. A bit clichéd to be honest.

I also liked the actors, although from them we get to the biggest so called problem with the film, which is simply the fact that its story is perhaps a bit... seen already. There's a creepy cabin with a couple of hermits living in it. A girl from our normal modern world gets trapped within, cannot leave. Has to survive. Something slightly supernatural starts to happen.

It's.... serviceable, but not particularly inspired.

Still, I did like it. Not the best horror film by any means, but keeping in mind its budget and other limitations, it starts to edge towards impressive. And if you're a fan of practical visual effects, especially in horror films, this film is definitely worth a watch.

Bohemian Rhapsody is a biopic focusing on the career and life of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen. It depicts how he got involved with his bandmates, achieved stardom and eventually succumbed to AIDS.

Freddie is played by Rami Malek and I'm convinced this will go down as one of the most perfect castings in cinema history. Malek very deservedly earned an Academy Award for his role and for a reason. Just watch this film's recreation of the famous Live Aid concert in London back to back with the real thing and you can see how Malek briefly becomes Freddie reborn.

The rest of the band are played by Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy and Joe Mazzello. They give credible performances but this is very much Freddie's film, which is a shame because the rest of Queen are also interesting personalities and have their own fascinating stories. Brian May (Lee), for example, has a doctorate in astrophysics and has an actual asteroid named after him. Barely mentioned in the film.

Still, it can't be denied that Freddie was the brightest star of Queen while he still lived and had the most interesting life story. And the film captures this rather well. Although, it is a bit baffling how inaccurate the film is in regards to actual events. Now... don't get me wrong. I get that this is not a documentary. It doesn't need to be 100 percent historically accurate if that would get in the way of storytelling.

But when you take out already existing drama. Stuff that actually happened and could make for great cinema. When you take stuff like that out and add in your own made up twists. Then I have to question the wisdom of that. I get condescending timelines and combining side characters. But leaving out actual dramatic events and making up your own. That seems a bit weird. And unnecessary.

That being said, it's a great film. The Live Aid concert recreation especially is an electrifying experience and well worth the price of admission by itself. Add in Malek's superb performance and you have an imperfect film with a lot of heart and soul.

The Lighthouse was directed by Robert Eggers, whose previous film, The Witch: A New England Folktale, I enjoyed immensely. In this next film of his we move forwards in time to late 19th century. A lighthouse keeper (Willem Dafoe) and his new assistant (Robert Pattinson) are just starting their month-long shift at an island far out to the sea. But why isn't Pattinson's character allowed up to see the light?

Eggers seems to be a fan of heavy stylization. The Witch included dialogue spoken entirely using the dialect and accents of 17th century New England. Almost forcing you to use subtitles, but also giving the whole film an eerie layer of authenticity.

Whereas this film is filmed in black-n-white using a near square 1.19:1 ratio, evoking the feel of those old film reels from the birth of cinema. The only missing touch is the fact that it is not a silent film, although I'm sure Eggers considered it.

But of course these are all just gimmicks. Good gimmicks, but it's the story and the characters that make the film work. And here I have no problems either. The two characters clash almost instantly and when the hardship of running a lighthouse start to pile up it doesn't get any easier. Both Dafoe and Pattinson give incredible performances.

The only real gripe I have with the film is that it's not as... tight as The Witch. In that you had clearer idea about what was really happening. Whether the girl was going crazy or the devil himself was actually involved, is up to debate, but nevertheless you had the major building blocks figured out. Here it's not quite as clear. Something to do with the sea? Perhaps with some Lovecraftian spice thrown in? Who knows.

Then again, perhaps it's part of the process that we don't know what's causing all this misery, anguish and suffering. The characters certainly don't.

Very much worth a watch. It's not a film that will leave you all that contended after you've watched it, but it's not aiming for that.

In Kahaani we follow Vidya Bagchi (Vidya Balan), a pregnant IT expert from London who travels to Kolkata to search for her missing husband. She enlists the help of a local police officer Rana (Parambrata Chatterjee) and together they start to unravel the mystery of Vidya's husband and his eventual fate.

It's a tightly and expertly told tale. We, as the audience, are slowly fed tidbits and clues alongside the main characters, but there's always more to be found. Some new surprise around the corner and the film will keep you guessing till the very end. But you're always so sure that you're just about to figure it out.

The acting is also very good and the film gives enough smaller moments for the characters to feel real, despite the film's modest run-time. (Well, modest for an Indian film. It's still two hours.) I especially enjoyed Balan as the main character. Strong yet warm performance that easily carried the whole film on its shoulders.

Very easy recommendation, especially if you're looking for an Indian film that is not a musical at the same time.

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings stars Simu Liu in the lead role alongside such heavy names as Tony Leung and Michelle Yeoh in this latest installment to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Liu's Shang-Chi must come to his own as the son of the legendary Mandarin (Leung), the owner of the Ten Rings.

I like this film's style most of all. Director Destin Daniel Cretton mixes Chinese wuxia settings and aesthetics with Hong Kong wire kung fu inspired action set pieces, while still keeping it feeling like a Marvel film. There's a surprising amount of callbacks and nods to the larger Marvel universe, pleasing dedicated fans, but the film is still able to stand on its own feet and introduce us to its hero.

Kudos also to the whole filming for these action scenes. Very little shaky cam or jump cuts, especially for the hand to hand scenes. Exactly as it should be. I'd dare to say that this film has some of, if not the best action set pieces in all of MCU.

One of the most thrilling and visually spectacular end battles as well, come to think of it.

Furthermore, the acting is solid, especially from Liu, Leung and Awkwafina, who plays Shang-Chi's American friend. Meng'er Zhang as Xialing, Shang-Chi's younger sister, was perhaps my only real gripe with the film. I could have used either a bit more edge to her or alternatively a lot less. Now she seemed to flipflop between relatable and aggravating.

All in all, not the best Marvel movie by any means, but that's a really high bar to clear. I can simply say that based on this, I'm very optimistic about MCU's continued future.

The Raid: Redemption is a 2011 Indonesian action thriller slash martial arts film where a young special ops officer participates in a raid against a powerful mob boss holed up in a lonely highrise.

A Western equivalent to this would be the 2012 Dredd film starring Karl Urban. They were filmed back to back but I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of Dredd weren't influenced by this film.

Plot-wise the film is rather simplistic. A mob boss is holding down to a single location, the police special forces have to fight their way to him. Of course it's not quite that simple, but you get the gist of it.

Where this film shines is in execution of its fight scenes. They squeeze every possible drop of entertainment out of this location and their stars, many of whom are accomplished practitioners of Pencak Silat, the Indonesian martial art.

There are those that'll complain that this film is nothing more than one fight action scene after another. And to those people I say, this is not your film. This is a film for martial arts aficionados, who can appreciate a perfectly crafted fight scene, almost completely devout of shaky cam or jarring jump cuts. This film and its fight scenes are a thing of beauty that should be appreciated for their own merits.

Pure in its simplicity yet all the more stronger for it. Definitely a must see film for fans of martial arts films.

F9 once again takes us on a crazy journey across the globe as Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his family of misfits are once again threatened by someone with a bone to pick with them. This time that someone is one closer to home than you'd expect.

What can I say? It's yet another Fast & Furious film. You're going to get fast cars, great stunts, good music, exotic locations and a whole pile of quips as these already familiar characters interact with one another.

And it works. It's why this franchise has managed to last this long. The formula is a good one. I'd only wish I wasn't as aware of it as I was with this film. This is very by the numbers kind of franchise film. Which is not always a bad thing, but rarely is it a good one either.

I'm also getting a little concerned about these stunts. They're starting to get... silly. I mean, it's a good thing that the franchise is supposedly soon ending. Because at this rate they'd be jumping from galaxy to galaxy by film fifteen.

Still, I can't say I didn't enjoy myself. These are some of the best popcorn films currently being made and you should not expect anything different.

Textbook example on how it actually matters who's behind the wheel. The Suicide Squad is a 2021 James Gunn soft reboot of the original 2016 DCEU film Suicide Squad, while still working as a sequel to it. The 2016 film is garbage. It very comfortably competes for the title of the worst DCEU film. And it has some competition there.

But when you put the man behind The Guardians of the Galaxy on the job. The man who went and though that sure, general masses and mainstream viewing audiences will like this talking raccoon and his tree friend in this ultra sleek science fiction superhero film. Sure, that will sell. And when you give that man an A grade budget and the complete freedom to do whatever he likes.

Well then you get gold like this.

I am absolutely positive The Suicide Squad was not shown to any kind of test audience. It was not written by a committee. The studio did not meddle with it. Why do I know this? Because it's absolutely bat guano unhinged. And it's so gleeful about it. There's violence aplenty, there's tasteless jokes, there's stuff you've only seen in your nightmares.

And I love it for that! This is James Gunn simply having fun. Throwing stuff together that would normally make absolutely no sense whatsoever, but which he makes work through sheer bravado. It works because Gunn wills it to work. And somehow it does.

I'm in some ways at a loss of words when it comes to this film. I never thought I would see something like this. Or at least with this kind of a budget. And it rose from the steaming ruins of Suicide Squad, of all things.

Sometimes it's a wonderful time to be alive.

Taking place after Captain America: Civil War, this film sees Natasha (Scarlett Johansson) meeting up with her old comrades from Russia in order to bring down Red Room, the secretive black ops program that made her who she is.

First of all, we should have had this movie years ago. Preferably right after Civil War and definitely before Infinity War. The fact that we only got it now is... a whole bag of issues.

Putting that aside, I liked the film a lot. Johansson is still amazing as Natasha, although I do have to admit that some of the side characters ended up stealing this film from her. Florence Pugh as Yelena, another Black Widow, was a riot and a hoot. I'm definitely hoping that we will see more of her in the MCU. David Harbour as Red Guardian, Captain America's Russian counterpart, was also a great character and I'd like to know more about his past and his fixation on Steve.

Aside from that, the movie contained the usual amount of Marvel goodness. Great action scenes, top of the line visual effects, clever quips, one mindblowing end battle. You know, the usual. What we've come to expect from Marvel, in the best possible way.

Is it the best Marvel film ever made? No. Should it have been made before Endgame? Yes. Was it still worth the wait? Very much so.

The third installment in the Ip Man franchise brings back Donnie Yen as the eponymous master of Wing Chun. This time he has to deal with an unscrupulous property developer and, as an almost completely separate story element, a threat against his legitimacy as a practitioner of Wing Chun style of kung fu. Oh, and Bruce Lee also makes an appearance. Because why not.

Taken separately, each of these story elements seem fine. It's a bit odd to see Mike Tyson of all people face off against Donnie Yen, but I'm down with it. A rival Wing Chun practitioner would also be something interesting to focus on. As would Ip Man's relationship with his most well-known and arguably greatest student.

Instead we get all three and it feels disjointed. None of these elements are given enough room to shine and some of them are dropped towards the end so that the movie can focus on the other. Which makes the viewer think: "Wait? That's it? That's the resolution to that conflict?"

It's not a bad film. The fight scenes are still superb and Donnie Yen shines in the lead role. I also like that the film explores his relationship with his wife a bit more. That storyline evoked the most feelings in me out of all four or more of them.

If you've liked the previous two, you'll probably like this one just fine, but it's easily my least favourite of the three.

So you've strapped a whole bunch of enormous rockets to Planet Earth and are attempting to blast it all the way off the solar system and into the interstellar void in order to escape the Sun going kablooey?

I'm listening.

Unfortunately, this film commits the exact same sin many other natural disaster movies do. Quite many of the monster movies as well. Kaiju ones especially. It seems to think we'd rather follow a small group of nobodies around some desolated landscapes while the movie absolutely refuses to focus on this grand, epic catastrophe that's happening just off-screen.

I mean, if done well, it can work. Especially if the story is explicitly about smaller human fates while the catastrophe is happening as a background event. Train to Busan comes to mind. But when this small group of nobodies suddenly becomes the unlikeliest bunch of heroes who are the only remaining hope of all of mankind - like they always do - then it just becomes tedious.

This film doesn't even add anything new to the mix. You can pretty much guess how it's going to go from minute one. Second one, almost.

To the film's credit, there is some spectacle in the visuals of it. This film has some absolutely gorgeous shots and scenes. Sure, it's not quite top of the industry in its CGI, but given its budget, it's downright jaw dropping. Two thumbs up for the special effects studio(s).

But, nice visuals can't safe a film. The Wandering Earth is worth a watch if you're just looking for a nice CGI disaster film and/or you're wanting to check out a proper blockbuster extravaganza that wasn't made in the US.

Six whole years have passed since the events of the first film - mainly because they can no longer sell Abigail Breslin as a preteen, so time must have passed - and the gang is still dorking their way through a zombie apocalypse. But it's not like this was the most functional group to begin with.

This film has many of the good qualities of the first film, sans the originality of it, of course. It's still very much tongue in cheek take on a zombie film and quite honestly more focused on the hijinks of its main cast rather than the living dead. They're there mostly for background noise. But it works and many of the jokes are quite good. As are the action scenes.

My main problem with the film can be distilled to what I would like to call sequelitis. In this instance, six years have supposedly passed, but aside from Little Rock (Breslin) suddenly being a young woman, this could have taken place two months after the original film. But because it has to be six years, it feels like the characters have been frozen in time. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) and Wichita (Emma Stone) still feel like a couple that just got together, while Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) still feels like he hasn't quite decided whether or not he wants to be a part of this group.

It would have been so nice for this film to actually cut to six years later and honestly explore just what has changed. Now nothing has and the gang goes through the exact same problems as in the original film. Which feels cheap.

Still, it's by far not the worst sequel I've seen and when it works, it's a perfectly serviceable action comedy.

In Ad Astra, Major Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) learns that there's a possibility his father, also an astronaut by trade, might still be alive somewhere far beyond Neptune, despite having gone missing decades ago. But how is this discovery tied to the strange power surges that threaten all life on Earth?

What Ad Astra is, most of all, is boring. Its story structures are very loose, don't tie up together at all and quite a lot of the running time of the film we're left floating in the proverbial vacuum of not knowing what's happening or why.

It doesn't help that Roy's defining characteristic is that he doesn't react to anything. He's very calm, very nondescript, very aloof. Even with Brad Pitt playing the role, does that sound like something you'd want to follow for over two hours?

It also doesn't help that the ending is so... nothing. This film clearly thinks it's saying much more than it is actually saying. Like it's examining these great big mysteries of the universe, being the next 2001: A Space Odyssey. And to be fair, there definitely is some resemblance, visual-wise. But the cold honest truth is that the ending falls flat on its face.

Not a movie I can recommend. It's visually interesting, but everything else about it is soulless and detached.

Peter Jackson's next film after The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A second remake of the original 1933 film of the same name. Briefly the most expensive film ever made.

Quite grand achievements for a film even before you start to watch it. And the end result doesn't disappoint. This is cinema with a capital C. Jackson's grandiose shooting style combines with an epic story, which meets an era when dreams were made.

And yes, it is long. Over three hours long. Which can be off-putting for some viewers. And while I do feel that some action scenes are a bit... longish, I cannot deny that I was thoroughly entertained by 95 percent of it. There are some scenes on Skull Island that I would have personally left out all together, but those are minor nitpicks in the grand scheme of things.

The acting is also very nice. Jack Black was just about perfectly cast as the eccentric director and Adrien Brody was born to play the down on his luck poet slash writer. And you can never go wrong with stuffing Andy Serkis in a mocap suit and having him jump around.

Naomi Watts also gives us a much more relatable and dynamic main female lead and love interest for the giant killer gorilla. Which is a very specific role to play, now that I say it aloud. But she pulls it off flawlessly.

Aside from the length of the film, if there's one thing I'd change, it's perhaps the final act in New York. It's not bad, but at times it feels more like spectacle for spectacle's sake. Just a little bit, admittedly, but the feeling is there.

Nevertheless, this is a very fine film. The reason why motion pictures were invented, I'd argue. It's grand, it's epic and it's definitely a film you're not going to forget in a hurry.

Gunpowder Milkshake focuses on Sam (Karen Gillan), a lethal hitwoman working for The Firm. But then a job goes sideways - they so often do - and she's forced to flee for her life as her old employers are now gunning for her.

I like a couple of things in this film a lot. First of all, it's very nice to see Karen Gillan getting a leading role in an action film. She definitely has the chops for it and she sells her role well, being able to seem unstoppable while at the same time remaining identifiable and entertaining.

Second of all, the neon coloured pop culture world created for this film is effortlessly cool and I'd like to see a slew of movies taking place in it. Think bubblegum John Wick and you're not far off.

Alas, the story of the film could have been better. More specifically, it seems unfocused. For example, there are these three women running a library while also smuggling guns and whatnot. Very cool idea. Superb idea! Barely focused on. The whole movie is like that. Cool ideas not given their due.

There's also a character, who we thought had already left the film for good, that comes back. Can't really talk about it too much without spoilers, but suffice to say, I was not a fan of them returning. Took too much spotlight away from Sam.

Gunpowder Milkshake is worth a watch for its good parts, but unfortunately its bad parts keep it from being an honestly good film.

Jumanji: The Next Level sees our heroes once again facing off against the demonic game known as Jumanji. Only this time it's a whole new map, whole new challenges and even a couple of new characters. What's not to love?

Okay, the premise itself is pretty similar to the first one, but that's not really a bad thing in this case. It gives us what we want and it's humorous to see the old players reacting with dread to old challenges while the new players are still coming to grips with what's happening.

What I don't like is the fact the relationships from the previous film are pretty much reset. Most notably the romance. Why couldn't these two remain together in between films? What's the point of having them romance each other all over again? That's just lazy sequel writing at its worst.

Still, the film is entertaining and it's nice to see Johnson, Gillan, Black and Hart playing yet another set of characters who are controlling them. Seeing The Rock trying to pull off Danny DeVito is pure comedy gold.

Nothing much to say, really. If you liked the first one, this is more of the same, but in a good way. It's not quite as good but it comes close.

The 2020 film Mulan is a Disney live-action remake of their classic Renaissance animated film of the same name. It's a study on how not to re-tell a story.

First, let's go over the good parts. It's a pretty little film. It has wuxia feel to it and all the different set pieces are well-made and suitably elaborate. I also liked the costuming and the action choreographies. Suffice to say, this film looks very good.

But then comes the story. You've taken one of the most iconic Disney heroines and you've turned her into a deus ex machina. You've taken a girl who chose to rebel against social expectations and triumph despite all her disadvantages, and you've turned her into the chosen one who succeeds because she was born with magical powers. Can you see how that's so much worse? How that's so much more demeaning?

Add in all the other magical bovine manure and senseless directing choices, and you have a film that has none of the charm of the original. None of the uplifting heroics. None of the gender equality. This Mulan doesn't save China while being a girl. She saves China despite being a girl. Because she was destined to do so and because she's more special than you can ever hope to be.

But it's pretty. It has good action scenes. Nevertheless, it's not a good film.

Luca is the story of a single summer in a lovely Italian seaside town of Portorosso. Two sea monster youths, named Luca and Alberto, infiltrate the town to experience human culture and end up helping a young girl named Giulia race in children's triathlon, a long local tradition.

The film has been compared to Studio Ghibli films, most notably Porco Rosso (because Italy) and Kiki's Delivery Service. The latter is an apt description of the general mood of the film. It's at times pure nostalgia and feel-good moments.

Then again, one of the best things about Kiki's is that there's no real villain in it. There's no good or evil, there's not even that much conflict. And that's what makes it so endearing. Whereas in this movie we have a children's film bully so stereotypical that he's even lying about his age in order to keep beating children years and years younger than him.

If that bully had been a bit more three-dimensional or if he'd simply been a rival of Giulia's, this film might have been one of the best Pixar films in recent memory. As it is, it's not bad, and the good moments far outweigh the bad ones. But it has noticeable flaws, I cannot lie.